HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12032013 - D.9RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. OPEN the public hearing and take testimony on the project.
2. CLOSE the public hearing.
3. ADOPT the recommendations of the County Planning Commission (CPC), as contained in Resolution No. 6-2013
(Refer to Attachment A).
4. FIND that the Environmental Impact Report for the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project (Attachment
G) is adequate and complete, was prepared in compliance with County and State CEQA Guidelines, and that it
reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis.
5. CERTIFY the Environmental Impact Report for the Pantages Bay Residential Development Project, and ADOPT
the Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) contained therein.
6. ADOPT the General Plan Amendment (County File No. GP99-0008) to re-designate approximately 171 acres of
the project site in the Discovery Bay community from Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation and Resources
(DR) to Single Family Residential – High Density (SH), Single Family Residential – Medium Density (SM),
Public/Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS), and Water (WA), and as illustrated on the map included as
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 12/03/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: John Oborne,
674-7793
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: December 3, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D.9
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Date:December 3, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Pantages Bays Residential Project / Discovery Bay Area
RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)
Exhibit 2 , as of part of the 2nd Consolidated General Plan Amendment for calendar year 2013.
7. ADOPT the Rezoning (County File No. RZ04-3146) of the approximately 171 acre project site in the Discovery
Bay area from the A-2, General Agricultural District and A-3, Heavy Agricultural District to a P-1, Planned Unit
District), and as illustrated on the map included as an Exhibit 3.
8. APPROVE the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the Pantages Bays Residential Development
Project (Refer to Exhibit 4) with the recommended Conditions of Approval (County File No.DP04-3062) ( Refer
to Attachment C for Conditions of Approval ).
9. ADOPT Board Resolution No. 2013/ 421, on the following pages, which incorporates the project findings,
CEQA Findings with statement of overriding consideration ( Refer to Attachment B for CEQA Findings), and
conditions of approval as the basis for the Board’s approval of the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project.
10. INTRODUCE the ordinance giving effect to the aforementioned Rezoning , WAIVE reading, and ADOPT
Ordinance No. 2013-16 (Refer to Attachment D).
11. DIRECT staff to post the Notice of Determination for the project with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The Applicant is responsible for all costs to process this application.
BACKGROUND:
The Pantages Bays project applicant proposes to create bays and coves to construct a vehicular gated, water
oriented community, of 292 single-family homes on the 171-acre project site in the Discovery Bay area. Of the
292 residential lots, 116 would have docks and deep water access. Existing emergent marsh areas on the site
would be enhanced and preserved as open space. The Point of Timber entry road would be gated so that only
vehicles of residents, invited guests, disabled members of the public and public agencies would be permitted
vehicular entry. The project includes a public trail. The trails would also serve as an Emergency Vehicle Access
(EVA). The EVA/trails and the sidewalks and roads in Pantages Bays may be used by the public, both pedestrian
and bicyclists, with access through the Point of Timber entry and the Wilde Drive EVA entry. Following
discussions with the Office of the Sheriff, the applicant has included a Sheriff’s marine patrol substation on the
project site located along Kellogg Creek toward the end of the EVA/public trail. The applicant also proposes to
widen Kellogg Creek along the project frontage in co-sponsorship with Reclamation District 800 (RD 800),who
would also be responsible for maintenance of waterways, creek banks and levees as they are in the greater
Discovery Bay area.
To accomplish development of the Pantages Bays project the applicant is requesting approval of the following
entitlements : General Plan Amendment [Refer to Exhibit 2, General Plan Map], Rezoning, Refer to Exhibit 3,
Rezoning Map], Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Preliminary and Final Development Plan ( Refer to Exhibit
4, Development Plan Map) and tree removal permit.
Planning Commission Hearing October 22, 2013
The County Planning Commission (CPC) held a public hearing on October 22, 2013 to consider the proposed
project. After evaluating the project in its entirety , including all public testimony and evidence in the record, the
Commission unanimously voted (Commissioner Clark absent) to approve the subdivision and to recommend the
Board of Supervisors approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary and Final Development
Plan.
Planning Commission's Decision Regarding Gated Entrance
Staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that the gated entrance to Pantages remain open during
day-light hours to allow public vehicular access to the public trail and open space. Public pedestrian and bicycle
access through the gated entrance were already proposed, but staff determined that public vehicular traffic should
be allowed as well to provide adequate access to the public trail during day-light hours. After hearing testimony
and considering the issue the Planning Commission decided that the gate should remain closed to public vehicular
traffic but should be open to disabled person vehicular traffic during day-light hours.
General Plan Consistency
General Plan Amendment: The 171-acre site is currently designated as Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta
Recreation and Resources (DR) under the General Plan’s Land Use Element Map and it is located within the
County’s Urban Limit Line (ULL). The General Plan’s AL land use designation identifies those lands within the
unincorporated area that are intended for agricultural use The designation includes much of the privately owned
land in the rural parts of the County used primarily for dry land farming or cattle grazing, and it includes
non-prime agricultural lands. AL is one of the non-urban uses identified in the General Plan and the uses allowed
under the AL designation include all land-dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and related
activities.
The General Plan’s DR land use designation encompasses the islands and adjacent lowlands of the San
Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. Due to their proximity to the Delta waterways, these lands have potential recreational
value.
In support of the proposed 292 single family residential development, the applicant is proposing to amend the
Land Use Element Map to re-designate the 171- acre site to the following new General Plan land use designations
[Refer to Exhibit 2---General Plan Map]:
33.9 acres of Single Family Residential – High Density (SH),
46.4 acres of Single Family Residential-Medium Density (SM),
43.7 acres of Open Space (OS)
0.5 acres of Public Semi Public (PS)
46.7 acres of Water (WA)
Under the General Plan and the 65/35 Land Use Preservation Plan Ordinance, this 171-acre site located
inside of the Urban Limit Line is eligible for potential conversion from the AL and DR designation, or
non-urban use, to General Plan urban use designations. As such, the evaluation of this General Plan
Amendment focuses on the following General Plan policies and considerations: (1) 65/35 Land
Preservation Standard; (2) Potential Loss of Prime or Productive Agricultural Lands; and (3) Growth
Management Standards.
Maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Standard (Measure C-1990)1.
General Plan Policy Consideration: General Plan policy #3-p, Land Use Element - “Maintain the 65/35 Land
Preservation Standard and devise a means of tracking urban and non-urban development and uses in the cities
and unincorporated areas .”
The re-designation of the 171-acre site from the AL and DR land use designations to the combination of SH, SM,
OS, WA and PS use designations under the General Plan would not result in a violation of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Standard. Approximately 80 acres of the 171 acre-site would be converted from non-urban use
(Agricultural Lands) to urban use designations, 33.9 acres to SH and 46.4 acres to SM, respectively. According to
the Department of Conservation and Development’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS)mapping system, over
8,000 acres of land area county-wide under non-urban use designations within the ULL would be eligible for
conversion to urban use designations without causing the County to exceed urban uses beyond 35% of land area
county-wide as mandated under Measure-1990: The 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan
Ordinance.As proposed, the General Plan Amendment involving a shift of 80 acres from non-urban use to urban
use would not cause a violation of 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance Standard.
Potential Loss of Prime or Productive Agricultural Lands2.
General Plan Policy Considerations:
General Plan policy #3-11, Land Use Element: “Urban uses shall be expanded only within the Urban Limit Line
where conflicts with the agricultural economy will be minimal.”
General Plan policy #3-14, Land Use Element: “Protect prime productive agricultural land from inappropriate
subdivisions.”
Although designated Agricultural Lands (AL) and zoned under the A-3, Heavy Agricultural District and the A-2,
General Agricultural District, there has not been extensive cultivation or active agricultural use on the subject
property for quite a number of years. Furthermore, the 2010 Important Farmland Map of Contra Costa County
prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Department of Conservation, does not
identify the 171-acre site as meeting the State’s requirements for prime farmland.
At best, the site’s soils would be suitable for dry land farming or cattle grazing; however, because of its proximity
to existing residential development within Discovery Bay such agricultural uses would be expected to be limited
in scope and scale.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in a loss of prime productive
agricultural land.
Growth Management Standards Consideration3.
General Plan Policy Considerations:
General Plan Policy #3-5, Land Use Element: “New development within unincorporated areas of the County may
be approved, provided growth management standards and criteria are met or can be assured of being met prior to
the issuance of building permits in accordance with growth management.”
General Plan Policy #4-1, Growth Management Program Element: “New development shall not be approved in
unincorporated areas unless the applicant can provide the infrastructure which meets the traffic level of service
and performance standards outlined in Policy 4-3, or a funding mechanism has been established which will
provide the infrastructure to meet the standards or as is stated in other portions of this Growth Management
Element.”
Traffic Level of Service
As more fully described in the Transportation/Traffic section of the EIR, implementation of the project would
increase traffic and worsen level of service standards at several intersections. However the project shall pay its
fair share of the improvements necessary to not exceed the County’s traffic level of service standards in the
General Plan (standards as detailed in the Growth Management Element and Transportation/Circulation Element).
Other Growth Management Standards
In regard to the other Growth Management standards, the project’s impact on public services was evaluated in the
EIR. As noted in the EIR, the project would lead to the construction of 292 single family residence with a
projected population increase of 876 people within the Discovery Bay community. This increase of additional
residents would have a minor impact on the public services. The analysis in the EIR provides sufficient
information to determine that the project as proposed can meet the public services performance standards
contained in both the Growth Management and Public Facilities/Service elements to the General Plan. The public
entities, which are expected to serve the key public services to the project site, include:
Water – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (after annexation)
Sewer – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (after annexation)
Schools – Byron Union School District and Liberty Union High School District
Regional Recreation – East Bay Regional Park District
Local Parks – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
Fire – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Police – Contra Costa Sheriff’s Department.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the Board does not approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary and Final Development
Plan, the Tentative Map for this project that was approved by the CPC on October 22, 2013 will become invalid,
the land would retain the Agricultural Designation and the proposed project could not move forward.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
None.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers (all in favor): Frank Morgan, resident of Discovery Bay; Aram Hodges, Plumbers & Steamfitters
159; Bob Lilley, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Dave Ogden, resident of Discovery
Bay; Jeff Conway, Reclamation District 800; Mark Armstrong, Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC. CLOSED
the public hearing; ADOPTED the recommendations of the County Planning Commission (CPC), as
contained in Resolution No. 6-2013; FOUND that the Environmental Impact is adequate and complete, was
prepared in compliance with County and State CEQA Guidelines, and that it reflects the County’s independent
judgment and analysis; CERTIFIED the Environmental Impact Report for the Pantages Bay Residential
Development Project, and ADOPTED the Mitigation Measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) contained therein; ADOPTED the General Plan Amendment (County File No. GP99-0008)
to re-designate approximately 171 acres of the project site in the Discovery Bay community from Agricultural
Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation and Resources (DR) to Single Family Residential – High Density (SH),
Single Family Residential – Medium Density (SM), Public/Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS), and Water
(WA), and as illustrated on the map included as Exhibit 2 as of part of the 2nd Consolidated General Plan
Amendment for calendar year 2013; ADOPTED the Rezoning (County File No. RZ04-3146) of the
approximately 171 acre project site in the Discovery Bay area from the A-2, General Agricultural District and
A-3, Heavy Agricultural District to a P-1, Planned Unit District), and as illustrated on the map included as an
Exhibit 3; APPROVED the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the Pantages Bays Residential
Development Project with the recommended and amended Conditions of Approval (County File
No.DP04-3062) ; ADOPTED Board Resolution No. 2013/421, which incorporates the project findings, CEQA
Findings with statement of overriding consideration and conditions of approval as the basis for the Board’s
approval of the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project; INTRODUCED the ordinance giving effect to
the aforementioned Rezoning, WAIVED reading, and ADOPTED Ordinance No. 2013-16; DIRECTED staff to
post the Notice of Determination for the project with the County Clerk.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2013/421
Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6-2013
Attachment B - CEQA Findings
Attachment C - Conditions of Approval
Attachment D - Findings Map/Ordinance Map No. 2013-16
Attachment E - Planning Commission Staff Report 10/22/13
Attachment F - Notification List
Attachment G - Final Environmental Impact Report
Attachment G - Continued (DEIR)
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 - General Plan Map
Exhibit 2 - General Plan Map
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map
Exhibit 4 - Preliminary and Final Development Plan
Exhibit 5 - Project Construction and Design Standards
PowerPoint
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
1
I. OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION
These Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are made with respect to the
“Project Approvals” (as defined below) for the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
(the “Project,” or the “Pantages Bays Project”) and state the findings of the Planning Commission
(the “Commission”) of Contra Costa County (the “County”) relating to the potentially significant
environmental effects of the Project to be developed in accordance with the Project Approvals.
The following Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (“MMRP”) are hereby adopted by the Commission of the County as required
by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code Sections 21081,
21081.5 and 21081.6, and Title 14, California Code of Regulations, (the “CEQA Guidelines”)
sections 15091 through 15093, for the Pantages Bays Project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091,
no public agency shall approve or carry out a project where an Environmental Impact Report (the
“EIR”) has been certified, which identifies one or more significant impacts on the environment
that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or
more findings for each of those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. The possible findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence
in the record, are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that
mitigate or avoid the significant impact on the environment (hereinafter, “Finding 1”).
2. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency (hereinafter,
“Finding 2”).
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR (he reinafter,
“Finding 3”).
For those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the
public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or
other benefits of the project outweigh the significant impacts of the project.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project analyzed in the EIR is fully described in Chapter 3 of the June 2012 Draft
EIR, as amended in the July 2013 Final EIR for the Pantages Bays Project. The Project includes
the construction of 292 detached single-family homes, 116 of which would be water-oriented and
would include docks and deep water access, Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation, and associated
roadways, pedestrian facilities, and utilities infrastructure. In addition t o residential development,
the project would widen the portion of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the project site. The
proposed widening of Kellogg Creek is cosponsored by Reclamation District No. 800 to reduce
water velocities and improve public safety in that section of Kellogg Creek. In order to proceed as
planned, the Project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
2
Subdivision/Tentative Map approval, Preliminary and Final Development Plan and tree removal,
as listed below in Section III. The 171-acre project site is located just west of the original
Discovery Bay and adjacent to Discovery Bay West in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa
County.
Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC is the Project applicant. Approximately 9 acres of the project
site, known as Pantages Island, is owned by East Contra Costa Irrigation District and the
remainder of the Project site is owned by C & D Discovery Bay LLC.
PROJECT APPROVALS
All of the following actions are referred to collectively as the “Project Approvals.” The
Project Approvals constitute the “Project” for purposes of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines section
15378 and these determinations of the Commission.
A. General Plan Amendment #GP99-0008: Change the General Plan land use
designations from Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DR) to Single-
Family Residential High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium
Density (SM), Public/ Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) and Water (WA); and,
B. Rezoning #RZ04-3146: Rezone the project site from General Agricultural District
(A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1); and,
C. Subdivision / Vesting Tentative Map #SD06-9010: Subdivide the 171-acre project
site into 292 Single-Family residential lots, Private Streets, Bays and Coves, Open
Space and Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation. The project also includes a request
to remove 80 trees from the project site.
D. Final Development Plan #DP04-3119: Development of the Project site includes:
Develop a gated community of 292 residential lots, 116 of which have
docks for deep water access,
Create 47-acres of Bays and Coves to provide water access to some of the
proposed residential lots,
Create/preserve 44-acres of wetland/emergent marsh in an Open Space area
on the project site,
Develop a Public Trail and Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) wit hin the
Open Space area on the project site,
Widen Kellogg Creek,
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
3
Develop a Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation on the project site,
Develop roadways, sidewalks and landscaping within the development.
.
E. Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) : Annexation to
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District sphere of influence and
corresponding service district boundary for water and sewer service.
F. Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District: Annexation for water and
sewer service.
G. Reclamation District No. 800: Annexation, Service Agreement.
H. US Army Corps of Engineers: Section 10 Permit, Work in Navigable Waters,
Section 14 Permit, Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 404 Permit, Clean Water Act.
I. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Section 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement.
J. California Regional Water Quality Control Board: National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Section 401
Water Quality Certificate.
K. California State Reclamation Board: Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit.
L. Additional approvals by Contra Costa County :
Building permits for the proposed residences and infrastructure and demolition
permits for the existing structures on the project site.
Grading permits.
Storm drainage and flood control permits.
Potential participation in the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan.
III. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Project has the following two main objectives:
Build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and a
proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-water
access and individual docks; and
Widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site to reduce
water velocities and improve boater safety in that section of Kellogg Creek.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
4
Other key project objectives include:
Provide improved safety for project residents and within Discovery Bay by
constructing a Sheriff’s marine patrol substation on the project site; and
Construct market-rate housing to meet the needs of present and future residents of
eastern Contra Costa County; and
Provide public pedestrian/bicycle access to and through the preserved open space
areas on the north side of the Project site, with open views of the Delta water, and
provide seating areas and kiosks with educational and historical signage.
Develop a project consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods (e.g. 6,000
to 21,320 square foot lots) to the east and west of the project site and that creates an
improved link between the original Discovery Bay and Discovery Bay West; and
Provide for flood protection in a conservative manner that exceeds current minimum
standards for finished floor elevations above the 100-year storm BFE; and
Reduce the need for dredging by Reclamation District No. 800 and improve water
quality in Kellogg Creek and Indian Slough through appropriate bank stabilization and
habitat restoration along the project shoreline, furth er reducing the amount of scour
and associated sedimentation; and
Create new high and moderate-quality back habitat in and near the project site and
enhance existing banks from low-quality to high-quality habitat to benefit native fish
species; and
Preserve the majority of the emergent marsh in the northwestern portion of the Project
site and all the emergent marsh on Pantages Island; and
IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project
consists at a minimum of the following documents:
The Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) and all other public notices issued by the
County in conjunction with the Project.
The Pantages Bays Residential Development Project Draft EIR ( June 2012)
and Final EIR (July 2013) and their Appendices, and all documents cited or
referenced therein;
All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 60-
day comment period on the Draft EIR;
All comments and correspondence submitted to the County with respect to the
Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
5
All findings and resolutions adopted by County decision makers in connection
with the Project, and all the documents cited therein;
All reports, studies, memoranda, staff reports, maps, exhibits, illustrations,
diagrams or other planning materials relating to the Project prepared by the
County or by consultants to the County, the Applicant, or responsible or trustee
agencies and submitted to the County, with the respect to the County’s actions
on the Project;
All documents submitted to the County by other public agencies or members
of the public in connection with the Project, up through the public hearing on
October 22, 2013
Minutes or transcripts, as available, of all public meetings and public hearings
held by the County in connection with the Project;
Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is the Contra
Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553.
The Commission has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its
decision on the Pantages Bays Residential Project.
V. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. On May 24, 2007, the County released an NOP for an EIR for the Project.
B. On June 18, 2007, the County held a public scoping meeting for the Project to invite
input on the scope of issues to be considered in the Draft EIR.
C. A Draft EIR entitled “Pantages Bays Residential Development Project” (State
Clearinghouse No. 2007-052130) was prepared by CirclePoint under the direction of
the County Department of Conservation & Development. The Draft EIR addresses the
issues raised in the scoping meeting and in response to the NOP, among other things.
The Draft EIR is dated June 2012.
D. On June 12, 2012, a Notice of Completion and copies of the Draft EIR were delivered
to the State Clearing House and the Draft EIR was circulated for a duly noticed 45 day
public review period that began on June 12, 2012, and ended on July 26, 2012.
E. The Notice of Completion and Availability and Notice of Public Hearing for the Draft
EIR was mailed by the Department of Conservation & Development to adjacent
property owners and occupants pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087 (a) (3),
and the Notices were mailed to the neighbors within 300 feet of the property boundary
of the project site. In addition, Notices were mailed to agencies, persons and
organizations who had requested such notice or had otherwise demonstrated interest in
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
6
the Project. The Draft EIR documents (print or CD) were mailed via either certified or
first class mail to federal, state and local agencies and organizations and persons who
requested a copy.
F. On July 23, 2012 the public review period for the Draft EIR was extended 15 days to
allow for additional time for public review. The original noticing procedure as
outlined above was repeated for the extension of public review. The total time for
public review was 60 days which ended on August 10, 2012.
G. On July 16, 2012, the County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to receive
comments on the Draft EIR.
H. On July 25, 2013, the Final EIR was released for public review by public agencies and
other commenters on the Draft EIR, more the 10 days in advance of the scheduled date
of certification.
I. On August 12, 2013 the County Zoning Administrator held a closed public hearing
and certified that the Final EIR is adequate for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Resolution No. 9-2013.
J. On October 22, 2013 the Commission held a public hearing to consider certification
of the Final EIR and Project approvals.
K. Copies of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including appendices, and studies, documents,
and reports referenced in the Draft EIR and Final EIR are available for public review
at the Department of Conservation & Development, Community Development
Division, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553.
VI. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. General Findings
1. Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant (No Mitigation Required)
The Commission agrees with the characterization of the final EIR with respect to all impacts
identified as “less than significant” or as having “no impact,” and finds that those impacts
have been described accurately and are less than significant or have no impact as so described
in the final EIR. This finding applies to the following CEQA significance determinations:
Aesthetics, Impact 4.17 -
a. The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway.
Rationale for Finding: There are no state-designated scenic highways
within 10 miles of the project site. As such, the project would have no
impacts to views from a scenic highway.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
7
The closest local scenic route is SR-4, located more than 1-mile south of
the project site. The proposed improvements would not be visible to
motorists travelling along this route. Therefore, the project would have no
impacts to views from this local scenic route.
b. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Rationale for Finding: The General Plan identifies two major visual
resources in the County: (1) scenic ridges, hillsides, and rock outcroppings
of the Diablo Range; and (2) the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system.
In addition, policies within the General Plan require preservation, to the
maximum extent possible, of significant trees and natural vegetation,
including natural woodlands.
The trees on the project site are not considered a significant visual resource
protected under the General Plan. The removal of the trees would therefore
not represent a significant impact to visual resources.
Because views of the Diablo Range are already partially obstructed by the
Discovery Bay West development, and because the proposed
improvements are compatible with the type and intensity of surrounding
development, construction of the project is not considered a significant
impact to this scenic vista.
Views of scenic waterways from Discovery Bay (east of the site) would not
be impacted by the development of the project site, as the proposed
improvements would occur west of Kellogg Creek. Therefore,
implementation of the project would have a less-than-significant impact to
a designated scenic waterway.
c. The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings.
Rationale for Finding: Development of the project site would introduce
one- to two-story residential buildings on a predominantly undeveloped
vacant site. The project would be similar in type, density, and quality with
surrounding subdivisions. The project would not substantially alter the
existing suburban-residential character or quality of the area.
Agricultural and Forest Resources, Impact 4.1 -
a. The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant
to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use.
Rationale for Finding: The project site does not contain farmland
designated “Prime,” “Unique,” or of “Statewide Importance.”
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
8
Furthermore, the project site does not contain “prime agricultural land” as
defined in Section 56064 of the California Government Code.
b. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is currently zoned General
Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) and the
project would conflict with this zoning. The project site is inside the Urban
Limit Line (ULL), and the surrounding properties have already been
approved for residential development and are actively being developed.
The project site is no longer used for agricultural production, and the
project includes a request for rezoning to Planned Unit District (P-1). The
requested zoning designation would reflect the intent of the ULL and
would be consistent with the residential developments on surrounding
properties. Therefore, the conflict with the existing zoning is considered
less than significant.
The project site is not under Williamson Act contract and so the project
would not result in any conflicts with this Act.
c. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))
d. The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use.
Rationale for Finding: While the project site is vegetated with 80 trees,
these trees are dispersed throughout the site, and are not considered forest
land as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g).
e. The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Rationale for Finding: As noted above, the project site is not currently used
for agricultural production and does not contain any forest resources.
Development of the project would not therefore involve changes to the
existing environment, which due to their location or nature, would result in
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Furthermore, the project
site is generally surrounded by development, including the Ravenswood,
Lakeshore, and other Discovery Bay West and Discovery Bay
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
9
communities; and development of the project would not contribute
indirectly to the conversion of nearby farmlands.
Air Quality, Impact 4.2 -
a. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.
Rationale for Finding: The project is consistent with regional growth
predications and would implement several Transportation Control
Measures (TCM) included in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.
b. The project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Greenhouse gas
and construction particulate emissions are separately addressed elsewhere
below as potentially significant impacts, and not under this subsection.
Rationale for Finding: The contribution of project-generated traffic to
levels of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions was predicted following the
screening criteria recommended by BAAQMD. The results of this
screening analysis indicate that project levels would be below the
California ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. Therefore, the project
would have a less-than-significant impact to those air quality standards.
c. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
Rationale for Finding: The project would result in the construction of 292
residential units. Activities associated with a residential housing
development do not typically result in the creation of objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people.
Biological Resources, Impact 4.3 -
a. The project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.
Rationale for Finding: The project site does not constitute a wildlife
movement corridor, but rather serves wildlife in their local movement
patterns. While local wildlife (deer, skunks, raccoons, rats, etc.) will likely
use the site to move to and from the adjacent housing developments where
they are able to scavenge for food, the loss of this area for local movements
is not a significant impact as these species are capable of moving through
developed areas. Thus, loss of this habitat would not be a considered
significant impact under CEQA. In accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines, impacts to “corridors” and “interfer[ing] substantially” with
these corridors would constitute a significant impact. In order for there to
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
10
be a significant impact, first there has to be a corridor, not just a resident
wildlife use pattern established on site; second, “substantially” would
indicate that the wildlife corridor in question would be important to
special-status species or essential to a population. These criteria are not
met by the project site. Hence, development of the proposed project would
not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established corridors. The project
site does not constitute a native wildlife nursery site. Finally, the project
will not affect the movement of migratory fish because the project site and
adjoining waterways are not part of migratory waterways, as more fully
described in the Biological Resources section.
b. The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is located adjacent to but outside of
the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Inventory Area and as a
result the project is not routinely eligible for take coverage through the
HCP/NCCP. Although the project is located outside the inventory area of
the HCP/NCCP, the project may be allowed to make a financial
contribution to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy as
mitigation for impacts to federal- and state-listed special status species,
depending on input from the Agencies involved (California Department of
Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.) in the
course processing the necessary resource agency permits and their
issuance.
Geology and Soils, Impact 4.6 -
a. The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of
a known earthquake fault, as delineated by the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map.
Rationale for Finding: the project site does not include any faults identified
as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Therefore, the project would
not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from
these types of earthquake fault zones.
b. The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.
Rationale for Finding: The project site generally flat and there is no history
of landslides in the vicinity of Discovery Bay. As such, there is a
negligible level of risk related to landslides.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
11
c. The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water.
Rationale for Finding: The project site would be served by the Town of
Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD). Future
development would not rely on septic tanks or other alternative waste water
disposal systems, as the urbanized nature of the proposed development
necessitates the use of municipal wastewater collection and treatment
systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact 4.8 -
a. The project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5.
Rationale for Finding: A review of regulatory databases maintained by
County, state, and federal agencies found that the project site is not
included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. There is currently no documentation
of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the project site or within
1 mile of the project site.
b. The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or within two
miles of a public airport.
Rationale for Finding: The project is located approximately 8 miles north
of the East County (Byron) Airport. A review of the Contra Costa County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan indicates that the project site is not
located within the airport sphere of influence and is not located within the
approach zone for either of the airport’s two runways. Therefore,
implementation of the project would not result in a safety hazard for
construction workers or future residents.
c. The project would not be in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Rationale for Finding: The Funny Farm Airport, the nearest private airstrip,
is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the project site in the
Brentwood area. No impacts related to safety are anticipated as the project
would be an infill development surrounded by similar residential uses to
the east, west, and south. The project does not include any towers or other
vertical obstructions that could represent a unique hazard to the flight path
from this airstrip.
d. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation system.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
12
Rationale for Finding: The County has not adopted an emergency response
plan for the Discovery Bay area, and thus the project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with such a plan. Additionally,
the project is designed to comply with County and fire district standards for
roadways and emergency vehicle access and compliance would be verified
by both agencies prior to and after construction.
Similarly, the project could not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an emergency evacuation system. The Emergency Alert
System and Emergency Digital Information Service are the primary
systems used to inform the public of emergencies and threats to health,
safety, and welfare. These systems are electronic and are operated by
government agencies in conjunction with television and radio stations. In
the event of an emergency, these systems are used to broadcast emergency
information, such as evacuation alerts, across all radio and television
stations in the affected area. Due to the electronic nature of these systems,
there is no possibility that they could be impacted by the project.
e. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is bounded by waterways to the
north, south, and east, and lands to the west are developed with single-
family residential subdivisions. The General Plan does not identify this
project site as a high-risk zone for wildland fires. Therefore, the project
would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.
Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact 4.9 -
a. The project would not violate any waste discharge requirements.
Rationale for Finding: The project would result in wastewater generated by
residential uses. The wastewater generated by the project would not
violate any wastewater discharge requirement as residential wastewater is
accepted and treated by the Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility
which is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
b. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
Rationale for Finding: The project applicant is not proposing to drill new
water wells. The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
(TDBCSD) supplies water service to the residence of Discovery Bay
through an existing system of wells, treatment plants, storage tanks and
distribution system. The District would, after annexation of the project site,
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
13
be supplying water service to the Project site. The District recently
prepared a Water Master Plan (Water MP) for Discovery Bay which
included the project. It was accepted by their Board in late 2012. The
Water MP identified system improvements that enable the District to meet
current and projected water demands through build-out in 2020, including a
new well. The project is required to pay its fair share of those system
improvements.
Deep infiltration and groundwater recharge is not feasible at the project site
due to the low permeability of the site’s clay soils. Surface runoff at the
project site typically flows into the adjacent waterways before having a
chance to permeate into the groundwater table. Therefore, the addition of
impervious surfaces to the project site is not expected to significantly affect
groundwater recharge on site.
c. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
And
d. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Rationale for Finding: The project includes a storm water drainage and
treatment system that collects runoff from individual drainage areas into a
series of linear bioretention facilities. Lots, sidewalks, and roadways
would drain toward the linear bioretention facilities via overland flow.
Treated runoff would be collected into a series of perforated pipe
underdrains that would discharge the storm water into the developed bays,
coves, and Kellogg Creek, in compliance with regulatory standards. The
proposed storm drainage would handle all stormwater runoff from the
developed portion of the site, on- and off-site flooding is not anticipated to
occur. The project has submitted a Storm Water Control Plan that has been
deemed preliminarily complete by the Public Works Department. The
project would not connect to an existing or planned water drainage system
and would therefore not contribute or exceed its capacity.
e. The project would place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area.
And
f. The project would place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that
would impede or redirect flood flows.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
14
Rationale for Finding: The entire project site falls within Special Flood
Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Contra Costa
County (FEMA 2009), which indicates that it is subject to flooding during
a 100-year event in the Delta. However, the proposed finish floor
elevations of the project would be raised above the base flood elevation for
a 100-year storm event, meeting the County’s flood design standards, and
reducing potential risks from flooding to a less-than significant level.
Furthermore, the project has been designed to comply with the future flood
elevation related to sea level rise in the next 100 years that is predicted by
the State of California.
g. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam.
Rationale for Finding: The closest reservoir is Los Vaqueros, located
approximately 7.5 miles to the west. The project site is located along the
eastern edge of the inundation area. The Contra Costa Water District
recently completed an environmental analysis for the expansion and
upgrading of the Los Vaqueros facility. The EIR prepared by the Contra
Costa Water District included a less-than-significant impact related to
downstream flooding associated with the risk of dam failure, based on the
conservative design of the facility that ensures it can withstand a maximum
credible earthquake, and the policies and procedures that guide the
monitoring of operations of the facility, ensuring that if needed, emergency
“drawdown” of water levels can be implemented to reduce the level of
inundation. As such, potential risks related to dam failure are considered
less than significant.
h. The project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is located approximately 80 miles
from the ocean and the potential for tsunamis affecting it from this source
is remote. There is no known evidence of these near-field tsunami and
seiches sources and they are not considered a risk to the project. The
project site is nearly flat and would thus not be subject to mudflows related
to landslides.
Land Use and Planning. Impact 4.10 -
a. The project would not physically divide an established community.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is currently vacant, and
development of the site would not divide an established community. The
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
15
existence of the Discovery Bay community to the east and recent County
approval of subdivisions to the west have resulted in the site becoming an
island of vacant land surrounded by residential development to the east,
west, and south. Implementation of the project would continue the
residential pattern of development that is already defined.
b. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Rationale for Finding: The project is currently in conflict with the existing
zoning and general plan land use designation which identify the site for
agricultural uses. The project seeks approval of a general plan amendment
from the current designation to Single-Family Residential – Medium
Density (SM), Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH), Water
(WA), Public/Semi-Public (PS), and Open Space (OS) designations to
support the proposed development. Similarly, the applicant also seeks
approval for rezoning from General Agricultural District and Heavy
Agricultural District to Planned Unit District.
Approval of the general plan amendment and rezoning would ensure that
the project is consistent with the applicable land use plan and zoning
regulations. If the Board of Supervisors does not approve the requested
general plan amendment and rezoning, the project as currently proposed
would not be implemented.
The project would be consistent with all other policies related to land use.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable land use
plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
c. The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan.
Rationale for Finding: The project site is located adjacent to but outside of
the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Inventory Area and as a
result the project is not routinely eligible for take coverage through the
HCP/NCCP. Although the project is located outside the inventory area of
the HCP/NCCP, the project may be allowed to make a financial
contribution to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy as
mitigation for impacts to federal- and state-listed special status species
depending on input from the Wildlife Agencies at the time of their permit
issuance. The project would not conflict with any habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan and no impact would occur.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
16
Mineral Resources, Impact 4.11 -
a. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
Rationale for Finding: According to the California Geological Survey, the
project site is not classified or designated within a mineral resource zone.
Furthermore, based on General Plan maps of the area, the project site is not
within an area of known mineral importance. Therefore, the project would
not impact mineral resources
b. The project would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan.
Rationale for Finding: Both the project site and the project vicinity do not
have a history of mining and the project site is not delineated as a mineral
resource recovery site on any known map or plan. Therefore, the project
would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site.
Noise, Impact 4.12 -
a. The project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
And
b. The project would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity.
Rationale for Finding: According to the General Plan, a community noise
exposure level (CNEL) of up to 60 dBA is considered normally acceptable
for single-family residential uses. Noise measurements indicate that the
existing CNEL is between 45 and 53 dBA. The existing environment
therefore maintains a sound level of less than 60 dBA and would not
subject the proposed residents to unacceptable levels of sound as defined
by the General Plan.
Residential developments typically do not cause substantial increases in
noise. However, the project would slightly increase noise in the vicinity of
the project site due to greater numbers of automobiles and motorized
watercraft. Since this increase is less than the 5 dB threshold of
significance, this is a less-than-significant noise impact. The future noise
level with the addition of project traffic and watercraft would remain below
60 dBA.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
17
The project includes a Medevac helicopter landing pad to provide
emergency air-lift services for boating accidents. The landing pad would
only be used, on those infrequent occasions, for emergency situations to
transport accident victims from the project area to nearby hospitals. The
noise associated with this operation would be temporary and sporadic, and
would not result in a permanent change to the ambient noise environment.
Therefore, the proposed helicopter landings would result in a less-than-
significant impact to the existing and future noise environment.
c. The project would not expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels.
Rationale for Finding: The project does not include any components that
would generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise levels during
construction activities, such as sheet pile driving or deep dynamic
compaction. The construction of the shoring walls will be with a drilling
rig and not involve pile driving or deep dynamic compaction.
d. The project is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport that could expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels.
Rationale for Finding: The project is located approximately 8 miles north
of the East County (Byron) Airport. The Contra Costa County Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan indicates that the project is not within the
airport sphere of influence and is not located within the approach zone for
either of the airport’s two runways. The project is too distant from the
airport for there to be airport-related noise impacts.
e. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip that could expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Rationale for Finding: The Funny Farm Airport, the nearest private airstrip,
is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the project site in the
Brentwood area. This airport services small private aircraft. Several
airplane over flights were observed during the long-term noise
measurements including jets and smaller general aviation aircraft. The
infrequent nature and relatively low noise levels means that they are not a
significant contributor to the average noise at the project site. Given the
relative distance to the project site and the types of aircraft associated with
the airstrip, no airstrip-related noise impacts are anticipated.
Population and Housing, Impact 4.13 -
a. The project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
18
Rationale for Finding: The project and surrounding properties were
included within the urban limit line (ULL) to indicate a potential for future
conversion to urban uses. The timing for the development of these areas is
speculative and regional population projections have attempted to project a
reasonable rate of growth based on market conditions. Given that the
direct population increase associated with the project (estimate 876 people)
would be within the region’s population forecasts, this impact is considered
less than significant.
The project site is an infill development and adjacent or nearby lands are
either already developed with residential uses, or are located outside the
ULL, which prevents further development. Therefore, impacts related to
indirect population growth are considered less than significant.
b. The project would not displace existing housing.
Rationale for Finding: No project-related improvements are proposed that
would displace any existing housing. The project site contains three
residential structures that are dilapidated and abandoned. Demolition of
the dilapidated and abandoned residential structures does not constitute
displacement of substantial numbers of housing units since the units are
vacant and uninhabitable. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c. The project would not displace people nor would it create substantial
population growth.
Rationale for Finding: The residential sites on the project site no longer
include inhabitable structures; therefore, no individuals would be displaced
or in need of replacement housing as a result of the project. No impact
related to the displacement of people would occur. Furthermore, the project
would construct 292 housing units, which would directly increase the
population of Far East County by 876 people. This is within ABAG
Projections for the years 2010 to 2020.
Public Services, Impact 4.14 -
a. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
Fire protection
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the project would not require the
construction any additional fire facilities, the construction of which could
result in environmental impacts. Prior to the issuance of building permits,
the project applicant would be required to make a fair share contribution to
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
19
the reimbursement fund for the developer funded construction of Station
59, which is approximately one half mile distance from the project site. In
addition, the residences will be equipped with fire sprinklers for fire
protection.
Police protection
Rationale for Finding: As part of the project, a marine patrol substation is
proposed at the northeasterly point of the project site. The Sheriff’s Marine
Patrol Station would serve the residents from the project and surrounding
areas, and would significantly decrease response times to Discovery Bay.
The environmental impacts associated with the construction of the marine
patrol station are evaluated in the relevant technical sections of the draft
EIR (i.e., Sections 4.3, Biological Resources, and 4.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality). Implementation of the project would not require the
construction of any other police facilities; the construction of which could
result in environmental impacts.
The existing staff, equipment, and facilities of the existing Sheriff’s Delta
Station would be able to provide police services to the project site,
including at the new marine patrol substation on the project site, which will
not be staffed full-time. In addition, project homeowners will be included
in a police service district and pay a tax bill assessment that is typical for
new residential development in the unincorporated areas if the County.
Therefore, impacts related to increases in demand for police services would
be less than significant.
Schools
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the project would not require the
construction of any school facilities; the construction of which could result
in environmental impacts. As confirmed by Senate Bill (SB) 50, payment
of standard school impact fees is considered “full and complete mitigation”
of any school impacts. Payment of school impacts fees as required by SB
50 would reduce the impact of increased elementary and middle school
students to nearby schools to a less-than-significant level.
Other Public Facilities
Rationale for Finding: The project is projected to provide housing for
approximately 876 residents. This additional population could increase the
demand for library services, including facilities and equipment, book or
media volumes, and staff time. Neither California nor Contra Costa
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
20
County has formal library standards for collections or facilities. The
Contra Costa Library system is primarily funded by local property taxes,
with additional revenue from intergovernmental sources. Currently the
library serves a population of over 40,000. The Contra Costa County
Library Services (County Library) has a Strategic Plan which accounts for
the existing library services in the County and planned improvements and
facilities. The construction of a new library is dependent on a needs
assessment and available funding. According to the County Library, a
population increase would not, in and of itself, require a new or expanded
library and so is considered to be less than significant.
This additional population could also increase the demand for health
services, including facilities, equipment, and staff time. Neither California
nor Contra Costa County has formal health service standards for facilities.
Given that County health facilities generally serve low-income populations,
and the population generated by the project would not be low income, the
County would not require a new or expanded health facility as result of
project implementation. Therefore, this is considered a less-than-
significant impact.
Recreation, Impact 4.14 -
a. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Rationale for Finding: There is no indication of a deficiency in parkland in
the area of the Project site, and the existing parks would accommodate the
additional 876 new residents generated by the project. In addition, the
project applicant would be required to adhere to the County’s parkland
requirement of 3 acres per 1,000 people as discussed in Impact PS-1. The
project would also provide approximately 2.6 acres of public trail on site,
which would be available for use by the new residents generated by the
project as well as the public. In addition, the project would pay a park
dedication fee of $1350 per dwelling unit. Therefore, the project would
have a less-than-significant impact related to the substantial deterioration
of park facilities that serve the project site.
b. The project would include recreational facilities that could have an adverse
physical effect on the environment, but with mitigations the impact would be
less than significant.
Rationale for Finding: The project would allow the development of a 20-
foot wide EVA road in the northwest portion of the project area, through
the proposed wetland mitigation and open space area. The EVA road
would also serve as a publicly accessible bicycle/pedestrian trail and would
include interpretive signage, kiosks, and seating areas. For a discussion of
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
21
the impacts of the construction of the trail to the marsh and other biological
resources, see Section B, Biological Resources.
Public Utilities, Impact 4.15 -
a. The construction of new storm water drainage facilities as part of the project
would not cause significant environmental effects.
Rationale for Finding: The proposed storm drainage system includes
natural on-site drainage and human-made detention basins. Storm water
would be handled completely on site, with treatment in bio-swales or
bioretention before release into the area waterways. Impacts to storm
water drainage facilities and storm water management issues specific to the
project are addressed in Section B, Hydrology and Water Quality. The
proposed drainage system has been designed to compl y with NPDES and
the County’s C.3 requirements and impacts related to storm drainage
facilities would be less than significant.
b. The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Rationale for Finding: The Potrero Hills Landfill that would serve the
project site currently receives 1,900 tons per day of solid waste and has a
remaining capacity of 6 million cubic yards. According to CalRecycle, a
single family residential unit generates approximately 10 pounds of solid
waste per day. The project includes 292 single-family residential units that
would generate approximately 2,920 pounds per day. The amount of solid
waste generated by the project represents less than 0.1 percent of the daily
amount of solid waste processed by the landfill.
The landfill has permitted capacity through 2016 and is in the process of
applying for the required permits that would allow the landfill to operate
through 2050 and expand to more than three times its current capacity.
Based on the landfill’s expansion plans for operation through 2050, the
landfill would be able to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs.
c. The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste.
Rationale for Finding: The project consists of residential land uses that
would not result in the generation of unique types of solid waste that would
conflict with existing regulations applicable to solid waste disposal. The
project would be required to comply with Contra Costa County’s solid
waste requirements, including the provisions of AB 939. Furthermore, the
project would have to comply with County Ordinance 2004-16, which
requires owners of all construction or demolition projects that are 5,000
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
22
square feet in size or greater to demonstrate that at least 50 percent of the
construction and demolition debris generated on the jobsite are reused,
recycled, or otherwise diverted.
In order to comply with Ordinance 2004-16, the project applicant would be
required as a condition of approval to prepare and submit a Debris
Recovery Plan to the County’s Department of Conservation and
Development prior to the issuance of a building or demolition permit. The
plan would address major materials generated by a construction project of
this size, including brush and other vegetative material, dimensional
lumber, metal scraps, cardboard, packaging, and plastic wrap, and shall
address opportunities to recycle such materials or divert them away from
the Potrero Hills Landfill. Prior to final inspection, the project applicant
shall submit a Debris Recovery Report that demonstrates that at least 50
percent of jobsite debris was diverted from disposal by providing receipts
or gate-tags from facilities or service providers used for recycling, reuse
and disposal of jobsite debris. The project would be required to comply
with all applicable regulations related to solid waste and this impact would
be less than significant.
Transportation and Traffic, Impact 4.14 -
a. The majority of the traffic conditions under the project condition would not
conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
and
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Intersections
Rationale for Finding: With the exception of the Holway Drive/Byron
Highway (No. 7), Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive (No. 8), and
SR4/Byron Highway (south) (No. 19) intersections, all study intersections
would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) with the
addition of project traffic. However, neither the Holway Drive/Byron
Highway nor Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive unsignalized
intersections would meet the peak hour signal warrant analysis. An
unsignalized intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS must meet the
MUTCD peak hour signal warrant for the impact to be considered
significant. Because neither intersection would meet the peak hour signal
warrant, impacts to these intersections as a result of the project generated
traffic are considered less than significant.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
23
Impacts to the SR4/Byron Highway (south) (No. 19) intersection are
discussed further below under Sections B and C.
Roadway Segments
Rationale for Finding: Both Marsh Creek Road and Camino Diablo would
continue to operate at acceptable LOS D with the addition of project
generated traffic. However, the addition of project traffic would
exacerbate the existing deficiency of Vasco Road, which does not meet the
MTSO target of LOS D under Existing or Existing Plus Project conditions.
Therefore, impacts to Vasco Road are discussed further below under
Section B.
Boating Traffic
Rationale for Finding: The project is estimated to contribute an additional
131 new boating vessels to Discovery Bay. Based on the California State
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) average trip rate of 26.1 trips
per year, this would result in approximately 3,420 new boat trips per year
originating from Pantages Bays. This represents an approximately 2.8
percent increase in the number of local boat trips within Discovery Bay due
to the project, and will not cause congestion within Discovery Bay and
nearby Delta waterways.
The project would widen the northwest portion of Kellogg Creek to a
minimum width of 300 feet as recommended by Reclamation District 800
in an effort to reduce boat traffic congestion, provide for boats to pass each
other safely, and eliminate unsafe tidal flow currents caused by the current
narrow channel. The balance of the Kellogg Creek frontage would be
widened as necessary to accommodate new the new homes and docks and
still maintain the minimum width of 300 feet. Old Kellogg Creek will be
widened to the recommended minimum width of 120 feet (the homes and
docks there will be limited to one side of the waterway). Since the
proposed widened channel dimensions meet the recommended width, and
given the number of boats that will be within the widened segment of
Kellogg Creek which fronts the project site, congestion will not be a
significant impact.
In Indian Slough, which does not currently experience boat traffic
congestion problems, the relatively small increase in number of boats due
to the project (2.8 percent) will not have a significant impact on boat
traffic.
c. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks.
Rationale for Finding: The project does not involve aircraft or activities
that would interfere with air traffic patterns. The project includes a 100-
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
24
foot by 100-foot Medevac helicopter landing area near the Marine Patrol
Substation. However, emergencies that would require a Medevac
helicopter landing on the project site will be infrequent and would not
result in a change to existing air traffic patterns since Medevac helicopters
currently land on nearby levees when called for an emergency response.
Furthermore, the closest public or private airstrip is more than 2 miles
away.
d. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment).
Rationale for Finding: Internal circulation was reviewed with respect to the
proposed roadway lane widths, sight distance, and
vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts. The project includes seven streets and
cul-de-sacs that would be privately owned and maintained by a
homeowners association. Pedestrian walkways would be provided on 5
and 8-foot sidewalks on both sides of the internal roadways, with a 5-foot
landscaped buffer between the roadway and sidewalk throughout the
proposed development. Other than the emergency vehicle access
(EVA)/public trail, the roadways within the project site would not have
bike lanes. Therefore, bicyclists would be sharing the road with motor
vehicles. Given that the traffic volumes and vehicular speeds within the
project site are anticipated to be low, road-sharing is not anticipated to
cause a major conflict between bicyclists and motor vehicles.
In addition, the internal roadways were evaluated to determine whether
adequate sight distance is provided for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The
Caltrans Highway Design Manual provides sight distance standards based
on the design speed of the roadway. A design speed of 25 miles per hour
(mph) was used for the internal roadways, which corresponds to a
minimum sight distance of 155 feet. All of the internal intersections
provide adequate sight distance for pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
e. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Rationale for Finding: Streets would be designed in compliance with
County private road standards and requirements of emergency service
providers. In addition, an emergency vehicle access (EVA) road would be
constructed in the northwest portion and southwest portion of the project
site. The applicant proposes that EVA/public trail to be 20 feet wide, with
an 8-foot paved trail in the middle and a 6-foot compacted aggregate
shoulder on each side. A similar EVA would be constructed to the
Sheriff’s marine patrol substation except the paved trail would be off-
center to better accommodate the small daily number of marine patrol
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
25
station vehicles. As such, the project would provide adequate emergency
access to the entire project site.
f. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
Rationale for Finding: There is no planned transit service within the project
development. However, the project would connect to existing sidewalks
on Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive. These sidewalks would provide
public pedestrian/bicycle access to the open space areas within the project
site. The sidewalk connections would also provide access from the site to
the closest existing transit service (at the intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Preston Drive), schools, and parks. As such, the project would not
conflict with adopted pedestrian plans or guidelines identified in the
Contra Costa General Plan, East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan 2005
Update, or 2009 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The project is
also consistent with the East County Trails Master Plan dated July 2009.
The Master Plan envisions access through the project site, but does not
identify a precise alignment. In conformance with this Master Plan, the
project provides access via the public trail through the emergent marsh
area. Trail users can also exit the project site and connect to other existing
and planned trails that provide access to the south towards Highway 4, as
shown on the Master Plan. East Bay Regional Park District in its DEIR
comment letter expressed support for the project public trails as proposed.
The two Tri Delta Transit routes that would serve the project site currently
operate well under capacity. The excess capacity available on the existing
transit system would accommodate additional transit trips generated by the
project. The project does not conflict with any transit system plans or
guidelines and would therefore not create an impact.
Impacts that Are Less Than Cumulatively Considerable
a. Cultural Resources
Rationale for Finding: No known historical, archaeological, or
paleontological resources were identified on the project site, and therefore
the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact. To the extent that
construction activities unearth previously undiscovered resources,
implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would
ensure their proper identification and treatment. The project would
therefore not result in a considerable contribution to this cumulative
impact.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
26
b. Energy
Rationale for Finding: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) has indicated that
the distribution systems serving the County are designed to adequately
serve the energy demands from projected development within the County’s
Urban Limit Line, including the proposed project. As such, the project in
combination with the other development in the County would not result in
cumulative impacts to energy.
c. Geology & Soils
Rationale for Finding: Regarding potential seismic shaking, the site is not
located in the vicinity of an active fault line or fault trace and would not
therefore be subject to ground rupture. However, because of the
seismically active nature of the region, the project is required to conform to
all general plan conditions requiring analysis and design to ensure adequate
performance during a seismic event. The incorporation of these design
requirements, and compliance with the California Building Code ensure
that the project would not make a considerable contribution to the increase
in population exposed to posed injury, death, or property damage from
seismic events in the region.
d. Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Rationale for Finding: The Pantages Bays residential project is not located
in proximity to the identified hazardous land uses along the San Joaquin
River or Byron Airport and would not therefore contribute to the
cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan EIR associated with
proximity to such uses and potential health risk during accidental release of
hazardous materials.
e. Water Quality
Rationale for Finding: The General Plan includes policies that specifically
reinforce these regulations by establishing the County’s active role in water
quality programs. The General Plan policies also establish support for
water quality standards that are adequate to protect human health in
important areas like the Delta estuary. Point sources of pollution are
required to be identified and controlled in order to protect adopted
beneficial uses of water. Implementation of these policies occurs as part of
the development review and construction permitting process and was found
to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the
project in conjunction with the development proposed as part of the
General Plan would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to
water quality.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
27
f. Flooding and Sea Level Rise
Rationale for Finding: The project has been proactively designed with
building pad elevations that conform to the conservative projections by the
State of California for sea level rise in 2050 and 2100. The project would
not therefore increase the number of persons or amount of property
potentially exposed to flood conditions and would result in a considerable
contribution to this cumulative impact.
g. Land Use & Planning
Rationale for Finding: The General Plan EIR noted the change in land use
patterns that would occur with implementation of the Urban Limit Line
(ULL); namely, a concentration of growth within areas designated for
urban development and a preservation of the agricultural core for purely
agricultural uses. The project site is included within the ULL, and
therefore has the potential for conversion to urban use. Although the
zoning for the project site (and much of the undeveloped lands within the
ULL) was left agricultural, the County’s potential for future development
of these lands was identified. All land use and planning development
projects included in the cumulative analysis have been designated for
potential future urban development as part of the ULL; therefore, the
combined development of properties within the ULL is not considered a
cumulatively significant land use impact.
h. Mineral Resources
Rationale for Finding: None of the land use and planning development
projects included in the cumulative analysis are within an area of known
mineral importance. Therefore, the development of the project in
combination with other projects in the area would have no potential to
impact state-designated regionally significant mineral resources and there
would be no cumulative impact related to mineral resources.
i. Noise
Rationale for Finding: Cumulative increases in noise levels would not
exceed the 5 dBA DNL threshold with the exception of a segment of Point
of Timber Road (between Byron Highway and Bixler). This segment of
roadway would experience an increase of 6.3 dBA DNL in the cumulative
scenario and an additional 0.7 dBA DNL with the project, increasing the
current ambient noise level of 57 dBA DNL to 63 dBA DNL in the
cumulative plus project condition. The project’s contribution (0.7 dBA
DNL) is less than 1.0 dBA and is not a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this impact.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
28
j. Population and Housing
Rationale for Finding: The General Plan and adoption of the ULL
identified an intended pattern of residential development, including in the
Discovery Bay area. The General Plan EIR did not identify a significant
impact related to population growth and therefore a cumulative impact
related to population and housing does not exist. The General Plan EIR
noted that build out in accordance with the ULL and in tandem with a
program of employment development would create a jobs housing balance
that would support a more vibrant and sustainable community. The project
is located within the ULL and would not require an extension of services
outside the ULL boundary.
k. Public Services and Recreation
Rationale for Finding: Regarding sheriff services, the project includes
construction of a marine patrol substation to augment services in the
region. The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office has not identified a need
for additional facilities beyond the marine patrol substation, indicating that
acceptable service ratios can be maintained in the Discovery Bay area and
alleviating the cumulative impact for the provision of police services
within the project’s cumulative setting.
The service district of East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
(ECCFPD) has recently been improved with the construction of Station 59
that would serve the project area. The location of this facility is
approximately one half mile from the project site and therefore complies
with General Plan policies that call for a response time of 3 min/ and or be
located 1.5 miles from the first due station. Furthermore, the project would
pay fire impact fees.
The General Plan requires that any new development include 3 acres of
public parkland per 1,000 people. The County Code also permits a
combination of land dedication and fee payment to mitigate park impacts.
In conformance with this policy, the project would provide parkland, in the
form of the approximately 2.55 acre public trail through the open space
area as described above and would also pay fees ( $1351 per dwelling unit)
to mitigate cumulative impacts to local parks.
The project in combination with other residential projects in the vicinity
would generate new students and would be required to pay development
impact fees to the local school districts, consistent with the requirements of
Senate Bill (SB 50). Payment of these fees is considered to completely
mitigate any impacts to schools. Therefore, cumulative impacts to school
facilities or services would be less than significant.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
29
a. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP
includes all of the Mitigation Measures adopted to avoid or reduce Project
impacts and will be implemented following Project approval.
b. Project Approvals Incorporate the Mitigation Measures and the
MMRP. The Mitigation Measures and the MMRP have been incorporated into
the Project Approvals; thus they have become part of and limitations upon the
entitlement conferred by the Project Approvals and are enforceable by the
County.
c. Impacts Summarized. The descriptions of the impacts in these
Findings are summary statements. Mitigation Measures are numbered to
correspond to listings in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. Reference should be
made to the Draft EIR and Final EIR for a more complete description.
l. Visual Resources
Rationale for Finding: As discussed in this section, the project site would
be similar in type, density, and quality to the surrounding subdivisions and
would not therefore result in a cumulative contribution to the degradation
of scenic quality.
The project would not develop any hillsides or ridgelines, but would
develop the shoreline along Kellogg Creek to provide private docks with
deep water access. This development would degrade the shoreline from its
current state, which is characterized as low quality creek bank habitat. To
address impacts to the shoreline and associated biological species, the
applicant would be required to enhance 11,060 linear feet of creek bank
habitat on Pantages Island and along the ECCID dredge cut to provide high
and moderate quality shaded riverine aquatic habitat. These enhancements
would be visible to the public through the public trail to be provided
through the emergent marsh and wetland mitigation area. With the
implementation of this and other associated enhancement measures, the
project’s contribution to this identified impact would not be considerable.
B. (1) Project Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant with Implementation
of Mitigation Measures and (2) Project Impacts that Remain Significant After
Implementation of Mitigation Measures
The Final EIR in its Mitigation and Monitoring identifies the following significant
environmental impacts associated with the Project and Mitigation Measures (MM)
adopted to reduce these significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. To the extent
the Mitigation Measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant impacts, it is hereby
determined that any remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable for
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
30
the reasons specified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section N, below).
The Mitigation Measures identified below are presented in summary form. For a detailed
description of impacts and Mitigation Measures, see the appropriate text in the Final EIR
and corresponding Conditions of Approval.
Aesthetics Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.17.3:
Impact VIS-1: The project would create new sources of light and glare which
could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure VIS-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Development of the project would include lighting
elements typical of a residential neighborhood (e.g., porch lights, street
lights, etc.) that would introduce new sources of nighttime lightin g to the
project site and surrounding areas.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would require the project
applicant to prepare a lighting plan for review and approval by the
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development
Division (CDD). Provisions will be included in the lighting plan to ensure
that exterior lighting is low mounted, downward casting, shielded, sensitive
to the open space area, and utilize motion detection systems. Therefore,
Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would mitigate the potential impact to a less-
than-significant-level.
Air Quality Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.2.3:
Impact AQ-1: Project development that includes wood burning stoves would result
in a net increase of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), a criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment in an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
31
4. Rationale for Finding: Wood burning stoves and other area sources, such as
emissions associated with project traffic, would result in new air pollutant
emissions within the air basin. Project emissions were estimated and
would exceed the BAAQMD daily threshold of significance for ROG.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would prohibit wood burning
fireplaces or stoves from being included in the project plans. This measure
would reduce ROG emissions associated with project development to 36
pounds per day, which is below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 54
pounds per day. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact AQ-2: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to criteria air
pollutants during project construction but could expose sensitive receptors to toxic
air contaminants. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-2a and Mitigation Measure
AQ-2b.
2. Implementation: These Mitigation Measures will be a Condition of
Approval for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Project emissions of air pollutants would be highest
during project construction. Project construction would result in temporary
emissions of dust and diesel exhaust that could adversely affect nearby
sensitive receptors.
The implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b, the short
duration of construction, and well-ventilated characteristics of the site
during daylight hours (when construction activity occurs), would reduce
health risks from construction emissions of TAC diesel PM to a less-than-
significant level.
Biological Resources Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.3.4:
Impact BIO-A: Although multiple surveys confirmed the non-presence of
special-status species on the site, due to the presence of suitable habitat,
development of the project could have significant impacts on the Delta button
celery, a state listed species, and/or other special-status plants if they were to re-
establish themselves between the last survey periods and the time of site
development. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-A.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
32
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Based on the results of multiple surveys, the County
determined that the Delta button celery is not currently present on the
project site, but that the site is presumed to include suitable habitat for the
species is due to the 1988 survey.
Mitigation Measure BIO-A is a result of this conclusion, the following
modifications to Section 4.3, Biological Resources have been incorporated
into the draft EIR as insurance against any potential construction impacts
to this special-status plant should it re-emerge between survey dates and
actual construction. The same rationale regarding other special-status
plants can be assumed, therefore, a more generalized mitigation measure
has been added to address other special-status plants that could possibly
occur in the project area.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-A would require pre-
construction plant surveys that would provide adequate opportunity to
identify occurrences of any special-status species. If Delta button celery is
found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures
such as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable
measures, including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably
reduce the potential impacts on Delta button celery. Therefore, the impact
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-1: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
trees. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project would require eighty trees to be
removed in order to widen Kellogg Creek and create the project bays and
coves, infrastructure, and residential lots. The trees are considered to be
protected trees because they are located on a property that can be further
subdivided and are greater than 6.5 inches in diameter at breast height
(DBH).
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require native trees to be planted with
mitigation to impacts ratio of 9.5:1, in accordance with an approved tree
management and monitoring plan. The trees that would be removed will
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
33
be replaced with a greater number of trees that are planted. Therefore,
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact BIO-2: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
bank habitat. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Impacts from the proposed project would include
loss of mostly low quality creek bank habitat low, some moderate quality,
and a small amount of high quality bank habitat. Moderate to high quality
bank habitat provides shelter and habitat for special-status fish and removal
of this habitat is considered a significant impact.
The new creek bank would be designed and planted to be mostly high
quality shaded riverine high quality creek bank, and to moderate quality
where wave action needs to be addressed. Other existing creek bank on or
near the project site of low or moderate quality will be enhance to high
quality habitat. There will be 11,060 lineal feet of new and enhanced creek
bank of mostly high quality and some moderate quality, compared to
excavation of approximately 9,147 lineal feet of mostly low and some high
quality creek bank. Subsequent to the creek bank creation and
enhancement, a 5-year monitoring program would also be carried out to
ensure that any tree and shrub mortality is documented and the dead
trees/shrubs are replaced as necessary to revegetate the impacted bank.
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce the
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-3: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
vernal pool fairy shrimp. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-3.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
34
4. Rationale for Finding: The proposed project would require the removal of
a small seasonal wetland that is habitat for the threatened vernal pool fairy
shrimp. By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and
purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable
mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level because the vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat
would be preserved at a suitable location. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-4: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the California red-legged frog. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Although the threatened California red-legged frog
has not been identified on the project site and there are no historical or
recent sightings within a 5-kilometer radius of the site, the 14.14-acre
perennial emergent marsh on the project site provides suitable aquatic and
upland habitat for the California red-legged frog.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and
purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable
mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level because California red-legged frog habitat
acreage would be preserved at a suitable location. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact BIO-5: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the giant garter snake. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-5.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
35
4. Rationale for Finding: Although the threatened California giant garter
snake has not been identified on the project site and there are no historical
or recent sightings within a 9-mile radius of the site, the project site’s
perennial emergent marsh on the project site, vegetated edges of Kellogg
Creek, and ECCID Dredge Cut provides 16.04 acres of suitable aquatic and
upland habitat for the giant garter snake.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and
purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable
mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to
a less-than-significant level because California giant garter snake habitat
acreage would be preserved at a suitable location. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Impact BIO-6: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the western pond turtle. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-6.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The western pond turtle is a California species of
special concern that is known to occur on the project site. It is unknown
whether or not the western pond turtle nests in the uplands on site. Impacts
to individual western pond turtles or their basking/aquatic habitats would
be regarded as a potentially significant impact.
Since the western pond turtle is not a state or federal listed species, there is
no agency specific mitigation ratio that is required to mitigate impacts to
this species. However, by purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank,
or acquiring suitable mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial
contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, project impacts
would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level because western pond
turtle habitat would be preserved at a suitable location. Also, installation
of turbidity barriers would protect individual turtles by keeping them out of
project construction zones. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6
would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-7: Development of the project would have potentially significant
impact on federal and/or state listed fish species and fish species designated by the
State of California as Species of Special Concern. (Significant)
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
36
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-7.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Several federal and/or state listed fish species and/or
state designated species of special concern could be impacted by project
construction, although the water channels along the project site are not
within the current typical migration pattern of these fish. Short-term,
construction-related impacts to special-status fish species could include
direct take of eggs, larvae, juveniles and adult fish due to use of dredges,
pumps, and other in-water construction equipment. Turbidity may also
disrupt juvenile and adult fish feeding, predator avoidance behavior, and
migration patterns. Construction activities will also temporarily remove
habitat available for spawning, feeding, and resting activities.
Mitigation Measure BIO -7 requires a levee to be maintained, between the
excavation area and the Kellogg Creek channel. Silt curtains or suction
dredges shall be used when conducting work in the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek (includes Old Kellogg Creek) to
localize sediment movement and protect fish from entrapment and the
effects of increased turbidity. Additionally, a qualified biologist would be
on site at all times during all in-water work. All work would be conducted
outside the critical spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for listed
fish. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would require
work to be conducted when listed and special-status fish species are not
likely to be in the area. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-7 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-8: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on tree nesting raptors. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-8.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kite, red-
tailed hawk, red shouldered hawk, Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing
owl, and northern harrier occurs on the project site. Potential impacts to
these species from the proposed project include loss of nesting habitat,
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
37
disturbance to nesting birds, and possibly death of adults and/or young. No
nesting raptors (birds of prey) have been identified on the project site. In
the absence of survey results indicating otherwise, the project may result in
impacts to nesting raptors that would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-8 requires tree removal to be conducted outside
the nesting season and/or a protective buffer built around any tree that
supports nesting raptors during the course of construction. There would be
no loss of raptor eggs or nestlings, which are protected under California
Fish and Game Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would reduce the
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-9: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the Swainson’s hawk. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-9.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The Swainson’s hawk is a state-listed threatened
species. Swainson’s hawks are known to nest within 0.1-mile northeast of
the project site along Indian Slough (CNDDB Occurrence Number 1211).
While Swainson’s hawks have not been observed nesting on the project
site (they have not been observed nesting onsite by the applicant’s
biologists or Monk & Associates), the eucalyptus trees and pine trees along
the project site’s northern boundary provide suitable nesting habitat for this
raptor. Additionally, Monk & Associates observed one Swainson’s hawk
on the project site exhibiting defensive behavior during the September 20,
2006 site visit.
Based on the proximity of known nesting Swainson’s hawks and the
suitability of nesting and foraging habitat of 134 acres on the project site,
implementation of the proposed project would be viewed by CDFG as a
loss of Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitat. Pursuant to CEQA,
any impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting and/or foraging habitat would be
considered a potentially significant adverse impact (PS).
Mitigation Measure BIO-9 requires the loss of foraging habitat and nesting
habitat to be adequately compensated (mitigated). The Swainson’s hawks
would not be disturbed during the nesting season, which would prevent the
loss of eggs and/or nestling birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-9 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
38
Impact BIO-10: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
adverse effect on the western burrowing owl. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-10.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The western burrowing owl is a state species of
special concern. Western burrowing owls have not been observed on the
project site; however, they are known to nest in the immediate Discovery
Bay West area. Burrowing owls are mobile species and could nest on any
upland portion of the project site in subsequent years. Impacts to
burrowing owl from the proposed project would be regarded as a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-10 provides a summary of survey methodologies
contained in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation that would be
applicable to the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -
10 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-11: Development of the project would have a potentiall y significant
impact on other protected nesting birds. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-11.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Birds protected pursuant to the Federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and CDFG Code §3503 and §3800 could nest on the
project site and may be disturbed to an extent that eggs and/or young
would be lost. Additionally, the loggerhead shrike, the tricolored
blackbird, and California black rail are all California species of special
concern, and could nest onsite. Impacts to protected bird species during
the nesting season would be regarded as a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-11 requires preconstruction nesting surveys to be
conducted and protective nesting buffers to passerine bird to be
implemented as needed. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-11 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
39
Impact BIO-12: Impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-12.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The Corps and the RWQCB have jurisdiction over
waters of the United States and State pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of
the Clean Water Act, respectively. The proposed project would result in
impacts to 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland habitat and 0.30 acre of marsh
habitat, as confirmed by the Corps. Development of the proposed project
will also result in impacts to approximately 9,720 linear feet of existing
bank along Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek (mostly low quality
habitat). These areas would also meet the RWQCB criteria as “waters of
the State.” Because full avoidance of waters of the United States/State is
not possible, any impacts to seasonal wetlands and the adjacent uplands
would be regarded as significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-12 will create, as compensatory measures, a
seasonal wetland habitat in the uplands, which is adjacent to the preserved
marsh. It will also create new bank habitat on the project site, plus
enhance existing bank habitat within or near the project area, totaling
lineal feet 11,060 lineal feet (comprised of 9,157 lineal feet of high quality
shaded riverine aquatic habitat and 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality
habitat). Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 will reduce the
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Cultural Resources Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.4.4:
Impact CUL-1: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project site does not contain buildings that are
eligible for NRHP listing and therefore removal would not constitute a
significant impact. However, there is a possibility that an unknown site
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
40
may exist in the project area and could be discovered during grading,
excavation, or construction. Indicators of historic resources include glass,
metal, ceramics, brick, wood, and similar debris.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 provides specific direction
to protect unanticipated historical resource discoveries during project
construction. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CUL-2: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an unknown archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: No archeological resources were observed or are
known to be present on the project site. There is a possibility that
resources meeting the definition of a unique archeological resource in
Section 21083.2 of the Public Resource Code or qualifying as historic
resources could become visible once vegetation is removed or during
construction excavation. Indicators of prehistoric site activity include
artifacts, exotic rock, or unusual amounts of shell or bone.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 provides specific direction
to protect unanticipated historical resource discoveries during project
construction. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2
would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CUL-3: Construction of the project potentially could directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-3.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: No paleontological resources or unique geologic
features were observed or are known to be present on the project site.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
41
There is, however, a possibility that paleontological resources may become
visible once vegetation is removed or during construction activities such as
grading and excavation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 provides specific direction
to protect unanticipated historical resource discoveries during project
construction. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3
would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CUL-4: Construction of the project could potentially disturb human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-4.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: No signs of human remains or burial sites were
observed during the survey of the project site and are not known to be
present in the project area. There is a possibility, however, that such
remains may become visible once vegetation is removed or during
construction activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUl-4 ensures compliance with the
requirements of Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15064.5, subd. (e)), which dictate the actions to take in
the event that human remains are discovered outside of a dedicated
cemetery. Compliance with the provisions of the guidelines would reduce
the significant impact to unknown archeological material and prehistoric
human remains in the project area to a less-than-significant level.
Geology and Soils Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.6.3:
Impact GEO-1: Implementation of the project could expose people and
developments to adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic
related ground failure including liquefaction and lateral spreading. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures GEO-1a, GEO-1b, GEO-1c,
and GEO-1d.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
42
4. Rationale for Finding: Although the project site is not within an officially
designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, there is a seismic source
in the region capable of generating considerable ground shaking at the
project site. This could lead to potentially significant impacts resulting
from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure
including liquefaction or lateral spreading.
The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the
building codes and County Grading Ordinance. The California Building
Code requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural
engineering analysis of structures to be based on soil profile types.
Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep
risks within generally accepted limits. Peer review of the final design
plans and active supervision of the installation of the project’s seismic
components would ensure compliance with all County-approved building
requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1a, GEO-1b,
GEO-1c, and GEO-1d would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Impact GEO-2: Development of the project site could result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project site is approximately 171 acres, of
which approximately 80 acres is proposed for development. Construction
and/or excavation of associated lots, private streets, and waterways on the
project site would temporarily increase the amount of exposed
(unvegetated) surfaces. Erosion of these surfaces could lead to increased
sedimentation in receiving water bodies (e.g., Kellogg Creek and Indian
Slough).
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would require provisions within the SWPPP
and SWCP to keep construction period, long-term erosion, and
sedimentation to a practical minimum.
Impact GEO-3: The project could expose structures to substantial adverse effects
related to expansive and corrosive soils on the project site. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-3.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
43
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The expansive characteristics of the soils on the
project site may cause ground subsidence and/or settlement that would
damage the proposed building foundations if not taken into consideration
during final design of the project. Additionally, the soils at the project site
contain a moderate to severe degree of sulfate, which are corrosive.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1b and GEO-1c would
ensure that the final development plans for the project were peer reviewed
and that any issues to the stability of the foundations, etc. were properly
engineered given the conditions of the project site. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-3 would ensure that the corrosivity of the soils
was also taken into account.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section
4.8.3:
Impact HAZ-1: The project could potentially cause the release of hazardous
materials into the environment during demolition, grading, and construction
activities. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Soil samples from Discovery Bay, Kellogg Creek,
and Indian Slough were tested for arsenic and reported arsenic values
below the Delta Dredging and Reuse Strategy’s threshold criteria. The soil
samples were also tested to determine the potential for arsenic to leach into
surface water and/or groundwater. The testing showed that leachable
and/or soluble arsenic is not an issue in Discovery Bay, Kellogg Creek, or
Indian Slough. Therefore, it is not likely that grading activities would
release pesticide residue into the environment. The ESA identified several
drums, pails, and paint cans onsite, including an area near the channel bank
with partially-buried drums and cans. Although there was no obvious
evidence of hazardous materials releases, there is a potential that the
discovery of additional drums and/or cans could occur, particularly during
construction activities.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
44
This mitigation measure ensures the project site shall be inspected during
demolition and preliminary grading activities. In the event that previously
unidentified contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall be
reported to the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department (CCEHD)
and investigated and remediated under the oversight of CCEHD in
accordance with existing regulatory programs, reducing the impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Impact HAZ-2: The project could potentially release hazardous materials during
demolition of the existing residence. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: According to the ESA, Marcor Remediation Inc.
removed asbestos from three of the four existing residential clusters located
on the project site, by demolishing and removing the contaminated portions
of each structure. The existing former residence located to the south of
Point of Timber Road in the center of the project site was not included in
the asbestos remediation, and demolition of this residence could expose
asbestos to onsite construction workers. Additionally, demolition of any of
the four existing structures on the project site could expose lead-based
paints (LBP) and/or other hazardous materials to construction workers
during demolition activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b would
reduce the risk of exposing people to hazards associated with regulated
building materials by ensuring that materials are removed in accordance
with state regulations prior to start of demolition and construction. This
would reduce potential hazardous material risk to a less-than-significant
level.
Impact HAZ-3: Project demolition and construction activities could expose
individuals at the Timber Point Elementary School to hazardous emissions or
materials. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2a, and HAZ-2b.
2. Implementation: These Mitigation Measures will be Conditions of
Approval for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
45
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project site is located a quarter-mile from
Timber Point Elementary School. (Other schools in the area, such as
Discovery Bay Elementary School and Excelsior Middle School are
located more than a quarter-mile from the project site.)
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2a, and HAZ-2b
would ensure that any hazardous material identified on the project site is
properly removed and disposed of, reducing the impact of potential
exposure of students and school faculty to hazardous materials to a less-
than-significant level.
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in 4.9.3:
Impact HYD-1: Construction activities would alter the existing drainage patterns
resulting in erosion, sedimentation, and contamination of storm water runoff which
could degrade water quality in adjacent water bodies.
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures HYD-1a, HYD-1b, and HYD-
1c.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Construction will involve earth moving activities,
with a large portion being wet excavation associated with excavating the
bays and coves. Demolition, clearing and site preparation would be
performed utilizing excavators/front-end loaders, tracked dozers with disk,
and trucks for debris removal. Rainfall could carry loose soils into
adjacent waterways, resulting in increased sedimentation and degradation
of water quality. Concentrated flow due to grading in some areas would
increase the potential for erosion and potentially increase sediment
transport into the adjacent areas. Construction equipment debris and fuel
could also further degrade the quality of storm water runoff if fueling
activity and maintenance products are not handled properly. This
contamination could impact nearby waterways (i.e., Kellogg Creek) and
the on-site marsh lands and wetlands.
Weekly monitoring of the water quality adjacent to the turbidity barriers by
a qualified biologist during project construction would ensure that potential
water quality impacts to Kellogg Creek are avoided, thereby reducing the
impact to a less-than-significant level. Preparation of a Storm Water
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
46
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would include compliance with
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines, an erosion
control plan addressing control of sediment, stabilization of erosion, and
protection of water quality, and soil stabilization techniques. These
measures would ensure that construction activities would not degrade water
quality, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact HYD-2: Abandoned groundwater wells on the project site could act as
direct conduits to groundwater for hazardous waste.
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project site contains at two domestic
groundwater wells. The wells can act as a direct conduit for pollutants that
are washed down with storm water runoff if they are not properly
decommissioned. This is considered a potentially significant impact to
groundwater quality.
Properly decommissioning the existing groundwater wells on the project
site, under the purview of the Contra Costa Environmental Health
Department, would ensure that pollutants would not be able to seep into the
groundwater through the well sites, thereby reducing the impact to a less -
than-significant level.
Impact HYD-3: The project site is located within areas of projected tidal
inundation due to sea level rise, which would place people and structures within a
flood hazard associated with long-term sea level rise. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of
Approval for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The entire project site falls within Special Flood
Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Contra Costa
County (FEMA 2009), with a 100-year BFE for the project site of 7.5 feet
NGVD. The 300-year BFE is 8.0 feet NGVD. The flood risk to the
project site is expected to increase with future sea level rise.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
47
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b would
require the applicant to design the project to remove developed portions of
the project site from the flood plain assuming the 2100 sea-level rise
scenario predicted by the State. This would reduce long-term flooding
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Noise and Vibration Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.12.3:
Impact NOI-1: Project construction would cause a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures NOI-1a, NOI-1b, and NOI-1c.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Noise from the construction of the residential
improvements would occur from site preparation, installation of shoring
walls, foundation work, framing, and interior work. In addition, the project
would involve extensive excavation and dredging by bulldozers, scrapers,
drilling rigs, etc., to create the bays, coves, and waterways around the
homes. Similar to the earthmoving activities, home construction would
occur during specific windows of time during the 8-year construction
period, in specific areas of the project site, not the entire site at once.
Based on these assumptions, the noise levels at adjacent residences to the
west could exceed 75 dBA during particular activities in close proximity to
the project’s western boundary. This is considered a significant, but short-
term impact.
The implementation of restricted days and hours of construction,
notification, sound attenuating barriers, usage of drilling rigs for
construction of shoring walls (no pile driving or deep dynamic compaction)
and restrictions on certain activities to summer months would result in the
greatest feasible reduction in temporary sound levels associated with
construction.
Public Services Significant Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.14.3:
Impact PS-1: The project would be required to provide 2.6 acres of parkland (an/or
the payment of in-lieu fees) to meet the County’s parkland dedication requirement.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PS-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
48
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project would result in an estimated population
increase of 876 persons. Based on the County’s parkland requirements of 3
acres of parkland per 1,000 people, the project would be required to
provide 2.6 acres of parkland to meet the County’s parkland dedication
requirements.
The County has determined that the combination of payment of fees and
dedication of land for a public trail represents full and complete mitigation
for parkland impacts. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure
PS-1 would reduce the project’s impact to a less-than-significant level.
Transportation and Traffic Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in 4.16.4:
Impact TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and
worsen LOS conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south intersection) signalized
intersection. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRA-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway
(south intersection) is projected to deteriorate from LOS C to LOS D
during the AM peak hour with the addition of project trips. This is below
the County’s standards of significance for signalized, Semi-Rural
intersections and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Implementation of this mitigation measure (payment of a fair share cost of
the required intersection improvements) would improve traffic conditions
at this intersection to an LOS high-C (a V/C ratio of 0.72) during the AM
peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour and reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Impact TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and
worsen LOS conditions on Vasco Road. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRA-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
49
3. Finding: The impact would remain significant and unavoidable after
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2.
4. Rationale for Finding: The addition of project traffic would exacerbate the
existing deficiency of Vasco Road, which does not meet the MTSO target
of LOS D under Existing or Existing Plus Project conditions. As there are
no specific plans to provide additional capacity on this segment of Vasco
Road, even with payment of the regional roadway fees the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes on
nearby rural roads, and create conflicts with the farm equipment that share these
roads during the peak summer months. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRA-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Several roadways serving Discovery Bay and the
proposed Project site are two-lane rural roads that have not been improved
to current County standards. The Project could increase traffic on
unimproved rural roadways. As the added vehicle traffic could create
increased hazards with incompatible equipment on unimproved roadways,
the Project, in conjunction with other planned and pending development,
could result in a potentially significant roadway impact during peak
farming periods. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would
require the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade
existing roadways and reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Public Utilities Significant Impacts Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.15.3:
Impact UTIL-1: Per the requirements of Title 22 of the California Waterworks
Standards, the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD)
does not currently have sufficient legal water supply capacity to serve the project.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
50
4. Rationale for Finding: The TDBCSD supplies the water to the project and
is currently operating with a legal shortfall of 200 gpm. The TDBCSD is
not therefore considered to have sufficient capacity to serve its existing
connections, nor does it have sufficient capacity to serve the project.
Although, the project would result in 292 new residential service
connections, the Water Master Plan (Water MP 2012) recently completed
for the TDBCSD conservatively assumed for the Pantages project 300
residential service connections and 1.2 MGY in irrigation, which is
equivalent to 6 residential connections. The Water MP, therefore, assumes
the connection of 306 residential units. The project would construct 292
residential units and would require approximately 1.2 MGY in irrigation,
and would therefore require slightly less water demand than estimated in
the Water MP.
Implementation of a combination of the facility improvements and
upgrades identified in the Water MP would ensure that an adequate
distribution of water to serve the planned build-out of the project within the
margin required by State Public Health standards. However, due to the
uncertainty in the timing of these facility improvements and upgrades, the
planned improvements may not be constructed at the time the project seeks
a new service connection with the TDBCSD. To account for this
uncertainty, this EIR conservatively assumes that impacts from inadequate
source capacity are significant and includes this mitigation measure. It
requires prior to final map recordation a Can & Will Serve Letter from the
TDBCSD confirming to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that
TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing of the
construction of any needed improvements outlined in the Water MP to
ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the project. It also requires that
prior to the first occupancy permit being issued that the applicant provide
sufficient documentation to the CDD that the required improvements have
been constructed and are operational. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure UTIL-1 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact UTIL-2: Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District does
not currently have sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure UTIL-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
4. the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on the
environment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
51
Rationale for Finding: The TDBCSD has recently completed the Wastewater
Master Plan (Wastewater MP 2011) for the Discovery Bay area that identifies
improvements needed to ensure sufficient capacity for build-out through 2020.
This mitigation measure requires prior to final map recordation the TDBCSD
provide a Can & Will Serve Letter confirming to the satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator that TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing of
the construction of any needed improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP
to ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the project. The measure also
requires that prior to the first occupancy permit being issued that the applicant
provide sufficient documentation to the CDD that the required improvements
have been constructed and are operational. This measure is consistent with
policies 7-1, 7-2, and 7-4. The project would be in compliance with policies 7-
21 and 7-33, which require that a project demonstrate that sufficient capacity
exists. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 will reduce this impact
to a less-than-significant level.
C. Findings with Respect to Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality Cumulative Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.2.4:
Impact CUM AQ-1: Development of the project in conjunction with other
development in the region would result in a net increase of reactive organic gases
(ROG). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area
for ground-level O3 under both the federal CAA and the California CAA.
The area is also considered non-attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. The
project, without mitigation, would exceed the BAAQMD-recommended
operational threshold of significance for ROG (54 pounds per day),
resulting in a significant impact. According to the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, any project that would individually have a significant air
quality impact would also have a significant cumulative air quality impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which prohibits the uses of
wood burning fireplaces or stoves within the project and permits only
natural gas fireplaces or stoves, would reduce ROG emissions associated
with project development to 36 pounds per day, which is below the
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
52
BAAQMD significant threshold. Therefore, the project’s contribution to
this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
Biological Resources Cumulative Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.3.5:
Impact CUM BIO-1: Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources.
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures BIO-A through BIO-12.
2. Implementation: These Mitigation Measures will be a Conditions of
approval for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the proposed project would
contribute to a cumulative loss of seasonal wetlands, non-native annual
grassland, iodine bush scrub, and creek bank habitat in the region.
Implementation of the project would also result in cumulative impacts to
common plant and animal species. The seasonal wetlands are also known
to support a federal listed species: the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Impacts to
the seasonal wetlands onsite will result in the cumulative loss of this
species in the region. Additionally, the iodine bush scrub, ornamental
trees, emergent marsh, and non-native grassland communities of the project
site may also be important for several special-status animal species such as
the Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, California red-legged frog, giant
garter snake, the loggerhead shrike, and tricolored blackbird (see Impacts
and Mitigations Section above). There are other proposed projects in
Eastern Contra Costa County that would/are impacting similar resources to
those that would be impacted by the project. Project-related impacts would
be considered cumulative with other projects in the region. The BIO
Mitigation Measures prescribed would offset cumulative impacts to
special-status species, wetlands, trees, and plant communities/wildlife
habitats to less-than-significant levels.
Construction of the project would result in cumulative impacts to “waters
of the United States” and stream channels that are regulated by the Corps,
RWQCB, the CDFG, and the Reclamation Board. On a regional basis,
these impacts would add to other development related losses of “waters of
the United States” and stream channels. In addition, by alte ring drainage
patterns and water flow, downstream aquatic life could be affected as well.
Several special-status fish species are known to occur in waterways in the
vicinity, and these fish species could also be adversely impacted by the
proposed project. Mitigation that includes creation and enhancement of
impacted “waters of the U.S.,” stream channels, and bank habitat would
offset this cumulative impact to less-than-significant levels.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
53
Global Climate Change Cumulative Impact Analyzed in Section 4.7.4:
Impact CUM GCC-1: The project would generate GHG emissions in excess of the
BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year
and would have a considerable contribution on global climate change. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and CUM
GCC-1b.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Im plementation of Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and CUM
GCC-1b would reduce total GHG emissions, but would remain above
BAAQMD threshold. The project contribution to global climate change
would remain cumulatively considerable as significant and unavoidable.
4. Rationale for Finding: The project's incremental increases in GHG
emissions associated with traffic, and with direct and indirect energy use,
would contribute to regional and global increases in GHG emissions and
associated climate change effects. The project would emit approximately
5,080 metric tons of CO2e annually when fully developed. The project
would generate 876 new residents, resulting in a per capita CO2 emissions
rate of 5.79 metric tons per person per year. This rate of emission is
greater than the adopted BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e
per year.
The URBEMIS 2007 model was used to determine the amount of reduction
in area source emissions that would results from the above mitigation
measures. According to the URBEMIS 2007 model, implementation of
Mitigation Measures CUM GCC-1a and CUM GCC-1b would reduce total
GHG emissions by 10 percent, for a post-mitigation total emission rate of
5.21 metric tons of CO2e per capita per year, which remains above
BAAQMD threshold of 4.60 metric tons of CO2e per capita per year. The
project contribution to global climate change would remain cumulatively
considerable.
Transportation and Traffic Cumulative Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section
4.16.5:
Impact CUM TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Byer
Road/Byron Highway (No. 6). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
54
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporate d
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The westbound approach of the Byer Road/Byron
Highway (No. 6) intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the
AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project conditions, and LOS
F during the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative Plus Project
conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient
westbound operations by more than 5 seconds. This intersection would
meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a
significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1
would improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersections of Holway
Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway (No. 23).
(Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA 2 (Option 1 or 2).
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersections of Holway
Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway
(No. 23) are projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under
Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The
addition of project trips would degrade already deficient intersection
operations by more than 5 seconds. Both intersections meet the peak hour
signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project
conditions, and are therefore considered significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1) would mitigate the impact by
installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and
providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Mitigation Measure CUM
TRA-2 (Option 2) would mitigate the impact by installing traffic signals at
both intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn lane pocket
at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Implementation of
Option 1 or Option 2 of this mitigation measure would improve conditions
at these two intersections to acceptable LOS levels.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
55
Impact CUM TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9) is projected to operate at LOS F during AM
and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus
Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already
deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No
Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered
a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal and providing a left turn lane at all four intersection
approaches of Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection. Implementation
of this mitigation measure would improve conditions at this intersection to
acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-4: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Timber Road/Byron Highway (No. 12). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Byron Highway (No. 12) is projected to operate at acceptable LOS B
during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project conditions. The
addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from LOS B
to unacceptable LOS D. This intersection would meet the peak hour signal
warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project
conditions, and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
56
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal at Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Impact CUM TRA-5: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Timber Road/Bixler Road (No. 13). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Bixler Road (No. 13) is projected to operate at acceptable LOS C
during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project conditions. The
addition of project trips would degrade intersection operations from LOS C
to LOS E. This intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant
under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and
is therefore considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches at
Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road intersection. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would improve conditions at this intersection to
acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be less than
significant.
Impact CUM TRA-6: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Marsh Creek
Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16) is projected to operate at LOS F during AM
and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus
Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
57
deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No
Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered
a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve conditions at
this intersection to acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be
reduced to a less-than-significant impact.
Impact CUM TRA-7: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road (No. 18). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of Marsh Creek
Road/Bixler Road is projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM
peak hours under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project
conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient
intersection operations by more than five seconds. This intersection would
meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road intersection.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve conditions at
this intersection to acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be
reduced to a less-than-significant impact.
Impact CUM TRA-8: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of SR4/Byron
Highway (south) (No. 19). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
58
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway
(south) is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and
unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No
Project conditions. The addition of project trips would further degrade
intersection No. 19 operations to LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS
E during the PM peak hour, and would increase the V/C ratio by more than
0.01. This is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8 would reduce the impact by adding a
second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach and a second through
lane on the southeast-bound SR 4 approach. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would improve conditions at this intersection to
acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less-
than-significant impact.
Impact CUM TRA-9: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of
SR4/Newport Drive (No. 21). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The unsignalized intersection of SR4/Newport
Drive (No. 21) is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour
under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The
addition of project trips would degrade already deficient intersection
operations by more than five seconds. This intersection would meet the
peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative
Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9 would reduce the impact by installing a
traffic signal at the SR 4/Newport Drive intersection. Implementation of
this mitigation measure would improve conditions at this intersection to
acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less-
than-significant impact.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
59
Impact CUM TRA-10: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of Camino
Diablo Road/Vasco Road (No. 22). (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: The intersection Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road
(No. 22) is projected to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour under
Cumulative No Project Conditions. The addition of project trips would
increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, which is considered a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10 would reduce the impact by adding a
northbound right turn lane at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road
intersection. Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve
conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels. Therefore, the
impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CUM TRA-11: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Vasco Road. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: The project contribution to traffic LOS conditions along Vasco
Road would remain cumulatively considerable as significant and
unavoidable.
4. Rationale for Finding: Service along Vasco Road, south of Camino Diablo
Road, would not meet the MTSO target LOS D in either the northbound or
southbound direction during the AM or PM peak hour under either
cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen the
LOS along this roadway segment. This is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11 requires the project applicant to pay
regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and
Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing. Even
with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11, the impact
would remain significant and unavoidable as there are no plans to provide
additional capacity on this roadway segment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
60
Impact CUM TRA-12: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Marsh Creek Road. (Significant)
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRA-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a condition of approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: The project contribution to traffic LOS conditions along Marsh
Creek Road would remain cumulatively considerable as significant and
unavoidable.
4. Rationale for Finding: Service along Marsh Creek Road, west of SR4,
would not meet the MTSO target LOS D in either the eastbound or
westbound direction during the AM or PM peak hour under either
cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen the
LOS along this roadway segment. This is considered a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project
applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways.
However, as there are no specific plans to provide additional capacity on
this segment of Marsh Creek Road, the impact would remain significant
and unavoidable.
Public Utilities Cumulative Impact Analyzed and Mitigated in Section 4.15.4:
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term water
supplies within the project area.
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the project would require
approximately 108 gmp of additional water demand from TDBCSD. As
demonstrated above, although there would be an adequate water supply to
meet current and future water supply demands with the project, TDBCSD
lacks the appropriate facilities to ensure capacity to draw and distribute the
groundwater supplies. Given this, planned growth identified for the 2020
horizon year, in the Water MP, would result in significant cumulative
impact under long-term conditions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1 would require that
the improvements to capacity are constructed prior to the project moving
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
61
forward in the event that the project outpaces available water distribution
resources. With the facilities to ensure capacity to draw and distribute the
groundwater in place, cumulative impacts to water supply would be less
than significant.
Impact CUM UTIL-2: The project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term
wastewater treatment within the project area.
1. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2.
2. Implementation: This Mitigation Measure will be a Condition of Approval
for the Project.
3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project that mitigate or avoid the identified significant impact on
the environment.
4. Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the project would generate
approximately 98,000 gallons of wastewater per day. This additional
amount would increase the amount of wastewater treated by the wastewater
treatment facility by 0.1 mgd. TDBCSD lacks the appropriate facilities to
provide wastewater treatment capacity for the project and other forecasted
projects without implementation of facility improvements. If the
improvements are not in place at the time of the project, in combination
with other projects, implementation of forecasted growth could result in a
significant cumulative impact under long-term conditions. Given that the
project would increase wastewater flow to the wastewater treatment plant,
the project’s contribution to this significant impact would be considerable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2 would require that
the improvements to wastewater treatment capacity are constructed prior to
the project moving forward in the event that the project outpaces RWQCB
capacity and operating requirements. With the facilities to ensure
wastewater treatment capacity in place, cumulative impacts to water supply
would be less than significant.
D. Findings with Respect to Alternatives
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the draft EIR contains a
comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the project. The primary purpose of
the alternatives analysis is to provide decision makers and the general public with a
range of reasonable project alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic
project objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the project’s
significant adverse environmental effects.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
62
The draft EIR evaluated a no build (no project) alternative and one build alternative to the
proposed project. The feasibility of each of these alternatives is described and determined
below.
No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain in
its current state and there would be no development of residential housing units, roadways,
and utilities infrastructure. The site would remain privately-owned and the open space
wetland mitigation area would remain unimproved. There would be no changes to parcels on
the site or any amendments to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.
Compared to the project, the No Project Alternative would avoid all potential construction-
related impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Noise, and Traffic because no new facilities would be constructed and all use
of construction equipment would be avoided. Operationally, the No Project Alternative
would avoid any new impacts associated with Aesthetics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, and Noise because no changes in current
operations would occur.
Although the No Project Alternative would involve fewer ground disturbing activities than the
project, annual disking of the site has the potential to result in some impacts to the California
red-legged frog, the western pond turtle and the western burrowing owl. Therefore, the No
Project Alternative would have biological resources impacts less than the project.
The project site contains abandoned groundwater wells that could act as direct conduits to
groundwater for hazardous waste. The No Project Alternative would have the same risks as
the project in terms of water quality impacts from abandoned groundwater wells in the area
(Impact HYD-2), although all other impacts would be reduced when compared to the project.
The No Project Alternative would avoid the project’s significant unavoidable impacts and
would have less impact on most environmental topical areas. However, this alternative is
considered infeasible because it would not advance any of the project objectives.
Alternative 1: Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 1, the Reduced Density Alternative, would be the continuation of the existing land
use or regulatory plan for the project site. Project site parcels are currently designated by the
General Plan as Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation and Water (WA), and zoned as a
General Agricultural District (A-2) and a Heavy Agricultural District (A-3). This alternative
would not require a General Plan amendment.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
63
The Agricultural Lands (AL) land use designation allows for all land-dependent and non-land
dependent agricultural production and related activities. The General Plan permits residential
uses at a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Other uses related to
processing of agricultural products, agricultural support services and small-scale visitor uses
are allowed with a land use permit.
The A-2 and A-3 zoning designations allow the site to be developed with agricultural uses,
such as general farming and sheds and warehouses, and with residential uses, such as a single -
family dwelling or a family care home. A detached single-family dwelling is allowed on each
parcel with the A-2 or A-3 zoning designation. Other uses, such as commercial recreational
facilities, medical offices, or churches, may be allowed with a land use permit.
Alternative 1 assumes primarily rural residential land uses on approximately 171 acres as
allowed under the existing general plan and zoning designations. For purposes of this
analysis, five of the parcels on the project site are considered developable. This alternative
assumes five single-family residential units would be constructed on the project site in
accordance with current zoning designations. The limits of development would therefore be
the same as the project, but the density would be reduced by approximately 98 percent. This
alternative also assumes that the existing wetlands and emergent marsh would be protected,
similar to the project.
The reduced density of Alternative 1 would result in fewer vehicle trips, reducing the traffic-
related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Project impacts related to air quality, biology,
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, noise, public services and recreation, utilities, and visual resources would be similarly
reduced.
The Reduced Density Alternative would avoid the project’s significant unavoidable impacts
and would have less impact on most environmental topical areas. However, this alternative is
considered infeasible because it would not advance any of the project objectives.
Environmentally Superior Alternative: CEQA requires an EIR to identify an
environmentally superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2). Further, if the
environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR also shall
identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2). In general, the environmentally superior alternative is defined as
that alternative with the least adverse impacts to the project area and its surrounding
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
64
environment. Under CEQA, the goal of identifying the environmentally superior alternative
is to assist decision-makers in considering project approval.
A range of reasonable alternatives were considered, but rejected because they do not meet a
majority of the project objectives or were deemed infeasible. A comparison merit was
included for the No Project Alternative and a Reduced Density Alternative. The Reduced
Density Alternative was developed to avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic,
and to fulfill the requirements of CEQA to considered development under existing land use
plans. Both of these alternatives would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable traffic,
air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas impacts. The No Project Alternative would have le ss
impact on most environmental topical areas when compared to the project. The Reduced
Density Alternative would have similar or lesser impacts on all environmental topical areas.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and
the alternative selected may not meet the goals or needs of the County. The project under
consideration cannot be identified as the environmentally superior alternative.
Additionally, if the No Project Alternative is determined to reduce most impacts, CEQA
requires that the EIR identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other
alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). Because a majority of the alternatives
that would reduce and avoid significant impacts would not attain a majority of the project
objectives and were deemed infeasible, the environmentally superior alternative in this case is
the Reduced Density Alternative.
D. Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Commission has balanced the benefits of the Pantages Bays Project against its significant
and unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project, and
has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts. This determination is based on the final EIR and other information in
the record. Notwithstanding the imposition of the mitigation measures as set forth above,
certain impacts of the project have not been reduced to a level of insignificance or eliminated
by changes in the project. Based on the above recitals and findings, the entire record, oral and
written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings on the project, the
Commission finds that there is substantial evidence that the project will bring substantial
benefits to the County, including economic, social, or other benefits outweigh the significant
effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The project would build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and
a proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-water access and
individual docks; and widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site
to reduce water velocities and improve public safety in that section of Kellogg Creek. The
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
65
benefits of the project are more specifically detailed below. Any of these overriding
considerations is sufficient to support the Commission’s determination herein.
1. Build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and
a proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-
water access and individual docks.
2. Widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site to
reduce water velocities and improve boater safety in that section of Kellogg
Creek.
3. Provide improved safety for project residents and within Discovery Bay by
constructing a Sheriff’s marine patrol substation on the project site.
4. Provide public pedestrian / bicycle access to and through the preserved
open space area on the north side of the project site, with open views of the
Delta water, and provide seating areas and kiosks with educational and
historical signage.
5. The project will reduce the need for dredging by RD 800 and improve
water quality in Kellogg Creek and Indian Slough through appropriate
bank stabilization and habitat restoration along the project shoreline,
further reducing the amount of scour and associated sedimentation.
6. The project will create new high- and moderate-quality bank habitat in and
near the project site and enhance existing banks from low-quality to high-
quality SRA habitat to benefit native fish species.
7. The project will preserve the majority of the emergent marsh in the
northwestern portion of the site and all of the emergent marsh on Pantages
Island.
In light of the foregoing environmental, economic, and policy-related benefits to the
County and State, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15093, the Commission finds and
determines that these considerable benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse effects, and the “adverse environmental effects” that cannot be mitigated to a
level of environmental insignificance are deemed “acceptable.”
E. Incorporation by Reference
The final EIR is hereby incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation,
this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the
basis for determining the significant of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and
the reasons for approving the project in spite of the potential for associated significant and
unavoidable adverse impacts.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
66
F. Recirculation Not Required
CEQA Guideline 15088.5 does not required recirculation of the EIR because no significant
new information has been added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of
the draft EIR for public review. New information added to the EIR following public
comments on the draft EIR was not significant, because the EIR was not changed in a way
that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse
environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect
(including a feasible project alternative) that the County and/or applicant have declined to
implement.
Specifically, there is no new significant environmental impact which would result from the
project, and no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact analyzed in the
draft EIR would result from the project. In circumstances where a comment on the draft EIR
expressed concern about scope of analysis with respect to a particular project impact, and the
County considered in its response that the commenter’s concern had merit, additional
mitigation was added to be sure the potential project impact would be less than significant.
For example, in response to comments by Robin Purchia on behalf of Contra Costa Coalition
for Responsible Development concerning the potential presence of certain special status plant
and animal species on the project site at the time of construction, mitigation measures were
added or modified to require more extensive pre-construction surveys. In the event a
protected species is found to be present through those additional surveys, the added mitigation
measures require actions to be taken in coordination with California Department of Fish and
Game and its protocols to reduce any impact on that species to less than significant.
The mitigation measures modified or added to the final EIR are included as part of the
conditioned project. They confirm the project will have no new significant environmental
impacts, as well as no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact analyzed
in the draft EIR.
The final EIR responds in an appropriate substantive manner to all comments on the draft
EIR. In some of those responses, minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the
draft EIR. None of the comments, responses and/or appendices to the final EIR requires
recirculation.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
67
G. Summary
Based on the foregoing findings and on the information contained in the record, the
Commission has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each one of the
significant impacts of the Pantages Bays Project:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
Project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the Mitigation Measures or
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined
that:
1. All significant effects on the environment due to the Pantages Bays Project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
2. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations in Section D(a), above.
H. Fish and Game Fee
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and Public Resources Code Section 21089 require the
payment of a filing fee at the time a Notice of Determination is filed to defray the Calif ornia
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (formerly known as California Department of Fish and
Game) costs in managing biological resources affected by a project undergoing CEQA
review. Payment of the fee is required for the project because, considering the record of
proceedings as a whole, there is evidence that it would have an impact on wildlife resources
as defined under sections 711.2 and 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code.
Evidence
1. Section 4.3 of the draft EIR discusses specific impacts related to biological
resources.
2. For the purposes of the Fish and Game Code, the project would have
significant individual and cumulative adverse impacts on wildlife, including
the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability.
Attachment B
CEQA Findings
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
68
3. The record of proceedings as a whole indicates that the project would result in
physical disturbance to the resources listed in the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife regulations.
4. Pursuant to Fish and Game code section 711.4(e), the lead agency for the
project is Contra Costa County. The document filing number is State
Clearinghouse No. 2007-052130. The name of the project is “Pantages Bays
Residential Development Project.”
I. Certification Findings
The County Planning Commission hereby certifies that:
1. The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
2. The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead
agency and that the decision making body reviewed and considered the
information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and,
3. The final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and
analysis.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Major Subdivisions (SD)\SD06-9010\Attachment C- CEQA
Findings v-fd 1.doc
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PANTAGES BAYS RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT / COUNTY FILES: SD06-9010 & DP04-3062
Administrative
1. ____ ____ This approval is based on the exhibits/reports/letters received by the
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development
Division (CDD) and/or referenced or added to the Final Environmental
Impact Report or the Conditions below, including the following:
A. Sheets 1 through 11 of Project Plans, titled “Subdivision 9010” Pantages
Bays October 2009 including Preliminary and Final Development Plan
and Vesting Tentative Map, Sheet 3 and 5 of 11 (as amended).
B. Tree Reports: HortScience October 2006 & August 2007.
C. Biology: Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and
Mitigation Plan for Pantages, Gibson & Skordal 2006 / Evaluation of
potential California red-legged frog, Miriam Green Associates 2010. /
Evaluation of giant garter snake, Miriam Green Associates 2010. /
Results of special-status species, Miriam Green Associates 2003. /
Response to CDFG Comments, Miriam Green Associates August 31,
2012. / Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods [fairy shrimp] Wet Season
Survey Pantages Property, Gibson & Skordal, LLC May 2003. / Dry
Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Pantages Property, EcoAnalysts, Inc.
August 4, 2003. / Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report, Stillwater
Sciences May 2007. / Bank Habitat Plan, Sheet 7 of 11 on Pantages
Bays Plans October, 2009. / Modified Table 8 Quantity (feet) and
quality of dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater
Sciences June 2010. / Modified Table 9 Quantity (feet) and quality of
dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater Sciences June
2010. / Response to CDFG Comments, Stillwater Sciences September
26, 2012.
D. Geology: Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, ENGEO 1999. /
Geotechnical Exploration Pantages, ENGEO June 23, 2004. /
Geotechnical Exploration Panatages Bays ENGEO September 22, 2006
(revised October 27, 2006). / Summary of Potential Settlement, ENGEO
2011. / Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO January 26,
2005.
E. Hydrology: Pantages Bays Storm Water Control Plan C.3 Report, dk
Consulting 2006/ Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment
Memorandum, PWA 2010. / Numerical Modeling of Discovery Bay:
Evaluation of Pantages Bays Project, RMA 2006.
Page 2
F. Landscaping: Preliminary Landscape Plan, Sheet 11 of 11 on Pantages
Bays Plans October, 2009.
G. Mooring Plan: Sheet 6 of 11 on Pantages Bays Plans October, 2009
(refer to Sheet 7 for correct bank habitat design for high quality and
moderate quality enhanced or recreated creek bank).
H. Wetlands Delineation Plan Sheet 8 of 10 on Pantages Bays Plans
October, 2009. / Jurisdictional Delineation Pantages Property, Gibson &
Skordal, LLC December, 2002 and verified by Army Corp letter dated
June 4, 2003. / Supplemental Delineation Request-Pantages Project,
Gibson & Skordal, LLC October 11, 2006. / Army Corps letter dated
January 7, 2009, verifying Jurisdictional Delineation Map Pantages
Properties May 2008.
I. Trails, Sidewalk & View Fencing Plan: Sheet 9 of 11 on Pantages Bays
Plans October, 2009. / Open Fencing – View Corridor Plan Exhibit,
Environmental Foresight, Inc. April 9, 2010.
J. Street, Open Space, Water, Marine Patrol Substation & Landscape
Parcels: Sheet 10 of 11 on Pantages Bays Plans October, 2009.
K. Pantages letter to Sheriff’s Office March 25, 2008, regarding marine
patrol substation. / Sheriff’s Office response letter to Pantages May 21,
2008. / Sheriff Substation & 2-Boat Dock Exhibit August, 2008. Email,
dated September 19, 2013 from Mark Williams, Assistant Sheriff to
Mark Armstrong, Applicant, regarding reconfigured marine patrol
substation.
L. Letters from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to CDD
(November 17, 2009; June 22, 2007; August 18, 2005; July 28, 2005;
September 15, 2004), and from Pantages to CCCFPD August 24,2005.
M. Waterfront Lots Sea Level Rise Exhibit, Storm Drain Exhibit, Overland
Release Exhibit, and Sea Level Rise Table, all dated December 22,
2010.
N. Plates 1-5 attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report.
2. ____ ____ This subdivision is approved contingent upon the following Board of Supervisors
actions;
A. Approval of the proposed General Plan amendment from Agricultural
Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DL) to Single-Family Residential
High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium Density (SM),
Page 3
Public / Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) and Water (WA)( County
File #GP99-0008)
B. Approval of the proposed Rezoning from General Agricultural District
(A-2) and Heavy Agricultural (A-3) to Planned Unit Development (P-1)
(County File #RZ04-3146)
This approval allows for a maximum of 292 residential lots.
Fees
3. ____ ____ This application is subject to an initial application fee, which was paid with the
application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review
expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fees due must be paid
within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever
occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working
days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project
planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit
issuance.
Indemnification
4. ____ ____ Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the
subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
County, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, of annul, the Agency’s approval concerning this subdivision map
application, which action is brought within the time period provided in Section
66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim,
action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
Compliance Report
5. ____ ____ At least 45 days prior to filing a Final Map or issuance of a grading permit,
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the
Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures with this permit for the review and
approval of the Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division (CDD). The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,000
that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit,
additional fees will be required.
a. Except for those Conditions administered by the Public Works Department,
the report shall list each Condition followed by a description of what the
applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that Condition. (A
copy of the computer file containing the Conditions of Approval may be
available; to try to obtain a copy, contact the project planner at 674-7793).
Page 4
b. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate
compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing the Final Map.
Child Care
6. ____ ____ Upon the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a fee of $400.00
per lot upon which a residence is being built for childcare facility needs in the
area as established by the Board of Supervisors.
Police Services
7A. ___ ___ The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain
and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels
created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual
amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of
voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be
completed prior to filing the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible
for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time the election is
requested by the owner. Allow a minimum of three to four months for processing.
7B. ___ ___ Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall offer to dedicate Parcel “I”
(0.51 acres more or less) on the Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading
Plan (Sheet 5 of 11 of the Pantages Bays Plans October 2009) to Contra Costa
County for use as a Sheriff’s marine patrol substation and boat dock. The offer to
dedicate shall also include a mooring easement in favor of the County for the boat
dock. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing on Parcel “I” a Sheriff’s
Marine Patrol Substation, docks and landing space for a Medevac helicopter after
construction of the project streets, utilities and Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)
and prior to the 50th occupancy permit.
The following improvements shall be constructed by the applicant on Parcel “I”:
Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation; an approximately 2,160 square foot, one
story, permanent modular building (“three wide” units, 12 X 60 feet each)
elevated above the 100-year flood plain ( taking into account State projections
on sea level rise) with the following improvements:
Restroom (sewer and water hook-ups), electricity (power), air conditioning,
appropriate low glare outside lighting, native low maintenance/low water
usage landscaping, remote control and video camera transmission of the
project entry vehicular gate from the substation.
Page 5
A boat dock to accommodate 3 boats and Sheriff’s personal water craft ( the
Office of the Sheriff will supply any boat hoist and be co-applicant for dock
permit),
A pre-engineered 2 door garage on slab, 25x25 feet in size with a 10 ft. ceiling
and roll up doors,
Emergency vehicle access road and turn-around, with a compacted gravel
surface elevated about the 100-year flood plain (taking into account State
projections on sea level rise).
Approximately 100’ x 100’ landing pad for Medivac helicopter.
At least 60 days prior to issuance of building permits for the Sheriff’s substation and dock the
applicant shall submit plans to the Office of the Sheriff for its review and comment and to CDD
for its review and approval.
Air Quality
8. ____ ____ Wood burning fireplaces or stoves shall not be permitted. Only natural gas
fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project plans shall not include wood
burning fireplaces or stoves and shall clearly indicate the prohibition against such
use. That prohibition includes outdoor wood burning fireplaces, ovens or similar
wood burning features. (Mitigation Measure AQ-1)
9. ____ ____ To reduce the air quality impacts of PM associated with grading and new
construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation
measures for all phases of construction:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
Page 6
by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior
to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the on-site complaint and enforcement manager (COA#44) regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations. (Mitigation Measure AQ-2a)
10. ____ ____ To reduce health risks from TACs during project construction, the project
applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project:
Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two
minutes;
Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50
horsepower) to be used in the construction of the project (i.e., owned, leased,
and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20
percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most
recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing emissions includes
the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel projects, alternative fuels,
engine retrofit technology, after-treatment projects, add-on devices such as
particulate filters, and /or other options as such become available;
Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be
equipped with best available technology for emission reductions of NOx and
PM; and
Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s more recent
certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. (Mitigation
Measure AQ-2b)
Biology
Special-Status Plants
11. ____ ____ A. Prior to site disturbance a pre-construction survey for the Delta button celery
(Eryngium racemosum) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the
plant’s blooming period (June to October). The survey shall be conducted in
the area of the project site south of Point of Timber Road. If Delta button
celery is not found, no further mitigation is needed. If Delta button celery is
found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such
as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures,
including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the
potential impacts on Delta button celery. The qualified biologist shall
coordinate implementation of these measures with the California Department
of Fish and Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols.
(Mitigation Measure BIO-A)
B. Prior to site disturbance pre-construction special-status plant surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist. Pre-construction surveys shall occur
Page 7
during the season that provides an adequate opportunity to identify
occurrences of any special-status plants. If no special-status plants are found,
no further mitigation is needed. If a special-status plant or plants are found, a
qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant
relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures, including
monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the potential impacts
to the identified special-status plant. The qualified biologist shall coordinate
implementation of these measures with the California Department of Fish and
Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols. (Mitigation
Measure BIO-A)
Landscape Trees
12. ____ ____ To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80 trees on the project site, the
project includes landscaping with approximately 770 trees that would be planted
along the project roadways and at the project site entry as part of the proposed
landscaping. This is an approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio. Comply with the
following landscape/irrigation improvement and initial protection requirements
subject to the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and
Development, Community Development Division (CDD):
a. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading
permit a final landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape
architect shall be submitted to the CDD for review and approval. The Final
Plan shall be designed in general accord with the preliminary landscape plan,
Sheet 10 of 10 of the Project Plans dated October 2009.
b. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon
size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size.
c. Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to minimize
landscape maintenance cost.
d. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction Ordinance
Requirements: The plan shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient
Landscape (or with the County Ordinance if one is adopted) and with the
Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance (Chapter 82-18). The latter
ordinance applies to intersections with public roads. The landscape architect
shall certify that the plan complies with the ordinance improvement standards
and reporting requirements.
e. To assure the long term viability of this landscaping the applicant shall post a
bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus 20%. The term of the
bond shall extend 24 months beyond the installation of landscaping. Prior to
the acceptance of the bond by the County a qualified landscape designer shall
assess the value of the landscape and provide a copy of that assessment to the
Community Development Department. Prior to the release of the bond a
landscape designer shall submit a letter to CDD that the landscaping is in
good health. (Mitigation Measure BIO-1)
Page 8
Creek Bank Habitat
13. ____ ____ a. Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide CDD with proof of
permits required from resource agencies ( for example, a Section 404 permit,
Section 401 permit, Section 1602 permit) or absence of requirements for such
permits. Prior to removal or reconstruction of bank habitat along Kellogg
Creek or disturbing any creek/channel banks within the project site and at
Pantages Island, the applicant shall contact the CDFG, the Corps, the
RWQCB, and the Reclamation Board and determine if permits are warranted
for the activities pursuant to the regulations that are in effect.
b. All mitigation measures implemented to improve bank habitat shall be
approved by the Corps, the RWQCB, CDFG, and the Reclamation Board (if
necessary) through issuance of necessary permits prior to recordation of Final
Map.
c. Mitigation for loss of bank habitat shall be completed as prescribed by the
CDFG, Corps, RWQCB, and Reclamation Board.
d. Specifically, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of 9,720 lineal feet of
excavated low (4,527 lf), moderate quality (4,781 lf) and high quality bank
habitat (412 lf) by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both on site and off site, to high quality
bank habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on
Pantages Island, ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive
and State Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality
bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and
grasses, rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated
portion of Pantages Island, and the North Cove to near the end of Kellogg
Creek. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet, which
exceeds removal lineal footage by 1,340 lineal feet.
e. Enhance existing bank habitat or create new bank habitat on site and off site,
approximately 11,060 linear feet in total, including: (1) shaded riverine
aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat (high quality bank habitat) on the
westerly, northerly and southerly sides of Pantages Island , the ECCID portion
of the project site, and the creek bank ECCID easement area west of the
project site (1,464 lf) from the Pantages property line to the bridge, and
Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Highway 4 (3,688 lf owned
by RD 800) ; and (2) moderate quality bank habitat (1,903 lf) along Kellogg
Creek on the easterly side of Pantages Island, and the northerly side of the
north cove to the northeasterly end of the project site. The creek bank and
revegetation design that creates moderate quality habitat following excavation
will include the following:
Page 9
i. Riprap with willow plantings shall be established between mean low
water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) to provide additional
stabilization and some shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
ii. A shallow sloping or level bench shall be established at approximately
MHW to support larger riparian trees such as Fremont cottonwood.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 5:1 and also planted with riparian
trees and grasses.
iv. Riparian trees planted along the shallow sloping or level bench shall
be planted on 15-foot centers to ensure adequate bank coverage.
v. Native riparian trees such as valley oaks, California buckeyes, and
Fremont cottonwoods and native grasses can be used for revegetation.
vi. The planted riparian trees shall be monitored by a biologist or arborist
annually for a period of 5 years to ensure that mortality does not
exceed 20 percent after 5 years. If there is greater than 20 percent
mortality of planted trees after 5 years, the project proponent shall be
responsible for replanting and monitoring the trees for an additional 3-
year period.
vii. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall
also be conducted. In the event an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and
eradication program shall be developed and implemented.
viii. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
ix.
To improve the overall habitat value of the bank, installation of tree
species along the lower bank may be possible by installing Sonatubes
in the rip-rap and planting the trees within these tubes. The Sonatubes
allow trees to grow along rip-rap banks without harming the integrity
of the bank. An alternative bank stabilization method other than rip-
rap, which provides and same or better overall quality of the habitat
and provides for sufficient protection against wave action, may be
considered.
g. Low and moderate quality habitat along the south side of the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel to the Lakeshore/Lakes bridge, along the westerly,
northerly and southerly sides of Pantages Island, in the section of Old Kellogg
creek at the southwestern end of the project site, and along the east and west
sides of Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4, shall be
restored to high quality habitat by creating a slope setback.
h. The setback shall be created by excavating existing bank material from
approximately MLW to the top of the bank.
i. An intertidal berm with a 10:1 or 20:1 slope shall be established to
create shallow water habitat and stabilize the bank.
Page 10
ii. The berm shall be planted with tules to provide in-water resting and
hiding places for fish.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 3:1 or 5:1 and planted with native
riparian trees and shrubs to create shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
iv. Trees and shrubs planted along upper bank shall be monitored by a
qualified biologist or arborist for a minimum 5-year period. If there is
greater than 20 percent mortality of planted trees and shrubs after 5
years, the applicant shall be responsible for replanting and monitoring
the trees for an additional 3-year period.
v. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall
also be conducted. In the event an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and
eradication program shall be developed and implemented.
vi. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
Existing low and moderate quality bank habitat around the westerly,
northerly and southerly perimeter of Pantages Island shall be restored
to high-quality habitat by implementing the setback design as
described for the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel. This design shall
be established around most of the island, except for bank habitat
adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat along Kellogg Creek shall be
stabilized with riprap (see subsection 13.e.i above) to prevent erosion
due to wave action from existing and future boater activity. Therefore,
this area of Pantages Island will be designed to provide moderate-
quality bank habitat as prescribed above in subsection 13.e. Also to
address wave action, moderate quality habitat shall be created along
the northerly side of the North Cove. (Mitigation Measure BIO-2)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
14. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to vernal pool fairly shrimp
shall be issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the
Final Map. In order to offset the project’s impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp
the applicant shall implement one of the following measures:
i. Purchase credits in an existing fairy shrimp mitigation bank at a ratio
determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7
Consultation between the Corps and the USFWS;
ii. Acquire suitable mitigation property via fee title at a ratio determined
during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7 Consultation
between the Corps and the USFWS; or
iii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the project proponent shall make a
financial contribution to the Conservancy, to offset the project’s
Page 11
impact to the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The financial contribution to
the Conservancy or the amount of mitigation land that shall be
purchased via fee title shall be determined during negotiations with
USFWS during Section 7 consultation between the Corps and the
USFWS.
b. Prior to impacting the seasonal wetland where the vernal pool fairy shrimp
were found, documentation of the mitigation transaction (e.g., financial
contribution to the Conservancy), and/or a copy of the Biological Opinion
outlining the mitigation requirements and incidental take statement from
USFWS, shall be provided to CDD.
c. Prior to grading onsite, and as prescribed in a Biological Opinion issued for
the project, topsoils from the wetland containing the fairy shrimp egg bank
shall be scalped by a qualified federal 10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist and
redeposited in appropriate seasonal mitigation wetlands that shall be created
within the wetland mitigation preserve onsite. (Mitigation Measure BIO-3)
California red-legged frog
15. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to California red-legged frog
shall be issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the
Final Map. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to aquatic and upland buffer
habitat, that is, for each 1 acre of aquatic or upland buffer habitat impacted, 1
acre of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of
FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
c. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in permits/
authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project shall be
completed as stated in the permits/authorizations. Copies of all survey reports
and monitoring reports required by USFWS in the conditions of the Biological
Opinion shall be submitted to CDD.
d. Prior to filing of the Final Map CDD shall receive copies of all agency
agreements/ authorizations related to this species. (Mitigation Measure BIO-
4)
Giant garter snake
16. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to Giant garter snake shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to recordation of the Final
Map. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to suitable aquatic and upland habitat
Page 12
(that is, for each 1 acre of suitable aquatic and upland habitat impacted, 1 acre
of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of
FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
project proponent may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy. Any
mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in permits/
authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project shall be
completed as stated in the permits/authorizations.
c. Prior to filing of the Final Map CDD shall receive copies of all agency
agreements/authorizations related to this species (Mitigation Measure BIO-
5)
Western pond turtle
17. ____ ____ Any necessary resource agency permits related to western pond turtle shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the Final Map.
Prior to site disturbance in the affected area, the applicant shall install turbidity
barriers around construction areas in Kellogg Creek and the buffers prote cting the
preserved emergent marsh to ensure that western pond turtles do not enter the
project construction areas.
The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is not protected
pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the resource agencies
(CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific mitigation guidelines that must be
followed to offset a project’s impact to the western pond turtle. Mitigation for this
special-status species is determined on a project by project basis. It is likely that
any mitigation implemented for the California red-legged frog and the giant garter
snake would also mitigate the proposed project’s impact on the western pond
turtle. The mitigation measure for impacts to these two listed species would be a
1:1 mitigation ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land
would be acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat and a
surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would be as worked out by the
applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time applications for
permits/authorizations from these two agencies are submitted. Replacement
habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing
mitigation bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory agencies
and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy. (Mitigation Measure BIO-6)
Page 13
Federal and / or State listed fish species
18. ____ ____ Federal and/or State listed fish species and California species of special concern
fish.
a. To minimize potential impacts to federal and/or state listed fish and California
“species of special concern” during construction and dredging of the two
interior bays, a levee shall be maintained between the area to be excavated and
the Kellogg Creek channel.
b. A qualified fisheries biologist shall be onsite during all pumping and
siphoning activity to ensure that these activities do not result in take of federal
and/or state listed fish and California “species of special concern.”
c. Silt curtains or suction dredges shall be used when conducting work in the
ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek. Use of this equipment
will localize sediment movement and protect fish from entrainment and the
effects of increased turbidity.
d. All in-water work shall be conducted between August 1 and November 30 to
minimize the potential for take of threatened and endangered fish species. By
conducting work within this time period, the project will avoid most critical
spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for listed fish species.
e. Long-term impacts to fish are not expected provided the proposed bank
habitat mitigation to re-create and replace impacted bank habitat is
implemented by the applicant. (Mitigation Measure BIO-7)
Tree nesting raptors
19. ____ ____ a. Prior to site disturbance a preconstruction nesting survey of the trees to be
removed shall be conducted within 30 days of the scheduled removal to
ensure no birds are nesting. If possible, tree removal shall be completed
outside the nesting season (that is, between September 2 and February 28).
b. If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1 and
September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be conducted 30
days prior to grading/construction of the project or any proposed tree removal
work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees and
shrubs within sphere of influence of the proposed project, and not just of those
trees slated for removal.
c. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree
shall be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the
project site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be staked with
bright orange lath or other suitable staking.
d. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be demarcated per
above where the buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer may
be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and
determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this
occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows
Page 14
sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/ harassment to the nesting
raptors. This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100 feet from the nest
tree.
e. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established
buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have
fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid
project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may
be earlier than August 1 or later, and would have to be determined by a
qualified raptor biologist. (Mitigation Measure BIO-8)
Swainson’s hawk
20. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to Swainson’s hawk shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the Final Map.
To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one of the following scenarios:
i. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat1 (this is a 1:1 impact to
mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation organization.
An operating endowment shall be provided to the conservation
organization to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity.
ii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with approximately 135
acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (see footnote
below).
b. Prior to site disturbance to ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting
Swainson’s hawks (on or adjacent to the project site), preconstruction nesting
surveys shall be conducted in conformance with Recommended Timing and
Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central
Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000).
c. If an active nest is found within 0.25 miles of the project site “to avoid
potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species),
project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be
reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1-
September 15 annually)”(CDFG 1994).
d. If Swainson’s hawks are found nesting on the project site, a qualified raptor
biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site.
The size of this non-disturbance boundary shall be determined by the qualified
raptor biologist in the field and in coordination with CDFG. The buffer shall
1 The mitigation requirement for 135 acres is the 171-acre project site minus the 36.43 acres of Corps jurisdictional waters of the U.S. onsite which do not provide
foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.
Page 15
be based on the location of the nesting tree, the birds’ tolerance of noise and
other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations).
e. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified raptor biologist,
and in coordination with CDFG, any non-disturbance boundary/nest buffer
could be vacated.
f. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of this tree
shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation measure prescribed for
tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is proposed
as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting: removal). Replacement nest
trees shall be native species (such as oaks or cottonwoods). (Mitigation
Measure BIO-9)
Western burrowing owl
21. ____ ____ Any necessary resource agency permits related to western burrowing owl shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to ground disturbance
activities. Western burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the
methodologies prescribed by CDFG in their Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012. Below we provide a summary of the survey
methodologies contained in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation that
would be applicable to the project site. These surveys would meet the standards of
care required by CEQA for conducting surveys.
a. Initiating Survey. An initial take avoidance survey shall be conducted no less
than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. Burrowing owls
may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project
activities will trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not
limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground
disturbance.
b. Number of visits and timing. Conduct four survey visits: 1) at least one site
visit between February 15 and April 15, and 2) a minimum of three survey
visits, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least
one visit after June 15.
c. Survey method. Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transects spaced 7
meters (m) to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density. At the
start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project
area for burrowing owls using binoculars. During walking surveys, record all
potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of
one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remain s, whitewash, or decoration.
Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also
listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey.
d. Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect
burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is >20
km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys have greater detection
probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr
winds, and cloud cover is <75%.
Page 16
e. Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature,
latitude, and survey method. However, surveys between morning civil
twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil
twilight provide the highest detection probabilities.
f. Avoiding burrowing owls. A primary goal is to design and implement
projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative impacts and disturbances
that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. Avoidance
measures may include but not be limited to:
Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from
February 1 through August 31.
Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by
migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls.
Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy
chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban,
industrial, or agricultural development.
Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on -
site worker's recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection.
Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other
machinery do not collapse burrows.
Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance
animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur
(e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas).
Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of
January and February.
g. Minimizing Impacts. If burrowing owls and their habitat can be protected in
place on or adjacent to the project site, the use of buffer zones, visual screens
or other measures while project activities are occurring can minimize
disturbance impacts. A qualified biologist shall conduct site-specific
monitoring to inform the project proponent of buffer requirements. See Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance.
h. Permanent Impacts. Refer to Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(2012) for additional guidance regarding mitigation of permanent impacts to
burrowing owl habitat loss.
i. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement
with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the
Conservancy to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls and burrowing owl
habitat. (Mitigation Measure BIO-10)
Impacts to other nesting birds
22. ____ ____ a. Prior to site disturbance a nesting survey shall be conducted no more than 14
days prior to tree removal and/or breaking ground (surveys should be
conducted a minimum of 3 separate days during the 14 days prior to
disturbance) prior to commencing with construction work if this work would
Page 17
commence between February 1 and September 1. If a lapse in project -related
work of 15 days or longer occurs, another focused survey consistent with
related protocols and if required, consultation with CDFG shall occur before
project work can be reinitiated.
b. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike, tri-colored blackbird, and/or
California black rail, are identified nesting within the area of affect, the
project sponsor shall contact CDFG regarding appropriate buffer sizes and
shall fence off a non- disturbance radius around the nest according to this
measure. (Mitigation Measure BIO-11)
Waters of the United States and / or State
23. ____ ____ The necessary resource agency permits related to Waters of the United States and
/ or State shall be obtained and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of
the Final Map. Authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (e.g. Individual Permit and a
Certification of Water Quality) shall be obtained prior to filling any waters of the
U.S./State on the project site.
In conformance with the Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation
and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC
(dated November 15, 2006). the project shall minimize impacts by:
grading home pads to drain toward streets and away from open space
areas, landscaping with native plants,
construction of bioswales,
maintaining natural buffers between the development and the preserved
marsh habitat within the open space areas,
using native plantings as landscaping buffers between development and
open space preserve areas. An exception is at the Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA) crossing of the marsh where there is no buffer.
The open space preserve area shall be separated from adjacent residential
development with permanent residential fencing that protects the open
space preserve from unauthorized use while providing a visual connection
to the open space.
Residential fences shall be tubular steel or some other form of permanent,
visually open, fencing where houses back up to the open space preserve.
In addition, along the EVA/trail, kiosks with educational signage shall be
developed to reduce human-induced impacts.
Impacts to waters of the United States/State shall also be minimized by
implementing the following measures:
a. The project proponent shall implement best management practices consistent
with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the
project to protect the emergent marsh and wetland mitigation area, including
Page 18
installing orange construction fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and ot her
protective measures.
b. During project construction, a biological monitor shall be onsite to monitor
the integrity of preserved wetlands and other waters.
c. For those wetland areas that cannot be avoided, compensation wetlands shall
be enhanced/created to replace those wetlands permanently affected by project
activities. If possible, wetlands shall be created on-site and shall resemble
those wetlands affected by the project (known as in-kind replacement).
d. All impacted wetlands shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio (for each
square foot of impact, one square foot of wetland would be enhanced/created)
or as otherwise specified in permitting conditions imposed by the Corps and
RWQCB.
e. The specific mitigation for the project consists of the components listed here:
Creation of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland on-site;
Creation of approximately 0.30 acre of marsh habitat on-site;
Creation and enhancement of approximately 11,060 linear feet of bank
habitat on-site and off-site (the off-site mitigation includes the ECCID
Dredge Cut from the Pantages property line to the bridge linking
Lakeshore and Lakes neighborhoods (1,464 lf) and the RD 800 Kellogg
Creek banks from Newport Drive to State Route 4 (3,688lf)), including
shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat; Creation of
approximately 46 acres of open water habitat on-site;
Preservation of all avoided and created aquatic areas; and
Implementation of a comprehensive long-term storm water management
plan designed to protect water quality.
The compensatory mitigation envisioned for the project shall consist of two major
efforts. First shall be the creation of seasonal wetland habitat in the uplands
adjacent to the preserved marsh, and second shall be the creation and
enhancement of bank habitat within the project area.
Creation (Compensatory Mitigation)
Seasonal Wetland/Emergent Marsh/Open Water Habitat
Prior to the issuance of the 180th building permit, unless an alternative time frame
is specified in the necessary resource agency permits, the project shall:
a. Create a minimum of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland and 0.30
acre of marsh within the 36.83-acre open space preserve area (Parcel “C”).
Specifically, the creation of the seasonal wetland will occur in the 12.58-acre
upland area in the northwest corner of the site. The expansion of the marsh shall
be accomplished either on the eastern side of the existing marsh on the new
peninsula created by the opening of the northern bay or along the western side of
Page 19
the existing marsh. This represents a 1:1 mitigation ratio (created wetlands to
impacted wetlands).
b. Soil borings shall be taken prior to the construction of the seasonal wetlands
within the open space preserve to verify the suitability of the proposed wetland
soils (e.g. cobbly soils or old alluvium would not be suitable soils).
c. Ground water depths shall also be identified within the open space preserve.
d. The locations of the created wetlands shall be selected based on the existing
topography within the uplands, soil composition, and ground water depths, and
the created seasonal wetlands shall be excavated to a depth necessary to
accumulate seasonal (winter) groundwater and/or to any clay layer that will perch
rainfall.
e. The upper 6 inches of top soil shall be scalped from the seasonal wetlands to be
impacted and will be placed in the created wetlands for seed source. These
topsoils would contain a seed bank of the impacted pool plant species which
would germinate with fall/winter hydration of the re- created pools.
f. The created wetlands shall be very slightly over excavated to accommodate the
addition of topsoil.
g. This mitigation measure may be substituted by implementing another wetland
compensation plan that is approved for the project by both the Corps and the
RWQCB.
Bank Habitat
The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of approximately 9,720 lineal feet of
bank habitat by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of that existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high quality bank
habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on Pantages
Island, East Contra Costa Irrigation District(ECCID) property on the south side of
the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kell ogg Creek between
Newport Drive and State Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of
moderate quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with
riparian trees and grasses, rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the
excavated portion of Pantages Island, and the northerly side of the North Cove to
the end of Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060
lineal feet, an increase of 1,340 lineal feet and an overall substantial improvement
in the quality of the bank habitat.
Open Space Preservation
The preserved and created seasonal wetlands and marsh habitat shall be located
within a 36.83-acre permanently preserved area (Open Space Parcel “C”). The
marsh habitat on Pantages Island (Open Space Parcel “D,” 6.39 acres more or
less) shall be permanently preserved through conservation covenants/easements.
Page 20
It is envisioned that ownership of the two open space preserve areas will be
transferred to the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
(TDBCSD), prior to the recordation of the Final Map, for preservation in
perpetuity, or other public agency approved by CDD. The TDBCSD would also
function as the Preserve Manager and conduct the long-term monitoring and
maintenance of the preserve areas in perpetuity.
In addition, the approximately 11,060 linear feet of enhanced and created bank
habitat shall be preserved in perpetuity. The lineal footage within the project site
will be included as part of Water Parcel “F,” as modified to include that creek
bank and the shoring walls. It is envisioned that Parcel “F” as modified and the
enhanced bank habitat on ECCID property and Pantages Island will be transferred
to Reclamation District 800 (RD 800). RD 800 already owns the mitigation
Kellogg Creek banks from Newport Drive to State Route 4. RD 800 will own and
be responsible by conservation covenants/easements to monitor and maintain
these bank habitats in perpetuity. It is further envisioned that a maintenance and
improvement control easement will be recorded in favor of RD 800 over the slope
between the shoring walls and the back retaining wall (and the retaining wall
itself). See the Waterfront Lots Sea Level Rise Exhibit dated December 22, 2010.
Funding for maintenance of the permanently preserved open space conservation
area shall be provided through annual assessments of homeowners in Pantages
Bays that are secured through a TDBCSD landscape and lighting district or
alternative binding, permanent agreement completed prior to filing the Final Map.
With respect to the creek bank conservation areas owned by RD 800, the shoring
walls and the slope/retaining wall easement, the assessment will be created by a
Proposition 218 vote undertaken prior to filing the Final Map.
A 5-year monitoring program shall be established to monitor the progress of the
wetland mitigation toward an established goal. At the end of each monitoring
year, an annual report will be submitted by the applicant to the Corps, RWQCB
and Contra Costa County. This report will document the hydrological and
vegetative condition of the mitigation wetlands, and will recommend remedial
measures as necessary to correct deficiencies. The applicant shall submit proof, in
written form, to CDD prior to filing of the Final Map that the applicant is
responsible for the 5- year monitoring as it may be extended, including its cost.
(Mitigation Measure BIO-12)
Cultural
24. ____ ____ Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event that any prehistoric,
historic, archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be
halted and the applicant shall consult with the County and a qualified professional
Page 21
(historian, archaeologist and/or paleontologist as determined appropriate and
approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find.
If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the
consulting professional shall determine the appropriate avoidance measures or
other appropriate mitigation.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting professional
to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the County shall determine whether
avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project
design, costs, and other considerations.
If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data recovery, shall
be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials
recovered shall, at the discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according
to current professional standards.
At the County’s discretion, all work performed by the consulting professional
shall be paid for by the applicant and at the County’s discretion, the professional
may work under contract with the County. (Mitigation Measure CUL-1)
25. ____ ____ In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in
any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be
contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is
required, and
If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours;
The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or
persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased
Native American;
The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means
of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains
and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98; or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and
associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location
not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
Page 22
The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most
likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission;
The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or
The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the
recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native
American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner. (Mitigation Measure CUL-4)
Geology
26. ____ ____ The project applicant shall design structures and foundations to withstand
expected seismic sources in accordance with the current version of the California
Building Code, as adopted by the County. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1a)
27. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit updated
improvement plans for the project for review by the County’s Peer Review
Geologist and review and approval by CDD. For the purposes of geologic
review, the plans shall provide detailed information on the bank stabilization wall
system being proposed along the waterfront residential lots. (Mitigation Measure
GEO-1b)
28. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit an updated
geology, soils and foundation report meeting the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 94-4.420 for review by the Peer Review Geologist and review
and approval of CDD. The report shall address the specific approach to grading
and development indicated by the final subdivision map and improvement plans,
and shall provide technical data and engineering analysis that addresses the
stability of the residential lots.
The project geotechnical engineer shall use the following performance criteria:
a) Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static conditions,
b) Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static conditions, and which takes into
account the potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity (Great Valley
seismic zone) and
c) Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down. ( Mitigation Measure GEO-
1c)
29. ____ ____ During the construction of subdivision improvements, the project geotechnical
engineer shall provide observation and testing services and issue a
grading/shoring wall completion report. The report shall provide docu mentation
on the bank stabilization wall depths and appropriate testing of fill compaction to
determine the effectiveness of the bank stabilization measures in preventing
Page 23
lateral spreading failures toward the Kellogg Creek channel. (Mitigation
Measure GEO-1d)
30. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the
Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and
Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State
Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB.
The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
With regard to long-term control of sedimentation and protection of water quality,
a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006) was
prepared for the project and submitted to the County’s Public Works Department
in order to comply with County water quality requirements. Engineered linear
bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the selected storm water runoff treatment
for this project, which are area based storm water treatment facilities. (Mitigation
Measure GEO-2)
31. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, the project applicant shall submit a
plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate
how the results of the study will guide design of concrete and ferrous materials
that are in contact with the ground. (Mitigation Measure GEO-3)
Deed Acknowledgments
32. ____ ____ Concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall record a
statement to run with the deeds to the property acknowledging the approved
geology, soil, and foundation report by title, author (firm), and date, calling
attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available
from the seller.
Global Climate Change
33. ____ ____ The County shall ensure that the project applicant(s) employs green building
techniques in the design of proposed structures within the Pantages Bays project.
Specifically, structures shall conform at a minimum to the California Green
Building Code or equivalent green building standards. (Mitigation Measure
Cum-GCC-1a)
34. ____ ____ The applicant shall incorporate the following measures within the proposed
project:
a) Project landscaping shall include water-efficient native and adaptive plants in
combination with high-efficiency irrigation equipment;
Page 24
b) Recycled content shall be included in project building materials, including
the use of pre-consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project walkways,
driveways, roadways, and non-plant landscape elements;
c) To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior paints, carpets, adhesives,
sealants, and coatings selected for the project shall have a low concentration
of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs);
d) The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems within each
single family home shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants (i.e.
non CFC-based refrigerants);
e) Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall include high-efficiency
systems to provide enhanced indoor air quality as potential pollutants would
be ventilated through the building at a faster rate;
f) The project shall install high efficiency restroom fixtures including low-flow
or dual flush toilets to reduce potable water use;
g) Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council) shall be used in wood materials for the single family
homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving, doors, and countertops;
and
h) The project shall install water and energy efficient appliances and lighting
fixtures, including EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration equipment.
i) In each garage an electric outlet shall be installed and dedicated for use in
recharging electric vehicles. (Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1b)
Hazardous Materials
35. ____ ____ Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil samples shall be collected from the paint
disposal area and analyzed for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile
organic compounds. Soil samples shall be compared to the Environmental
Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined by the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board. If soil samples exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated
and remediated under the oversight of the Contra Costa Environmental Health
Division (CCEHD). (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a)
The project site shall be inspected by an environmental professional, appointed by
the County, during demolition and preliminary grading activities. In the event
that previously unidentified contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall
be reported to CCEHD and investigated and remediated under the oversight of
CCEHD in accordance with existing regulatory programs. (Mitigation Measure
HAZ -1b)
36. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to
the County that all asbestos-containing materials have been removed at the
existing residence located to the south of Point of Timber Road, in compliance
with state regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a)
Page 25
37. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to
the County that all lead-based paint (LBP) has been removed at each of the
existing former residences on the project site, in compliance with state
regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b)
Hydrology
38. ____ ____ During construction a qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) on the project team
shall perform, at minimum, weekly monitoring of the water quality in Kellogg
Creek adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine whether adjustments to their
position or depth are required. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as needed, to
accurately assess water quality degradation. (Mitigation Measure Hyd-1a)
39. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the
Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and
Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State
Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB.
The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http ://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/. Additionally, the Title 10 Ordinance (1010)
of the Contra Costa County Code of Ordinances requires the project sponsor to
obtain a permit for drainage activities for creek improvements to Kellogg Creek
and Old Kellogg Creek. (Mitigation Measure HYD-1b)
40. ____ ____ To prevent pollution of receiving waters due to equipment fueling, storage, and
maintenance, the contractor shall develop a detailed set of guidelines to follow.
Final plan notes, and contractor bid documents shall include the following
specifications:
1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for storage of maintenance
materials, and refueling purposes.
2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any runoff so that any
contaminants such as spilled fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving
waters.
If heavy-duty construction machinery is left overnight in an area that is not
protected from direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall be placed beneath
the engine block and hydraulic systems. (Mitigation Measure Hyd-1c)
41. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall coordinate
with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) to identify and
survey the existing and abandoned groundwater wells on the project site.
Page 26
The identified groundwater wells shall be properly decommissioned and/or
retrofitted under permit from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the
decommissioned wells for approval. (Mitigation Measure Hyd-2)
42. ____ ____ Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a
finished floor elevation of residential units at 14.1 feet. (Mitigation Measure
Hyd-3a)
43. ____ ____ Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a
finished street level elevation of 12.1 feet including the EVAs. (Mitigation
Measure Hyd-3b)
Noise and Vibration
44. ____ ____ All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30
AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and
federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state
or federal government as listed below:
New Year’s Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and Federal)
Lincoln’s Birthday (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day (State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please
visit the following websites:
Federalholidays:
http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2011.asp
California holidays: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml
At least 10 days prior to the issuance of grading permits signs shall be posted at
the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day
and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the on-site
complaint and enforcement manager in the event of problems.
Page 27
An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to
and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any
complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent
land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and
coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures
(considered technically and economically feasible) warranted correcting the
problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the
construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager
will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all
construction hours to respond to complaints.
At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for
each major phase of construction the applicant shall prepare a notice that grading
or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and
mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The
notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and
area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be
included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons
with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of
responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control,
tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour
emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be
re-issued with each phase of the project and a copy shall be mailed to CDD.
(Mitigation Measure NOI-1a)
The project applicant shall prepare a detailed construction noise mitigation plan
for review and approval by the CDD at least 30 days prior to the issuance of
grading permits. The goal of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying
neighbors of the extent of the noise that can be expected during particular phases
of the project grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to call if there are
noise-related complaints. Submission of this construction noise mitigation plan
shall be required as part the grading permit application.
The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the California Model Community
Noise Ordinance limits of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60dBA for
stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation goals.
Information in the plan shall include but not be limited to the following:
Construction schedule showing dates and location of activities.
List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase and sound
level estimates for each phase.
Height, length, and location of any recommended noise barriers. The barriers
can be constructed out of wood or other materials as long as they have a
Page 28
minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5 pounds per square foot.
Possible materials include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully overlapping 1x
redwood boards (1-1/2-inch-thick total). The barriers would likely be 6 to 8
feet tall but this would be refined as part of the construction noise control
plan. Issues to consider when determining the ultimate height, length, and
location of the barriers are the actual construction practices, including
equipment to be used and the location and duration of noisier activities. The
topography will also need to be considered in the final determination of
barrier heights and effectiveness.
Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive locations. The
project applicant shall limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week set
by Contra Costa County.
Locate stationary equipment as far from residents as is practicable and/or
enclose noise sources.
The project applicant shall require the contractor to use electric or
hydraulically powered rather than diesel or pneumatically powered equipment
and construction tools as feasible.
Provide intake silencers and “resident-type” exhaust mufflers on vehicles and
equipment and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools as feasible.
The method for construction of the shoring walls will be Cement Deep Soil
Mixing (CDSM), using multiple augers and with steel I-beams lowered into
each column while the soil-cement mixture is still in a fluid state. There will
be negligible vibration and typical construction noise with this method. Steel
sheet piles as shoring walls is not allowed, nor is deep dynamic compaction of
soils. These shoring wall and soil stabilization methods generate too much
noise and vibration. (Mitigation Measure NOI-1b)
45. ____ ____ At least 14 days prior to the issuance of grading permits the project applicant shall
construct temporary noise barriers along the western property line neighboring the
existing residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West subdivisions.
Noise barriers shall provide noise reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA.
(Mitigation Measure NOI-1c)
Parks and Recreation
46. ____ ____ Concurrent with the filing of the Final Map the project applicant shall on the face
page of the Final Map (and/or by other recorded instrument reviewed and
approved by CDD) offer to dedicate to the public access by pedestrians and
bicyclists to approximately 2.6 acres of public trails (in a 20-foot EVA with
shoulders and at least eight feet paved in the middle on the EVA connected to “B”
Street and “A” Street and paved off center on the EVA to the marine patrol
substation), plus the eight-foot sidewalk leading from Point of Timber Road to the
public trails through the preserved open space, and including the passive
recreation location at the end of the trail beyond the marine patrol substation) for
ingress, egress and use by pedestrians and bicyclists. The right of public access
recorded documentation shall confirm: (i) dogs not on leash are not permitted on
Page 29
the EVA/trails due to proximity to creek banks, emergent marsh and seasonal
wetlands (includes dogs accompanying both members of the public and Pantages
Bays homeowners); (ii) dogs on leash are allowed unless prohibited per permits
issued by the Army Corp of Engineers and/or other resource agencies) (iii) that all
pedestrians and bicyclists (and permitted dogs) must stay on EVA/trails in open
space parcel, for purposes of public safety and environmental protection of the
nearby emergent marsh, created seasonal wetlands, and created/enhanced high
and moderate creek bank habitat; (iv) that for the same reasons no fishing or
swimming is allowed from those creek bank locations; and (v) that public access
is limited from dawn to dusk. The recorded documentation of the right of public
access to the EVA/trails shall confirm the foregoing limitations on that use.
The applicant shall provide a water fountain at the end of the trail beyond the
marine patrol substation for public use (water supply will be from the metered
hook-up for the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation). Tables and seating near the
open water at the end of the trail beyond the marine patrol substation, kiosks and
signage that is historical (related to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber) and
educational (related to the environment, its protection. and limits on trails use in
open space as described above), and benches along the trails, all in a number,
design and content subject to review and approval of CDD. The public trails
through the open space area also serve as an EVA and must comply with Fire
Department requirements and be completed by the issuance of the 180th building
permit.
Signage shall be provided at the two project entries for public pedestrians and
bicyclists (Point of Timber and Wilde Drive) and the trail heads at the end of “B”
Street and “A” Street, which confirms public pedestrian and bicyclist access to the
EVA/trails and the sidewalks and roads within Pantages Bays. The signage shall
also specify the limitations on such use (e.g.,if dogs are permitted they must be on
leash on EVA/public trails; dogs must be on leash on roads and sidewalks;
pedestrians and bicyclists must stay on trails in open space; public pedestrian and
bicyclist access permitted only from dawn to dusk). The signs and their content
are subject to review and approval of CDD.
In combination with the dedication of the public trails the project shall pay a park
dedication fee of $1,351 per dwelling unit upon issuance of building permits.( The
park dedication fee of $1,351 was the fee in effect at the time the application was
deemed complete on November 11, 2006).
Concurrent with the filing of the Final Map the applicant shall on the face page of
the Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument reviewed and approved
by CDD) offer to dedicate to the public access to the privately owned roadways
and sidewalks within Pantages Bays for ingress, egress and use by pedestrians and
bicyclists from dawn to dusk. The recorded documentation of the right of public
access to project roads and sidewalks shall confirm that it does not include public
Page 30
vehicular use (unless by invited guest), and that dogs are permitted with the public
only if on leash.
It is anticipated that these offers of dedication of public access for pedestrians and
bicyclists will be accepted on behalf of the public by the County (and/or by
another public agency approved by CDD) prior to or concurrent with recordation
of the Final Map. These rights of public access and the right of enforcement by
members of the public and the County (or by another public agency) shall be
confirmed in the CC&Rs and individual deed disclosures. (Mitigation Measure
PS-1)
46A. __ __ Improvement plans shall include two 90-degree parking stalls located in each of
the “A” Street and “B” Street cul-de-sacs, and designated for handicap
accessibility in order to provide for vehicular access for the disabled adjacent to
the public trails within the project open space. Required turning radius in the cul-
de-sacs for fire trucks shall be maintained and grading to accommodate the stalls
shall stay outside the emergent marsh. The public agency responsible for
maintenance of the public trails within Open Space Parcel “C” (likely the Town
of Discovery Bay CSD) shall maintain the ADA parking stalls, and make
available the necessary means of electronic access through the vehicular gate at
the end of Point of Timber Road to any disabled member of the public making
that request for the purpose of securing direct vehicular access to the open space
public trails. The same method to open the gate for project residents and/or
public agencies shall be made available to disabled members of the public who
request it for that purpose. These requirements shall be included in the recorded
public trail easement. Signage at the project entry shall provide notice as to the
location of the ADA parking stalls and the public agency responsibility with
respect to vehicular access through the gate requested by disabled members of the
public. The CC&Rs for the homeowners association shall confirm this right of
access through the vehicular gate for disabled members of the public who req uest
it and the requirements with respect to project entry signage and for permanent
retention of the ADA parking stalls at the cul-de-sacs. The final location of the
four parking stalls, and the form and text of the applicable signage, public trail
easement and CC&Rs with respect to this condition, shall be approved by CDD
prior to filing of the Final Map.
Public Utilities (Water & Sewer)
47. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide documentation to CDD
(i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that the
TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing for the construction of
any required improvements outlined in the Water MP to ensure sufficient capacity
exists to serve the project.
Page 31
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are
constructed and operational. (Mitigation Measure UTIL-1)
48. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide documentation to
CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that
TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient funding for the construction of any
capacity or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP and
necessary so that serving the project does not exceed the requirements of
RWQCB.
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are
constructed and operational, and that any source control measures are being
implemented consistent with the requirements of RWQCB. (Mitigation Measure
UTIL-2)
Street Names
49. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed street names (public and
private) shall be submitted for review by CDD, Graphics Section (Phone #674-
7810). Alternate street names should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be
certified by CDD without the approved street names. Street names of historic
significance to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber will be used if available,
subject to review and approval of CDD.
Transportation
50. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway
(south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound to westbound left-turn
lane from Byron. This improvement is currently identified in the 2007 Contra
Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although
funding has not been identified. If this improvement is not included in a County
fee program or other funding program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the improvement prior to the
issuance of building permits. Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure TRA-1)
51. ____ ____ The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa
Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade
Page 32
existing roadways. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require
the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways
and/or construct new facilities in the project area upon issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure TRA-2)
52. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Byer Road/Byron
Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and a
southbound left turn lane. This improvement is not identified in any funding
program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs for
this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the
improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1)
53. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron
Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved
by installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and
providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound
Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway
Drive to Byron Highway would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation would require modifications
to the adjacent railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required
left turn pocket on the eastbound approach. This improvement is currently
included in the Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee
Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1) is included in the ECRAOB fee
program at time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
Page 33
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits.
(Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1))
54. ____ ____ As an alternative to Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1), mitigation of
the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and
Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing
traffic signals at both intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn
lane pocket at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Traffic would not
be shifted under this mitigation, and a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing
at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection would not be needed.
A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection is not identified in any
funding program. Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding program.
If these improvements are not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14
percent of the total costs for this improvement. To determine the cost of the
improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2))
55. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour
Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and providing left
turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is currently
included in the Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee
Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3 is included in the ECRAOB fee program at
time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Page 34
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calcula tes that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-3)
56. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal.
This improvement is currently included in the Draft East County AOB
Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4 is included in the ECRAOB fee program at
time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public W orks Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-4)
57. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and
adding left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is not
identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of
Page 35
the total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To
determine the cost of the improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s
estimate of that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department
prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5)
58. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers
Avenue intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This
improvement is currently included in the Draft East County AOB Transportation
Mitigation Fee Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6 is included in the ECRAOB fee program at
time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculate s that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-6)
59. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler
Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This
improvement is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not
included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the
County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as
operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee
program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would
be required to contribute between 10 and 11 percent of the total costs for this
improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the
improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7)
60. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway
(south) intersection can be achieved by adding a second left-turn lane on the
Page 36
Byron Highway approach and a second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4
approach.
The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is
currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement
& Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. The second
through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any
funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the
total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine
the cost of the improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of
that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance
of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8)
61. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Newport Drive
intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is
not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 4 and 6 percent of the
total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine
the cost of the improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of
that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance
of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9)
62. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo
Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by adding a northbound right turn
lane. This improvement is currently included as one of several improvements
intersection in the Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update
project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Page 37
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10 is included in the ECRAOB fee program
at time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-10)
63. ____ ____ The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa
Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade
existing roadways upon issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM
TRA-11)
Visual/Lighting
64. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits the project applicant
shall submit a lighting plan for the review and approval by CDD. Exterior
lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall utilize
motion detection systems where applicable. In general, the light footprint of
individual units shall not extend beyond the periphery of each property.
Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply
with the standard California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency
Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses.
(Mitigation Measure VIS-1)
Architectural Design of Non-Waterfront Production Homes Models / Fencing Plan
65. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall
submit, for review and approval of CDD, floor plans and elevations (showing
building height) for the models of the non-waterfront production homes. This
condition does not apply to the 100’ wide by 110’ deep minimum size non-
waterfront homes. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits the
applicant shall also submit for review and approval of CDD a fencing plan for the
whole of the Pantages Bays project.
Page 38
Homeowners Association
66. ____ ____ Prior to recordation of Final Map a homeowners association shall be formed for
the ownership and maintenance (through homeowners assessments) of all
common areas including private streets and common landscaping except as
specified in these Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures. Examples
of exceptions to ownership and maintenance by the homeowners association
include Open Space Parcel “C,” Open Space Parcel “D,” Water Parcel “F,” and
the Public Trails/EVA easement area. Homeowners will be financially responsible
for the maintenance of those parcels through other assessment mechanisms as
described in Condition 69 below. Marine Patrol Substation Parcel “I” will be
owned and, through the Office of the Sheriff, maintained by the County at its cost.
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
67. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit, for CDD
review and approval, the CC&Rs for the Pantages Bays project. Prior to
submitting the CC&Rs to CDD for review and approval the applicant shall work
with the Lakeshore Home Owners Association for review and comment of the
CC&Rs (Contact Duane Steele). The CC&Rs shall include information for the
future property owners that the trails to be constructed from the entrance to the
Pantages Bays through the Open Space to near the water’s edge at the northeast
corner of the site, as well as the sidewalks and streets within Pantages Bays, shall
be available for public pedestrian and bicycle use from dawn to dusk, subject to
the limitations described in Condition 46 applicable to all trail users (e.g., dogs on
leash are allowed on EVA/trails unless prohibited in permits from resource
agencies). The CC&Rs shall also confirm that rights of access to that effect are
included on the recorded Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument
reviewed and approved by CDD) and accepted on behalf of the public by the
County (and/or other public agency approved by CDD such as the TDBCSD).
The Police, Fire District, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), RD 800,
TDBCSD, and other public agencies (e.g., Mosquito Abatement District) right of
ingress, egress and use of all roads (includes all of Parcel “A”) and EVAs within
the Pantages Bays project shall be provided for and confirmed in the CC&Rs.
The offers of dedication to the public shall so provide, and a note to that effect
shall be included on the face page of the Final Map (and/or other suitable
recorded instrument reviewed and approved by CDD), as provided for in
Condition 76 below.
The CC&Rs shall confirm that maintenance of the streets, sidewalks, landscaping,
creek banks, shoring walls, open space, EVA/public trails, the passive recreation
location at the end of the public trails, and the typical police service district
assessment shall be paid for by Pantages Bays homeowners through assessments
(for example, TDBCSD landscaping and lighting district assessments, RD 800
Page 39
tax bill assessments on waterfront residential lots, police service district tax bill
assessment, homeowners association assessments).
The CC & Rs shall confirm that each homeowner is responsible for maintenance
and repair of the back retaining wall on the waterfront lots and the slope between
that wall and the shoring wall. They shall further confirm that any storm water
drainage improvements associated with the slope, retaining wall and shoring wall
shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. The CC & Rs shall
further confirm that RD 800 will have an easement over the slopes and retaining
walls to enforce these obligations.
The CC&Rs shall include the Pantages Bays Design Standards described below in
Conditions 76 and 77. The CC&Rs shall confirm they are enforceable in all
respects by CDD, and that CDD must confirm compliance with them prior to
issuance of a building permit for the construction of a new home and accessory
structures, or subsequent alterations. There is no requirement that the CC&Rs
include design review by the homeowners association.
Also included in the CC&Rs shall be information to the future property owners of
waterfront lots regarding view corridors to the water from the sidewalk/street.
Both side yards on most waterfront lots shall be required to have open fencing
along the front to provide the opportunity for at least one view corridor from the
fence to the water (through the back yard). One side yard may be a non-view
corridor side yard planted with hedges to restrict views into the side yard. This
will most likely occur along the garage side of the house where residents may
store items like garbage containers and landscaping equipment that they do not
want viewed from the street. To illustrate the requirement the open fence exhibit
by Environmental Foresight Inc. dated 4/9/10, as modified to be consistent with
the Pantages Bays Design Standards, shall be included in the CC&Rs. Excepted
from this view corridor requirement are the waterfront pie-shaped lots on cul-de-
sacs and other irregular waterfront lots listed in the Design Standards. The
fencing requirements related to view corridors are included in the Pantages Bays
Design Standards and are enforceable by CDD.
There shall be a recorded deed disclosure for each of the approved lots confirming
the foregoing as well, with the form and content reviewed and approved by CDD.
The recorded deed disclosure shall include reference to the Design Standards and
the waterfront lots to which the view corridor requirement applies.
Construction and Demolition Debris
68. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of the building and/or demolition permit(s),
the developer shall submit a “Debris Recovery Plan” demonstrating how they
intend to recycle, reuse or salvage building materials and other debris generating
from the demolition of existing building and/or the construction of new buildings.
At least 30 days prior to the final inspection of the first residential unit not
Page 40
including models, the developer shall submit a completed “Debris Recovery
Report” documenting actual debris recovery efforts including the quantities of
recovered and landfilled materials) that resulted from the project.
Ownership, Maintenance and Financial Responsibility for Project Parcels
69. ____ ____ The non-residential parcels below shall be recorded on the Final Map. These
parcels shall be owned and maintained as provided below. The financial
responsibility for that maintenance will likely be provided as described below.
Necessary easements related the parcels are described below.
A. Parcel “A” (18 acres, more or less) includes the private roadways, sidewalks,
bioswales, storm drainage facilities, street trees, primary entry gate and
features at Point of Timber, and the secondary EVA and pedestrian/bicyclist
entry at Wilde Drive. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding
responsibility: Pantages Bays homeowners association with funding from
homeowners assessments. The Wilde Drive EVA and pedestrian/bicyclist
entry shall be offered for dedication to the County, with maintenance and
funding responsibility the same as for the private streets by the HOA.
B. Parcels “B,” “G,” and “H” at the Point of Timber entry are for landscape
purposes. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility:
Pantages Bays homeowners association with funding from homeowners
assessments.
C. Parcel “E” is the public turnaround at the project entry at the end of public
Point of Timber Road. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding
responsibility: Contra Costa County following acceptance of the turnaround as
part of the public roadway.
D. Parcel “C” is open space (37 acres, more or less), which includes the recreated
seasonal wetlands and the preserved emergent marsh. Parcel “D” is also open
space (6 acres, more or less) on Pantages Island, which includes preserved
emergent marsh. Ownership (subject to conservation covenants/easements)
and maintenance: TDBCSD. Maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages
Bays homeowners tax bill assessments likely through a landscaping and
lighting district formed prior to recording Final Map. An alternative to
TDBCSD ownership and maintenance would be RD 800, with funding by
Pantages Bays homeowners through a Proposition 218 assessment, and with
the vote completed by RD 800 and owner and the assessments finalized prior
to filing the Final Map. Another alternative, though not preferred, would be
ownership (with conservation covenants/ easements) by the Pantages Bays
homeowners association, with maintenance by an approved conservancy
organization, and funding through the association and/or an endowment.
E. Parcel “F” as modified in the Final Map will be comprised of waterways,
shoring walls and creek bank (47 plus acres, plus or minus; as currently shown
Page 41
on the tentative subdivision map the parcel only includes water). There will be
a related easement for RD 800 control and enforcement of required
maintenance and repairs by each homeowner (and limitations on landscape,
and improvements) on the back retaining wall and the slope between that wall
and the shoring wall. There will likely be a similar RD 800 enforcement
easement with respect to repair and maintenance of storm drainage
improvements by the homeowners association where located on a slope,
retaining wall and shoring wall. A related easement on adjoining open space
parcels for RD 800 access will also be required. Ownership (subject to
conservation covenants/easements), related easements and maintenance: RD
800 with funding by Pantages Bays waterfront homeowners through
Proposition 218 assessments, with the vote completed by RD 800 and owner
and the assessments finalized prior to filing the Final Map. RD 800 will also
be responsible to maintain through conservation covenants/easements the
southern creek bank on ECCID land from the westerly end of the Pantages
property to the Lakeshore/Lakes bridge, as well as the creek banks on Kellogg
Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4. Funding for this off-site
creek bank maintenance may be the same as for Parcel “F.” RD 800 and the
applicant may negotiate as part of a pre-annexation agreement an alternative
financing mechanism as to elements of Parcel F” and/or the off-site creek
banks, subject to CDD review and approval.
F. Parcel “I” is the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation parcel (0.51 acres, more or
less). Following acceptance of the offer of dedication and the constructed
improvements, the parcel and facilities will be owned by the County.
Maintenance of the parcel and its facilities (including the boat dock) will be
the responsibility of the County, at its cost through the Office of the Sheriff.
The creek bank within the mooring easement for the dock will be owned and
maintained by RD 800 per subsection E above.
G. The EVA/public trails will be shown as an easement within Open Space
Parcel “C.” See subsection D above. TDBCSD will be responsible for
maintenance of the parcel and its EVA/trails, paid for by Pantages Bays
homeowners likely from property tax bill assessments through a landscaping
and lighting district. Alternatively, RD 800 will accept ownership and
maintenance responsibilities, with funding by Proposition 218 assessments of
Pantages Bays homeowners. Alternatively though not preferred, the Pantages
Bays homeowners association will own the parcel and be responsible for
maintenance of the EVA/public trails, with funding provided by homeowners
assessments.
LAFCO Boundary Reorganization/RD 800 and TDBCSD Annexations
70. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide
evidence to the satisfaction of CDD that the project site is annexed, through a
LAFCO boundary reorganization, to RD 800 and to TDBCSD. RD 800’s
Page 42
annexation may be limited, for example to only the waterfront homes and Parcel
“F.”
Fire District Conditions
71. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, CDD shall receive confirmation from the Fire
District that conditions have been satisfied for its agreement to allow more than
25 homes beyond a single point. For previous Fire District review and condi tions
see the letters from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD)
to CDD (November 17, 2009; June 22, 2007; August 18, 2005; July 28, 2005;
September 15, 2004), and the letter from Pantages to CCCFPD August 24, 2005.
Completion of ECCID Agreement
72. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, CDD shall receive confirmation from the project
applicant and ECCID that their agreement has been completed, including the lot
line adjustment conveying land to the Pantages owner (adjoining creek bank strip
and portion of Pantages Island) and conservation easement (over land along the
ECCID Dredge Cut extending from the west edge of the Pantages property to the
Lakeshore/Lakes bridge), and conveying Pantages land within the dredge cut bed
to ECCID.
Minimum Depth of Bays and Coves
73. ____ ____ As constructed the bays and coves within Pantages Bays shall be at a minimum
depth of 10 feet at low tide (LMW), as recommended by Reclamation District 800
in order to provide safe navigation (e.g., prevent grounding) and avoid noxious
weeds like Brazilian Waterweed from growing there.
Wilde Drive and Point of Timber Project Entries
74. ____ ____
As set forth on the Preliminary and Final Development Plan, Sheet 3 of Pantages
Bays Plan, Wilde Drive vehicular access shall be limited to emergency vehicles.
Other vehicles will be restricted by bollards, or a gate. Pedestrian and bicyclist
access (public and Pantages Bays residents) is permitted there. Final design of
that entry as to emergency access shall be reviewed and commented on by Public
Works and approved by CDD. Also as set forth on Sheet 3, public vehicular
access at Point of Timber will be restricted by an electronic gate, so that only the
vehicles of residents and invited guests are permitted entry. A separated entry on
each side of the road shall be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists (public and
Pantages Bays residents). Final design of the entry features and landscape, as
they may be modified compared to the current preliminary desi gn (e.g., see
Condition 84), shall be reviewed and approved by CDD (in addition to the Fire
District and Public Works Department with respect to bollards or a gate at Wilde
Page 43
Drive and the gate at Point of Timber.). Any modified design at Point of Timber
must include a public pedestrian/bicyclist entry with an improved trail path at
least 8 feet in width on the northerly side and 5-foot sidewalk on the southerly
side, with clearly identified with signage.
Access for Sheriff, Fire District, EMTs, RD 800, TDBCSD and Other Public Agencies for
Use of Project Roads
75. ____ ____ Police, Fire District, and EMTs ingress, egress and use of all roads, sidewalks and
EVAs within the Pantages Bays project shall be confirmed in the CC&Rs as
provided for in Condition 67 above. That right includes but is not limited to
routine and other patrols by the Sheriff. The applicant shall on the face page of the
Final Map and deed disclosures for each of the homes (and/or by other recorded
instrument reviewed and approved by CDD) offer to dedicate to the County (and
other applicable agencies) such rights of full access. The same rights of access
shall be provided in the CC&RS and the Final Map note and/or other recorded
instrument) to RD 800 (due to its responsibilities for waterways, creek bank
habitat, shoring walls, and related slope and back retaining wall easements), as
well as TDBCSD (due to its responsibilities for sewer and water facilities within
Pantages Bays and likely ownership and maintenance of Open Space Parcels “C”
and “D”). Other public agencies as determined necessary by CDD will be
provided the same access (for example, the Mosquito Abatement District).
Design Standards, Final Architecture, View Corridors, and Common Area Landscape
Plans
76. ____ ____ Compliance with the Pantages Bays Design Standards, Plate 4 attached to the
Planning Commission Staff Report, shall be required in construction of new
homes, or any subsequent building footprint alteration, as well as fencing and
landscape within the street/sidewalk water view corridors and side yards. The
Design Standards include minimum setbacks for the 60’, 80’, 90’ and 100’ wide
lots, as well as height and fencing restrictions. CDD shall review proposed
architectural plans for new house construction or subsequent building footprint
alteration to confirm compliance prior to issuance of a building permit. Any
future amendments to the Design Standards shall require CDD review and
approval. The Design Standards (as they may be so amended) shall be included
in the CC&Rs. The Design Standards shall be enforceable by CDD.
A minimum of 10% (16 units) of the 161 non-waterfront smaller residential lots
(minimum 6,000 square feet, 60’x100’) shall be single story. For the production
homes on the 60’x100’ lots, the architecture elevations and street landscape shall
provide articulation along the streetscape on straight roads sufficient to avoid a
visually linear appearance, namely along “B” Street and “E” Street where
minimum 6,000 sq. ft. lots are located.
Page 44
A minimum of three architectural elevations for the production homes on the
60’x100’ lots shall be provided. CDD has the authority to ask for more than three
elevations of those homes for review and approval should CDD determine it is
required for an appropriate articulated streetscape and/or compatibility with the
neighboring developments of Ravenswood and Lakeshore.
As provided for in the Design Standards, there shall be a single-story home with a
maximum height of 25 feet (or at applicant’s election a two-story home with the
second story (maximum 33 feet) limited to the front half of the home) on Lots 270
and 271, Lots 266 and 267 and Lots 262 and 263 subject to review and approval
of CDD. The applicant shall record this building height restriction on each of
these six lots prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, in a form
and content reviewed and approved by CDD.
In addition, the side yard setback on both sides of these six lots shall be minimum
10 feet, instead of 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side as provided for
all other minimum 60-foot wide lots. The standard 5-foot side yard setback on
each other lot that adjoins Ravenswood shall be next to the 10-foot setback on the
adjoining lot, so that the combined setback between those homes will always be
minimum 15 feet. The maximum height on each other lot adjoining Ravenswood
shall be 33 feet.
The shoring walls shall be finished with shotcrete or similar product acceptable to
RD 800 and approved by CDD. The finish shall be earth tone or similar color
acceptable to RD 800 and approved by CDD.
76 A ___ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for revi ew and
approval a deed disclosure for lots 257, 258, 267, 270 and 271 that states these
lots are only permitted to have one story homes (maximum 25 feet in height) or
two story element in the front half of the home (maximum 33 feet in height), and
that each of these lots shall have a side yard setback of 10 feet. The approved
language shall be recorded on each of these lots.
76 B ___ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for revi ew and
approval a deed disclosure for lots 254 through 292 (all the lots adjoining
Ravenswood Subdivision) that the maximum height of the house shall not exceed
33 feet. The approved language shall be recorded on each of these lots.
76C ___ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for revi ew and
approval a deed disclosure that requires the rear lot fences for the lots that back up
to the Open Space shall be open view fencing consistent with the applicant’s
wetland consultant.
76D__ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for review and
approval a deed disclosure that describes the requirements for open view fencing
on waterfront lots consistent with the Pantages Design standards.
Page 45
76E __ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for review and
approval a deed disclosure for each of the homes that informs them that there is a
public trail in the development and that public pedestrians and bicyclists may use
project streets and sidewalks.
Grade Elevations and Rear Yard Fencing Design Across from Ravenswood
77. ___ ____ The final design of retaining walls and wood fence/lattice between Pantages and
Ravenswood shall be reviewed and approved by CDD at least 30 days prior to
issuance of building permits to confirm compliance with the Pantages Bays
Design Standards. This rear yard fencing requirement in the Design Standards is
enforceable by CDD.
Applicant has agreed to work in good faith with adjoining homeowners in
Ravenswood to replace their existing rear yard fence with a new common fence
consistent with the specifications above and in the Design Standards. Subject to
the approval of the adjoining Ravenswood homeowner(s), applicant at its cost will
remove the existing fence and construct the new common fence. If the necessary
homeowner approval is not secured following good efforts as reviewed and
accepted by CDD, then applicant shall construct within its rear property line a
wood fence (with any necessary retaining wall or kickboard) that meets the design
specifications set forth in the Design Standards.
Reduction in Highest Waterfront Pad Elevations
78. ___ ___ Shoring walls will be at a uniform height (approximately 8 feet showing above
water at current mean sea level). There will be a 2:1 graded slope between the
shoring wall and a back retaining wall. The purpose of the slope and back
retaining wall is to accommodate sea level during the 100-year flood event at high
tide assuming the State’s projection for sea level rise of 4.6 feet in the next 100
years. The height of the retaining wall above ground, if exposed, will be
determined in large part by the pad elevation on the particular lot. For aesthetic
purposes relatively high pad elevations on waterfront lots (for example, see Lot
137) will be reduced at the final grading plan to the extent reasonable and still
address projected sea level rise, as well as accommodate storm water flows/outlets
and gravity sewer to the TDBCSD pump station that will be constructed for the
project, subject to review and approval of CDD.
Lakeshore Boundary Grading Alternative and Off-Site Dirt Hauling
79. ___ ___ The Lakeshore Homeowners Association Board of Directors (Lakeshore HOA
and Lakeshore Board) has expressed interest in modifying the proposed grading
Page 46
plan between Lakeshore residential lots and the adjoining Pantages residential lots
and EVA to place engineered fill on the intervening strip owned by the Lakeshore
HOA. Such a grading plan change would require cooperation between the
applicant and Lakeshore Board, and potentially adjoining Lakeshore homeowners.
Grading easements and/or lot line adjustments will likely be required. Any
grading revision in this location, along with any associated lot line adjustments
and common fencing arrangements shall be subject to review and comment by
Public Works and CDD review and approval as part of the final grading plan.
Applicant’s engineers anticipate the grading operation will be a balanced cut and
fill. If the final grading plan and the actual grading is not balanced then applicant
shall prepare an off-site dirt hauling plan (which will include the pavement
analysis and any necessary road repair as required in Public Works Condition
102) for submittal to CDD for its review and approval.
PUBLIC WORKS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUBDIVISION SD06-9010/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP04-3062
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the
Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval.
Conditions of Approval are based on the site plan/vesting tentative map submitted to
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division dated
October, 2009, as amended.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL MAP.
General Requirements:
80. ____ ____ Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to
the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review
and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance
Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. Any necessary traffic
signing and striping shall be included in the improvement plans for review by the
Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department.
Roadway Improvements (Frontage):
81. ____ ____ Applicant shall construct curb, minimum 5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal
and transverse drainage, street lighting, border landscaping and irrigation, and
pavement transitions at the terminus of the pubic portion of Point of Timber Road.
Applicant shall construct face of curb 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way line.
82. ____ ____ Applicant shall install off-site signage along Point of Timber Road relative to on-
street parking for trailhead use as access to the project Public Open Space area.
Page 47
83. ____ ____ Applicant shall construct these frontage improvements to County public road
standards. An exception to the vertical gradient standards shall be allowed to
reduce the minimum curb grade to 0.75% in conformance with existing adjacent
improvements.
84. ____ ____ Applicant shall provide two entry lanes (one each for residential and visitor),
provide one exit lane, and locate any vehicular entrance gates a minimum 20 feet
from the edge of the public travel way to allow vehicles to queue without
obstructing traffic as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department.
Sufficient area shall be provided outside any gate to allow a vehicle to turn around
and re-enter Point of Timber Road in a forward direction.
Roadway Improvements (On-Site):
85. ____ ____ Although all subdivision streets are to remain private, all streets are to be
constructed to full County Public Road Standards as specified by Title 9 of the
County Ordinance Code, including all minimums and maximums with respect to
pavement width, horizontal alignment, vertical alignment and sight distance.
Allowable exceptions from said Standards are as follows:
a. “C” Court may be reduced to a 28-foot wide road within a 43-foot easement,
as shown on the tentative map.
b. In-lieu of a crowned street section, the pavement may be sloped with a
continuous 2% cross slope.
c. Sidewalks may be eliminated from one side of the street, with a minimum 5-
foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face) on the remaining side.
The pavement section on the side of the street without the sidewalk shall be
bordered by a minimum 2-foot wide “flush-graded” curb.
d. Construction of a turnaround at the public street terminus of Wilde Drive.
86. ____ ____ Applicant shall install safety-related improvements on all streets (including traffic
signs and striping), as approved by the Public Works Department.
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
87. ____ ____ Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department of the acquisition of all
necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and
drainage improvements.
88. ____ ____ Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department that legal access to the
property is available from Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive.
Encroachment Permit
Page 48
89. ___ ___ Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit
Center, if necessary, for construction of improvements within the right-of-way of
Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive.
Lot Line Adjustment:
90. ___ ___ Applicant shall complete and record the proposed Lot Line Adjustment with the
East Contra Costa Irrigation District parcel at the northeast corner of the subject
property.
AOB Reimbursements:
91. ___ ___ The applicant, prior to constructing any public improvements, shall contact Public
Works Department to determine the extent of any eligible credits or
reimbursements against the area of benefit fees.
Road Dedications:
92. ___ ___ Property Owner shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right-of-
way necessary for the planned turnaround at the terminus of Point of Timber
Road.
93. ___ ___ Property Owner shall convey to the Public, by Offer of Dedication, the right-of-
way encumbering all Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roads and bicycle and
pedestrian trails. These facilities will NOT be accepted by the County for
maintenance. More specifically, see Condition 46.
Street Lights:
94. ___ ___ Applicant shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010 -1 formed
for Countywide Street Light Financing.
Landscaping:
95. ___ ___ All landscaping to be maintained by the property owner shall be submitted to the
Zoning Administrator for review and approval.
Bicycle - Pedestrian Facilities:
Pedestrian Access
96. ____ ___ Applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance
with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This
shall include all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and curb ramps.
Page 49
97. ___ ___ All curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current
County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be
installed on all curb ramps. Adequate easements shall be established to
accommodate a minimum 4-foot landing at the top of any curb ramp proposed.
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA):
98. ___ ___ All roads, paths and trails intended for use as Emergency Vehicle Access,
including bridges appurtenant thereto, shall be designed to accommodate HS-20
vehicle loads. Alignment and surfacing shall meet “all weather” standards per the
approval of the Fire District and Public Works Department (20 feet, compacted
AB all-weather surface).
99. ____ ____ The Fire District and Public Works Department shall review and approve any
proposed vehicular bollards or gates to be installed at the terminus of the publicly-
maintained portion of Wilde Drive.
Parking:
100. ___ ___ Parking shall be prohibited in cul-de-sac bulbs, one side of on-site roadways
where the curb-to-curb width is less than 36 feet, and on both sides of on-site
roadways where the curb-to-curb width is less than 28 feet. “No Parking” signs
shall be installed along these portions of the roads subject to the review and
approval of Public Works Department.
Utilities/Undergrounding:
101. ___ ___ Applicant shall underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities,
including those along the frontage of Point of Timber Road. The developer shall
provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas,
telephone, cable television and communication conduits and cables including the
size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs
and meters, and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the
Improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite drawings and/or
utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer.
Construction:
102. ___ ___ The applicant shall provide a pavement analysis for those roads along the proposed
haul route or any alternate route(s) that are proposed to be utilized by the hauling
operation. This study shall analyze the existing pavement conditions, and
determine what impact the hauling operation will have over the life of the project.
The study shall provide recommendations to mitigate identified impacts. The
applicant shall be responsible for the cost of constructing the recommended
repairs. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the applicant shall execute a bonded road
Page 50
improvement agreement to assure the roadway repairs.
Maintenance of Facilities:
103. ____ ____ The maintenance obligation and financing of all common and open space areas,
private roadways, private street lights, public and private trails and landscaped
areas, EVA’s, perimeter walls/fences, and on-site drainage facilities shall be
included in the easements, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or an alternative
financing and maintenance entity approved by the Public Works Department. All
agreements between Reclamation District 800, the Town of Discovery Bay
Community Services District and the developer, along with the CC&Rs, shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the CDD and Public Works Department
at least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map for the first phase.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
104. ____ ____ The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating
on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system,
to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an
existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters
to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the
Ordinance Code.
Hold Harmless
105. ____ ____ The property owner shall be aware that the creek banks on the site are potentially
unstable. The property owner shall execute a recordable agreement with the
County which states that the developer and the property owner and the future
property owner(s) will hold harmless Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the event of damage to
the on-site and off-site improvements as a result of creek-bank failure or erosion.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
106. ____ ____ The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in
compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design
standards.
107. ____ ____ The applicant shall design and construct all proposed grading, dredging and
improvements to Kellogg Creek in compliance with all Federal, State and Local
regulatory permitting and design requirements. These agencies may include, but
not be limited to: US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Services,
California Department of Fish & Game, California Regional Water Quality
Control Boards, Reclamation District #800, and Contra Costa County Flood
Page 51
Control District.
108. ____ ____ Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and
driveway(s) in a concentrated manner.
109. ____ ____ Private storm drain easements, conforming to the width specified in Section 914-
14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be dedicated over all proposed storm
drains traversing residential lots or other portions of the property outside the
“common area.”
Floodplain Management:
110. ____ ____ The project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the
Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of
the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County
Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) Co Ord Code 82-28
as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property.
111. ____ ____ Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (C-LOMR-F) from FEMA concurring that the proposed
grading and site improvements, when completed, will be satisfactory for FEMA
to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map and eliminate the residential lots from the
Special Flood Hazard designation.
112. ____ ____ After completion of fill operations and installation of storm drain improvements,
the applicant shall submit a LOMR-F application with FEMA to finalize the
FIRM revision process. The FEMA LOMR-F must be obtained prior to issuance
of building permits on the residential units.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
113____ ____ The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for
municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California
State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (Central Valley - Region IV).
Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the
reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate
wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean
Water Program for the site's storm water drainage:
- Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area.
- Label all storm drains (“No Dumping, Drains to Delta) using current storm drain
markers.
Page 52
- Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing
run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter.
- Other alternatives comparable to the above, as approved by Public Works.
- Shallow roadside and on-site swales.
- Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program and lot-
specific IMPs to buyers.
Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance:
114. ____ ____ The applicant shall submit a FINAL Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a
Storm Water Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) to the Public
Works Department, which shall be reviewed for compliance with the County’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and shall be
deemed consistent with the County’s Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance (§1014) prior to filing of the final map. To the extent required
by the NPDES Permit, the Final Storm Water Control Plan and the O+M Plan will
be required to comply with NPDES Permit requirements that have recently
become effective that may not be reflected in the preliminary SWCP and O+M
Plan. All time and materials costs for review and preparation of the SWCP and
the O+M Plan shall be borne by the applicant.
115. ____ ____ Improvement Plans shall be reviewed to verify consistency with the final SWCP
and compliance with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES Permit and the
County’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014).
116. ____ ____ Storm water management facilities shall be subject to inspection by Public Works
Department staff; all time and materials costs for inspection of storm water
management facilities shall be borne by the applicant.
117. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, the property owner(s) shall enter into a standard
Storm Water Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement with
Contra Costa County, in which the property owner(s) shall accept responsibility
for, and related to, operation and maintenance of the storm water facilities, and
grant access to relevant public agencies for inspection of storm water
management facilities.
118. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, the property owner(s) shall annex the subject
property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1 (Storm Water
Management Facilities), which funds responsibilities of Contra Costa County
under its NPDES Permit to oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of
storm water facilities by property owners.
119. ____ ____ Any proposed water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer
than 72 hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito &
Vector Control District.
Page 53
120. ____ ____ All treatment BMP/IMPs constructed within each phase of the proposed
development shall be designed and sized to treat, at a minimum, storm water
generated from each phase constructed.
ADVISORY NOTES
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Town of Discovery Bay Community
Services District and Reclamation District 800.
The applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and
Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways. These fees
are related to regional improvements separate from those identified in the East County
Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) fee program, and other mitigation fees required
herein to be deposited to the County Road Trust account.
This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is
the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47,
Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that
may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
All construction within the creeks, including bridges, culverts, outfall structures, etc., will
be subject to permitting and review by the Public Works Department, Flood Control
Division per the provisions of Division 1010 of the County Ordinance Code.
This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
Although the Storm Water Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily
complete, it remains subject to future revision, as necessary, during preparation of
improvement plans in order to bring it into full compliance with C.3 storm water
requirements. Failure to update the SWCP to match any revisions made in the
improvement plans may result in a substantial change to the County approval, and the
project may be subject to additional public hearings. Revisions to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents may also be required. This may
significantly increase the time and applicant’s costs associated with approval of the
application.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Major Subdivisions (SD)\SD06-9010\SD06_9010_ COAs
Final 10.22.13.docx
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PANTAGES BAYS RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT / COUNTY FILES: SD06-9010 & DP04-3062
Administrative
1. ____ ____ This approval is based on the exhibits/reports/letters received by the
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development
Division (CDD) and/or referenced or added to the Final Environmental
Impact Report or the Conditions below, including the following:
A. Sheets 1 through 11 of Project Plans, titled “Subdivision 9010” Pantages
Bays October 2009 including Preliminary and Final Development Plan
and Vesting Tentative Map, Sheet 3 and 5 of 11 (as amended).
B. Tree Reports: HortScience October 2006 & August 2007.
C. Biology: Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and
Mitigation Plan for Pantages, Gibson & Skordal 2006 / Evaluation of
potential California red-legged frog, Miriam Green Associates 2010. /
Evaluation of giant garter snake, Miriam Green Associates 2010. /
Results of special-status species, Miriam Green Associates 2003. /
Response to CDFG Comments, Miriam Green Associates August 31,
2012. / Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods [fairy shrimp] Wet Season
Survey Pantages Property, Gibson & Skordal, LLC May 2003. / Dry
Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Pantages Property, EcoAnalysts, Inc.
August 4, 2003. / Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report, Stillwater
Sciences May 2007. / Bank Habitat Plan, Sheet 7 of 11 on Pantages
Bays Plans October, 2009. / Modified Table 8 Quantity (feet) and
quality of dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater
Sciences June 2010. / Modified Table 9 Quantity (feet) and quality of
dominant bank habitat affected by the project, Stillwater Sciences June
2010. / Response to CDFG Comments, Stillwater Sciences September
26, 2012.
D. Geology: Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, ENGEO 1999. /
Geotechnical Exploration Pantages, ENGEO June 23, 2004. /
Geotechnical Exploration Panatages Bays ENGEO September 22, 2006
(revised October 27, 2006). / Summary of Potential Settlement, ENGEO
2011. / Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO January 26,
2005.
E. Hydrology: Pantages Bays Storm Water Control Plan C.3 Report, dk
Consulting 2006/ Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment
Memorandum, PWA 2010. / Numerical Modeling of Discovery Bay:
Evaluation of Pantages Bays Project, RMA 2006.
Page 2
F. Landscaping: Preliminary Landscape Plan, Sheet 11 of 11 on Pantages
Bays Plans October, 2009.
G. Mooring Plan: Sheet 6 of 11 on Pantages Bays Plans October, 2009
(refer to Sheet 7 for correct bank habitat design for high quality and
moderate quality enhanced or recreated creek bank).
H. Wetlands Delineation Plan Sheet 8 of 10 on Pantages Bays Plans
October, 2009. / Jurisdictional Delineation Pantages Property, Gibson &
Skordal, LLC December, 2002 and verified by Army Corp letter dated
June 4, 2003. / Supplemental Delineation Request-Pantages Project,
Gibson & Skordal, LLC October 11, 2006. / Army Corps letter dated
January 7, 2009, verifying Jurisdictional Delineation Map Pantages
Properties May 2008.
I. Trails, Sidewalk & View Fencing Plan: Sheet 9 of 11 on Pantages Bays
Plans October, 2009. / Open Fencing – View Corridor Plan Exhibit,
Environmental Foresight, Inc. April 9, 2010.
J. Street, Open Space, Water, Marine Patrol Substation & Landscape
Parcels: Sheet 10 of 11 on Pantages Bays Plans October, 2009.
K. Pantages letter to Sheriff’s Office March 25, 2008, regarding marine
patrol substation. / Sheriff’s Office response letter to Pantages May 21,
2008. / Sheriff Substation & 2-Boat Dock Exhibit August, 2008. Email,
dated September 19, 2013 from Mark Williams, Assistant Sheriff to
Mark Armstrong, Applicant, regarding reconfigured marine patrol
substation.
L. Letters from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to CDD
(November 17, 2009; June 22, 2007; August 18, 2005; July 28, 2005;
September 15, 2004), and from Pantages to CCCFPD August 24,2005.
M. Waterfront Lots Sea Level Rise Exhibit, Storm Drain Exhibit, Overland
Release Exhibit, and Sea Level Rise Table, all dated December 22,
2010.
N. Plates 1-5 attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report.
2. ____ ____ This subdivision is approved contingent upon the following Board of Supervisors
actions;
A. Approval of the proposed General Plan amendment from Agricultural
Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DL) to Single-Family Residential
High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium Density (SM),
Page 3
Public / Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) and Water (WA)( County
File #GP99-0008)
B. Approval of the proposed Rezoning from General Agricultural District
(A-2) and Heavy Agricultural (A-3) to Planned Unit Development (P-1)
(County File #RZ04-3146)
This approval allows for a maximum of 292 residential lots.
Fees
3. ____ ____ This application is subject to an initial application fee, which was paid with the
application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review
expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fees due must be paid
within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever
occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working
days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project
planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit
issuance.
Indemnification
4. ____ ____ Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the
subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
County, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, of annul, the Agency’s approval concerning this subdivision map
application, which action is brought within the time period provided in Section
66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim,
action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
Compliance Report
5. ____ ____ At least 45 days prior to filing a Final Map or issuance of a grading permit,
whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a report on compliance with the
Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures with this permit for the review and
approval of the Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division (CDD). The fee for this application is a deposit of $1,000
that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit,
additional fees will be required.
a. Except for those Conditions administered by the Public Works Department,
the report shall list each Condition followed by a description of what the
applicant has provided as evidence of compliance with that Condition. (A
copy of the computer file containing the Conditions of Approval may be
available; to try to obtain a copy, contact the project planner at 674-7793).
Page 4
b. Unless otherwise indicated, the applicant will be required to demonstrate
compliance with the condition of this report prior to filing the Final Map.
Child Care
6. ____ ____ Upon the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay a fee of $400.00
per lot upon which a residence is being built for childcare facility needs in the
area as established by the Board of Supervisors.
Police Services
7A. ___ ___ The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain
and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels
created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual
amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of
voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be
completed prior to filing the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible
for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time the election is
requested by the owner. Allow a minimum of three to four months for processing.
7B. ___ ___ Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall offer to dedicate Parcel “I”
(0.51 acres more or less) on the Vesting Tentative Map and Preliminary Grading
Plan (Sheet 5 of 11 of the Pantages Bays Plans October 2009) to Contra Costa
County for use as a Sheriff’s marine patrol substation and boat dock. The offer to
dedicate shall also include a mooring easement in favor of the County for the boat
dock. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing on Parcel “I” a Sheriff’s
Marine Patrol Substation, docks and landing space for a Medevac helicopter after
construction of the project streets, utilities and Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)
and prior to the 50th occupancy permit.
The following improvements shall be constructed by the applicant on Parcel “I”:
Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation; an approximately 2,160 square foot, one
story, permanent modular building (“three wide” units, 12 X 60 feet each)
elevated above the 100-year flood plain ( taking into account State projections
on sea level rise) with the following improvements:
Restroom (sewer and water hook-ups), electricity (power), air conditioning,
appropriate low glare outside lighting, native low maintenance/low water
usage landscaping, remote control and video camera transmission of the
project entry vehicular gate from the substation.
Page 5
A boat dock to accommodate 3 boats and Sheriff’s personal water craft ( the
Office of the Sheriff will supply any boat hoist and be co-applicant for dock
permit),
A pre-engineered 2 door garage on slab, 25x25 feet in size with a 10 ft. ceiling
and roll up doors,
Emergency vehicle access road and turn-around, with a compacted gravel
surface elevated about the 100-year flood plain (taking into account State
projections on sea level rise).
Approximately 100’ x 100’ landing pad for Medivac helicopter.
At least 60 days prior to issuance of building permits for the Sheriff’s substation and dock the
applicant shall submit plans to the Office of the Sheriff for its review and comment and to CDD
for its review and approval.
Air Quality
8. ____ ____ Wood burning fireplaces or stoves shall not be permitted. Only natural gas
fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project plans shall not include wood
burning fireplaces or stoves and shall clearly indicate the prohibition against such
use. That prohibition includes outdoor wood burning fireplaces, ovens or similar
wood burning features. (Mitigation Measure AQ-1)
9. ____ ____ To reduce the air quality impacts of PM associated with grading and new
construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation
measures for all phases of construction:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
Page 6
by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior
to operation.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the on-site complaint and enforcement manager (COA#44) regarding dust
complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations. (Mitigation Measure AQ-2a)
10. ____ ____ To reduce health risks from TACs during project construction, the project
applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project:
Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two
minutes;
Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50
horsepower) to be used in the construction of the project (i.e., owned, leased,
and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20
percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most
recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing emissions includes
the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel projects, alternative fuels,
engine retrofit technology, after-treatment projects, add-on devices such as
particulate filters, and /or other options as such become available;
Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be
equipped with best available technology for emission reductions of NOx and
PM; and
Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s more recent
certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. (Mitigation
Measure AQ-2b)
Biology
Special-Status Plants
11. ____ ____ A. Prior to site disturbance a pre-construction survey for the Delta button celery
(Eryngium racemosum) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the
plant’s blooming period (June to October). The survey shall be conducted in
the area of the project site south of Point of Timber Road. If Delta button
celery is not found, no further mitigation is needed. If Delta button celery is
found, a qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such
as plant relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures,
including monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the
potential impacts on Delta button celery. The qualified biologist shall
coordinate implementation of these measures with the California Department
of Fish and Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols.
(Mitigation Measure BIO-A)
B. Prior to site disturbance pre-construction special-status plant surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist. Pre-construction surveys shall occur
Page 7
during the season that provides an adequate opportunity to identify
occurrences of any special-status plants. If no special-status plants are found,
no further mitigation is needed. If a special-status plant or plants are found, a
qualified biologist shall implement feasible alternative measures such as plant
relocation, seed collection, propagation or other suitable measures, including
monitoring and reporting, that would reasonably reduce the potential impacts
to the identified special-status plant. The qualified biologist shall coordinate
implementation of these measures with the California Department of Fish and
Game and efforts shall be consistent with related protocols. (Mitigation
Measure BIO-A)
Landscape Trees
12. ____ ____ To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80 trees on the project site, the
project includes landscaping with approximately 770 trees that would be planted
along the project roadways and at the project site entry as part of the proposed
landscaping. This is an approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio. Comply with the
following landscape/irrigation improvement and initial protection requirements
subject to the review and approval of the Department of Conservation and
Development, Community Development Division (CDD):
a. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading
permit a final landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape
architect shall be submitted to the CDD for review and approval. The Final
Plan shall be designed in general accord with the preliminary landscape plan,
Sheet 10 of 10 of the Project Plans dated October 2009.
b. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon
size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size.
c. Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to minimize
landscape maintenance cost.
d. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction Ordinance
Requirements: The plan shall comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient
Landscape (or with the County Ordinance if one is adopted) and with the
Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance (Chapter 82-18). The latter
ordinance applies to intersections with public roads. The landscape architect
shall certify that the plan complies with the ordinance improvement standards
and reporting requirements.
e. To assure the long term viability of this landscaping the applicant shall post a
bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus 20%. The term of the
bond shall extend 24 months beyond the installation of landscaping. Prior to
the acceptance of the bond by the County a qualified landscape designer shall
assess the value of the landscape and provide a copy of that assessment to the
Community Development Department. Prior to the release of the bond a
landscape designer shall submit a letter to CDD that the landscaping is in
good health. (Mitigation Measure BIO-1)
Page 8
Creek Bank Habitat
13. ____ ____ a. Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide CDD with proof of
permits required from resource agencies ( for example, a Section 404 permit,
Section 401 permit, Section 1602 permit) or absence of requirements for such
permits. Prior to removal or reconstruction of bank habitat along Kellogg
Creek or disturbing any creek/channel banks within the project site and at
Pantages Island, the applicant shall contact the CDFG, the Corps, the
RWQCB, and the Reclamation Board and determine if permits are warranted
for the activities pursuant to the regulations that are in effect.
b. All mitigation measures implemented to improve bank habitat shall be
approved by the Corps, the RWQCB, CDFG, and the Reclamation Board (if
necessary) through issuance of necessary permits prior to recordation of Final
Map.
c. Mitigation for loss of bank habitat shall be completed as prescribed by the
CDFG, Corps, RWQCB, and Reclamation Board.
d. Specifically, the applicant shall mitigate for the loss of 9,720 lineal feet of
excavated low (4,527 lf), moderate quality (4,781 lf) and high quality bank
habitat (412 lf) by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both on site and off site, to high quality
bank habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on
Pantages Island, ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive
and State Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality
bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and
grasses, rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated
portion of Pantages Island, and the North Cove to near the end of Kellogg
Creek. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet, which
exceeds removal lineal footage by 1,340 lineal feet.
e. Enhance existing bank habitat or create new bank habitat on site and off site,
approximately 11,060 linear feet in total, including: (1) shaded riverine
aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat (high quality bank habitat) on the
westerly, northerly and southerly sides of Pantages Island , the ECCID portion
of the project site, and the creek bank ECCID easement area west of the
project site (1,464 lf) from the Pantages property line to the bridge, and
Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Highway 4 (3,688 lf owned
by RD 800) ; and (2) moderate quality bank habitat (1,903 lf) along Kellogg
Creek on the easterly side of Pantages Island, and the northerly side of the
north cove to the northeasterly end of the project site. The creek bank and
revegetation design that creates moderate quality habitat following excavation
will include the following:
Page 9
i. Riprap with willow plantings shall be established between mean low
water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) to provide additional
stabilization and some shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
ii. A shallow sloping or level bench shall be established at approximately
MHW to support larger riparian trees such as Fremont cottonwood.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 5:1 and also planted with riparian
trees and grasses.
iv. Riparian trees planted along the shallow sloping or level bench shall
be planted on 15-foot centers to ensure adequate bank coverage.
v. Native riparian trees such as valley oaks, California buckeyes, and
Fremont cottonwoods and native grasses can be used for revegetation.
vi. The planted riparian trees shall be monitored by a biologist or arborist
annually for a period of 5 years to ensure that mortality does not
exceed 20 percent after 5 years. If there is greater than 20 percent
mortality of planted trees after 5 years, the project proponent shall be
responsible for replanting and monitoring the trees for an additional 3-
year period.
vii. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall
also be conducted. In the event an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and
eradication program shall be developed and implemented.
viii. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
ix.
To improve the overall habitat value of the bank, installation of tree
species along the lower bank may be possible by installing Sonatubes
in the rip-rap and planting the trees within these tubes. The Sonatubes
allow trees to grow along rip-rap banks without harming the integrity
of the bank. An alternative bank stabilization method other than rip-
rap, which provides and same or better overall quality of the habitat
and provides for sufficient protection against wave action, may be
considered.
g. Low and moderate quality habitat along the south side of the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel to the Lakeshore/Lakes bridge, along the westerly,
northerly and southerly sides of Pantages Island, in the section of Old Kellogg
creek at the southwestern end of the project site, and along the east and west
sides of Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4, shall be
restored to high quality habitat by creating a slope setback.
h. The setback shall be created by excavating existing bank material from
approximately MLW to the top of the bank.
i. An intertidal berm with a 10:1 or 20:1 slope shall be established to
create shallow water habitat and stabilize the bank.
Page 10
ii. The berm shall be planted with tules to provide in-water resting and
hiding places for fish.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 3:1 or 5:1 and planted with native
riparian trees and shrubs to create shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
iv. Trees and shrubs planted along upper bank shall be monitored by a
qualified biologist or arborist for a minimum 5-year period. If there is
greater than 20 percent mortality of planted trees and shrubs after 5
years, the applicant shall be responsible for replanting and monitoring
the trees for an additional 3-year period.
v. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall
also be conducted. In the event an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and
eradication program shall be developed and implemented.
vi. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
Existing low and moderate quality bank habitat around the westerly,
northerly and southerly perimeter of Pantages Island shall be restored
to high-quality habitat by implementing the setback design as
described for the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel. This design shall
be established around most of the island, except for bank habitat
adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat along Kellogg Creek shall be
stabilized with riprap (see subsection 13.e.i above) to prevent erosion
due to wave action from existing and future boater activity. Therefore,
this area of Pantages Island will be designed to provide moderate-
quality bank habitat as prescribed above in subsection 13.e. Also to
address wave action, moderate quality habitat shall be created along
the northerly side of the North Cove. (Mitigation Measure BIO-2)
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
14. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to vernal pool fairly shrimp
shall be issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the
Final Map. In order to offset the project’s impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp
the applicant shall implement one of the following measures:
i. Purchase credits in an existing fairy shrimp mitigation bank at a ratio
determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7
Consultation between the Corps and the USFWS;
ii. Acquire suitable mitigation property via fee title at a ratio determined
during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7 Consultation
between the Corps and the USFWS; or
iii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the project proponent shall make a
financial contribution to the Conservancy, to offset the project’s
Page 11
impact to the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The financial contribution to
the Conservancy or the amount of mitigation land that shall be
purchased via fee title shall be determined during negotiations with
USFWS during Section 7 consultation between the Corps and the
USFWS.
b. Prior to impacting the seasonal wetland where the vernal pool fairy shrimp
were found, documentation of the mitigation transaction (e.g., financial
contribution to the Conservancy), and/or a copy of the Biological Opinion
outlining the mitigation requirements and incidental take statement from
USFWS, shall be provided to CDD.
c. Prior to grading onsite, and as prescribed in a Biological Opinion issued for
the project, topsoils from the wetland containing the fairy shrimp egg bank
shall be scalped by a qualified federal 10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist and
redeposited in appropriate seasonal mitigation wetlands that shall be created
within the wetland mitigation preserve onsite. (Mitigation Measure BIO-3)
California red-legged frog
15. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to California red-legged frog
shall be issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the
Final Map. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to aquatic and upland buffer
habitat, that is, for each 1 acre of aquatic or upland buffer habitat impacted, 1
acre of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of
FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
c. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in permits/
authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project shall be
completed as stated in the permits/authorizations. Copies of all survey reports
and monitoring reports required by USFWS in the conditions of the Biological
Opinion shall be submitted to CDD.
d. Prior to filing of the Final Map CDD shall receive copies of all agency
agreements/ authorizations related to this species. (Mitigation Measure BIO-
4)
Giant garter snake
16. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to Giant garter snake shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to recordation of the Final
Map. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to suitable aquatic and upland habitat
Page 12
(that is, for each 1 acre of suitable aquatic and upland habitat impacted, 1 acre
of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of
FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
project proponent may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy. Any
mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in permits/
authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project shall be
completed as stated in the permits/authorizations.
c. Prior to filing of the Final Map CDD shall receive copies of all agency
agreements/authorizations related to this species (Mitigation Measure BIO-
5)
Western pond turtle
17. ____ ____ Any necessary resource agency permits related to western pond turtle shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the Final Map.
Prior to site disturbance in the affected area, the applicant shall install turbidity
barriers around construction areas in Kellogg Creek and the buffers prote cting the
preserved emergent marsh to ensure that western pond turtles do not enter the
project construction areas.
The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is not protected
pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the resource agencies
(CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific mitigation guidelines that must be
followed to offset a project’s impact to the western pond turtle. Mitigation for this
special-status species is determined on a project by project basis. It is likely that
any mitigation implemented for the California red-legged frog and the giant garter
snake would also mitigate the proposed project’s impact on the western pond
turtle. The mitigation measure for impacts to these two listed species would be a
1:1 mitigation ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land
would be acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat and a
surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would be as worked out by the
applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time applications for
permits/authorizations from these two agencies are submitted. Replacement
habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land, contribution into an existing
mitigation bank, or, with permission from state and federal regulatory agencies
and in agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy. (Mitigation Measure BIO-6)
Page 13
Federal and / or State listed fish species
18. ____ ____ Federal and/or State listed fish species and California species of special concern
fish.
a. To minimize potential impacts to federal and/or state listed fish and California
“species of special concern” during construction and dredging of the two
interior bays, a levee shall be maintained between the area to be excavated and
the Kellogg Creek channel.
b. A qualified fisheries biologist shall be onsite during all pumping and
siphoning activity to ensure that these activities do not result in take of federal
and/or state listed fish and California “species of special concern.”
c. Silt curtains or suction dredges shall be used when conducting work in the
ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek. Use of this equipment
will localize sediment movement and protect fish from entrainment and the
effects of increased turbidity.
d. All in-water work shall be conducted between August 1 and November 30 to
minimize the potential for take of threatened and endangered fish species. By
conducting work within this time period, the project will avoid most critical
spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for listed fish species.
e. Long-term impacts to fish are not expected provided the proposed bank
habitat mitigation to re-create and replace impacted bank habitat is
implemented by the applicant. (Mitigation Measure BIO-7)
Tree nesting raptors
19. ____ ____ a. Prior to site disturbance a preconstruction nesting survey of the trees to be
removed shall be conducted within 30 days of the scheduled removal to
ensure no birds are nesting. If possible, tree removal shall be completed
outside the nesting season (that is, between September 2 and February 28).
b. If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1 and
September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be conducted 30
days prior to grading/construction of the project or any proposed tree removal
work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all trees and
shrubs within sphere of influence of the proposed project, and not just of those
trees slated for removal.
c. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree
shall be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the
project site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be staked with
bright orange lath or other suitable staking.
d. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be demarcated per
above where the buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer may
be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and
determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this
occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer that allows
Page 14
sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/ harassment to the nesting
raptors. This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100 feet from the nest
tree.
e. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established
buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have
fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid
project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may
be earlier than August 1 or later, and would have to be determined by a
qualified raptor biologist. (Mitigation Measure BIO-8)
Swainson’s hawk
20. ____ ____ a. Any necessary resource agency permits related to Swainson’s hawk shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of the Final Map.
To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one of the following scenarios:
i. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat1 (this is a 1:1 impact to
mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation organization.
An operating endowment shall be provided to the conservation
organization to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity.
ii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with approximately 135
acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (see footnote
below).
b. Prior to site disturbance to ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting
Swainson’s hawks (on or adjacent to the project site), preconstruction nesting
surveys shall be conducted in conformance with Recommended Timing and
Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central
Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000).
c. If an active nest is found within 0.25 miles of the project site “to avoid
potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species),
project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be
reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1-
September 15 annually)”(CDFG 1994).
d. If Swainson’s hawks are found nesting on the project site, a qualified raptor
biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site.
The size of this non-disturbance boundary shall be determined by the qualified
raptor biologist in the field and in coordination with CDFG. The buffer shall
1 The mitigation requirement for 135 acres is the 171-acre project site minus the 36.43 acres of Corps jurisdictional waters of the U.S. onsite which do not provide
foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.
Page 15
be based on the location of the nesting tree, the birds’ tolerance of noise and
other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations).
e. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified raptor biologist,
and in coordination with CDFG, any non-disturbance boundary/nest buffer
could be vacated.
f. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of this tree
shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation measure prescribed for
tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is proposed
as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting: removal). Replacement nest
trees shall be native species (such as oaks or cottonwoods). (Mitigation
Measure BIO-9)
Western burrowing owl
21. ____ ____ Any necessary resource agency permits related to western burrowing owl shall be
issued, and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to ground disturbance
activities. Western burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the
methodologies prescribed by CDFG in their Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012. Below we provide a summary of the survey
methodologies contained in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation that
would be applicable to the project site. These surveys would meet the standards of
care required by CEQA for conducting surveys.
a. Initiating Survey. An initial take avoidance survey shall be conducted no less
than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. Burrowing owls
may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project
activities will trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not
limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground
disturbance.
b. Number of visits and timing. Conduct four survey visits: 1) at least one site
visit between February 15 and April 15, and 2) a minimum of three survey
visits, at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15, with at least
one visit after June 15.
c. Survey method. Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transects spaced 7
meters (m) to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density. At the
start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project
area for burrowing owls using binoculars. During walking surveys, record all
potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of
one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remain s, whitewash, or decoration.
Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also
listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey.
d. Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect
burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is >20
km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys have greater detection
probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr
winds, and cloud cover is <75%.
Page 16
e. Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature,
latitude, and survey method. However, surveys between morning civil
twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil
twilight provide the highest detection probabilities.
f. Avoiding burrowing owls. A primary goal is to design and implement
projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative impacts and disturbances
that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. Avoidance
measures may include but not be limited to:
Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from
February 1 through August 31.
Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by
migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls.
Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy
chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban,
industrial, or agricultural development.
Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on -
site worker's recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection.
Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that equipment and other
machinery do not collapse burrows.
Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance
animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur
(e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas).
Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of
January and February.
g. Minimizing Impacts. If burrowing owls and their habitat can be protected in
place on or adjacent to the project site, the use of buffer zones, visual screens
or other measures while project activities are occurring can minimize
disturbance impacts. A qualified biologist shall conduct site-specific
monitoring to inform the project proponent of buffer requirements. See Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) for additional guidance.
h. Permanent Impacts. Refer to Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(2012) for additional guidance regarding mitigation of permanent impacts to
burrowing owl habitat loss.
i. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement
with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial contribution to the
Conservancy to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls and burrowing owl
habitat. (Mitigation Measure BIO-10)
Impacts to other nesting birds
22. ____ ____ a. Prior to site disturbance a nesting survey shall be conducted no more than 14
days prior to tree removal and/or breaking ground (surveys should be
conducted a minimum of 3 separate days during the 14 days prior to
disturbance) prior to commencing with construction work if this work would
Page 17
commence between February 1 and September 1. If a lapse in project -related
work of 15 days or longer occurs, another focused survey consistent with
related protocols and if required, consultation with CDFG shall occur before
project work can be reinitiated.
b. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike, tri-colored blackbird, and/or
California black rail, are identified nesting within the area of affect, the
project sponsor shall contact CDFG regarding appropriate buffer sizes and
shall fence off a non- disturbance radius around the nest according to this
measure. (Mitigation Measure BIO-11)
Waters of the United States and / or State
23. ____ ____ The necessary resource agency permits related to Waters of the United States and
/ or State shall be obtained and evidence thereof provide to CDD, prior to filing of
the Final Map. Authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (e.g. Individual Permit and a
Certification of Water Quality) shall be obtained prior to filling any waters of the
U.S./State on the project site.
In conformance with the Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation
and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC
(dated November 15, 2006). the project shall minimize impacts by:
grading home pads to drain toward streets and away from open space
areas, landscaping with native plants,
construction of bioswales,
maintaining natural buffers between the development and the preserved
marsh habitat within the open space areas,
using native plantings as landscaping buffers between development and
open space preserve areas. An exception is at the Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA) crossing of the marsh where there is no buffer.
The open space preserve area shall be separated from adjacent residential
development with permanent residential fencing that protects the open
space preserve from unauthorized use while providing a visual connection
to the open space.
Residential fences shall be tubular steel or some other form of permanent,
visually open, fencing where houses back up to the open space preserve.
In addition, along the EVA/trail, kiosks with educational signage shall be
developed to reduce human-induced impacts.
Impacts to waters of the United States/State shall also be minimized by
implementing the following measures:
a. The project proponent shall implement best management practices consistent
with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the
project to protect the emergent marsh and wetland mitigation area, including
Page 18
installing orange construction fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and ot her
protective measures.
b. During project construction, a biological monitor shall be onsite to monitor
the integrity of preserved wetlands and other waters.
c. For those wetland areas that cannot be avoided, compensation wetlands shall
be enhanced/created to replace those wetlands permanently affected by project
activities. If possible, wetlands shall be created on-site and shall resemble
those wetlands affected by the project (known as in-kind replacement).
d. All impacted wetlands shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio (for each
square foot of impact, one square foot of wetland would be enhanced/created)
or as otherwise specified in permitting conditions imposed by the Corps and
RWQCB.
e. The specific mitigation for the project consists of the components listed here:
Creation of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland on-site;
Creation of approximately 0.30 acre of marsh habitat on-site;
Creation and enhancement of approximately 11,060 linear feet of bank
habitat on-site and off-site (the off-site mitigation includes the ECCID
Dredge Cut from the Pantages property line to the bridge linking
Lakeshore and Lakes neighborhoods (1,464 lf) and the RD 800 Kellogg
Creek banks from Newport Drive to State Route 4 (3,688lf)), including
shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat; Creation of
approximately 46 acres of open water habitat on-site;
Preservation of all avoided and created aquatic areas; and
Implementation of a comprehensive long-term storm water management
plan designed to protect water quality.
The compensatory mitigation envisioned for the project shall consist of two major
efforts. First shall be the creation of seasonal wetland habitat in the uplands
adjacent to the preserved marsh, and second shall be the creation and
enhancement of bank habitat within the project area.
Creation (Compensatory Mitigation)
Seasonal Wetland/Emergent Marsh/Open Water Habitat
Prior to the issuance of the 180th building permit, unless an alternative time frame
is specified in the necessary resource agency permits, the project shall:
a. Create a minimum of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland and 0.30
acre of marsh within the 36.83-acre open space preserve area (Parcel “C”).
Specifically, the creation of the seasonal wetland will occur in the 12.58-acre
upland area in the northwest corner of the site. The expansion of the marsh shall
be accomplished either on the eastern side of the existing marsh on the new
peninsula created by the opening of the northern bay or along the western side of
Page 19
the existing marsh. This represents a 1:1 mitigation ratio (created wetlands to
impacted wetlands).
b. Soil borings shall be taken prior to the construction of the seasonal wetlands
within the open space preserve to verify the suitability of the proposed wetland
soils (e.g. cobbly soils or old alluvium would not be suitable soils).
c. Ground water depths shall also be identified within the open space preserve.
d. The locations of the created wetlands shall be selected based on the existing
topography within the uplands, soil composition, and ground water depths, and
the created seasonal wetlands shall be excavated to a depth necessary to
accumulate seasonal (winter) groundwater and/or to any clay layer that will perch
rainfall.
e. The upper 6 inches of top soil shall be scalped from the seasonal wetlands to be
impacted and will be placed in the created wetlands for seed source. These
topsoils would contain a seed bank of the impacted pool plant species which
would germinate with fall/winter hydration of the re- created pools.
f. The created wetlands shall be very slightly over excavated to accommodate the
addition of topsoil.
g. This mitigation measure may be substituted by implementing another wetland
compensation plan that is approved for the project by both the Corps and the
RWQCB.
Bank Habitat
The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of approximately 9,720 lineal feet of
bank habitat by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of that existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high quality bank
habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on Pantages
Island, East Contra Costa Irrigation District(ECCID) property on the south side of
the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kell ogg Creek between
Newport Drive and State Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of
moderate quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with
riparian trees and grasses, rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the
excavated portion of Pantages Island, and the northerly side of the North Cove to
the end of Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060
lineal feet, an increase of 1,340 lineal feet and an overall substantial improvement
in the quality of the bank habitat.
Open Space Preservation
The preserved and created seasonal wetlands and marsh habitat shall be located
within a 36.83-acre permanently preserved area (Open Space Parcel “C”). The
marsh habitat on Pantages Island (Open Space Parcel “D,” 6.39 acres more or
less) shall be permanently preserved through conservation covenants/easements.
Page 20
It is envisioned that ownership of the two open space preserve areas will be
transferred to the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
(TDBCSD), prior to the recordation of the Final Map, for preservation in
perpetuity, or other public agency approved by CDD. The TDBCSD would also
function as the Preserve Manager and conduct the long-term monitoring and
maintenance of the preserve areas in perpetuity.
In addition, the approximately 11,060 linear feet of enhanced and created bank
habitat shall be preserved in perpetuity. The lineal footage within the project site
will be included as part of Water Parcel “F,” as modified to include that creek
bank and the shoring walls. It is envisioned that Parcel “F” as modified and the
enhanced bank habitat on ECCID property and Pantages Island will be transferred
to Reclamation District 800 (RD 800). RD 800 already owns the mitigation
Kellogg Creek banks from Newport Drive to State Route 4. RD 800 will own and
be responsible by conservation covenants/easements to monitor and maintain
these bank habitats in perpetuity. It is further envisioned that a maintenance and
improvement control easement will be recorded in favor of RD 800 over the slope
between the shoring walls and the back retaining wall (and the retaining wall
itself). See the Waterfront Lots Sea Level Rise Exhibit dated December 22, 2010.
Funding for maintenance of the permanently preserved open space conservation
area shall be provided through annual assessments of homeowners in Pantages
Bays that are secured through a TDBCSD landscape and lighting district or
alternative binding, permanent agreement completed prior to filing the Final Map.
With respect to the creek bank conservation areas owned by RD 800, the shoring
walls and the slope/retaining wall easement, the assessment will be created by a
Proposition 218 vote undertaken prior to filing the Final Map.
A 5-year monitoring program shall be established to monitor the progress of the
wetland mitigation toward an established goal. At the end of each monitoring
year, an annual report will be submitted by the applicant to the Corps, RWQCB
and Contra Costa County. This report will document the hydrological and
vegetative condition of the mitigation wetlands, and will recommend remedial
measures as necessary to correct deficiencies. The applicant shall submit proof, in
written form, to CDD prior to filing of the Final Map that the applicant is
responsible for the 5- year monitoring as it may be extended, including its cost.
(Mitigation Measure BIO-12)
Cultural
24. ____ ____ Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event that any prehistoric,
historic, archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be
halted and the applicant shall consult with the County and a qualified professional
Page 21
(historian, archaeologist and/or paleontologist as determined appropriate and
approved by the County) to assess the significance of the find.
If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the
consulting professional shall determine the appropriate avoidance measures or
other appropriate mitigation.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting professional
to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the County shall determine whether
avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project
design, costs, and other considerations.
If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data recovery, shall
be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials
recovered shall, at the discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according
to current professional standards.
At the County’s discretion, all work performed by the consulting professional
shall be paid for by the applicant and at the County’s discretion, the professional
may work under contract with the County. (Mitigation Measure CUL-1)
25. ____ ____ In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in
any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be
contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is
required, and
If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours;
The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or
persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased
Native American;
The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means
of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains
and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98; or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and
associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location
not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
Page 22
The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most
likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission;
The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or
The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the
recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native
American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner. (Mitigation Measure CUL-4)
Geology
26. ____ ____ The project applicant shall design structures and foundations to withstand
expected seismic sources in accordance with the current version of the California
Building Code, as adopted by the County. (Mitigation Measure GEO-1a)
27. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit updated
improvement plans for the project for review by the County’s Peer Review
Geologist and review and approval by CDD. For the purposes of geologic
review, the plans shall provide detailed information on the bank stabilization wall
system being proposed along the waterfront residential lots. (Mitigation Measure
GEO-1b)
28. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit an updated
geology, soils and foundation report meeting the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 94-4.420 for review by the Peer Review Geologist and review
and approval of CDD. The report shall address the specific approach to grading
and development indicated by the final subdivision map and improvement plans,
and shall provide technical data and engineering analysis that addresses the
stability of the residential lots.
The project geotechnical engineer shall use the following performance criteria:
a) Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static conditions,
b) Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static conditions, and which takes into
account the potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity (Great Valley
seismic zone) and
c) Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down. ( Mitigation Measure GEO-
1c)
29. ____ ____ During the construction of subdivision improvements, the project geotechnical
engineer shall provide observation and testing services and issue a
grading/shoring wall completion report. The report shall provide docu mentation
on the bank stabilization wall depths and appropriate testing of fill compaction to
determine the effectiveness of the bank stabilization measures in preventing
Page 23
lateral spreading failures toward the Kellogg Creek channel. (Mitigation
Measure GEO-1d)
30. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the
Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and
Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State
Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB.
The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
With regard to long-term control of sedimentation and protection of water quality,
a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006) was
prepared for the project and submitted to the County’s Public Works Department
in order to comply with County water quality requirements. Engineered linear
bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the selected storm water runoff treatment
for this project, which are area based storm water treatment facilities. (Mitigation
Measure GEO-2)
31. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, the project applicant shall submit a
plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate
how the results of the study will guide design of concrete and ferrous materials
that are in contact with the ground. (Mitigation Measure GEO-3)
Deed Acknowledgments
32. ____ ____ Concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall record a
statement to run with the deeds to the property acknowledging the approved
geology, soil, and foundation report by title, author (firm), and date, calling
attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available
from the seller.
Global Climate Change
33. ____ ____ The County shall ensure that the project applicant(s) employs green building
techniques in the design of proposed structures within the Pantages Bays project.
Specifically, structures shall conform at a minimum to the California Green
Building Code or equivalent green building standards. (Mitigation Measure
Cum-GCC-1a)
34. ____ ____ The applicant shall incorporate the following measures within the proposed
project:
a) Project landscaping shall include water-efficient native and adaptive plants in
combination with high-efficiency irrigation equipment;
Page 24
b) Recycled content shall be included in project building materials, including
the use of pre-consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project walkways,
driveways, roadways, and non-plant landscape elements;
c) To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior paints, carpets, adhesives,
sealants, and coatings selected for the project shall have a low concentration
of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs);
d) The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems within each
single family home shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants (i.e.
non CFC-based refrigerants);
e) Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall include high-efficiency
systems to provide enhanced indoor air quality as potential pollutants would
be ventilated through the building at a faster rate;
f) The project shall install high efficiency restroom fixtures including low-flow
or dual flush toilets to reduce potable water use;
g) Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council) shall be used in wood materials for the single family
homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving, doors, and countertops;
and
h) The project shall install water and energy efficient appliances and lighting
fixtures, including EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration equipment.
i) In each garage an electric outlet shall be installed and dedicated for use in
recharging electric vehicles. (Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1b)
Hazardous Materials
35. ____ ____ Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil samples shall be collected from the paint
disposal area and analyzed for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile
organic compounds. Soil samples shall be compared to the Environmental
Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined by the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board. If soil samples exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated
and remediated under the oversight of the Contra Costa Environmental Health
Division (CCEHD). (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a)
The project site shall be inspected by an environmental professional, appointed by
the County, during demolition and preliminary grading activities. In the event
that previously unidentified contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall
be reported to CCEHD and investigated and remediated under the oversight of
CCEHD in accordance with existing regulatory programs. (Mitigation Measure
HAZ -1b)
36. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to
the County that all asbestos-containing materials have been removed at the
existing residence located to the south of Point of Timber Road, in compliance
with state regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a)
Page 25
37. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to
the County that all lead-based paint (LBP) has been removed at each of the
existing former residences on the project site, in compliance with state
regulations. (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b)
Hydrology
38. ____ ____ During construction a qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) on the project team
shall perform, at minimum, weekly monitoring of the water quality in Kellogg
Creek adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine whether adjustments to their
position or depth are required. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as needed, to
accurately assess water quality degradation. (Mitigation Measure Hyd-1a)
39. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall submit a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the
Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and
Development. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State
Construction Storm Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the County and the RWQCB.
The County has SWPPP resources available on its website: http ://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/. Additionally, the Title 10 Ordinance (1010)
of the Contra Costa County Code of Ordinances requires the project sponsor to
obtain a permit for drainage activities for creek improvements to Kellogg Creek
and Old Kellogg Creek. (Mitigation Measure HYD-1b)
40. ____ ____ To prevent pollution of receiving waters due to equipment fueling, storage, and
maintenance, the contractor shall develop a detailed set of guidelines to follow.
Final plan notes, and contractor bid documents shall include the following
specifications:
1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for storage of maintenance
materials, and refueling purposes.
2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any runoff so that any
contaminants such as spilled fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving
waters.
If heavy-duty construction machinery is left overnight in an area that is not
protected from direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall be placed beneath
the engine block and hydraulic systems. (Mitigation Measure Hyd-1c)
41. ____ ____ Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall coordinate
with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) to identify and
survey the existing and abandoned groundwater wells on the project site.
Page 26
The identified groundwater wells shall be properly decommissioned and/or
retrofitted under permit from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the
decommissioned wells for approval. (Mitigation Measure Hyd-2)
42. ____ ____ Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a
finished floor elevation of residential units at 14.1 feet. (Mitigation Measure
Hyd-3a)
43. ____ ____ Improvement plans, including final grading plans shall include, at minimum, a
finished street level elevation of 12.1 feet including the EVAs. (Mitigation
Measure Hyd-3b)
Noise and Vibration
44. ____ ____ All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30
AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and
federal holidays on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state
or federal government as listed below:
New Year’s Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and Federal)
Lincoln’s Birthday (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day (State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please
visit the following websites:
Federalholidays:
http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2011.asp
California holidays: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml
At least 10 days prior to the issuance of grading permits signs shall be posted at
the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day
and evening contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the on-site
complaint and enforcement manager in the event of problems.
Page 27
An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to
and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any
complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent
land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and
coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures
(considered technically and economically feasible) warranted correcting the
problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the
construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager
will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all
construction hours to respond to complaints.
At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction activities for
each major phase of construction the applicant shall prepare a notice that grading
or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and
mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The
notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and
area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be
included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons
with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of
responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control,
tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 24-hour
emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be
re-issued with each phase of the project and a copy shall be mailed to CDD.
(Mitigation Measure NOI-1a)
The project applicant shall prepare a detailed construction noise mitigation plan
for review and approval by the CDD at least 30 days prior to the issuance of
grading permits. The goal of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying
neighbors of the extent of the noise that can be expected during particular phases
of the project grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to call if there are
noise-related complaints. Submission of this construction noise mitigation plan
shall be required as part the grading permit application.
The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the California Model Community
Noise Ordinance limits of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60dBA for
stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation goals.
Information in the plan shall include but not be limited to the following:
Construction schedule showing dates and location of activities.
List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase and sound
level estimates for each phase.
Height, length, and location of any recommended noise barriers. The barriers
can be constructed out of wood or other materials as long as they have a
Page 28
minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5 pounds per square foot.
Possible materials include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully overlapping 1x
redwood boards (1-1/2-inch-thick total). The barriers would likely be 6 to 8
feet tall but this would be refined as part of the construction noise control
plan. Issues to consider when determining the ultimate height, length, and
location of the barriers are the actual construction practices, including
equipment to be used and the location and duration of noisier activities. The
topography will also need to be considered in the final determination of
barrier heights and effectiveness.
Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive locations. The
project applicant shall limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week set
by Contra Costa County.
Locate stationary equipment as far from residents as is practicable and/or
enclose noise sources.
The project applicant shall require the contractor to use electric or
hydraulically powered rather than diesel or pneumatically powered equipment
and construction tools as feasible.
Provide intake silencers and “resident-type” exhaust mufflers on vehicles and
equipment and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools as feasible.
The method for construction of the shoring walls will be Cement Deep Soil
Mixing (CDSM), using multiple augers and with steel I-beams lowered into
each column while the soil-cement mixture is still in a fluid state. There will
be negligible vibration and typical construction noise with this method. Steel
sheet piles as shoring walls is not allowed, nor is deep dynamic compaction of
soils. These shoring wall and soil stabilization methods generate too much
noise and vibration. (Mitigation Measure NOI-1b)
45. ____ ____ At least 14 days prior to the issuance of grading permits the project applicant shall
construct temporary noise barriers along the western property line neighboring the
existing residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West subdivisions.
Noise barriers shall provide noise reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA.
(Mitigation Measure NOI-1c)
Parks and Recreation
46. ____ ____ Concurrent with the filing of the Final Map the project applicant shall on the face
page of the Final Map (and/or by other recorded instrument reviewed and
approved by CDD) offer to dedicate to the public access by pedestrians and
bicyclists to approximately 2.6 acres of public trails (in a 20-foot EVA with
shoulders and at least eight feet paved in the middle on the EVA connected to “B”
Street and “A” Street and paved off center on the EVA to the marine patrol
substation), plus the eight-foot sidewalk leading from Point of Timber Road to the
public trails through the preserved open space, and including the passive
recreation location at the end of the trail beyond the marine patrol substation) for
ingress, egress and use by pedestrians and bicyclists. The right of public access
recorded documentation shall confirm: (i) dogs not on leash are not permitted on
Page 29
the EVA/trails due to proximity to creek banks, emergent marsh and seasonal
wetlands (includes dogs accompanying both members of the public and Pantages
Bays homeowners); (ii) dogs on leash are allowed unless prohibited per permits
issued by the Army Corp of Engineers and/or other resource agencies) (iii) that all
pedestrians and bicyclists (and permitted dogs) must stay on EVA/trails in open
space parcel, for purposes of public safety and environmental protection of the
nearby emergent marsh, created seasonal wetlands, and created/enhanced high
and moderate creek bank habitat; (iv) that for the same reasons no fishing or
swimming is allowed from those creek bank locations; and (v) that public access
is limited from dawn to dusk. The recorded documentation of the right of public
access to the EVA/trails shall confirm the foregoing limitations on that use.
The applicant shall provide a water fountain at the end of the trail beyond the
marine patrol substation for public use (water supply will be from the metered
hook-up for the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation). Tables and seating near the
open water at the end of the trail beyond the marine patrol substation, kiosks and
signage that is historical (related to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber) and
educational (related to the environment, its protection. and limits on trails use in
open space as described above), and benches along the trails, all in a number,
design and content subject to review and approval of CDD. The public trails
through the open space area also serve as an EVA and must comply with Fire
Department requirements and be completed by the issuance of the 180th building
permit.
Signage shall be provided at the two project entries for public pedestrians and
bicyclists (Point of Timber and Wilde Drive) and the trail heads at the end of “B”
Street and “A” Street, which confirms public pedestrian and bicyclist access to the
EVA/trails and the sidewalks and roads within Pantages Bays. The signage shall
also specify the limitations on such use (e.g.,if dogs are permitted they must be on
leash on EVA/public trails; dogs must be on leash on roads and sidewalks;
pedestrians and bicyclists must stay on trails in open space; public pedestrian and
bicyclist access permitted only from dawn to dusk). The signs and their content
are subject to review and approval of CDD.
In combination with the dedication of the public trails the project shall pay a park
dedication fee of $1,351 per dwelling unit upon issuance of building permits.( The
park dedication fee of $1,351 was the fee in effect at the time the application was
deemed complete on November 11, 2006).
Concurrent with the filing of the Final Map the applicant shall on the face page of
the Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument reviewed and approved
by CDD) offer to dedicate to the public access to the privately owned roadways
and sidewalks within Pantages Bays for ingress, egress and use by pedestrians and
bicyclists from dawn to dusk. The recorded documentation of the right of public
access to project roads and sidewalks shall confirm that it does not include public
Page 30
vehicular use (unless by invited guest), and that dogs are permitted with the public
only if on leash.
It is anticipated that these offers of dedication of public access for pedestrians and
bicyclists will be accepted on behalf of the public by the County (and/or by
another public agency approved by CDD) prior to or concurrent with recordation
of the Final Map. These rights of public access and the right of enforcement by
members of the public and the County (or by another public agency) shall be
confirmed in the CC&Rs and individual deed disclosures. (Mitigation Measure
PS-1)
46A. __ __ Improvement plans shall include two 90-degree parking stalls located in each of
the “A” Street and “B” Street cul-de-sacs, and designated for handicap
accessibility in order to provide for vehicular access for the disabled adjacent to
the public trails within the project open space. Required turning radius in the cul-
de-sacs for fire trucks shall be maintained and grading to accommodate the stalls
shall stay outside the emergent marsh. The public agency responsible for
maintenance of the public trails within Open Space Parcel “C” (likely the Town
of Discovery Bay CSD) shall maintain the ADA parking stalls, and make
available the necessary means of electronic access through the vehicular gate at
the end of Point of Timber Road to any disabled member of the public making
that request for the purpose of securing direct vehicular access to the open space
public trails. The same method to open the gate for project residents and/or
public agencies shall be made available to disabled members of the public who
request it for that purpose. These requirements shall be included in the recorded
public trail easement. Signage at the project entry shall provide notice as to the
location of the ADA parking stalls and the public agency responsibility with
respect to vehicular access through the gate requested by disabled members of the
public. The CC&Rs for the homeowners association shall confirm this right of
access through the vehicular gate for disabled members of the public who req uest
it and the requirements with respect to project entry signage and for permanent
retention of the ADA parking stalls at the cul-de-sacs. The final location of the
four parking stalls, and the form and text of the applicable signage, public trail
easement and CC&Rs with respect to this condition, shall be approved by CDD
prior to filing of the Final Map.
Public Utilities (Water & Sewer)
47. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide documentation to CDD
(i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that the
TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient financing for the construction of
any required improvements outlined in the Water MP to ensure sufficient capacity
exists to serve the project.
Page 31
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are
constructed and operational. (Mitigation Measure UTIL-1)
48. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide documentation to
CDD (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of CDD that
TDBCSD has identified and secured sufficient funding for the construction of any
capacity or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP and
necessary so that serving the project does not exceed the requirements of
RWQCB.
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide
documentation to CDD that said improvements needed to serve the project are
constructed and operational, and that any source control measures are being
implemented consistent with the requirements of RWQCB. (Mitigation Measure
UTIL-2)
Street Names
49. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map, proposed street names (public and
private) shall be submitted for review by CDD, Graphics Section (Phone #674-
7810). Alternate street names should be submitted. The Final Map cannot be
certified by CDD without the approved street names. Street names of historic
significance to this part of the Delta and Point of Timber will be used if available,
subject to review and approval of CDD.
Transportation
50. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway
(south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound to westbound left-turn
lane from Byron. This improvement is currently identified in the 2007 Contra
Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although
funding has not been identified. If this improvement is not included in a County
fee program or other funding program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the improvement prior to the
issuance of building permits. Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure TRA-1)
51. ____ ____ The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa
Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade
Page 32
existing roadways. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require
the project applicant to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways
and/or construct new facilities in the project area upon issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure TRA-2)
52. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Byer Road/Byron
Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and a
southbound left turn lane. This improvement is not identified in any funding
program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs for
this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the
improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1)
53. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron
Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved
by installing a traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and
providing left-turn pockets on all approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound
Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway
Drive to Byron Highway would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation would require modifications
to the adjacent railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required
left turn pocket on the eastbound approach. This improvement is currently
included in the Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee
Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1) is included in the ECRAOB fee
program at time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
Page 33
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits.
(Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1))
54. ____ ____ As an alternative to Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1), mitigation of
the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and
Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing
traffic signals at both intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn
lane pocket at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Traffic would not
be shifted under this mitigation, and a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing
at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection would not be needed.
A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection is not identified in any
funding program. Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding program.
If these improvements are not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14
percent of the total costs for this improvement. To determine the cost of the
improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2))
55. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour
Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and providing left
turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is currently
included in the Draft East County Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee
Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3 is included in the ECRAOB fee program at
time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Page 34
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calcula tes that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-3)
56. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal.
This improvement is currently included in the Draft East County AOB
Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4 is included in the ECRAOB fee program at
time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public W orks Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-4)
57. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal and
adding left turn lanes at all four intersection approaches. This improvement is not
identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of
Page 35
the total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To
determine the cost of the improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s
estimate of that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department
prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5)
58. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers
Avenue intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This
improvement is currently included in the Draft East County AOB Transportation
Mitigation Fee Update project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6 is included in the ECRAOB fee program at
time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculate s that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-6)
59. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler
Road intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This
improvement is not identified in any funding program. If this improvement is not
included in a County fee program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the
County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections identified as
operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions and not identified in a fee
program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the project applicant would
be required to contribute between 10 and 11 percent of the total costs for this
improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the
improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building
permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7)
60. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway
(south) intersection can be achieved by adding a second left-turn lane on the
Page 36
Byron Highway approach and a second through lane on the southeast-bound SR4
approach.
The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is
currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement
& Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. The second
through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any
funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the
total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine
the cost of the improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of
that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance
of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8)
61. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Newport Drive
intersection can be achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is
not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of project
approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of this
improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to the
issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15 of the EIR, the
project applicant would be required to contribute between 4 and 6 percent of the
total costs for this improvement upon issuance of building permits. To determine
the cost of the improvement the applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of
that cost for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior issuance
of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9)
62. ____ ____ Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo
Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by adding a northbound right turn
lane. This improvement is currently included as one of several improvements
intersection in the Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update
project list.
The project applicant shall satisfy this Condition by one of the following:
Page 37
Payment of the East County Regional AOB (ECRAOB) fee if the improvement in
this Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10 is included in the ECRAOB fee program
at time of issuance of building permits.
Or
Payment of its fair share towards the cost of this improvement to the County’s
Road Trust account (Fund #8192). Unless a calculation of the project’s fair share
percentage of the improvement cost has already been completed for and accepted
by the County, the applicant shall submit a fair share study which calculates that
percentage, for review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. To determine the cost of the improvement the
applicant shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of that cost for review and approval
of the Public Works Department prior issuance of building permits. (Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-10)
63. ____ ____ The project applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa
Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade
existing roadways upon issuance of building permits. (Mitigation Measure CUM
TRA-11)
Visual/Lighting
64. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits the project applicant
shall submit a lighting plan for the review and approval by CDD. Exterior
lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall utilize
motion detection systems where applicable. In general, the light footprint of
individual units shall not extend beyond the periphery of each property.
Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply
with the standard California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency
Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses.
(Mitigation Measure VIS-1)
Architectural Design of Non-Waterfront Production Homes Models / Fencing Plan
65. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall
submit, for review and approval of CDD, floor plans and elevations (showing
building height) for the models of the non-waterfront production homes. This
condition does not apply to the 100’ wide by 110’ deep minimum size non-
waterfront homes. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits the
applicant shall also submit for review and approval of CDD a fencing plan for the
whole of the Pantages Bays project.
Page 38
Homeowners Association
66. ____ ____ Prior to recordation of Final Map a homeowners association shall be formed for
the ownership and maintenance (through homeowners assessments) of all
common areas including private streets and common landscaping except as
specified in these Conditions of Approval and/or Mitigation Measures. Examples
of exceptions to ownership and maintenance by the homeowners association
include Open Space Parcel “C,” Open Space Parcel “D,” Water Parcel “F,” and
the Public Trails/EVA easement area. Homeowners will be financially responsible
for the maintenance of those parcels through other assessment mechanisms as
described in Condition 69 below. Marine Patrol Substation Parcel “I” will be
owned and, through the Office of the Sheriff, maintained by the County at its cost.
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
67. ____ ____ At least 60 days prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit, for CDD
review and approval, the CC&Rs for the Pantages Bays project. Prior to
submitting the CC&Rs to CDD for review and approval the applicant shall work
with the Lakeshore Home Owners Association for review and comment of the
CC&Rs (Contact Duane Steele). The CC&Rs shall include information for the
future property owners that the trails to be constructed from the entrance to the
Pantages Bays through the Open Space to near the water’s edge at the northeast
corner of the site, as well as the sidewalks and streets within Pantages Bays, shall
be available for public pedestrian and bicycle use from dawn to dusk, subject to
the limitations described in Condition 46 applicable to all trail users (e.g., dogs on
leash are allowed on EVA/trails unless prohibited in permits from resource
agencies). The CC&Rs shall also confirm that rights of access to that effect are
included on the recorded Final Map (and/or other suitable recorded instrument
reviewed and approved by CDD) and accepted on behalf of the public by the
County (and/or other public agency approved by CDD such as the TDBCSD).
The Police, Fire District, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), RD 800,
TDBCSD, and other public agencies (e.g., Mosquito Abatement District) right of
ingress, egress and use of all roads (includes all of Parcel “A”) and EVAs within
the Pantages Bays project shall be provided for and confirmed in the CC&Rs.
The offers of dedication to the public shall so provide, and a note to that effect
shall be included on the face page of the Final Map (and/or other suitable
recorded instrument reviewed and approved by CDD), as provided for in
Condition 76 below.
The CC&Rs shall confirm that maintenance of the streets, sidewalks, landscaping,
creek banks, shoring walls, open space, EVA/public trails, the passive recreation
location at the end of the public trails, and the typical police service district
assessment shall be paid for by Pantages Bays homeowners through assessments
(for example, TDBCSD landscaping and lighting district assessments, RD 800
Page 39
tax bill assessments on waterfront residential lots, police service district tax bill
assessment, homeowners association assessments).
The CC & Rs shall confirm that each homeowner is responsible for maintenance
and repair of the back retaining wall on the waterfront lots and the slope between
that wall and the shoring wall. They shall further confirm that any storm water
drainage improvements associated with the slope, retaining wall and shoring wall
shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. The CC & Rs shall
further confirm that RD 800 will have an easement over the slopes and retaining
walls to enforce these obligations.
The CC&Rs shall include the Pantages Bays Design Standards described below in
Conditions 76 and 77. The CC&Rs shall confirm they are enforceable in all
respects by CDD, and that CDD must confirm compliance with them prior to
issuance of a building permit for the construction of a new home and accessory
structures, or subsequent alterations. There is no requirement that the CC&Rs
include design review by the homeowners association.
Also included in the CC&Rs shall be information to the future property owners of
waterfront lots regarding view corridors to the water from the sidewalk/street.
Both side yards on most waterfront lots shall be required to have open fencing
along the front to provide the opportunity for at least one view corridor from the
fence to the water (through the back yard). One side yard may be a non-view
corridor side yard planted with hedges to restrict views into the side yard. This
will most likely occur along the garage side of the house where residents may
store items like garbage containers and landscaping equipment that they do not
want viewed from the street. To illustrate the requirement the open fence exhibit
by Environmental Foresight Inc. dated 4/9/10, as modified to be consistent with
the Pantages Bays Design Standards, shall be included in the CC&Rs. Excepted
from this view corridor requirement are the waterfront pie-shaped lots on cul-de-
sacs and other irregular waterfront lots listed in the Design Standards. The
fencing requirements related to view corridors are included in the Pantages Bays
Design Standards and are enforceable by CDD.
There shall be a recorded deed disclosure for each of the approved lots confirming
the foregoing as well, with the form and content reviewed and approved by CDD.
The recorded deed disclosure shall include reference to the Design Standards and
the waterfront lots to which the view corridor requirement applies.
Construction and Demolition Debris
68. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to the issuance of the building and/or demolition permit(s),
the developer shall submit a “Debris Recovery Plan” demonstrating how they
intend to recycle, reuse or salvage building materials and other debris generating
from the demolition of existing building and/or the construction of new buildings.
At least 30 days prior to the final inspection of the first residential unit not
Page 40
including models, the developer shall submit a completed “Debris Recovery
Report” documenting actual debris recovery efforts including the quantities of
recovered and landfilled materials) that resulted from the project.
Ownership, Maintenance and Financial Responsibility for Project Parcels
69. ____ ____ The non-residential parcels below shall be recorded on the Final Map. These
parcels shall be owned and maintained as provided below. The financial
responsibility for that maintenance will likely be provided as described below.
Necessary easements related the parcels are described below.
A. Parcel “A” (18 acres, more or less) includes the private roadways, sidewalks,
bioswales, storm drainage facilities, street trees, primary entry gate and
features at Point of Timber, and the secondary EVA and pedestrian/bicyclist
entry at Wilde Drive. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding
responsibility: Pantages Bays homeowners association with funding from
homeowners assessments. The Wilde Drive EVA and pedestrian/bicyclist
entry shall be offered for dedication to the County, with maintenance and
funding responsibility the same as for the private streets by the HOA.
B. Parcels “B,” “G,” and “H” at the Point of Timber entry are for landscape
purposes. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding responsibility:
Pantages Bays homeowners association with funding from homeowners
assessments.
C. Parcel “E” is the public turnaround at the project entry at the end of public
Point of Timber Road. Ownership, maintenance, and maintenance funding
responsibility: Contra Costa County following acceptance of the turnaround as
part of the public roadway.
D. Parcel “C” is open space (37 acres, more or less), which includes the recreated
seasonal wetlands and the preserved emergent marsh. Parcel “D” is also open
space (6 acres, more or less) on Pantages Island, which includes preserved
emergent marsh. Ownership (subject to conservation covenants/easements)
and maintenance: TDBCSD. Maintenance funding responsibility: Pantages
Bays homeowners tax bill assessments likely through a landscaping and
lighting district formed prior to recording Final Map. An alternative to
TDBCSD ownership and maintenance would be RD 800, with funding by
Pantages Bays homeowners through a Proposition 218 assessment, and with
the vote completed by RD 800 and owner and the assessments finalized prior
to filing the Final Map. Another alternative, though not preferred, would be
ownership (with conservation covenants/ easements) by the Pantages Bays
homeowners association, with maintenance by an approved conservancy
organization, and funding through the association and/or an endowment.
E. Parcel “F” as modified in the Final Map will be comprised of waterways,
shoring walls and creek bank (47 plus acres, plus or minus; as currently shown
Page 41
on the tentative subdivision map the parcel only includes water). There will be
a related easement for RD 800 control and enforcement of required
maintenance and repairs by each homeowner (and limitations on landscape,
and improvements) on the back retaining wall and the slope between that wall
and the shoring wall. There will likely be a similar RD 800 enforcement
easement with respect to repair and maintenance of storm drainage
improvements by the homeowners association where located on a slope,
retaining wall and shoring wall. A related easement on adjoining open space
parcels for RD 800 access will also be required. Ownership (subject to
conservation covenants/easements), related easements and maintenance: RD
800 with funding by Pantages Bays waterfront homeowners through
Proposition 218 assessments, with the vote completed by RD 800 and owner
and the assessments finalized prior to filing the Final Map. RD 800 will also
be responsible to maintain through conservation covenants/easements the
southern creek bank on ECCID land from the westerly end of the Pantages
property to the Lakeshore/Lakes bridge, as well as the creek banks on Kellogg
Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4. Funding for this off-site
creek bank maintenance may be the same as for Parcel “F.” RD 800 and the
applicant may negotiate as part of a pre-annexation agreement an alternative
financing mechanism as to elements of Parcel F” and/or the off-site creek
banks, subject to CDD review and approval.
F. Parcel “I” is the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation parcel (0.51 acres, more or
less). Following acceptance of the offer of dedication and the constructed
improvements, the parcel and facilities will be owned by the County.
Maintenance of the parcel and its facilities (including the boat dock) will be
the responsibility of the County, at its cost through the Office of the Sheriff.
The creek bank within the mooring easement for the dock will be owned and
maintained by RD 800 per subsection E above.
G. The EVA/public trails will be shown as an easement within Open Space
Parcel “C.” See subsection D above. TDBCSD will be responsible for
maintenance of the parcel and its EVA/trails, paid for by Pantages Bays
homeowners likely from property tax bill assessments through a landscaping
and lighting district. Alternatively, RD 800 will accept ownership and
maintenance responsibilities, with funding by Proposition 218 assessments of
Pantages Bays homeowners. Alternatively though not preferred, the Pantages
Bays homeowners association will own the parcel and be responsible for
maintenance of the EVA/public trails, with funding provided by homeowners
assessments.
LAFCO Boundary Reorganization/RD 800 and TDBCSD Annexations
70. ____ ____ At least 30 days prior to filing of the Final Map the applicant shall provide
evidence to the satisfaction of CDD that the project site is annexed, through a
LAFCO boundary reorganization, to RD 800 and to TDBCSD. RD 800’s
Page 42
annexation may be limited, for example to only the waterfront homes and Parcel
“F.”
Fire District Conditions
71. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, CDD shall receive confirmation from the Fire
District that conditions have been satisfied for its agreement to allow more than
25 homes beyond a single point. For previous Fire District review and condi tions
see the letters from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD)
to CDD (November 17, 2009; June 22, 2007; August 18, 2005; July 28, 2005;
September 15, 2004), and the letter from Pantages to CCCFPD August 24, 2005.
Completion of ECCID Agreement
72. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, CDD shall receive confirmation from the project
applicant and ECCID that their agreement has been completed, including the lot
line adjustment conveying land to the Pantages owner (adjoining creek bank strip
and portion of Pantages Island) and conservation easement (over land along the
ECCID Dredge Cut extending from the west edge of the Pantages property to the
Lakeshore/Lakes bridge), and conveying Pantages land within the dredge cut bed
to ECCID.
Minimum Depth of Bays and Coves
73. ____ ____ As constructed the bays and coves within Pantages Bays shall be at a minimum
depth of 10 feet at low tide (LMW), as recommended by Reclamation District 800
in order to provide safe navigation (e.g., prevent grounding) and avoid noxious
weeds like Brazilian Waterweed from growing there.
Wilde Drive and Point of Timber Project Entries
74. ____ ____
As set forth on the Preliminary and Final Development Plan, Sheet 3 of Pantages
Bays Plan, Wilde Drive vehicular access shall be limited to emergency vehicles.
Other vehicles will be restricted by bollards, or a gate. Pedestrian and bicyclist
access (public and Pantages Bays residents) is permitted there. Final design of
that entry as to emergency access shall be reviewed and commented on by Public
Works and approved by CDD. Also as set forth on Sheet 3, public vehicular
access at Point of Timber will be restricted by an electronic gate, so that only the
vehicles of residents and invited guests are permitted entry. A separated entry on
each side of the road shall be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists (public and
Pantages Bays residents). Final design of the entry features and landscape, as
they may be modified compared to the current preliminary desi gn (e.g., see
Condition 84), shall be reviewed and approved by CDD (in addition to the Fire
District and Public Works Department with respect to bollards or a gate at Wilde
Page 43
Drive and the gate at Point of Timber.). Any modified design at Point of Timber
must include a public pedestrian/bicyclist entry with an improved trail path at
least 8 feet in width on the northerly side and 5-foot sidewalk on the southerly
side, with clearly identified with signage.
Access for Sheriff, Fire District, EMTs, RD 800, TDBCSD and Other Public Agencies for
Use of Project Roads
75. ____ ____ Police, Fire District, and EMTs ingress, egress and use of all roads, sidewalks and
EVAs within the Pantages Bays project shall be confirmed in the CC&Rs as
provided for in Condition 67 above. That right includes but is not limited to
routine and other patrols by the Sheriff. The applicant shall on the face page of the
Final Map and deed disclosures for each of the homes (and/or by other recorded
instrument reviewed and approved by CDD) offer to dedicate to the County (and
other applicable agencies) such rights of full access. The same rights of access
shall be provided in the CC&RS and the Final Map note and/or other recorded
instrument) to RD 800 (due to its responsibilities for waterways, creek bank
habitat, shoring walls, and related slope and back retaining wall easements), as
well as TDBCSD (due to its responsibilities for sewer and water facilities within
Pantages Bays and likely ownership and maintenance of Open Space Parcels “C”
and “D”). Other public agencies as determined necessary by CDD will be
provided the same access (for example, the Mosquito Abatement District).
Design Standards, Final Architecture, View Corridors, and Common Area Landscape
Plans
76. ____ ____ Compliance with the Pantages Bays Design Standards, Plate 4 attached to the
Planning Commission Staff Report, shall be required in construction of new
homes, or any subsequent building footprint alteration, as well as fencing and
landscape within the street/sidewalk water view corridors and side yards. The
Design Standards include minimum setbacks for the 60’, 80’, 90’ and 100’ wide
lots, as well as height and fencing restrictions. CDD shall review proposed
architectural plans for new house construction or subsequent building footprint
alteration to confirm compliance prior to issuance of a building permit. Any
future amendments to the Design Standards shall require CDD review and
approval. The Design Standards (as they may be so amended) shall be included
in the CC&Rs. The Design Standards shall be enforceable by CDD.
A minimum of 10% (16 units) of the 161 non-waterfront smaller residential lots
(minimum 6,000 square feet, 60’x100’) shall be single story. For the production
homes on the 60’x100’ lots, the architecture elevations and street landscape shall
provide articulation along the streetscape on straight roads sufficient to avoid a
visually linear appearance, namely along “B” Street and “E” Street where
minimum 6,000 sq. ft. lots are located.
Page 44
A minimum of three architectural elevations for the production homes on the
60’x100’ lots shall be provided. CDD has the authority to ask for more than three
elevations of those homes for review and approval should CDD determine it is
required for an appropriate articulated streetscape and/or compatibility with the
neighboring developments of Ravenswood and Lakeshore.
As provided for in the Design Standards, there shall be a single-story home with a
maximum height of 25 feet (or at applicant’s election a two-story home with the
second story (maximum 33 feet) limited to the front half of the home) on Lots 270
and 271, Lots 266 and 267 and Lots 262 and 263 subject to review and approval
of CDD. The applicant shall record this building height restriction on each of
these six lots prior to or concurrent with recordation of the Final Map, in a form
and content reviewed and approved by CDD.
In addition, the side yard setback on both sides of these six lots shall be minimum
10 feet, instead of 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side as provided for
all other minimum 60-foot wide lots. The standard 5-foot side yard setback on
each other lot that adjoins Ravenswood shall be next to the 10-foot setback on the
adjoining lot, so that the combined setback between those homes will always be
minimum 15 feet. The maximum height on each other lot adjoining Ravenswood
shall be 33 feet.
The shoring walls shall be finished with shotcrete or similar product acceptable to
RD 800 and approved by CDD. The finish shall be earth tone or similar color
acceptable to RD 800 and approved by CDD.
76 A ___ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for revi ew and
approval a deed disclosure for lots 257, 258, 267, 270 and 271 that states these
lots are only permitted to have one story homes (maximum 25 feet in height) or
two story element in the front half of the home (maximum 33 feet in height), and
that each of these lots shall have a side yard setback of 10 feet. The approved
language shall be recorded on each of these lots.
76 B ___ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for revi ew and
approval a deed disclosure for lots 254 through 292 (all the lots adjoining
Ravenswood Subdivision) that the maximum height of the house shall not exceed
33 feet. The approved language shall be recorded on each of these lots.
76C ___ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for revi ew and
approval a deed disclosure that requires the rear lot fences for the lots that back up
to the Open Space shall be open view fencing consistent with the applicant’s
wetland consultant.
76D__ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for review and
approval a deed disclosure that describes the requirements for open view fencing
on waterfront lots consistent with the Pantages Design standards.
Page 45
76E __ ___ Prior to filing the Final Map the applicant shall submit to CDD for review and
approval a deed disclosure for each of the homes that informs them that there is a
public trail in the development and that public pedestrians and bicyclists may use
project streets and sidewalks.
Grade Elevations and Rear Yard Fencing Design Across from Ravenswood
77. ___ ____ The final design of retaining walls and wood fence/lattice between Pantages and
Ravenswood shall be reviewed and approved by CDD at least 30 days prior to
issuance of building permits to confirm compliance with the Pantages Bays
Design Standards. This rear yard fencing requirement in the Design Standards is
enforceable by CDD.
Applicant has agreed to work in good faith with adjoining homeowners in
Ravenswood to replace their existing rear yard fence with a new common fence
consistent with the specifications above and in the Design Standards. Subject to
the approval of the adjoining Ravenswood homeowner(s), applicant at its cost will
remove the existing fence and construct the new common fence. If the necessary
homeowner approval is not secured following good efforts as reviewed and
accepted by CDD, then applicant shall construct within its rear property line a
wood fence (with any necessary retaining wall or kickboard) that meets the design
specifications set forth in the Design Standards.
Reduction in Highest Waterfront Pad Elevations
78. ___ ___ Shoring walls will be at a uniform height (approximately 8 feet showing above
water at current mean sea level). There will be a 2:1 graded slope between the
shoring wall and a back retaining wall. The purpose of the slope and back
retaining wall is to accommodate sea level during the 100-year flood event at high
tide assuming the State’s projection for sea level rise of 4.6 feet in the next 100
years. The height of the retaining wall above ground, if exposed, will be
determined in large part by the pad elevation on the particular lot. For aesthetic
purposes relatively high pad elevations on waterfront lots (for example, see Lot
137) will be reduced at the final grading plan to the extent reasonable and still
address projected sea level rise, as well as accommodate storm water flows/outlets
and gravity sewer to the TDBCSD pump station that will be constructed for the
project, subject to review and approval of CDD.
Lakeshore Boundary Grading Alternative and Off-Site Dirt Hauling
79. ___ ___ The Lakeshore Homeowners Association Board of Directors (Lakeshore HOA
and Lakeshore Board) has expressed interest in modifying the proposed grading
Page 46
plan between Lakeshore residential lots and the adjoining Pantages residential lots
and EVA to place engineered fill on the intervening strip owned by the Lakeshore
HOA. Such a grading plan change would require cooperation between the
applicant and Lakeshore Board, and potentially adjoining Lakeshore homeowners.
Grading easements and/or lot line adjustments will likely be required. Any
grading revision in this location, along with any associated lot line adjustments
and common fencing arrangements shall be subject to review and comment by
Public Works and CDD review and approval as part of the final grading plan.
Applicant’s engineers anticipate the grading operation will be a balanced cut and
fill. If the final grading plan and the actual grading is not balanced then applicant
shall prepare an off-site dirt hauling plan (which will include the pavement
analysis and any necessary road repair as required in Public Works Condition
102) for submittal to CDD for its review and approval.
PUBLIC WORKS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUBDIVISION SD06-9010/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP04-3062
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9 and Title 10 of the
Ordinance Code. Any exception(s) must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval.
Conditions of Approval are based on the site plan/vesting tentative map submitted to
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division dated
October, 2009, as amended.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL MAP.
General Requirements:
80. ____ ____ Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to
the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review
and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance
Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. Any necessary traffic
signing and striping shall be included in the improvement plans for review by the
Transportation Engineering Division of the Public Works Department.
Roadway Improvements (Frontage):
81. ____ ____ Applicant shall construct curb, minimum 5-foot sidewalk, necessary longitudinal
and transverse drainage, street lighting, border landscaping and irrigation, and
pavement transitions at the terminus of the pubic portion of Point of Timber Road.
Applicant shall construct face of curb 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way line.
82. ____ ____ Applicant shall install off-site signage along Point of Timber Road relative to on-
street parking for trailhead use as access to the project Public Open Space area.
Page 47
83. ____ ____ Applicant shall construct these frontage improvements to County public road
standards. An exception to the vertical gradient standards shall be allowed to
reduce the minimum curb grade to 0.75% in conformance with existing adjacent
improvements.
84. ____ ____ Applicant shall provide two entry lanes (one each for residential and visitor),
provide one exit lane, and locate any vehicular entrance gates a minimum 20 feet
from the edge of the public travel way to allow vehicles to queue without
obstructing traffic as reviewed and approved by Public Works Department.
Sufficient area shall be provided outside any gate to allow a vehicle to turn around
and re-enter Point of Timber Road in a forward direction.
Roadway Improvements (On-Site):
85. ____ ____ Although all subdivision streets are to remain private, all streets are to be
constructed to full County Public Road Standards as specified by Title 9 of the
County Ordinance Code, including all minimums and maximums with respect to
pavement width, horizontal alignment, vertical alignment and sight distance.
Allowable exceptions from said Standards are as follows:
a. “C” Court may be reduced to a 28-foot wide road within a 43-foot easement,
as shown on the tentative map.
b. In-lieu of a crowned street section, the pavement may be sloped with a
continuous 2% cross slope.
c. Sidewalks may be eliminated from one side of the street, with a minimum 5-
foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face) on the remaining side.
The pavement section on the side of the street without the sidewalk shall be
bordered by a minimum 2-foot wide “flush-graded” curb.
d. Construction of a turnaround at the public street terminus of Wilde Drive.
86. ____ ____ Applicant shall install safety-related improvements on all streets (including traffic
signs and striping), as approved by the Public Works Department.
Access to Adjoining Property:
Proof of Access
87. ____ ____ Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department of the acquisition of all
necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and
drainage improvements.
88. ____ ____ Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works Department that legal access to the
property is available from Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive.
Encroachment Permit
Page 48
89. ___ ___ Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit
Center, if necessary, for construction of improvements within the right-of-way of
Point of Timber Road and Wilde Drive.
Lot Line Adjustment:
90. ___ ___ Applicant shall complete and record the proposed Lot Line Adjustment with the
East Contra Costa Irrigation District parcel at the northeast corner of the subject
property.
AOB Reimbursements:
91. ___ ___ The applicant, prior to constructing any public improvements, shall contact Public
Works Department to determine the extent of any eligible credits or
reimbursements against the area of benefit fees.
Road Dedications:
92. ___ ___ Property Owner shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right-of-
way necessary for the planned turnaround at the terminus of Point of Timber
Road.
93. ___ ___ Property Owner shall convey to the Public, by Offer of Dedication, the right-of-
way encumbering all Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roads and bicycle and
pedestrian trails. These facilities will NOT be accepted by the County for
maintenance. More specifically, see Condition 46.
Street Lights:
94. ___ ___ Applicant shall annex to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010 -1 formed
for Countywide Street Light Financing.
Landscaping:
95. ___ ___ All landscaping to be maintained by the property owner shall be submitted to the
Zoning Administrator for review and approval.
Bicycle - Pedestrian Facilities:
Pedestrian Access
96. ____ ___ Applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance
with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This
shall include all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and curb ramps.
Page 49
97. ___ ___ All curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current
County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be
installed on all curb ramps. Adequate easements shall be established to
accommodate a minimum 4-foot landing at the top of any curb ramp proposed.
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA):
98. ___ ___ All roads, paths and trails intended for use as Emergency Vehicle Access,
including bridges appurtenant thereto, shall be designed to accommodate HS-20
vehicle loads. Alignment and surfacing shall meet “all weather” standards per the
approval of the Fire District and Public Works Department (20 feet, compacted
AB all-weather surface).
99. ____ ____ The Fire District and Public Works Department shall review and approve any
proposed vehicular bollards or gates to be installed at the terminus of the publicly-
maintained portion of Wilde Drive.
Parking:
100. ___ ___ Parking shall be prohibited in cul-de-sac bulbs, one side of on-site roadways
where the curb-to-curb width is less than 36 feet, and on both sides of on-site
roadways where the curb-to-curb width is less than 28 feet. “No Parking” signs
shall be installed along these portions of the roads subject to the review and
approval of Public Works Department.
Utilities/Undergrounding:
101. ___ ___ Applicant shall underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities,
including those along the frontage of Point of Timber Road. The developer shall
provide joint trench composite plans for the underground electrical, gas,
telephone, cable television and communication conduits and cables including the
size, location and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs
and meters, and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the
Improvement Plan submittals for the project. The composite drawings and/or
utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer.
Construction:
102. ___ ___ The applicant shall provide a pavement analysis for those roads along the proposed
haul route or any alternate route(s) that are proposed to be utilized by the hauling
operation. This study shall analyze the existing pavement conditions, and
determine what impact the hauling operation will have over the life of the project.
The study shall provide recommendations to mitigate identified impacts. The
applicant shall be responsible for the cost of constructing the recommended
repairs. Prior to filing of the Final Map, the applicant shall execute a bonded road
Page 50
improvement agreement to assure the roadway repairs.
Maintenance of Facilities:
103. ____ ____ The maintenance obligation and financing of all common and open space areas,
private roadways, private street lights, public and private trails and landscaped
areas, EVA’s, perimeter walls/fences, and on-site drainage facilities shall be
included in the easements, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), or an alternative
financing and maintenance entity approved by the Public Works Department. All
agreements between Reclamation District 800, the Town of Discovery Bay
Community Services District and the developer, along with the CC&Rs, shall be
submitted for the review and approval of the CDD and Public Works Department
at least 60 days prior to filing of the Final Map for the first phase.
Drainage Improvements:
Collect and Convey
104. ____ ____ The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating
on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system,
to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an
existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters
to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the
Ordinance Code.
Hold Harmless
105. ____ ____ The property owner shall be aware that the creek banks on the site are potentially
unstable. The property owner shall execute a recordable agreement with the
County which states that the developer and the property owner and the future
property owner(s) will hold harmless Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the event of damage to
the on-site and off-site improvements as a result of creek-bank failure or erosion.
Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements:
106. ____ ____ The applicant shall design and construct all storm drainage facilities in
compliance with the Ordinance Code and Public Works Department design
standards.
107. ____ ____ The applicant shall design and construct all proposed grading, dredging and
improvements to Kellogg Creek in compliance with all Federal, State and Local
regulatory permitting and design requirements. These agencies may include, but
not be limited to: US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Services,
California Department of Fish & Game, California Regional Water Quality
Control Boards, Reclamation District #800, and Contra Costa County Flood
Page 51
Control District.
108. ____ ____ Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and
driveway(s) in a concentrated manner.
109. ____ ____ Private storm drain easements, conforming to the width specified in Section 914-
14.004 of the County Ordinance Code, shall be dedicated over all proposed storm
drains traversing residential lots or other portions of the property outside the
“common area.”
Floodplain Management:
110. ____ ____ The project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the
Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of
the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County
Floodplain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2000-33) Co Ord Code 82-28
as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property.
111. ____ ____ Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (C-LOMR-F) from FEMA concurring that the proposed
grading and site improvements, when completed, will be satisfactory for FEMA
to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map and eliminate the residential lots from the
Special Flood Hazard designation.
112. ____ ____ After completion of fill operations and installation of storm drain improvements,
the applicant shall submit a LOMR-F application with FEMA to finalize the
FIRM revision process. The FEMA LOMR-F must be obtained prior to issuance
of building permits on the residential units.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES):
113____ ____ The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and
procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for
municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California
State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (Central Valley - Region IV).
Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the
reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate
wherever feasible, the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean
Water Program for the site's storm water drainage:
- Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area.
- Label all storm drains (“No Dumping, Drains to Delta) using current storm drain
markers.
Page 52
- Construct concrete driveway weakened plane joints at angles to assist in directing
run-off to landscaped/pervious areas prior to entering the street curb and gutter.
- Other alternatives comparable to the above, as approved by Public Works.
- Shallow roadside and on-site swales.
- Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program and lot-
specific IMPs to buyers.
Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance:
114. ____ ____ The applicant shall submit a FINAL Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a
Storm Water Control Operation and Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) to the Public
Works Department, which shall be reviewed for compliance with the County’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and shall be
deemed consistent with the County’s Storm Water Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance (§1014) prior to filing of the final map. To the extent required
by the NPDES Permit, the Final Storm Water Control Plan and the O+M Plan will
be required to comply with NPDES Permit requirements that have recently
become effective that may not be reflected in the preliminary SWCP and O+M
Plan. All time and materials costs for review and preparation of the SWCP and
the O+M Plan shall be borne by the applicant.
115. ____ ____ Improvement Plans shall be reviewed to verify consistency with the final SWCP
and compliance with Provision C.3 of the County’s NPDES Permit and the
County’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (§1014).
116. ____ ____ Storm water management facilities shall be subject to inspection by Public Works
Department staff; all time and materials costs for inspection of storm water
management facilities shall be borne by the applicant.
117. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, the property owner(s) shall enter into a standard
Storm Water Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement with
Contra Costa County, in which the property owner(s) shall accept responsibility
for, and related to, operation and maintenance of the storm water facilities, and
grant access to relevant public agencies for inspection of storm water
management facilities.
118. ____ ____ Prior to filing of the Final Map, the property owner(s) shall annex the subject
property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1 (Storm Water
Management Facilities), which funds responsibilities of Contra Costa County
under its NPDES Permit to oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of
storm water facilities by property owners.
119. ____ ____ Any proposed water quality features that are designed to retain water for longer
than 72 hours shall be subject to the review of the Contra Costa Mosquito &
Vector Control District.
Page 53
120. ____ ____ All treatment BMP/IMPs constructed within each phase of the proposed
development shall be designed and sized to treat, at a minimum, storm water
generated from each phase constructed.
ADVISORY NOTES
Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Town of Discovery Bay Community
Services District and Reclamation District 800.
The applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and
Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways. These fees
are related to regional improvements separate from those identified in the East County
Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) fee program, and other mitigation fees required
herein to be deposited to the County Road Trust account.
This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is
the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47,
Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that
may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
All construction within the creeks, including bridges, culverts, outfall structures, etc., will
be subject to permitting and review by the Public Works Department, Flood Control
Division per the provisions of Division 1010 of the County Ordinance Code.
This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the
applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained.
Although the Storm Water Control Plan has been determined to be preliminarily
complete, it remains subject to future revision, as necessary, during preparation of
improvement plans in order to bring it into full compliance with C.3 storm water
requirements. Failure to update the SWCP to match any revisions made in the
improvement plans may result in a substantial change to the County approval, and the
project may be subject to additional public hearings. Revisions to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents may also be required. This may
significantly increase the time and applicant’s costs associated with approval of the
application.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Major Subdivisions (SD)\SD06-9010\SD06_9010_ COAs
Final 10.22.13.docx
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Department of Conservation and Development
County Planning Commission Hearing
Date: October 22, 2013
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project / Discovery Bay Area
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
County File No. and Summary of Request:
Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Major Subdivision
and a Preliminary and Final Development Plan in the Discovery Bay area, as follows:
A. General Plan Amendment (County File #GP99-0008): Change the General Plan land
use designations from Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DR) to Single-
Family Residential High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium Density
(SM), Public/ Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) and Water (WA); and,
B. Rezoning (County File #RZ04-3146): Rezone the project site from General
Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit
District (P-1); and,
C. Subdivision / Vesting Tentative Map (County File #SD06-9010): Subdivide the 171-
acre project site into 292 Single-Family residential lots, Private Streets, Bays and
Coves, Open Space and Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation; and,
D. Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File #DP04-3062): Development
of the project site includes:
Develop a gated community of 292 residential lots, 116 of which have docks
for deep water access;
Creation of 47 acres of Bays and Coves and widen Kellogg Creek and Old
Kellogg to provide deep water access to some of the proposed residential lots;
Create/preserve 43 acres of wetland/emergent marsh/grass land in two Open
Space areas on the project site;
Staff Report Agenda Item #
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-2
Develop a Public Trail and Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) within one of
the Open Space areas and provide public access for pedestrians and bicyclists
within the project site;
Widen Kellogg Creek;
Develop a Sheriff’s Marine Patrol substation on the project site; and
Develop roadways, sidewalks and landscaping within the development; and,
E. Applicant requests approval to remove 80 trees from the project site.
Project Address/Location:
The 171-acre project site is at the eastern end of Point of Timber Road and bounded
on the east and south by the original Discovery Bay community, to the west by
Ravenswood and Lakeshore (Village II) in Discovery Bay West and to the
north/northeast by waterways and undeveloped land.
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 011-230-006 & 007, 011-220-010 & 017 & 018, 004-032-
005 & 006 & 007 & 062, 004-010-006.
Applicant: Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC.
Owners: Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC & East Contra Costa Irrigation District
(ECCID) ( 9.2-acres of the project site is owned by the ECCID, including a portion of
Pantages Island and a contiguous strip of land along the ECCID Dredge Cut).
Project Planner: [John Oborne], [674-7793], [john.oborne@dcd.cccounty.us].
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A. ACCEPT the recommendation from the County Zoning Administrator, as stated in
Resolution 9-2013 (Exhibit A), regarding the adequacy and completeness of the
Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR).
B. FIND the Final EIR to be adequate and complete, finding that it has been prepared
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State
and County CEQA Guidelines, and finding that it reflects the County’s independent
judgment and analysis; and specify that the Department of Conservation &
Development, Community Development Division (CDD), 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.
C. FIND that this Commission has balanced the benefits of the project [(1) widening of
Kellogg Creek in its narrow section on the project frontage to improve public safety
and navigation for boaters and reduce the need for dredging by Reclamation District
800 (RD 800), (2) as a residential community that includes waterfront homes, bays
and coves, docks and deep water access, as well as non-waterfront homes, it
provides appropriate linkage between original Discovery Bay and Discovery Bay
West neighborhoods, (3) provides public trails through the project site for visual
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-3
access to Delta waters, and (4) constructs on the project site and dedicates a
Sheriff’s marine patrol substation with dock space for 3 boats and Sheriff’s personal
water craft, which will improve both marine patrol in the Delta and land patrol
services within Discovery Bay] against the significant and unavoidable impacts of
the project [ (1) even with mitigation project annual greenhouse gas emissions
exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s threshold of significance, and
(2) project traffic would increase traffic congestion on road segments along Vasco
Road and Marsh Creek Road which already exceed County standards], and finds
that the benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, and, therefore, this Commission find the adverse environmental effects to
be considered “acceptable” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a).
D. CERTIFY that the Commission has considered the contents of the Final EIR prior
to making a decision on the project.
E. ADOPT the attached CEQA Findings (Exhibit B), which includes a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
F. ADOPT a motion to recommend that the Board of Supervisors:
i. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report as adequate for the
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project; and
ii. Adopt the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for this project; and,
iii. Approve an amendment to the County General Plan (2005-2020) to re-
designate the project site from Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta
Recreation and Resources (DR) to Single-Family Residential High
Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium Density (SM), Public/
Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) and Water (WA);
iv. Approve Rezoning of the project site from General Agricultural District
(A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1),
and;
v. Approve Preliminary and Final Development Plan, County File Number
DP04-3062 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and Mitigation
Measures.
vi. The requirement that the entry gate to the Pantages Development remain
open during the daylight hours for vehicular access by the public.
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-4
G. APPROVE the vesting tentative map subject to the attached Conditions of Approval
and Mitigation Measures. The approval of the vesting tentative map is subject to the
Board’s approval of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Development Plan.
H. APPROVE the removal of 80 trees from the project site.
III. REGULATORY INFORMATION
General Plan Land Use Designation: Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation (DR)
and Water (WA)
Zoning Designation: General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural
District (A-3)
Flood Zone: The entire project site falls within Special Flood Hazard Zone A on the
Flood Insurance Rate Map for the County (FEMA 2009).
IV. PROJECT SITE / AREA DESCRIPTION
The 171-acre project site is located in Eastern Contra Costa County in the Discovery Bay
West area. [Refer to Attachment D, Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map] The site contains three
abandoned home sites and one barn. It is vegetated with 80 trees and low-lying non-
native grasslands, and a large emergent marsh area on the northern portion of the site and
one on Pantages Island.
Of the 171 acres, approximately162 acres are owned by the project applicant and 9 acres
of land are owned by the East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID), including a
portion of Pantages Island and a strip of land along the ECCID Dredge Cut on the
northerly side of the Pantages property. Except for the large emergent marsh area, the
majority of the site has been leveled, ditched and drained in the past for use as grazing
pasture.
V. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The Pantages Bays project applicant proposes to create bays and coves (and widen
Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek) to construct a vehicular gated, water oriented
community, of 292 single-family homes on the 171-acre project site. Of the 292
residential lots, 116 will have docks and deep water access. Existing emergent marsh
areas on the site will be enhanced and preserved as open space. The Point of Timber
entry road will be gated so that only vehicles of residents, invited guests and public
agencies will be permitted vehicular entry. Through the open space there will be public
trails with views of Delta water. The trails will also serve as an Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA). The EVA/trails and the sidewalks and roads in Pantages Bays may be
used by the public, both pedestrian and bicyclists, with access through the Point of
Timber entry and the Wilde Drive EVA entry. Following discussions with the Office of
the Sheriff, the applicant has included a Sheriff’s marine patrol substation on the project
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-5
site located along Kellogg Creek toward the end of the EVA/public trail. The applicant
also proposes to widen Kellogg Creek along the project frontage in co-sponsorship with
RD 800. That reclamation district is responsible for maintenance of waterways, creek
banks and levees within Discovery Bay and nearby areas.
Attachment E to this report is a complete description of the project site work and houses
to be constructed comprised of: Plate A; Sequence of Site Construction, Plate 1; How the
Bays will be Constructed, Plate 2; Preliminary and Final Development Plan, Plate 3;
Representative House Elevations and Pattern of Development, Plate 4; Design Standards,
Prespective A; Pantages Bays Project Entry Perspective A, and Sea Level Rise Table.
To accomplish development of the Pantages Bays project the applicant is requesting
approval of the entitlements described above in Section I: General Plan Amendment
[Refer to Attachment D, Exhibit 2, General Plan Map], Rezoning, Attachment D,
Exhibit 3, Rezoning Map], Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Preliminary and Final
Development Plan and tree removal permit.
VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
All agency comments are provided along with discussion in the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
VII. CEQA REVIEW
The Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division
(CDD) determined that the project required preparation of an EIR and, in accordance
with CEQA, distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on May 27, 2007. The Draft EIR
was released for public review on June 12, 2012, with the 45-day public comment period
ending on July 26, 2012. During the 45-day comment period the County extended the
public comment period to August 11, 2012, due to a request from a commenter that they
required more time to review the Draft EIR. The County Zoning Administrator held a
hearing on July 26, 2012, to receive oral comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
The Final EIR was published and released on July 25, 2013. The Zoning Administrator
on August 12, 2013, held a closed public hearing during which the Zoning Administrator
recommended that the Commission certify the Final EIR.
The EIR identifies potentially significant environmental impacts that would occur if the
project was implemented and recommends 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 included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program [part of Attachment F, Final EIR]. All Mitigation Measures are
also included in and implemented through the Conditions of Approval [Attachment B].
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-6
VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
A. APPROPRIATENESS OF USE:
As noted above, the project proposes to construct a residential community with
gated vehicular access but also with public pedestrian and bicyclist access as
described below, and which includes bays, coves and a significant number of
waterfront homes with deep-water access and docks (116 lots) and the rest non-
waterfront homes (176 lots). The waterfront element of the development is
consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods to the east (predominance of
waterfront homes in original Discovery Bay). Its non-waterfront homes will be
consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods to the west (predominance
of non-waterfront smaller lots in Discovery Bay West). Project lot sizes range from
6,000 – 21,000 square feet. Pantages Bays essentially can be considered an infill
project that provides an appropriate transition and link between original Discovery
Bay to the east and Discovery Bay West to the west of the project site. See the
Residential Development Plan section below for further detail on residential
elements of the project.
The project will preserve almost the entire emergent marsh in the northwest portion
of the site and all of the emergent marsh on Pantages Island within permanent open
space. The project will include a public trail within the open space to the water’s
edge. The Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)/public trails will provide open views
of preserved emergent marsh, created seasonal wetlands, grasses, enhanced creek
banks and Delta water. Seating areas and kiosks with educational and historical
signage will be included, as well as tables, benches and a water fountain at the end
of the trail past the marine patrol substation near the end of Kellogg Creek. Public
pedestrians and bicyclists will be permitted on the trails, sidewalks and streets of
the project from dawn to dusk, while public vehicular access will be limited to
invited guests and public agencies.
The project applicant also proposes, in co-sponsorship with Reclamation District
800 (RD 800), to widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northeastern end of the
project site to reduce water velocities (in particular at tidal changes) which will
improve boating safety and reduce the need for dredging, and also widen the project
frontage to the south. In addition, the project will construct a Sheriff’s marine patrol
substation along the water’s edge at the northeastern end of the project site. The
substation will be near the northeast portion of the project site that is close to Delta
waterways, which at times are subject to high boat traffic.
Project long term costs (which include long-term maintenance of public open space
parcels, plus the EVA/public trails within the open space, and water/creek
banks/shoring walls parcel) will be paid for by assessments of project homeowners,
not by public agencies.
In summary, Pantages Bays provides: (i) a 292 single-family unit community with
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-7
vehicular gate, which includes both waterfront homes with docks and deep water
access and non-waterfront homes, (ii) access to public pedestrians and bicyclists
with open space / waterfront trails, (iii) improved public safety and protection on
water and land (for both project residents and the public) through the Sheriff’s
marine patrol substation, (iv) improved boater safety and navigation through
widening the narrow section of Kellogg Creek, and (v) the permanent preservation
of 43 acres of open space, with created seasonal wetlands and preserved emergent
marsh, plus two miles of new and enhanced high and moderate quality creek bank
habitat on the project site and in the vicinity.
B. PROJECT COMPONENTS
Widen Kellogg Creek
Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) is co-sponsoring the proposed widening of
Kellogg Creek. The narrow portion of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the
project site will be widened from its current width of approximately 90 feet to 300
feet. That widening will reduce water velocities through that narrow section of
Kellogg Creek, thereby improving public boating safety. It will also reduce bank
erosion and sedimentation in the Kellogg Creek side of Discovery Bay water, and
limit the need for dredging there. Kellogg Creek elsewhere along the project
frontage will also be widened to accommodate the project homes and docks on that
frontage, and still maintain the minimum creek channel width of 300 feet
recommended by RD 800.
At the southern end of the project site, Old Kellogg Creek will be widened from its
current width of approximately 60 feet to at least 120 feet, the minimum
recommended by RD 800 with docks only on the project frontage side of the
waterway. The bays and coves that are created as part of the project will be
constructed with a minimum width of 220 feet, as recommended by RD 800 for safe
boat navigation there.
The minimum depth of all the bays and coves at average low tide (MLW) will be 10
feet, per RD 800 recommendation. This depth will prevent boat grounding and
avoid the growth of unwanted vegetation like the Brazilian Waterweed due to the
lack of sunlight.
[See Conditions 23 and 73 regarding minimum depth of bays and coves, widening
of Kellogg Creek, and RD 800.]
Acquisition by Applicant of a Portion of Pantages Island and Other Strip of Land
Owned by ECCID; Securing Off-Site Conservation Covenants/Easements
Effective December 12, 2006, Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC and East Contra
Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) entered into a Property Transfer Agreement
whereby the applicant will acquire approximately 9 acres of land owned by ECCID.
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-8
The land is comprised of a portion of what is referred to here as Pantages Island and
a strip along the ECCID Dredge Cut adjoining the Pantages property, both located
at the northern end of the project site. This acreage is included as part of the 171-
acre project site.
The agreement also gives the applicant the option to secure from ECCID a
conservation easement on an adjoining strip of land along the Dredge Cut from the
northwesterly end of the Pantages property to the bridge connecting Lakeshore and
the Lakes. The applicant intends to secure that easement.
The applicant is also working with RD 800 to arrange for conservation covenants,
to be finalized as part of the project, along creek banks RD 800 controls in the
vicinity. Specifically, RD 800 is prepared to place conservation covenants on the
west and east banks of Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State Route 4
(SR4).
The objective in including all of these creek bank locations as part of the project site
and/or the project description is to enhance the banks to mostly high quality shaded
riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat, as mitigation for creek bank loss
as a result of the project. The creek bank that will be lost is presently comprised
almost entirely of low and moderate quality.
The conveyance of the ECCID property by lot line adjustment and securing the
conservation easement from ECCID and conservation covenants in cooperation
with RD 800 will be completed prior to filing the final map. The project will
preserve the majority of Pantages Island, with the exception of a small portion of
the northeasterly tip which will be removed as part of the widening of Kellogg
Creek.
[See Conditions 23 and 72 regarding creek bank mitigation and ECCID.]
Creation of Bays and Coves
47 acres of the 171-acre project site will be converted to bays, coves, and widened
Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg creek waterways (minimum depth of 10 feet at
average low tide). Earthmoving activities, such as excavation and grading, will
occur during a period of up to two years. Due to the complexities of the grading
sequences, including both environmental time constraints on grading within
Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek to protect native fish and the size of the
project site, earthmoving activities will not occur over the entire site for the full
two-year period. Site work will move systematically throughout the site as different
sequences of grading are commenced and terminated. [Refer to Attachment E,
Plate A, for a complete description of project site construction and Plate 1, for
how the bays will be constructed]
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-9
Open Space and Creek Bank Habitat Enhancement and Preservation
The project includes two open space parcels, 37-acre Parcel “C” and 6-acre Parcel
“D,” at the north end of the 171-acre project site. Parcel “C” includes the large
preserved emergent marsh (16.05 acres) and a small acreage enhancement of it to
mitigate the loss associated with the EVA/trails bridge crossing (0.30 acres), along
with created seasonal wetlands (minimum 5.29 acres) to replace existing seasonal
wetlands that will be filled. Parcel “D” is Pantages Island minus the northerly
portion that will be excavated to widen Kellogg Creek. The island includes
emergent marsh that will be preserved.
In order to construct the project with its Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek
widening, bays and coves, 9,720 lineal feet of creek bank habitat will be lost. As
mitigation for that loss the applicant proposes to create 11,060 linear feet of new
and enhanced creek bank habitat which will be maintained and preserved in
perpetuity. It includes 9,157 lineal feet of high quality aquatic creek bank habitat
and shallow water habitat in the following locations: (i) on the project site, (ii) on
the ECCID property strip adjoining the Dredge Cut between the northeasterly end
of the project site and the Lakeshore/Lakes bridge,(iii) on the southeasterly end of
the project site adjoining the “B” Street cul-de-sac and Lots 263 and 264, and (iv)
on the banks on both sides of Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State
Route 4 owned by RD 800. The mitigation also includes 1,903 lineal feet of
moderate quality creek bank habitat on the project site where the bank is subject to
wave action. The moderate quality bank includes rip rap between mean high and
low tide to protect against that wave action (or another suitable product to reinforce
this elevation on the bank that will otherwise be vulnerable to erosion but still
provide for improved habitat vegetation there).
A five-year monitoring program will be established to monitor the progress of the
seasonal wetland, emergent marsh and creek bank habitat mitigation toward the
established goal. The applicant is required to pay all costs of the monitoring by
condition of approval number 23. At the end of each monitoring year, an annual
report will be submitted to the Corps, RWQCB and CDD. This report will
document the hydrological and vegetative condition of the mitigation wetlands, and
will recommend remedial measures as necessary to correct deficiencies.
Ownership of the open space parcels will likely be Town of Discovery Bay
Community Services District (TDBCSD). Within Parcel “C” the EVA/public trails
will be included as public easements through offers of dedication. Maintenance
responsibility will be TDBCSD, with the exception for the first five years as to the
recreated jurisdictional wetlands. Funding for that maintenance will come from
project homeowners likely through landscape and lighting assessments, such that
TDBCSD will not be responsible for the cost of maintenance. On the adjoining
Ravenswood project, ownership subject to a conservation covenant/ easement has
been conveyed to the TDBCSD for the same purpose. TDBCSD will therefore be
able to ensure consistent and coordinated management of the two conservation
areas. This funding and monitoring is separate from the compensatory mitigation
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-10
monitoring for the created wetlands that is outlined in the Conceptual Wetland and
Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays by Gibson &
Skordal, LLC (dated November 15, 2006). Alternative long-term mitigation
monitoring acceptable to permitting agencies may also be considered. One
alternative would be RD 800.
Ownership of the water, creek banks and shoring walls will be with RD 800 (Parcel
“F” as modified in the final map). It will be responsible for maintenance, except for
the first five years as to new and enhanced creek bank habitat. RD 800 is
experienced in maintenance of waterway and creek banks (natural and reinforced)
as part of its current responsibilities. Funding will likely come from Proposition 218
assessments of project homeowners.
Conservation covenants/easements will be recorded on these parcels requiring their
preservation and maintenance in perpetuity.
[See Conditions 23 and 69 regarding open space and creek bank mitigation and
preservation, ownership, maintenance and financial responsibility.]
Public EVA and Trails in Open Space Area and Public Access
Public pedestrian and bicyclist access are included in the project from the gated
entrance to Pantages Bays (at Point of Timber Road) along sidewalks and through
the Open Space area toward the edge of Kellogg Creek at the northeast end of the
project site. The public trail right of way within the open space will be the same as
the EVA, 20 feet. On right of way that connects with both “B” Street and “A”
Street, applicant proposes to pave the center 8 feet, with the outside 6 feet on both
sides constructed with a compacted AB gravel base as an all-weather surface. On
the right of way off “A” Street that connects to the Sheriff’s marine patrol
substation, the trail will be located off center to prevent a conflict b etween
substation vehicles and trail use of the right of way. There will be sloped shoulders
on both sides of the EVA. Applicant desires to avoid storm water runoff within the
open space from extensive impervious asphalt surface. The public trails will include
interpretive signage and kiosks (concerning both the environment and its protection
and the historical significance of this end of Point of Timber location in the Delta)
and seating areas to enhance the public’s use and enjoyment. For public safety and
the protection of the open space wetlands the public must stay on the EVA/ public
trail and dogs are not permitted on the public trail. In addition, and also for the
protection of the environment (bank habitat), there will be no fishing, swimming, or
launching of boats from the open space parcels (prohibition does not include boat
mooring or launchings associated with the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation).
The EVA/public trails and passive recreation location (seating area with tables and
a drinking fountain beyond the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation) will be
maintained by TDBCSD and paid for by Pantages Bay homeowners as part of
landscaping and lighting district assessments. The EVA/trail will serve as ingress
and egress for the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation, and be available for use by
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-11
other public agencies use (e.g., Fire District, TDBCSD, RD 800, and Mosquito
Abatement District). Public parking for trail use will be on Point of Timber Road, a
public road with ample room for parking on both sides.
Public pedestrian and bicyclist access to the project will also be available throu gh
the Wilde Drive EVA. They will have the recorded right to use the project
sidewalks and roads, in addition to the trails. Dogs with the public must be on
leash. Public access to pedestrians and bicyclists will be restricted to from dawn to
dusk.
[See Conditions 46 and 75 regarding EVA/trails, public access for pedestrians and
bicyclists, Sheriff, Fire District, EMTs, TDBCSD, RD 800 and other public
agencies, recorded rights of access, and disclosures to homeowners.]
Public Vehicular Access to the Open Space with Public Trail and project streets
The applicant had originally proposed vehicular access to the public trail for
physically handicap persons only, where they could contact the agency that
manages the trail and obtain a gate pass. However, staff is recommending that any
member of the public have access to the trail by automobile during the day.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the entry gate to the Pantages development
remain open during daylight hours only so the public can have vehicular access to
the public trail and project streets during the day.
Staff has determined that since the project site contains an open space area, with
public trail that will most likely by owned and maintained by the Town of
Discovery Bay Community Services District, and is accessible to the handicap
person by automobile and to the public on foot or bicycle, it should also be
accessible to any member of the public by automobile. Furthermore, in staff’s
opinion a gate at the entry of a development tends to convey the idea of closed off
from the public, where, in this case, the development contains a public trail.
[See Condition 75 regarding recorded rights of access, and disclosures to
homeowners.]
[See Condition 75 regarding recorded rights of access, and disclosures to
homeowners.]
Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation
As part of the project the applicant proposes to construct a Sheriff’s marine patrol
substation on the project site. The proposed Sheriff’s marine patrol substation is
located on the northeast portion of the project site along Kellogg Creek. It is close
to Delta waterways that experience high boat traffic at times. This substation would
be a primary point of deployment for the Sheriff’s Marine Patrol in the Delta
waterways beyond Discovery Bay. The facility will provide an enhanced platform
for existing Marine Patrol and Patrol Division-ground assets to operate and respond
from throughout the year. And it will provide an ideal physical location for the
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-12
Sheriff’s Marine Patrol in the Discovery Bay and related waterways. [Refer to
Attachment E, Plate 2---Preliminary and Final Development Plan]
Currently, the Marine Patrol is dispatched either from a mobile location or the
substation located near the Antioch Bridge in Oakley, while they keep two patrol
vessels in the marina at Discovery Bay to patrol the area and respond to calls.
Response time for Discovery Bay would be significantly decreased b y dispatching
deputies from the proposed marine patrol station, rather than from the marine patrol
station in Oakley or from Discovery Bay marina. The Pantages Bays marine patrol
substation will not replace staff operating and deploying from the Oakley marine
patrol station.
In 2008 the applicant consulted with the Sheriff’s Department regarding the design
of the substation. After consulting with the Sheriff’s office it was agreed that the
applicant would construct a 1,440 square foot modular building for the substation
with a two boat dock and a landing pad for Medevac helicopter. In addition the
applicant agreed to fund the cost of one deputy, who would perform either marine
patrol or land patrol services from this station.
It was expected those annual funds for the extra deputy would be secured through
establishment of an additional police services district. CDD does not support
imposition of those annual costs (approximately $180,000.00 at this time and
subject to future increases) on Pantages Bays residents and has not included it in the
recommended Conditions of Approval. CDD considers such a financial burden to
be unfair since it is applied solely to those residents while benefitting the general
boating public and other Discovery Bay residents. In addition, County Counsel is
concerned the establishment of such a special and additional police service district
for Pantages Bays will be inconsistent with the laws providing for such districts,
because in this case it will fund police services well outside the project boundaries,
in particular on public waterways, and it is a second assessment not typically
applied to new development.
Therefore, in lieu of the extra sheriff, and in agreement with the Sheriff’s Office,
the applicant agreed to enhance the substation. The new design of the substation
will include an approximately 2,160 square-foot permanent one story modular
building, 25 X 25 foot garage, and dock space for 3 boats and Sheriff’s personal
water craft.1 The size of the modular building was increased by a third, the garage
was added, and the dock expanded to handle more than 2 boats. As a result of the
expanded modular building and the addition of the garage, the substation parcel size
will increase from 0.51 acres (the size of Parcel “I” in the tentative subdivision
map) to 0.53 acres at final map. These modifications are considered by CDD to be
minor and do not change the scope of the project, since it is still a Sheriff’s Marine
Patrol substation that is not permanently staffed. The modular building will have
1 Letter from Mark Armstrong to Lt. Will Duke, dated March 25, 2008, response letter from Sheriff Warren Rupf,
dated May 21, 2008, and follow-up personal communications with Assistant Sheriff Mark Williams in August and
September, 2013 regarding the three additional improvements and parcel size increase described above.
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-13
electricity, restroom and include offices from which the deputies can do paperwork
and perform other routine tasks. There is no holding facility planned for the
structure. Having a marine patrol station at this location, among other advantages,
will allow the Sheriff to respond to water craft violations, process them and be back
on the water in a shorter amount of time than what is currently the case.
The approximately 0.53 acre site, accessible via the 20-foot Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA), will also contain space (100’ x 100’) for a Medevac helicopter
landing area. That will provide emergency air-lift services on the infrequent
occasions when boating accident or other victims need to be airlifted to a hospital.
No Medevac helicopter will be stored at this location. Landing a Medevac
helicopter at this location is within federal aviation regulations. 2 It provides a
significant health and safety benefit compared to what is currently the practice of
landing Medevac helicopters on nearby levees, which are less stable for those
helicopters.
The applicant has agreed to construct the marine patrol substation at its cost. In
addition, per Condition 7A homeowners will pay into the standard police services
district through an assessment on their property tax bills. The police service district
for Pantages Bays will be the same in format and assessment amount as the ones
currently in effect for Discovery Bay West neighborhoods. The County typically
requires new residential development throughout the unincorporated area to be
included in such a police service district and pay that uniform assessment.
Generally, the substation would be staffed during the boating season (typically from
Memorial Day to Labor Day) especially on weekends and summer holidays when
boating traffic is at its peak. The substation would not necessarily be staffed full
time but would provide an improved local platform for existing Marine Patrol assets
to operate and respond from throughout the year.
In keeping with the management of existing waterways within Discovery Bay, boat
traffic within the project bays and coves and along Kellogg Creek project frontage
will be controlled through designation of a no wake zone (5 mph). The speed
requirements will be clearly specified in the homeowners association’s covenants,
conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs).
[See Conditions 7A, 7B, 66 and 69F regarding the typical police service district to
be established and description the marine patrol substation, ownership and
maintenance of the parcel and facilities.]
Pantages Bays Access Points and Roadways
The entrance to the site will be located at end of Point of Timber Road where a
public turnaround will be constructed along with a landscaped gated entry, with
separated access for pedestrians and bicyclists. The project streets, cul-de-sacs,
2 Personal communication with Capt. Will Duke on October 15, 2010.
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-14
sidewalks, storm drain facilities, and adjoining bioswales will be privately owned
and maintained by the homeowners association. In addition, there will also be an
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) located at the end of Wilde Drive in
Ravenswood that will allow for emergency vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists only.
[See Conditions 46, 66, 67 and 74 regarding gated access with specific public
ingress, egress and use, homeowners association responsibilities, and CC&Rs.]
Residential Development Plan
The project applicant will construct 292 single-family one and two-story housing
units with varying levels of access to deep water. Of the 292 units, 100 will have
deep water access via private docks, 16 will have deep-water access via 8 shared
docks (2 homes per dock), and 176 will be interior lots without deep-water access
but in close proximity to the water visually and for walking/biking. In general, it is
anticipated that the homes with water access will be custom and semi-custom, while
the remainder of the homes will be production homes. [Refer to Attachment E,
Plate 3---Representative Elevations and Development Pattern] Architectural
plans will be subject to review and approval of CDD for compliance with recorded
Pantages Bays Design Standards. [Refer to Attachment E, Plate 4—Design
Standards] The applicant is required by condition of approval # 76 to submit to
CDD for review and approval architectural elevations for the minimum 6,000 sq. ft.
production homes and models. Streetscape articulation on straight roads where
production homes on minimum lot sizes of 6,000 sq.ft. are located (namely “B” and
“C” Streets), will also be subject to CDD review and approval.
The average lot size of the waterfront homes is 13,668 sq. ft. Minimum widths are
80 and 90 ft. Minimum depth of those lots is 140 feet. The waterfront lots extend to
the shoring walls, which will be owned and maintained by RD 800. Each
waterfront lot will have a mooring easement for its dock. RD 800 will also likely
control and enforce by easement the maintenance and repair by the homeowner of
the slope behind the shoring wall to the back retaining wall (and the back wall
itself), and by the homeowners association with respect to improvements at short
intermittent sections of the retaining wall, slope and shoring wall related to the
storm drain outlet and overland flow to bays and coves (see the Sea Level Rise
Exhibit dated December 22, 2010). That slope and retaining wall are intended to
create the additional elevation necessary so the finished floors of waterfront homes
are above the water level in the 100-year flood event at high tide assuming the rise
in sea level projected by the State, as discussed below.
The shoring walls will be covered above the low water line with an attractive finish,
like shotcrete. The finish will be an earth tone or similar color. The slopes between
the shoring walls and the back retaining walls could be reinforced with rip rap.
More likely, reinforcement for the homeowner slopes will be accomplished using
an alternative design and material with sufficient spaces to allow for vegetation
from an identified plant list placed on the slopes in open soil locations and
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-15
maintained by the homeowner.
There are 166 non-waterfront lots that are minimum 6000 sq. ft. in size and 60 ft. in
width. Their average size is 6,535 sq. ft. There are 10 non-waterfront lots with a
minimum lot size of 10,910 sq. ft. and an average lot size of 12,895 sq. ft. These
larger non-waterfront lots are corner lots next to waterfront lots. The non-waterfront
lots and their configuration are appropriately comparable to lots in adjoining
Ravenswood and Lakeshore Subdivision.
Staff has recommended special consideration in the Design Standards for Lots 257,
258, 266, 267, 270 and 271. Two of those lots are directly across from the home on
each of the 3 larger, pie-shaped lots on Shakespeare, Slifer, and Seuss Courts in
Ravenswood. The Design Standards permit only one-story homes (maximum 25
feet in height) on those lots or the home, at the option of the applicant, may include
a two-story element in its front half (maximum 33 feet in the height). In addition,
the setback on both side yards for those 6 lots is 10 feet (instead of the standard 5
feet on one side and 10 feet on the other). The staff objective is to reasonably
provide more open views between those homes as a visual benefit for the residents
in the 3 larger, pie-shaped lots in the Ravenswood development. These design
standards shall be deed disclosures by conditions of approval numbers 76 A and 76
B.
Staff has also recommended in the Design Standards on lots adjoining Ravenswood
that the 5-foot setback always be combined with an adjoining lot’s 10-foot setback
so the space between homes is always 15 feet. The maximum building height is 33
feet. The staff objective is to reasonably provide more open views for the
adjoining Ravenswood homes and still provide for a comparable level of
development on adjoining Pantages Bays lots. All of the adjoining Ravenswood
homes are two story and 35 feet in height.
It is not feasible to match exactly the elevations of the Ravenwood lots with
adjoining Pantages Bays lots, and provide for gravity flow for sewers and for storm
water runoff in the streets and take into account projected sea level rise in designing
finished lot and floor elevations. The final grading plan will need to be modified to
limit that grade difference between Pantages Bays and Ravenswood lots to a
reasonable footage. Staff has required in the Design Standards that the maximum
height of a rear yard retaining wall is 2 feet. Staff has also required that homes on
lots adjoining Ravenswood be limited to 33 feet in height (instead of the typical
zoning standard of 35’ like in Ravenswood). This 2-foot reduction in maximum
height takes into account the circumstance where the Pantages Bays lot pad
elevation is higher than an adjoining Ravenswood lot by the maximum of 2 feet.
The Design Standards on page 9 in Plate 4 would also require up to an 8-foot fence
at the rear property line of lots adjoining Ravenswood. For example, where a
retaining wall of 2 feet is required at the rear of the Pantages Bays lot, the fence
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-16
would include the retaining wall on the bottom, 4 feet of solid wood in the middle
and 2 feet of lattice on the top. From the Pantages Bays lot side the fence would
appear 6 feet in height. From the Ravenswood side it would appear 8 feet in height.
That will make the fence more effective in providing priva cy for the lower lot,
consistent with what would be afforded with a typical 6-foot fence, and with lattice
on top it will not seem too tall in appearance from the higher lot. See Figure 5 in the
Design Standards on page 9 for fence illustrations and the text on page 8. The fence
line along all of the lots will always appear to be a uniform height.
Applicant has agreed to work in good faith with adjoining homeowners in
Ravenwood to replace their existing rear yard fence with a new common fence
consistent with the specifications above. Subject to the approval of the
Ravenswood adjoining homeowner(s), applicant at its cost will remove the existing
fence and construct the new common fence. If that approval is not secured, then the
Pantages Bays lot fence above any retaining wall will be constructed by applicant
on that Pantages Bays lot inside the property line, and the adjoining Ravenswood
homeowner fence will remain in place. In either circumstance the new fence will
have a uniform height along all of the adjoining Ravenswood and Pantages Bays
lots.
As to Lakeshore, its closest residential lots are separated from the Pantages Bays
lots by the strip of land owned by the Lakeshore HOA, which ranges from 26 to 37
feet in width. Section A-A’ on Sheet 5 of the Pantages Bays Plans shows a
retaining wall that will not exceed 3.5 feet at the rear property line of a typical
Pantages lot. Given the distance between the Pantages Bays and Lakeshore lots,
staff does not see a need to make restrictions like those placed on lots adjoining
Ravenswood. If the Lakeshore HOA Board agrees to fill being added on its strip of
adjoining land, as discussed below, applicant’s engineers expect that a retaining
wall at the back of the adjoining Pantages lots will not be needed.
[See Conditions 65, 76 and 77, and 79 regarding Design Standards, architectural
elevations for production homes, special standards for lots adjoining Ravenswood.]
Entryway. Landscaping and View Fencing
The project proposes common area landscaping, including approximately 770 trees
to be planted along project roadways and at the project entrance. Additional trees
would be planted along enhanced and created creek banks to provide high and
moderate quality creek bank habitat.
The project would generally include 6-foot-high side and rear yard fencing for
residential lots, typically associated with single-family development. Lots adjoining
Ravenswood are an exception with respect to the rear fences up to 8 feet in height
when counting the retaining wall at the end of the rear yard of up to 2 feet, as
discussed above and provided for in the Design Standards. As an exception to
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-17
enhance enjoyment and maintenance of the emergent marsh area, the rear fence for
lots that back up to open space near the emergent marsh will be open view,
consistent with the recommendation of the applicant’s wetland consultant. The
requirement for lots that back up to open space shall be a deed disclosure by
condition of approval number 76C.
The proposed front entry preliminary design is shown as part of the Preliminary
Landscape Plan. Modifications to that design would be subject to review and
approval of CDD at the time when the final landscape plan is completed. The final
design must include public pedestrian/bicyclist access that includes an improved
path of at least 8 feet wide on the north end of the entry feature and a 5-foot
sidewalk entry on the south end, both clearly identified with signage. [See
Attachment E, Perspective A---Pantages Bays Project Entry]
The waterfront lots would generally have open fencing (5 feet in height) from the
side of the house to the side yard common wood privacy fence. Any fence across
the back yard at the retaining wall must be open and limited to 5 feet in height.
Solid side yard common privacy fences will extend to within 10 feet of the rear
retaining wall. The side yard fence beyond that must be open. Visibility to the
water must be maintained by the homeowner with respect to one of the side yards,
as will be confirmed in the CC&Rs. The open fencing design standard shall be a
deed disclosure by condition of approval number 76D. [Refer to Attachment E,
Plate 4----Design Standards]
The objective of this side yard restriction is to create and maintain consistent view
corridors from the street to the water for those traveling along the Pantages Bays
roads and sidewalks. Water view from sidewalks and streets is something that is
rarely present elsewhere in Discovery Bay. The open view corridors would not be
required for the pie-shaped lots in the cul-de-sacs and other irregularly shaped
waterfront lots, because the non-rectangular lot widths and shapes of those side
yards make view corridors difficult to create and maintain. View corridors are not
necessary at the end of cul-de-sacs and for other irregularly shaped lots in order to
achieve open views of the water in general from Pantages Bays streets and
sidewalks.
Tree Removal: The applicant requests approval to remove 80 trees from the project
site. Removal of 34 trees is requested because the trees are in poor health, and the
remaining 39 trees require removal because they are located in areas of grading.
The most frequently occurring species is Ash with cottonwood and gum trees well
represented.
[See Conditions 23 and 67 regarding open fencing for views of the emergent marsh,
preservation of unobstructed views from streets to the water through side yards on
waterfront lots, and Design Standards]
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-18
Ownership, Maintenance and Funding for Non-Residential Parcels
The parcel that includes the private roads, sidewalks, bioswales, storm drain
facilities (includes pipes, inlets, flap gate outlets, and overland flow structures/rip-
rap), street trees, primary entry gate features at Point of Timber, and the EVA at
Wilde Drive would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association
(HOA). The small landscape parcels at the Point of Timber entry and next to that
side of the North Cove will also be owned and maintained by the HOA. The public
turnaround parcel in front of that entry will be owned by the County.
The open space parcels (EVA/public trail is included within one of them) would
likely be owned and maintained by TDBCSD, and be subject to conservation
easements/ covenants. Funding for that maintenance would come from
homeowners through landscape and lighting district assessments, put in place by the
project owner vote prior to filing the final map. The objective is that TDBCSD
expenses in undertaking ownership and maintenance of the open space parcels,
including the EVA/trails, will be fully funded by those assessments, and that the
public use of the maintained trail will be assured by its control through a public
agency. At a recent TDBCSD Board meeting, ownership and maintenance of the
open space parcels as proposed by the applicant was presented for consideration.
The Board expressed its support for doing so.
The parcel containing the water, creek banks (subject to conservation covenants)
and shoring walls will be owned and maintained by RD 800. The District would
also maintain the off-site mitigation creek banks. Funding for maintenance of this
parcel and the off-site mitigation creek banks would be from homeowners through
Proposition 218 tax bill assessments put in place by vote of the project owner prior
to filing the final map. RD 800 may also have an easement to control and enforce
maintenance by homeowners of the integrity of the slope between the shoring wall
and the back retaining wall (and that back wall itself), as well as maintenance by the
HOA of the intermittent storm drain facilities on the retaining wall and slope.
The Sheriff’s marine patrol substation and its parcel would be owned by the
County. It would be maintained by the County through the Office of the Sheriff
following acceptance of the improved parcel by the County.
[See Condition 69 regarding ownership, maintenance and funding for non-
residential lot.]
RD 800 and TDBSCD Annexations
Annexation to RD 800 and TDBSCD through Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) boundary reorganization will be required prior to filing the
final map for the project. The applicant intends to complete a pre -annexation
agreement with each agency to address issues associated with the project. For
example, the RD 800 agreement would address ownership of the Water/Creek
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-19
Banks/Shoring Walls Parcel, its maintenance and funding source for that
maintenance. The TDBCSD agreement would do the same with respect to the
Open Space Parcels and the EVA/public trails located within the open space.
[See Condition 70 regarding annexations and boundary reorganization.]
Conditions to Address Construction Noise and Vibration and Air Quality
It will take up to 2 years to complete the grading for bays and coves, the widening
of Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek, infrastructure, and finished lots. The
EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce construction air quality impacts and
noise impacts from grading and new construction activities. The measures follow
the recommendations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) for reduction of particulate matters (PM) from diesel engines and
grading. The measures have been included in the Conditions of Approval.
Construction noise impacts at adjacent residences will be reduced by the detailed
EIR noise mitigation measures also included in the Conditions of Approval. The
measures include the requirements to limit noise producing activities to between
7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. during week days, to follow a noise mitigation plan
approved by the County (using the California Model Community Noise Ordinance
limits as the primary noise mitigation goals), and to construct temporary noise
barriers near the western property lines with Ravenswood and Lakeshore.
Vibration and noise impacts in constructing the shoring walls along Kellogg Creek,
Old Kellogg Creek and the bays and coves have been avoided by the applicant’s
chosen method for their construction. The vertical shoring walls will be constructed
using the Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) method. To create the shoring walls,
this process utilizes multiple drilling augers to inject and mix cement into an
interlocking column configuration, with steel I beams installed while the cement-
soil mixture is in a fluid state. The applicant will not use the steel sheet pile wall
construction method, or the deep dynamic compaction method to provide soil
stability, since these methods would cause excessive noise and vibration, in
particular from high impact pounding.
[See Conditions 8 and 44 regarding air quality, construction noise and required
design and methods to construct shoring walls and the prohibition of steel sheet pile
walls and deep dynamic compaction.]
Plan Design for Sea Level Rise and Flooding Avoidance
State planning agencies in California are directed by a Governor’s Executive Order
in 2008 to consider and plan for a sea level rise, through global climate change,
projected to be 1.3 feet by 2050 and 4.6 feet by 2100. The applicant will design its
grading plan and improvement plans at final map to provide for finished floor
elevations with 2 feet of freeboard above a Base Flood Elevation that includes those
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-20
State projections. That requires a finished pad elevation minimum of 12.1 feet (13.1
feet if a slab foundation is used) and a finished floor elevation of 14.1 feet. The
minimum street elevation is 12.1 feet. The preliminary grading plan will need to be
modified at the final grading plan to accommodate these minimum elevations on all
lots and streets. The elevation of the habitable portions of the modular building at
the marine patrol substation also will take into account the same sea level rise
projections, as will the project street, EVA and substation parcel elevations.
The shoring walls will be constructed to a uniform elevation of 7.5 feet above mean
sea level. That height will accommodate the high water level reached during the
100-year storm event at high tide (see the Sea Level Rise Exhibit). The retaining
wall at the back of each waterfront lot pad will be uniformly located approximately
7.5 feet from the shoring wall) and approximately 5 feet higher than the shoring
wall There will be a 2:1 slope up to a retaining wall at the end of the pad, which
will both be at or above the required minimum elevation of 12.1 feet (13.1 feet if
slab foundations used). The slope and retaining wall will accommodate the water
level reached during the 100-year storm event at high tide, based on the State
projected rise in mean sea level by 2100.
[See Conditions 42 and 43 regarding finished floor elevations for homes,
streets/EVAs, and modular unit.]
Potential Grading Alternative between Lakeshore and Project, Off-Site Dirt
Hauling
As the project is currently designed, where residential lots back up to Lakeshore
there is a strip of land, 26 to 37 feet in width, owned by the Lakeshore HOA
between the Pantages property and Lakeshore residential lots. Some HOA board
members have expressed to the applicant an interest in having that strip filled as
part of the grading for the project. There would still be a swale to carry storm water
between the Lakeshore and Pantages Bays lots but the slopes would be shorter. The
applicant has expressed a willingness to work with the Lakeshore board (and
adjoining Lakeshore homeowners) toward that end in the final grading design at
this location. Applicant’s engineers have estimated the additional yardage to place
that additional engineered fill is relatively small compared to the overall grading. It
should be considered a minor change in the grading that may be accomplished with
the final grading plan, subject to grading easements and/or lot line adjustments
between the parties. A revised grading plan in this location and any associated lot
line adjustments would be subject to review and comment by the Public Works
Department and review and approval of CDD.
With this grading plan modification retaining walls at the back of the Pantages lots
across from Lakeshore would be avoided. If the grading plan is not modified any
required retaining walls at the rear of those lots will be short. They will be of
sufficient distance from the Lakeshore homes so there is no visual aesthetic issue
that needs to be addressed, unlike with the adjoining Ravenswood homes discussed
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-21
above. Compare Section A-A’ on Sheet 5 of the Pantages Bays Plans for the
grading plan next to Lakeshore to Section C-C’ for the grading plan adjoining
Ravenswood lots.
[See Condition 79 for requirements regarding alternative grading plan along
Lakeshore.]
Project with balanced cut and fill grading
Applicant’s engineers expect to balance cut and fill grading for the project so that
no off-site import or export of dirt will be necessary. In contrast Ravenswood
imported a very significant amount of dirt to raise the project lots and streets above
the flood plain. In Pantages Bays fill for streets and finished lots will come from
excavating Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek frontage and the bays and coves.
In the event some off-site import (or export) of dirt is ultimately required Public
Works and CDD must review and approve the hauling plan and route to mitigate
the short term effects of that truck traffic, and to address any road pavement
concerns.
[See Condition 79 and 101 for review and approval of plan for off-site hauling of
dirt and road pavement analysis.]
Fire District Review
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District [CCCFPD] in letters to CDD has
confirmed the project as designed is conditionally acceptable, even though its cul -
de-sac streets exceed 25 homes, the general maximum standard for cul-de-sac
streets. Meeting that general standard and providing for waterfront lots on bays and
coves is not possible Those conditions for that exception include requiring: all-
weather 20-foot EVAs and bridge over the emergent marsh to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus; fire sprinklers in all homes; road widths which allow for fire
apparatus to pass with parked cars on the sides; and cul-de-sacs with sufficient turn
radius.
[See Condition 71 regarding fire district requirements.]
Historical Signage and Street Names
Point of Timber Road in the Delta has some historical significance. The project
will include signage on the trails describing some of that history. Street names with
historical significance will also be used if available.
[See Conditions 46 and 49 regarding historical signage and street names.]
C. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-22
General Plan Amendment: The 171-acre site is currently designated as Agricultural
Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation and Resources (DR) under the General Plan’s
Land Use Element Map and it is located within the County’s Urban Limit Line
(ULL). The General Plan’s AL land use designation identifies those lands within
the unincorporated area that are intended for agricultural use The designation
includes much of the privately owned land in the rural parts of the County used
primarily for dry land farming or cattle grazing, and it includes non-prime
agricultural lands. AL is one of the non-urban uses identified in the General Plan
and the uses allowed under the AL designation include all land-dependent and non-
land dependent agricultural production and related activities.
The General Plan’s DR land use designation encompasses the islands and adjacent
lowlands of the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. Due to their proximity to the Delta
waterways, these lands have potential recreational value.
In support of the proposed 292 single family residential development, the applicant
is proposing to amend the Land Use Element Map to re-designate the 171- acre site
to the following new General Plan land use designations [Refer to Attachment D,
Exhibit 2---General Plan Map]:
33.9 acres of Single Family Residential – High Density (SH),
46.4 acres of Single Family Residential-Medium Density (SM),
43.7 acres of Open Space (OS)
0.5 acres of Public Semi Public (PS)
46.7 acres of Water (WA)
Under the General Plan and the 65/35 Land Use Preservation Plan Ordinance, this
171-acre site located on the inside of the Urban Limit Line is eligible for potential
conversion from the AL and DR designation, or non-urban use, to General Plan
urban use designations. As such, the evaluation of this General Plan Amendment
focuses on the following General Plan policies and considerations: (1) 65/35 Land
Preservation Standard; (2) Potential Loss of Prime or Productive Agricultural
Lands; and (3) Growth Management Standards.
(1) Maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Standard (Measure C-1990)
General Plan Policy Consideration: General Plan policy #3-p, Land Use Element -
“Maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and devise a means of tracking
urban and non-urban development and uses in the cities and unincorporated
areas.”
The re-designation of the 171-acre site from the AL and DR land use designations
to the combination of SH, SM, OS, WA and PS use designations under the
General Plan would not result in a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation
Standard. Approximately 80 acres of the 171 acre-site would be converted from
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-23
non-urban use (Agricultural Lands) to urban use designations, 33.9 acres to SH and
46.4 acres to SM, respectively. According to the Department of Conservation and
Development’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping system, over
8,000 acres of land area countywide under non-urban use designations within the
ULL would be eligible for conversion to urban use designations without causing the
County to exceed urban uses beyond 35% of land area countywide as mandated
under Measure-1990: The 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan
Ordinance. As proposed, the General Plan Amendment involving a shift of 80 acres
from non-urban use to urban use would be minor and would not cause a violation of
65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance Standard.
(2) Potential Loss of Prime or Productive Agricultural Lands
General Plan Policy Considerations:
General Plan policy #3-11, Land Use Element: “Urban uses shall be expanded only
within the Urban Limit Line where conflicts with the agricultural economy will be
minimal.”
General Plan policy #3-14, Land Use Element: “Protect prime productive
agricultural land from inappropriate subdivisions.”
Although designated Agricultural Lands (AL) and zoned under the A-3, Heavy
Agricultural District and the A-2, General Agricultural District, there has not been
extensive cultivation or active agricultural use on the subject property for quite a
number of years. Furthermore, the 2010 Important Farmland Map of Contra Costa
County prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California
Department of Conservation, does not identify the 171-acre site as meeting the
State’s requirements for prime farmland.
At best, the site’s soils would be suitable for dry land farming or cattle grazing;
however, because of its proximity to existing residential development within
Discovery Bay such agricultural uses would be expected to be limited in scope and
scale.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in
a loss of prime productive agricultural land.
(3) Growth Management Standards Consideration
General Plan Policy Considerations:
General Plan Policy #3-5, Land Use Element: “New development within
unincorporated areas of the County may be approved, provided growth
management standards and criteria are met or can be assured of being met prior to
the issuance of building permits in accordance with growth management.”
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-24
General Plan Policy #4-1, Growth Management Program Element: “New
development shall not be approved in unincorporated areas unless the applicant
can provide the infrastructure which meets the traffic level of service and
performance standards outlined in Policy 4-3, or a funding mechanism has been
established which will provide the infrastructure to meet the standards or as is
stated in other portions of this Growth Management Element.”
Traffic Level of Service
As more fully described in the Transportation/Traffic section of the EIR,
implementation of the project would increase traffic and worsen level of service
standards at several intersections. However the project shall pay its fair share of the
improvements necessary to not exceed the County’s traffic level of service
standards in the General Plan (standards as detailed in the Growth Management
Element and Transportation/Circulation Element).
Other Growth Management Standards
In regard to the other Growth Management standards, the project’s impact on public
services was evaluated in the EIR. As noted in the EIR, the project would lead to
the construction of 292 single family residence with a projected population increase
of 876 people within the Discovery Bay community. This increase of additional
residents would have a minor impact on the public services. The analysis in the EIR
provides sufficient information to determine that the project as proposed can meet
the public services performance standards contained in both the Growth
Management and Public Facilities/Service elements to the General Plan. The public
entities, which are expected to serve the key public services to the project site,
include:
Water – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (after
annexation)
Sewer – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (after
annexation)
Schools – Byron Union School District and Liberty Union School District
Regional Recreation – East Bay Regional Park District
Local Parks – Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District
Fire – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Police – Contra Costa Sheriff’s Department.
IX. PUBLIC WORKS CONSIDERATIONS
Traffic & Circulation:
An adequate turnaround must be constructed at the terminus of the public street outside of the
queuing lane for the gates. Secondary pedestrian, bicyclist and emergency access will be
available from Wilde Drive, a public street stubbed to the property from the adjacent
Ravenswood subdivision. This secondary access will be closed to everyday vehicular traffic by
bollards, gates or other means acceptable to the Fire District and Public Works Department.
All on-site streets shall be privately maintained, but shall meet Public Works standards as to
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-25
width, alignment and pavement structural section. Interior trails, which also serve as emergency
access, shall be designed to these same vehicular standards as well. Some exceptions to County
Standards have been recognized within the recommended Conditions of Approval to
accommodate proposed storm water treatment infrastructure.
The EIR mitigation measures also require the minimum finished floor elevation of residential
units to be 14.1 feet , and the minimum finished street (and EVA/trails) elevation to be 12.1 feet.
This is somewhat higher than elevations shown on portions of the vesting tentative map. Since
the site, as shown, is anticipated to have an earthwork balance, additional excavation of Kellogg
Creek and/or the project bays will be necessary, or fill material will need to be imported.
Regardless, construction related equipment and materials can potentially damage the existing
travel routes to the site. An analysis of the pre-construction pavement condition should be
required along the proposed travel routes, and security posted to assure the developer repairs
project-related damage to existing roads.
Drainage:
All project drainage infrastructures will be designed to County standards. Project runoff will be
conveyed to Kellogg Creek.
As noted above, the source of much of the fill for the building pads will be generated from
excavation within Kellogg Creek and the creation of “bays” within the project site. This will
increase the capacity in the creek, being of general benefit to adjacent and immediately upstream
properties. This work will be effectuated in cooperation with Reclamation District 800 with
proper permitting from the applicable regulatory agencies
Storm Water Management & Discharge:
This project is subject to all requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities per the County’s MS4
permit with California State Water Resources Control Board. Preliminary plans for incorporating
long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water
pollutants have been reviewed in conjunction with this application. The applicant shall submit a
FINAL Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) and a Storm Water Control Operation and
Maintenance Plan (O+M Plan) to the Public Works Department prior to filing of the final map.
In addition, the property owner shall enter into a standard Storm Water Management Facility
Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the County, and annex the property into
Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2007-1, which provides funding to the County to
oversee the ongoing operation and maintenance of storm water facilities by property owners per
the County’s NPDES permit.
Flood Plain Management:
As noted above, the project is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area as designated on the
Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Rate Maps and is thus subject to the requirements of the
Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance. The
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-26
applicant intends to re-grade and elevate the habitable portions of the property (including the
modular building for the Sheriff’s marine patrol substation) to be above the Base Flood Elevation
to satisfy these requirements.
Prior to site grading, the applicant will be required to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (C-LOMR-F) from FEMA concurring that the proposed grading and site
improvements, when completed, will be satisfy FEMA’s requirements. After completion of
grading and storm drain improvements, the applicant shall submit a LOMR-F application to
FEMA to finalize their approval process.
Area of Benefit & Other Traffic Impact Fees:
The project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has identified several streets and intersections in
the region that will be directly or cumulatively impacted by this development. The mitigation
measures per said EIR include construction or participation in the funding of these
improvements, either directly or through payment of fees to established regional area of benefit
fee accounts or, in the absence thereof, County managed roadway deficiency trust ac counts.
These mitigation measures have been identified and are to be incorporated within the context of
CDD’s recommended Conditions of Approval.
In addition to the specific traffic impacts and related mitigation requirements in the EIR, TRA -3
is more generic in nature. As was required on the Discovery Bay West development, the Public
Works Department recommends implementation of a Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program to
further review impacts to area roads that become apparent during the build-out phase of the
project, and mitigate them as appropriate.
Additional Considerations:
Considerable areas are proposed to be owned and maintained by Reclamation District 800, by
the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD), or by the Homeowners
Association. This is a similar arrangement that was employed by the Ravenswood project (except
for ownership and maintenance by RD 800) and is noted within the context of the EIR mitigation
measures under BIO-12. The County has no interest, or the financial resources, in owning or
maintaining these properties and supports the proposed ownership and maintenance
arrangements proposed. If RD 800 or TDBCSD are not amenable to this relationship, the
properties should remain with the developer, and then granted to the homeowners association or
another entity created specifically for conservation monitoring and maintenance in perpetuity,
and that is approved by the Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development,
Community Development Division.
X. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Final EIR) adequate for the project and accept Resolution 9-2013 and the findings
contained therein, adopting the CEQA Findings which includes a Statement of Overriding
County Planning Commission
Pantages Bays Residential Development Project
SR-27
Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), adopting the
Mitigation Measures for this project contained in the MMRP, approving the Vesting
Tentative Map and tree removal for the project, and recommending the Board of Supervisors:
certify the FEIR as adequate, adopt the Mitigation Measures in the MMRP, and recommends
that the Board of Supervisors approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and
Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the project. Staff also recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the entrance gate to
Pantages remain open during daylight hours for the public to have vehicular access to
the Open Space and project streets.
XI. ATTACHMENTS
A. Findings and Conditions of Approval
B. County Zoning Administrator Resolution No. 9-2013
C. CEQA Findings
D. Maps: Exhibit 1; Vicinity Map/ Exhibit 2; General Plan Map/ Exhibit 3; Zoning
Map
E. Plate A; Project Construction Sequence / Plate 1; How the Bays will be
Constructed, / Plate 2; Preliminary and Final Development Plan / Plate 3;
Representative House Elevations and Pattern of Development / Plate 4;
Development Standards / Perspective A; Pantages Bays Project Entry, Sea Level
Rise Exhibit
F. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), forwarded separately (Also available
online at www. cocoplans.org)
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\Major Subdivisions (SD)\SD06-9010\SD06-9010_PCSR Final
Draft.10.15.13.doc
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Pantages Bays
Residential Development Project
Volume I
SCH No. 2007-052130
Prepared for
Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
June 2012
County File Numbers:
GP99-0008
RZ04-3146
SD06-9010
DP04-3062
This page intentionally left blank.
To conserve resources this document was printed on 100% recycled paper. Please recycle!
i
VOLUME I: TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR ........................................................................................1-2
1.2 Level of Analysis .....................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Report Organization ...............................................................................................1-3
1.4 Scope of this EIR .....................................................................................................1-4
1.5 Environmental Review Process ..............................................................................1-4
1.6 Project Permits and Approvals ..............................................................................1-6
1.7 Incorporating By Reference ...................................................................................1-8
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Under Review ............................................................................................2-1
2.2 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Measures ......................................................2-1
2.3 Potential Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved ..........................................2-2
2.4 Significant Unavoidable impacts ............................................................................2-3
2.5 Alternatives to the Project .....................................................................................2-3
2.6 Summary Table ......................................................................................................2-4
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Project Location .....................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Project Setting........................................................................................................3-2
3.4 Project Components ..............................................................................................3-5
3.5 Project Construction ............................................................................................3-29
3.6 Project Objectives ................................................................................................3-30
4.0 SETTINGS, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................... 4-1
4.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................................. 4.1-1
4.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.3 Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.5 Energy ................................................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Global Climate Change ....................................................................................... 4.7-1
Pantages Bays Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
ii
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 4.8-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................ 4.9-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.12 Noise and Vibration ......................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Population and Housing ................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Public Services and Recreation ........................................................................ 4.14-1
4.15 Public Utilities .................................................................................................. 4.15-1
4.16 Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................ 4.16-1
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics ...................................................................... 4.17-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................5-2
5.3 Alternative 1 – No Build Alternative ......................................................................5-4
5.4 Alternative 2 – Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative ....................................5-5
5.5 Summary of Comparative Impacts ......................................................................5-11
5.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .........................5-12
5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................5-14
6.0 CEQA−REQUIRED DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ....................................................6-1
6.2 Growth Inducement ...............................................................................................6-2
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................... 7-1
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional Location and Project Site ..................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 3-7
Figure 3-3 Land Use Designations ........................................................................................ 3-9
Figure 3-4 Proposed Zoning ............................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-5 Proposed Final Development Plan .................................................................... 3-13
Figure 3-6 Public Access and Open Fence Plan .................................................................. 3-21
Figure 3-7 Landscape Plan ................................................................................................. 3-23
Figure 3-8 Discovery Bay Community Service District Boundaries .................................... 3-25
Figure 4-1 Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................ 4-7
Figure 4.1-1 Soils on the Project Site ................................................................................... 4.1-3
Figure 4.3-1 Special Status Species within 5 miles of Project Site ..................................... 4.3-14
Figure 4.6-1 Location of Field Investigations ....................................................................... 4.6-3
Figure 4.9-1 Storm Water Treatment Systems .................................................................... 4.9-9
Figure 4.9-2 Example Turbidity Barrier .............................................................................. 4.9-30
Figure 4.12-1 Long-term Noise Measurement Results – Location A: CNEL = 52 dBA .......... 4.12-5
Figure 4.12-2 Long-term Noise Measurement Results: CNEL = 53 dBA .............................. 4.12-6
Figure 4.12-3 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ............................................. 4.12-10
Figure 4.14-1 Public Services in the Project Vicinity ............................................................ 4.14-3
Figure 4.14-2 Local Parks in the Project Vicinity .................................................................. 4.14-7
Figure 4.15-1 Locations of Improvements to Water and Wastewater Facilities ................. 4.15-5
Figure 4.15-2 Proposed Expansion of the Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant ... 4.15-24
Figure 4.16-1 Study Intersections and Project Location ...................................................... 4.16-2
Figure 4.16-2a Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... 4.16-12
Figure 4.16-2b Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... 4.16-13
Figure 4.16-3 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................. 4.16-24
Figure 4.16-4a Existing Conditions Peak Hour Trip Assignments ........................................ 4.16-25
Figure 4.16-4b Existing Conditions Peak Hour Trip Assignments ........................................ 4.16-26
Figure 4.16-5a Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes ... 4.16-27
Figure 4.16-5b Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes ... 4.16-28
Figure 4.17-1 Viewpoint Locations .......................................................................................... 4.17-4
Figure 4.17-2 Viewpoint A, Kellogg Creek ................................................................................ 4.17-5
Figure 4.17-3 Viewpoint B, Future Trail View .......................................................................... 4.17-7
Figure 4.17-4 Viewpoint C, Point of Timber Road ................................................................... 4.17-8
Pantages Bays Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
iv
Figure 4.17-5 Viewpoint D, Discovery Bay ............................................................................... 4.17-9
Figure 4.17-6 Viewpoint E ...................................................................................................... 4.17-11
Figure 4.17-7 Viewpoint F ...................................................................................................... 4.17-12
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Project Permits and Approvals ........................................................................... 1-7
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................. 2-5
Table 3-1 Breakdown of Lots by Type ................................................................................. 3-6
Table 3-2 Breakdown of Acreage by Type of Use ............................................................. 3-15
Table 3-3 Base Flood Elevations for Project Development .............................................. 3-16
Table 3-4 Base Flood Elevations for Project Development .............................................. 3-17
Table 3-5 Proposed Tree Landscaping Palette ................................................................. 3-27
Table 4-1 Development Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site ................................... 4-4
Table 4.2-1 Major Criteria Pollutants ................................................................................. 4.2-4
Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................... 4.2-8
Table 4.2-3 Annual Number of Days Exceeding Ambient Air Quality Standards .............. 4.2-10
Table 4.2-4 Predicted Roadside Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. ............................... 4.2-19
Table 4.2-5 Average daily and Annual Operational Emissions ......................................... 4.2-22
Table 4.2-6 Daily Project ROG Emissions .......................................................................... 4.2-23
Table 4.2-7 Average Daily and Annual Construction Emissions ....................................... 4.2-24
Table 4.7-1 Annual CO2e Emissions Associated with Project Operation .......................... 4.7-12
Table 4.9-1 Sources of Pollutants and Proposed Control Measures ................................ 4.9-21
Table 4.12-1 Short-term Noise Measurement Results – April 2010 ................................... 4.12-4
Table 4.12-2 Existing CNEL for Roads Surrounding Project Area ........................................ 4.12-7
Table 4.12-3 Existing and Future CNEL for Roads Surrounding Project Area ................... 4.12-14
Table 4.12-4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ......................................................... 4.12-17
Table 4.12-5 Predicted CNEL Increases Due to Cumulative Traffic Noise ........................ 4.12-21
Table 4.13-1 County and Rural East County Population and Household Information ....... 4.13-2
Table 4.13-2 Share of Regional Housing Needs for 2007-2014 .......................................... 4.13-3
Table 4.13-3 Rural East County and Contra Costa County Employment Projections ......... 4.13-4
Table 4.14-1 Byron Unified School District ......................................................................... 4.14-5
Table 4.14-2 Liberty Union High School District ................................................................. 4.14-5
Table 4.14-3 Local Parks ..................................................................................................... 4.14-6
Table 4.14-4 Regional Parks ................................................................................................ 4.14-8
Table 4.15-1 Summary of TDBCSD Demand and Capacity................................................ 4.15-20
Table 4.16-1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ............................................................... 4.16-5
Table 4.16-2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria........................................................... 4.16-6
Table 4.16-3 Two-Lane Highway LOS Criteria ..................................................................... 4.16-7
Table 4.16-4 Existing Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ......................................... 4.16-9
Table 4.16-5 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Delay Index Summary .................... 4.16-11
Pantages Bays Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
vi
Table 4.16-6 Pantages Bays Trip Generation Estimates ................................................... 4.16-23
Table 4.16-7 Existing Plus Project: Peak Hour Intersection HCM Levels of Service ......... 4.16-30
Table 4.16-8 Existing Plus Project: Peak Hour Intersection CCTA Levels of Service ......... 4.16-31
Table 4.16-9 Existing Plus Project Roadway Operation .................................................... 4.16-31
Table 4.16-10 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection LOS (HCM Method) ............................. 4.16-36
Table 4.16-11 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection LOS (CCTALOS Method) ...................... 4.16-37
Table 4.16-12 Cumulative Roadway Segment Analysis ...................................................... 4.16-37
Table 4.16-13 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
(HCM Method) ............................................................................................. 4.16-39
Table 4.16-14 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
(CCTALOS Method) ...................................................................................... 4.16-45
Table 4.16-15 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Fair Share Calculations ......................... 4.16-48
Table 5-1 Summary of Comparative Impacts ................................................................... 5-11
Table 7-1 List of Preparers of the Draft EIR ........................................................................ 7-1
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents
vii
VOLUME II: APPENDICES
Appendix A URBEMIS2007 Output
Appendix B Biological Resource Analysis Report
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Pantages at Discovery Bay
Development
Appendix D Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix E Environmental Noise Study for Pantages Bays
Appendix F Agreement between Byron Unified School District and Pantages Bays LLC
Appendix G NPDES Permit Order No. R5-2003-0067
Appendix H Discovery Bay Community Services District Waterwater Treatment Plan Master
Plan & Water Master Plan
Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis
Pantages Bays Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
viii
This page intentionally left blank.
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This draft Environmental Impact Report (draft EIR) evaluates the potential impacts
of the Pantages Bays project (project). The project applicant is seeking approval for
a General Plan Amendment to change the general plan designations of an
approximately 171-acre project site from Agricultural Lands (AL), and Delta
Recreation to the following:
Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM)
Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH)
Water (WA)
Public/Semi-Public (PS)
Open Space (OS)
Under the amended land use designations, the project would develop 292
residential homes with associated streets and infrastructure on approximately 80
acres of the project site. The remaining 91 acres would consist of open-water areas,
emergent marsh, wetlands, open space areas, and a marine patrol substation. Refer
to Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of the project
components.
As part of the project, the portion of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the project
site would be widened. Reclamation District No. 8001 (RD 800) is co-sponsoring the
proposed widening, which would reduce water velocities in that section of Kellogg
Creek, thereby improving boater safety. The widening would also reduce bank
erosion and sedimentation, and would limit the need for dredging.2 The project
would require approval from the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) for annexation to the RD 800 and to the Discovery Bay Community Services
District sphere of influence and corresponding service boundary.
1 RD 800 controls and is responsible for the waterways in Discovery Bay.
2 RD 800 is a co-applicant on the project in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit process and
related resource agencies applications, per personal communication with Jeff Conway, District
Manager.
Pantages Bays Project
1.0 Introduction Draft EIR
1-2
As part of the draft EIR, two alternatives to the project were evaluated including a
no build alternative and a reduced density (no project) alternative. The no build
alternative considers no future development on the project site, while the reduced
density (no project) alternative considers future development according to the
existing land use designations.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DRAFT EIR
As Lead Agency, Contra Costa County (County) prepared this project-level draft EIR
to assess the potential significant environmental impacts of development of the
project. The draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended in March 2010 and the County CEQA
Guidelines. CEQA requires all state and local government agencies to consider the
environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary
authority.
This draft EIR is intended to inform County decision makers, responsible agencies,
and the public of the potential environmental consequences of implementing the
project. This draft EIR discloses the significant environmental impacts of the project
and identifies: 1) mitigation measures to reduce these effects; 2) significant impacts
that cannot be avoided; 3) growth-inducing impacts; 4) effects found not to be
significant; and, 5) cumulative impacts of the project in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. This draft EIR also addresses a
reasonable range of alternatives that may avoid or substantially lessen potential
environmental impacts, including the no project alternative.
The County is required to consider the information in the EIR, along with any other
relevant information, in making its decision on the proposed project. It is not the
purpose of an EIR to recommend approval or denial of a project. In accordance with
CEQA Section 15090, the decision makers must certify the final EIR prior to taking
action on the proposed project and requested entitlements. Pursuant to CEQA
statues and guidelines, other responsible agencies may also use the EIR in their
review and approval process.
1.2 LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15146, the degree of specificity in an EIR will
correspond to the degree of specificity in the underlying activity described in the
EIR. Detailed preliminary project plans and technical studies were included in the
evaluation of the potential environmental consequences of implementing the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction
1-3
project. It is anticipated that the level of analysis contained in this EIR will be
sufficient to proceed with project implementation without further environmental
review.
As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, further environmental review could
be required if subsequent development plans contain new information of
substantial importance or substantial changes to the project, or if the surrounding
circumstances change or other new information is available, which will result in a
new significant impact, a change in mitigation measures, or a change in the level of
significance of impacts identified in this EIR.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1.0, Introduction: provides an introduction and overview describing
the focus of the draft EIR and the environmental review process.
Chapter 2.0, Executive Summary: summarizes the project and environmental
consequences that would result from the project, provides a summary table of
significant environmental impacts, identifies mitigation measures, and indicates
the levels of significance of impacts after mitigation.
Chapter 3.0, Project Description: describes the project, the project location,
project objectives, and required project approvals.
Chapter 4.0, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures: describes the
environmental setting and provides an analysis of the environmental impacts of
the project, identifying mitigation measures for any significant environmental
impacts. An evaluation of a project’s contribution to cumulative environmental
impacts is provided for each environmental subsection. Each environmental
subsection also provides a list of the references, including the people and
agencies contacted for information, which were included in the analysis of
impacts.
Chapter 5.0, Alternatives: provides an evaluation of the alternatives to the
proposed project.
Chapter 6.0, CEQA-Required Conclusions: provides a discussion of impacts
found to be less than significant, and a summary of significant environmental
impacts, including unavoidable and growth-inducing impacts.
Chapter 7.0, List of Preparers: provides a list of organizations and individuals
involved in the preparation of the draft EIR.
Pantages Bays Project
1.0 Introduction Draft EIR
1-4
1.4 SCOPE OF THIS EIR
The focus of this draft EIR is to evaluate the environmental consequences of the
project. The following topics are addressed in Chapter 4.0, Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures:
Agricultural and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Global Climate Change
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Public Utilities
Transportation and Circulation
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
On May 24, 2007, the County filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. During the 30-day comment period
(ending June 25, 2007), written comments regarding the scope and content of the
draft EIR were received from regulatory agencies and the public. Additionally, a
scoping session on the draft EIR was held on June 18, 2007, at the County
Administration Building in Martinez, CA. All written and oral comments received
during the comment period and scoping session were considered in the preparation
of the draft EIR.
Following the scoping period, the preparation of the draft EIR was delayed due to
design modifications and internal preliminary review processes. No major changes
to the project design were made since the filing of the NOP. As such, the County
has not held additional scoping sessions beyond the first meeting in 2007. However,
the analysis of environmental impacts in Chapter 4.0, Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures, have been updated to include the current baseline conditions
of the project site and region.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction
1-5
CEQA requires a 45-day public review and comment period on the draft EIR.
Written comments on the draft EIR may be submitted to the following address:
Department of Conservation & Development
Community Development Division
ATTN: John Oborne
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
While reviewing the draft EIR, reviewers should focus on the document’s adequacy
in identifying and analyzing effects on the environment and on the ways in which
the significant effects might be avoided or mitigated. CEQA Guidelines Section
15204(c) states that reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and
should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on
facts, or expert opinion supported by facts.
Following the close of the public comment period, responses to public input will be
prepared and published as a separate document. The draft EIR text and appendices,
together with the response to comments document, will constitute the final EIR.
The final EIR will be available to the public before the County considers certifying
the document.
The County Planning Commission will consider the final EIR as well as approval of
the project during an open public hearing. The Commission will approve or deny
the major subdivision with proposed tree removal and make recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors whether to certify the final EIR, approve or deny the Final
Development Plan, the Rezoning, and the General Plan Amendment. If the project is
approved by both the Commission and Board of Supervisors, then the project
applicant may move forward and seek other necessary County approvals, such as
grading permits, building permits, encroachment permits, etc.
PLANNING ACTIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
The project applicant is seeking approval for a general plan amendment from
Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DR) to the following designations:
Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Single-Family Residential-High
Density (SH), Water (WA), Public/Semi-Public (PS), and Open Space (OS). In addition,
the project applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning from General Agricultural
District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1).
Pantages Bays Project
1.0 Introduction Draft EIR
1-6
The project site is inside the County urban limit line (ULL) and would not therefore
require any adjustment to the ULL. See Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, for
more description of the assessor parcels and consistency with land use policy.
SERVICE DISTRICT ANNEXATION
The project would require approval from LAFCO for annexation to the RD 800
service boundary and the Discovery Bay Community Services District, including the
corresponding spheres of influence for these two districts.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUBDIVISION MAP
Construction of the project requires approval of a final development plan, and a
major subdivision approval is required to divide the site into individually-owned
residential lots.
On December 12, 2006, Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC and the East Contra Costa
Irrigation District (ECCID) entered into a Property Transfer Agreement whereby the
project applicant will acquire approximately 9 acres of land owned by the ECCID,
commonly known as Pantages Island. The project applicant is also working with the
RD 800 and ECCID to secure future conservation easements over RD 800 properties
in the vicinity of the project site. These properties include Parcel “C” and “D” near
the project’s northern boundary; and the west and east banks of Kellogg Creek
between Newport Drive and State Route 4 (SR4). The conveyance of this ECCID
property (i.e., Pantages Island) and the RD 800 conservation easements would take
place prior to final map approval of the project.
1.6 PROJECT PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The project would require several permits and approvals from the County and other
responsible agencies/service providers. A list of the required permits and approvals
is shown in Table 1-1.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction
1-7
Table 1-1 Project Permits and Approvals
Agency/Provider Permit/Approval
Contra Costa County Certification of EIR
General Plan Amendment
Rezoning
Vesting Tentative Map
Final Development Plan
Tree Removal
Development Agreement (optional)
Final Subdivision Maps
Final Pantages Bays Stormwater Control Plan per approved C.3
Report
Grading Plan, Improvement Plans
Building Permits, including Grading Permits
Participation in the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan /
Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) (Potentially)
Reclamation District No. 800 (RD 800) Annexation, Service Agreement, Prop. 218 Assessment
Contra Costa Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO)
Annexation to Discovery Bay Community Service District sphere of
influence and corresponding service district boundary for water and
sewer, Service Agreement, and Landscaping and Lighting District.
Annexation to RD 800 for control and responsibility of the new
waterways in Discovery Bay.
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services
District (TDBCSD)
Annexation, Service Agreement, Landscaping and Lighting District,
Prop 218 Assessment
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 10 Permit, Work in Navigable Waters
Section 14 Permit, Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 404 Permit, Clean Water Act
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG)
Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (CRWQCB)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Section 401 Water Quality Certificate
California State Reclamation Board Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Approval of utilities relocation, gas and electric infrastructure and
hook-ups
SBC Communications (SBC) Approval of communication line relocation, infrastructure and
hook-ups
Source: Circlepoint, 2011.
Pantages Bays Project
1.0 Introduction Draft EIR
1-8
1.7 INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE
This draft EIR references several technical studies, analysis, and reports. The CEQA
Guidelines set forth three methods that may be used to incorporate data from other
sources in the EIR:
Incorporation by reference (14 Cal Code Regs 15150)
Use of an EIR appendix (14 Cal Code Regs 15148)
Citation to technical information (14 Cal Code Regs 15148)
Information incorporated by reference has been summarized in the appropriate
sections(s) of this draft EIR, as permitted in Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines,
with a description of how the public may obtain and review these documents.
Information in an EIR appendix may include summarized technical data, maps, plot
plans, diagrams, and similar information in sufficient detail to permit the public and
reviewing agencies to make full assessment of the project’s significant
environmental effects. To achieve a balance between the highly technical analysis
referenced in an EIR and EIR’s public information function, the CEQA Guidelines
allow technical analysis as appendices to the main body of the EIR. The appendices
are presented on a CD-Rom as Volume II to this draft EIR.
Source documents that are not project-specific are cited in the draft EIR.
All documents referenced in this draft EIR are available for review at the Contra
Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, California.
2-1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
The Pantages Bays Project (project) consists of construction of 292 detached single-
family residential housing units, Sheriff Marine Patrol Substation, and associated
roadways, pedestrian facilities, and utilities infrastructure. One hundred and
sixteen of these units would be water-oriented and would include docks. In
addition to residential development, the project would widen the portion of Kellogg
Creek immediately east of the project site. The proposed widening of Kellogg Creek
is cosponsored by Reclamation District No. 800 to reduce water velocities and
improve public safety in that section of Kellogg Creek. In order to proceed as
planned, the project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Subdivision/Tentative Map Approval, Final Development Plan and tree removal.
The project site is located in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County (County)
approximately 16 miles west of Stockton, CA; approximately 4.5 southeast of
Brentwood, CA; and 19 miles north of Livermore, CA. The approximately 171-acre
project site is undeveloped except for several dilapidated residential and
agricultural buildings. The site is located west of the original Discovery Bay
subdivisions, at the eastern terminus of Point of Timber Road.
2.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the summary to include a
discussion of: 1) potential areas of controversy; 2) significant impacts; 3) significant
unavoidable impacts; and 4) alternatives to the project. Under CEQA, a significant
impact on the environment is defined as, “a substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by a
project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects
of historic or aesthetic significance.”
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-2
Based on the analysis completed for this draft EIR, impacts in the following resource
areas would be considered significant without the implementation of mitigation
measures:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Global Climate Change
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Public Services and Recreation
Public Utilities
Transportation and Circulation
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
2.3 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES
TO BE RESOLVED
On May 24, 2007, the County filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. During the 30-day comment period
(ending June 25, 2007), written comments regarding the scope and content of the
draft EIR were received from regulatory agencies and the public. Additionally, a
scoping session on the draft EIR was held on June 18, 2007, at the County
Administration Building in Martinez, California. All written and oral comments
received during the comment period and scoping session were considered in the
preparation of the draft EIR. Potential areas of controversy identified during the
scoping period and evaluated in Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures, of this draft EIR include:
Adequate emergency vehicle access
Impacts to sensitive biological resources and habitat
Recreational access to the delta and public access to open space
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-3
Impacts to prime and other agricultural lands
Identify the County’s regional housing needs allocation
Identify if the project would require annexation into nearby service districts
Impacts to the hydrodynamics of Kellogg Creek and surrounding waterways
Boat traffic
Construction phasing and details on the creation of the bays and coves
Assess potential hazardous substances in project site soil and groundwater and
potential remediation activities
Identify impacts to State Route 4, local traffic impacts, cumulative traffic
impacts, and mitigation measures
2.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Impacts relating to the following topics would remain significant with the
implementation of mitigation:
Global Climate Change: The project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in excess of the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per service population per year.
Traffic: The project would increase traffic volumes and worsen level of service
(LOS) conditions along Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road.
2.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1 — NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain in its current state and there
would be no development of residential housing units, roadways, and utilities
infrastructure. The site would remain privately-owned and the open space wetland
mitigation area would remain unimproved. There would be no changes to parcels
on the site or any amendments to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-4
ALTERNATIVE 2 — REDUCED DENSITY (NO
PROJECT) ALTERNATIVE
Under Alternative 2, the project site would be developed with uses allowed under
the existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Ordinance designations. Project site
parcels are currently designated by the General Plan as Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta
Recreation (DR) and Water (WA) by the Contra Costa General Plan and zoned
General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) .
The Agricultural Lands (AL) land use designation allows for all land-dependent and
non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. The General Plan
permits residential uses at a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per 5
acres. Other uses related to processing of agricultural products, agricultural support
services and small-scale visitor uses are allowed with a land use permit.
The A-2 and A-3 zoning designations allow the site to be developed with agricultural
uses, such as general farming and sheds and warehouses, and with residential uses,
such as a single-family dwelling or a family care home. A detached single-family
dwelling is allowed on each parcel with the A-2 or A-3 zoning designation. Other
uses, such as commercial recreational facilities, medical offices, or churches, may be
allowed with a land use permit.
Alternative 2 assumes primarily rural residential land uses on approximately 171
acres as allowed under the existing general plan and zoning designations. For
purposes of this analysis, five of the parcels on the project site are considered
developable. This alternative assumes five single-family residential units would be
constructed on the project site in accordance with current zoning designations. This
alternative would not require a General Plan amendment.
2.6 SUMMARY TABLE
Table 2-1 summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project and
mitigations measures to reduce significant impacts. The table is arranged in four
columns: 1) significant impacts; 2) level of significance without mitigation; 3)
mitigation measures; and 4) level of significance after mitigation. Levels of
significance are categorized as follows: SU = Significant and Unavoidable; S =
Significant; LTS = Less Than Significant. For a complete description of potential
impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific
sections within Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-5
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Agricultural Resources
There are no significant impacts to agricultural resources.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: Project development that includes
wood burning stoves would result in a net increase of
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), a criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment in an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard.
S Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Wood burning fireplaces
or stoves shall not be permitted. Only natural gas
fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project plans
shall not include wood burning fireplaces or stoves
and shall clearly indicate the prohibition against such
use.
LTS
Impact AQ-2: The project would not expose sensitive
receptors to criteria air pollutants during project
construction but could expose sensitive receptors to
toxic air contaminants.
S Mitigation Measure AQ-2a: To reduce the air quality
impacts of PM associated with grading and new
construction, the project applicant shall incorporate
the following mitigation measures for all phases of
construction:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per
day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other
loose material off-site shall be covered.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-6
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Air Quality (continued)
Impact AQ-2, continued. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent
public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be
limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be
paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required
by the California airborne toxics control measure
Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access
points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained
and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-7
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Air Quality (continued)
Impact AQ-2, continued. 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.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b: To reduce health risks
from TACs during project construction, the project
applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation
measures into the project:
Minimize the idling time of diesel powered
construction equipment to two minutes;
Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be
used in the construction of the project (i.e.,
owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles)
would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20
percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM
reduction compacted to the most recent ARB
fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-8
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Air Quality (continued)
Impact AQ-2, continued. emissions include the use of late model engines,
low-emission diesel projects, alternative fuels,
engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
projects, add-on devices such as particulate
filters, and /or other options as such become
available;
Require that all construction equipment, diesel
trucks, and generators be equipped with best
available technology for emission reductions of
NOx and PM; and
Require all contractors use equipment that
meets CARB’s more recent certification standard
for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.
Impact CUM AQ-1: Development of the project in
conjunction with other development in the region
would result in a net increase of reactive organic
gases (ROG).
S Mitigation Measure CUM AQ-1: Implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which prohibits the uses of
wood burning fireplaces or stoves within the project
and permits only natural gas fireplaces or stoves,
would reduce ROG emissions associated with project
development to 36 pounds per day, which is below
the BAAQMD significant threshold (see Table 4.2-6).
Therefore, the project’s contribution to this impact
would not be cumulatively considerable.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-9
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Development of the project would
have a significant impact on trees.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Landscape trees.
To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80
trees on the project site, the project includes
landscaping with approximately 770 trees that would
be planted along the project roadways and at the
project site entry as part of the proposed landscaping.
This is an approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio.
Comply with the following landscape/irrigation
improvement and initial protection requirements
subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator:
A. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the
issuance of a grading permit a final
landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed
landscape architect shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department (CDD) for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The Final Plan shall be designed in general accord
with the preliminary landscape plan, Sheet 10 of
10 of the Project Plans dated October 2009.
B. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a
minimum of 15-gallon size; all shrubs shall be a
minimum 5-gallon size.
C. Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be
designed to minimize landscape maintenance
cost.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-10
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-1, continued. D. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight
Obstruction Ordinance Requirements: The
landscape plan shall contain sufficient information
to demonstrate compliance with the reporting
requirements and standards of the Water
Conservation Landscaping in New Developments
ordinance (Chapter 82-26) as amended, and the
Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance
(Chapter 82-18). The latter ordinance applies to
intersections with public roads. The landscape
architect shall certify that the plan complies with
the ordinance improvement standards and
reporting requirements.
E. To assure the long term viability of this
landscaping the applicant shall post a bond for
the value of the landscaping, installation plus
20%. The term of the bond shall extend 24
months beyond the installation of landscaping.
Prior to the acceptance of the bond by the County
a qualified landscape designer shall assess the
value of the landscape and provide a copy of that
assessment to the Community Development
Department. Prior to the release of the bond a
landscape designer shall submit a letter to the
Zoning Administrator that the landscaping is in
good health.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-11
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2. Development of the project would
have a significant impact on bank habitat.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Bank habitat.
a. Prior to removal of bank habitat along Kellogg
Creek or disturbing any creek/channel banks
within the project site and at Pantages Island, the
applicant shall contact the CDFG, the Corps, the
RWQCB, and the Reclamation Board and
determine if permits are warranted for the
activities pursuant to the regulations that are in
effect. Proof of permits (for example, a Section
404 permit, Section 401 permit, Section 1602
permit) or an absence of requirements for such
permits from these resource agencies shall be
provided to Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development.
b. All mitigation measures implemented to improve
bank habitat shall be approved by the Corps, the
RWQCB, CDFG, and the Reclamation Board (if
necessary) through issuance of necessary permits.
c. Mitigation for loss of bank habitat shall be
completed as prescribed by the CDFG, Corps,
RWQCB, and Reclamation Board. The applicant
has provided a report to Contra Costa County
describing how the applicant will mitigate impacts
to bank habitats, and these stated mitigations,
described below, shall become a condition of
project approval.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-12
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. d. Specifically, the applicant proposes to mitigate for
the loss of 5,380 lineal feet of excavated low and
moderate quality bank habitat by: (1) enhancement
of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and moderate low
quality bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high
quality bank habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat
and shallow water habitat) on Pantages Island,
ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID
Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg
Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route 4;
and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate
quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench
to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip-rap with
willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated
portion of Pantages Island, the North Cove and the
end of Point of Timber Road in the North Bay. Bank
habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal
feet.
e. Enhance existing bank habitat or create new bank
habitat on-site, approximately 11,060 linear feet in
total, including shaded riverine aquatic habitat and
shallow water habitat (high quality bank habitat on
Pantages Island and the ECCID portion of the project
site; moderate quality bank habitat on the easterly
side of Pantages Island and the northerly side of the
north cove at the northeasterly end of the project
site; and low quality bank habitat at the back of
some waterfront lots).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-13
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. f. The revegetation design shall restore the bank to
moderate quality habitat following construction,
which includes the following:
i. Riprap with willow plantings shall be
established between mean low water (MLW)
and mean high water (MHW) to provide
additional stabilization and some shaded
riverine aquatic habitat.
ii. A shallow sloping or level bench shall be
established at approximately MHW to support
larger riparian trees such as Fremont
cottonwood.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 5:1 and also
planted with riparian trees and grasses.
iv. Riparian trees planted along the shallow
sloping or level bench shall be planted on 15-
foot centers to ensure adequate bank
coverage.
v. Native riparian trees such as valley oaks,
California buckeyes, and Fremont
cottonwoods and native grasses can be used
for revegetation.
vi. The planted riparian trees shall be monitored
by a biologist or arborist annually for a period
of 5 years to ensure that mortality does not
exceed 20 percent after 5 years. If there is
greater than 20 percent mortality of planted
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-14
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. trees after 5 years, the project proponent
shall be responsible for replanting and
monitoring the trees for an additional 3-year
period.
vii. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive
weed monitoring shall also be conducted. In
the event that an increase in the distribution
or density of invasive plants is documented
(for example, water hyacinth or Brazilian
waterweed), an invasive weed management
and eradication program shall be developed
and implemented.
viii. A performance bond, letter of credit, or
other financial instrument shall be
established to pay for any remedial work that
might need to occur.
ix. Once vegetation has become established, the
upper bank should provide overhanging
vegetation cover for fish during most tidal
elevations. However, the placement of riprap
without natural habitat features (e.g., large
woody debris) along most of the lower bank
would create minimal in-water habitat for
fish. Given incorporation of both high quality
and low quality habitat features, this design
is characterized as being overall of moderate
value.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-15
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. To improve the overall habitat value of the bank,
installation of tree species along the lower bank
may be possible by installing Sonatubes in the rip-
rap and planting the trees within these tubes. The
Sonatubes allow trees to grow along rip-rap banks
without harming the integrity of the bank.
g. Low and moderate quality habitat along the south
side of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel, the
section of Old Kellogg creek at the southwestern
end of the project site and the east and west sides
of Kellog Creek between Newport point and State
Route 4, shall be restored to high quality habitat
by creating a slope setback.
h. The setback shall be created by excavating
existing bank material from approximately MLW
to the top of the bank.
i. An intertidal berm with a 10:1 or 20:1 slope
shall be established to create shallow water
habitat and stabilize the bank.
ii. The berm shall be planted with tules to
provide in-water resting and hiding places for
fish.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 3:1 or 5:1
and planted with native riparian trees and
shrubs to create shaded riverine aquatic
habitat.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-16
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. iv. Trees and shrubs planted along upper bank
shall be monitored by a qualified biologist or
arborist for a minimum 5-year period. If there
is greater than 20 percent mortality of planted
trees and shrubs after 5 years, the applicant
shall be responsible for replanting and
monitoring the trees for an additional 3-year
period.
v. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive
weed monitoring shall also be conducted. In
the event that an increase in the distribution
or density of invasive plants is documented
(for example, water hyacinth or Brazilian
waterweed), an invasive weed management
and eradication program shall be developed
and implemented.
vi. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other
financial instrument shall be established to
pay for any remedial work that might need to
occur.
i. Existing low and moderate quality bank habitat
around the perimeter of Pantages Island shall be
restored to high-quality habitat by implementing
the setback design as described for the ECCID
Dredge Cut/Intake Channel. This design shall be
established around most of the island, except for
bank habitat adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Bank
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-17
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. habitat along Kellogg Creek shall be stabilized
with riprap to prevent erosion due to wave action
from existing and future boater activity.
Therefore, this area of Pantages Island will be
designed to provide moderate-quality bank
habitat as prescribed above. Also to address
wave action, moderate quality habitat shall also
be created along the North Cove and in the North
Bay at the end of Point of Timber Road.
Impact BIO-3: Development of the project would
have a significant impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Vernal pool fairy shrimp.
a. In order to offset the project’s impact on vernal
pool fairy shrimp the applicant shall implement
one of the following measures:
i. Purchase credits in an existing fairy shrimp
mitigation bank at a ratio determined during
negotiations with USFWS during Section 7
Consultation between the Corps and the
USFWS;
ii. Acquire suitable mitigation property via fee
title at a ratio determined during negotiations
with USFWS during Section 7 Consultation
between the Corps and the USFWS; or
iii. With permission from state and federal
regulatory agencies and in agreement with the
Conservancy, the project proponent shall
make a financial contribution to the
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-18
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-3, continued. Conservancy, to offset the project’s impact to
the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The financial
contribution to the Conservancy or the
amount of mitigation land that shall be
purchased via fee title shall be determined
during negotiations with USFWS during
Section 7 consultation between the Corps and
the USFWS.
b. Prior to impacting the seasonal wetland where
the vernal pool fairy shrimp were found,
documentation of the mitigation transaction (e.g.,
financial contribution to the Conservancy), and/or
a copy of the Biological Opinion outlining the
mitigation requirements and incidental take
statement from USFWS, shall be provided to
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
and Development.
c. Prior to grading onsite, and as prescribed in a
Biological Opinion issued for the project, topsoils
from the wetland containing the fairy shrimp egg
bank shall be scalped by a qualified federal
10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist and redeposited
in appropriate seasonal mitigation wetlands that
shall be created within the wetland mitigation
preserve onsite.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-19
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-4: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on the California
red-legged frog.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-4: California red-legged frog.
a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to aquatic and
upland buffer habitat, that is, for each 1 acre of
aquatic or upland buffer habitat impacted, 1 acre
of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite
or acquired offsite in a suitable location) or
mitigation may be as required by the USFWS
during consultation initiated by the Corps with
USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title
acquisition of land, contribution into an existing
mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement
with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a
financial contribution to the Conservancy.
c. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring
requirement stipulated in permits/ authorizations
issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this
project shall be completed as stated in the
permits/authorizations. Copies of all survey
reports and monitoring reports required by
USFWS in the conditions of the Biological Opinion
shall be submitted to Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development.
d. Contra Costa County shall receive copies of all
agency agreements/ authorizations related to this
species, and shall not issue a grading or building
permit until all agency agreements/ permits
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-20
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-4, continued. relating to the California red-legged frog have
been obtained for this project and mitigation has
been implemented.
Impact BIO-5: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on the giant
garter snake.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Giant garter snake.
a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to suitable
aquatic and upland habitat (that is, for each 1
acre of suitable aquatic and upland habitat
impacted, 1 acre of compensatory habitat shall be
preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a suitable
location) or mitigation may be as required by the
USFWS during consultation initiated by the Corps
with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title
acquisition of land, contribution into an existing
mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement
with the Conservancy, the project proponent may
make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring
requirement stipulated in permits/ authorizations
issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this
project shall be completed as stated in the
permits/authorizations.
c. Contra Costa County shall receive copies of all
agency agreements/authorizations related to this
species, and shall not issue a grading permit or
building permit until all agency
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-21
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-5, continued. agreements/permits relating to the giant garter
snake have been obtained and mitigation for this
species has been implemented.
Impact BIO-6: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on the western
pond turtle.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Western pond turtle.
The applicant shall install turbidity barriers around
construction areas in Kellogg Creek and the buffers
protecting the preserved emergent marsh to ensure
that western pond turtles do not enter the project
construction areas.
a. The western pond turtle is not a state listed
species; therefore, it is not protected pursuant to
the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the
resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS) do not have
specific mitigation guidelines that must be
followed to offset a project’s impact to the
western pond turtle. Mitigation for this special-
status species is determined on a project by
project basis. It is likely that any mitigation
implemented for the California red-legged frog
and the giant garter snake would also mitigate the
proposed project’s impact on the western pond
turtle. The mitigation measure for impacts to
these two listed species would be a 1:1 mitigation
ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of
mitigation land would be acquired offsite or
preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat
and a surrounding upland buffer area, or
mitigation would be as worked out by the
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-22
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-6, continued. applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time
applications for permits/authorizations from
these two agencies are submitted. Replacement
habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of
land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank,
or, with permission from state and federal
regulatory agencies and in agreement with the
Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy.
Impact BIO-7: Development of the project would
have potentially significant impact on federal and/or
state listed fish species and fish species designated by
the State of California as Species of Special Concern.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Federal and/or State listed
fish species and California species of special concern
fish.
a. To minimize potential impacts to federal and/or
state listed fish and California “species of special
concern” during construction and dredging of the
two interior bays, a levee shall be maintained
between the area to be excavated and the Kellogg
Creek channel.
b. A qualified fisheries biologist shall be onsite
during all pumping and siphoning activity to
ensure that these activities do not result in take of
federal and/or state listed fish and California
“species of special concern.”
c. Silt curtains or suction dredges shall be used
when conducting work in the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek. Use of this
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-23
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-7, continued. equipment will localize sediment movement and
protect fish from entrainment and the effects of
increased turbidity.
d. All in-water work shall be conducted between
August 1 and November 30 to minimize the
potential for take of threatened and endangered
fish species. By conducting work within this time
period, the project will avoid most critical
spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for
listed fish species.
e. Long-term impacts to fish are not expected
provided the proposed bank habitat mitigation to
re-create and replace impacted bank habitat is
implemented by the applicant.
Impact BIO-8: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on tree nesting
raptors.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Tree nesting raptors.
a. If possible, tree removal shall be completed
outside the nesting season (that is, between
September 2 and February 28). In an abundance
of caution, a preconstruction nesting survey of
the tree to be removed shall be conducted within
30 days of the scheduled removal to ensure no
birds are nesting.
b. If construction or tree removal would commence
between March 1 and September 1 during the
nesting season, nesting surveys shall be
conducted 30 days prior to grading/construction
of the project or any proposed tree removal work.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-24
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-8, continued. The raptor nesting surveys shall include
examination of all trees and shrubs within sphere
of influence of the proposed project, and not just
of those trees slated for removal.
c. If nesting raptors are identified during the
surveys, the dripline of the nest tree shall be
fenced with orange construction fencing
(provided the tree is on the project site), and a
300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be
staked with bright orange lath or other suitable
staking.
d. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the
buffer shall be demarcated per above where the
buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the
buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor
biologist conducts behavioral observations and
determines the nesting raptors are well
acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the
raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer
that allows sufficient room to prevent undue
disturbance/ harassment to the nesting raptors.
This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100
feet from the nest tree.
e. No construction or earth-moving activity shall
occur within the established buffer until it is
determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the
young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and
have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-25
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-8, continued. project construction zones. This typically occurs by
August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1 or
later, and would have to be determined by a qualified
raptor biologist.
Impact BIO-9: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on the
Swainson’s hawk.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Swainson’s hawk.
a. To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for
impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat the
applicant shall implement one of the following
scenarios:
i. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat1
(this is a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio), as
approved by CDFG, to a conservation
organization. An operating endowment shall
be provided to the conservation organization
to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity.
ii. With permission from state and federal
regulatory agencies and in agreement with the
Conservancy, the applicant may make a
financial contribution to the Conservancy,
commensurate with approximately 135 acres
of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging
habitat.
LTS
1 The mitigation requirement for 135 acres is the 171-acre project site minus the 36.43 acres of Corps jurisdictional waters of the U.S. onsite
which do not provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-26
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-9, continued. b. To ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting
Swainson’s hawks, preconstruction nesting surveys
shall be conducted no more than one month prior
to construction to establish whether Swainson’s
hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are
occupied.
c. If an active nest is found on or adjacent to the
project site “to avoid potential violation of Fish
and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed
species), project-related disturbance at active
Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced
or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting
cycle (March 1- September 15 annually)”(CDFG
1994).
d. If Swainson’s hawks are found nesting on the
project site, a qualified raptor biologist shall
establish a non-disturbance boundary around the
nesting site. The size of this non-disturbance
boundary shall be determined by the qualified
raptor biologist in the field and in coordination
with CDFG. The buffer shall be based on the
location of the nesting tree, the birds’ tolerance
of noise and other disturbance (e.g., ground
vibrations).
e. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined
by a qualified raptor biologist, and in coordination
with CDFG, any non-disturbance boundary/nest
buffer could be vacated.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-27
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-9, continued. f. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the
project, removal of this tree shall be mitigated in
accordance with the mitigation measure
prescribed for tree removal impacts in Mitigation
Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is proposed as
mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting:
removal). Replacement nest trees shall be native
species (such as oaks or cottonwoods).
Impact BIO-10: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
western burrowing owl.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Western burrowing owl.
Burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the
methodologies prescribed by CDFG in their 1995 Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the
Burrowing Owl Consortium in their 1993 Burrowing
Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines are
more likely to be accepted by CDFG. Below we
provide the survey methodology that shall be used to
conduct burrowing owl surveys. These surveys would
meet the standards of care required by CEQA for
conducting surveys for the western burrowing owl
and are accepted by CDFG.
a. A nesting survey shall be conducted for western
burrowing owl in the spring of the year prior to
construction of the project and again 30 days
prior to construction of the project.
b. If the site would be developed in the winter, then
the following surveys should be conducted in the
winter months. Since burrowing owls move
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-28
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. around (through dispersal and local movements)
readily in the winter months, and since there are
migrants that can temporarily occupy burrows in
the winter, surveys conducted in the winter
months are less reliable at detecting resident
burrowing owls. Regardless of whether
development commences in the winter months,
surveys must be completed as described below
for spring/summer surveys.
c. Surveys shall commence at least 90 days in
advance of projected site disturbance and again in
the 30 day period just prior to breaking ground. In
accordance with the Consortium’s guidelines, four
site visits are recommended for a complete
survey. Two surveys shall be conducted 90 days
before ground disturbance associated with the
project and two surveys shall be conducted in the
30 day period prior to ground disturbance
associated with the project. The CDFG Staff
Report states that preconstruction surveys need
to be completed within 30 days of grading prior to
CDFG accepting a survey conclusion that no
burrowing owls occur in a proposed study area
(i.e., negative findings). If no owls are found
during these surveys, no further regard for the
burrowing owl would be necessary.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-29
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. d. Western burrowing owl surveys shall be
conducted from two hours before sunset to one
hour after, or one hour before to two hours after
sunrise. All burrowing owl sightings, occupied
burrows, and burrows with owl sign (e.g., pellets,
excrement, and molt feathers) must be counted
and mapped.
e. Surveys shall be conducted by walking all suitable
habitat on the entire project site and (where
possible) in areas within 150 meters (approx. 500
feet) of the project impact zone. The 150-meter
buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows and
owls outside of the project area which may be
impacted by factors such as noise and vibration
(heavy equipment) during project construction.
f. Pedestrian survey transects shall be
systematically spaced to allow 100 percent visual
coverage of the ground surface. The distance
between transect center lines shall be no more
than 30 meters (approx. 100 ft.) and shall be
reduced to account for differences in terrain,
vegetation density, and ground surface visibility.
To effectively survey large projects (100 acres or
larger), two or more surveyors shall be used to
walk adjacent, parallel transects.
g. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls
and/or occupied burrows should be avoided by a
minimum of 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) if in the
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-30
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. non-breeding months (October 1st through
February 1st) and 250 feet during the breeding
permanent impacts to burrowing owl habitat. To
months (February 1st through October
1st).Disturbance to occupied burrows and within
the established buffers should be avoided until no
burrowing owls occur on the site. Note that CDFG
can approve a passive western burrowing owl
eviction plan during the non-breeding season.
h. If burrowing owls are detected on the site during
the breeding season (peak of the breeding season
is April 15 through July 15), and appear to be
engaged in nesting behavior, a fenced 250-foot
buffer would be required between the nest site(s)
(i.e., the active burrow(s)) and any earth-moving
activity or other disturbance in the project area.
This 250-foot buffer could be decreased to 160
feet once it is determined by a qualified raptor
biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left
the nest). Typically, the young fledge by August
31. This date may be earlier than August 31, or
later, and would have to be determined by a
qualified burrowing owl biologist. If burrowing
owls were found on the project site, a qualified
biologist would also need to delineate the extent
of burrowing owl habitat on the site.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-31
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. i. To mitigate impacts to burrowing owls, CDFG
prescribes that six and a half acres (6.5 acres) of
replacement habitat be set aside (i.e., protected
in perpetuity) per pair of burrowing owls, or
unpaired resident bird. Such a set-aside will offset
illustrate the extent of mitigation land required by
California Department of Fish and Game, we
provide this example: If two pairs of burrowing
owls are identified on the project site, 13 acres of
mitigation land would be acquired. Or, if one pair
and one resident bird are identified, 13 acres of
mitigation land would be acquired. The protected
lands should be adjacent to occupied burrowing
owl habitat if possible, and at a location selected
in consultation with CDFG. Land identified to
offset impacts to burrowing owls must be
protected in perpetuity by a suitable property
instrument, e.g., a conservation easement or fee
title acquisition. Any mitigation lands set aside for
burrowing owl would also include preparation of
a Mitigation Plan for burrowing owl and their
habitat. A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and
submitted to CDFG for this agency’s review and
comment. Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development must approve the
Mitigation Plan prior to issuing a grading permit
for the proposed project.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-32
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. j. The Mitigation Plan shall identify the mitigation
site and any activities proposed to enhance the
site, including the construction of artificial
burrows and maintenance of California ground
squirrel populations on the mitigation site. In
addition, for each pair of burrowing owls found in
the construction area, two artificial nesting
burrows will be created at the mitigation site. The
Plan should also include a description of
monitoring and management methods proposed
at the mitigation site. Monitoring and
management of any lands identified for mitigation
purposes would be the responsibility of the
applicant for at least five years. An annual report
must be prepared for submittal to CDFG and
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
and Development by December 31 of each
monitoring year. Contingency measures for any
anticipated problems should be identified in the
plan.
k. With permission from state and federal regulatory
agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy,
the applicant may make a financial contribution
to the Conservancy to mitigate impacts to
burrowing owls and burrowing owl habitat.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-33
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-11: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on other
protected nesting birds.
S Mitigation BIO-11: Impacts to other nesting birds.
a. A nesting survey shall be conducted prior to
commencing with construction work if this work
would commence between March 15 and August
31.
b. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike
or tricolored blackbird, are identified nesting
within the area of affect, a 100-foot non-
disturbance radius around the nest must be
fenced. No construction or earth-moving activity
shall occur within this 100-foot staked buffer until
it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that
the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and
have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid
project construction zones. This typically occurs
by August 1. This date may be earlier than August
1, or later, and would have to be determined by a
qualified ornithologist. Similarly, the qualified
ornithologist could modify the size of the buffer
based upon site conditions and the bird’s
apparent acclimation to human activities.
c. If common (that is, not special-status) passerine
birds (that is, perching birds such as northern
mockingbirds) are identified nesting in the trees
proposed for removal, tree removal would have to
be postponed until it is determined by a qualified
ornithologist that the young have fledged and have
attained sufficient flight skills to leave the project
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-34
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-11, continued. site. Typically, most passerine birds can be
expected to complete nesting by August 1, with
young attaining sufficient flight skills by this date
that are sufficient for young to avoid project
construction zones. Unless otherwise prescribed
for special-status bird species, upon completion
of nesting no further protection or mitigation
measures would be warranted for nesting birds.
Impact BIO-12. Impacts to Waters of the United
States and/or State.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Impacts to waters of the
United States and/or State
Authorization from the Corps and the RWQCB (for
example, an Individual Permit and a Certification of
Water Quality) shall be obtained prior to filling any
waters of the U.S./State on the project site.
A Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh
Preservation and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays
was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated
November 15, 2006). According to this mitigation
plan, minimization of indirect impacts would be
accomplished by grading home pads to drain toward
streets and away from open space areas, landscaping
with native plants, construction on bioswales,
maintaining natural buffers between the
development and the preserved marsh habitat within
the open space areas, and using native plantings as
landscaping buffers between development and open
space preserve areas. An exception is at the
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) crossing of the marsh
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-35
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. where there is no buffer. The location of the EVA was
chosen so that the road crossed the marsh at its
narrowest point. In most other cases, there is a
minimum of 50 feet between the edge of the
residential development and the preserved marsh. At
some locations, grading would encroach into the 50
foot width; however, the graded area would be
planted with native vegetation and maintained
naturally (no irrigation) such that it functions as a
buffer. The open space preserve area shall be
separated from adjacent development or recreational
areas with permanent fencing that protects the open
space preserve from unauthorized use while
providing a visual connection to the open space.
Residential fences would be tubular steel or some
other form of permanent, visually open, fencing
where houses back up to the open space preserve.
Past mitigation efforts from other development
projects have shown that with open fencing,
protected areas are kept free from dumping of trash
by homeowners as the community has more
connection and feels more stewardship of the open
space. In addition, along the EVA/trail, kiosks with
educational signage will be developed to reduce
human-induced impacts.
Impacts to waters of the United States/State will also
be minimized by implementing the following
measures:
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-36
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. a. The project proponent shall implement best
management practices consistent with the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
prepared for the project to protect the emergent
marsh and wetland mitigation area, including
installing orange construction fencing, hay or
gravel waddles, and other protective measures.
b. During project construction, a biological monitor
shall be onsite to monitor the integrity of
preserved wetlands and other waters.
c. For those wetland areas that cannot be avoided,
compensation wetlands shall be
enhanced/created to replace those wetlands
permanently affected by project activities. If
possible, wetlands shall be created on-site and
shall resemble those wetlands affected by the
project (known as in-kind replacement).
d. All impacted wetlands shall be replaced at a
minimum 1:1 ratio (for each square foot of
impact, one square foot of wetland would be
enhanced/created) or as otherwise specified in
permitting conditions imposed by the Corps and
RWQCB.
e. The specific mitigation for the project consists of
the components listed here:
Creation of approximately 5.29 acres of
seasonal wetland on-site;
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-37
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. Creation of approximately 0.30 acre of marsh
habitat on-site;
Creation and enhancement of approximately
11,060 linear feet of bank habitat on-site,
including Shaded Riverine Aquatic habitat and
shallow water habitat;
Creation of approximately 46 acres of open
water habitat on-site;
Preservation of all avoided and created
aquatic areas; and
Implementation of a comprehensive long-
term storm water management plan designed
to protect water quality.
The compensatory mitigation envisioned for the
project will consist of two major efforts. First will be
the creation of seasonal wetland habitat in the
uplands adjacent to the preserved marsh, and second
will be the creation and enhancement of bank habitat
within the project area.
Creation (Compensatory Mitigation)
Seasonal Wetland/Emergent Marsh/Open Water
Habitat
a. A minimum of approximately 5.29 acres of
seasonal wetland and 0.30 acre of marsh shall be
created within the 44-acre preserve area.
Specifically, the creation of the seasonal wetland
will occur in the 12.58-acre upland area in the
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-38
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. northwest corner of the site. The expansion of the
marsh shall be accomplished either on the
eastern side of the existing marsh on the new
peninsula created by the opening of the northern
bay or along the western side of the existing
marsh. This represents a 1:1 mitigation ratio
(created wetlands to impacted wetlands).
b. Soil borings shall be taken prior to the
construction of the seasonal wetlands within the
open space preserve to verify the suitability of the
proposed wetland soils (e.g. cobbly soils or old
alluvium would not be suitable soils).
c. Ground water depths shall also be identified
within the open space preserve.
d. The locations of the created wetlands shall be
selected based on the existing topography within
the uplands, soil composition, and ground water
depths, and the created seasonal wetlands shall
be excavated to a depth necessary to accumulate
seasonal (winter) groundwater and/or to any clay
layer that will perch rainfall.
e. The upper 6 inches of top soil shall be scalped
from the seasonal wetlands to be impacted and
will be placed in the created wetlands for seed
source. These topsoils would contain a seed bank
of the impacted pool plant species which would
germinate with fall/winter hydration of the re-
created pools.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-39
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. f. The created wetlands shall be very slightly over
excavated to accommodate the addition of
topsoil.
g. This mitigation measure may be substituted by
implementing another wetland compensation
plan that is approved for the project by both the
Corps and the RWQCB.
Bank Habitat
Overall, the project will remove approximately 5,380
linear feet of the 10,120 linear feet of existing habitat
along the project site. The applicant proposes to
mitigate for the loss of 5,380 lineal feet of excavated
low and moderate quality bank habitat by: (1)
enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both onsite and
offsite, to high quality bank habitat (shaded riverine
aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on
Pantages Island, ECCID Property on the south side of
the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek,
and Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State
Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of
moderate quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or
level bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses,
rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the
excavated portion of Pantages Island, the North Cove
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-40
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. and the end of Point of Timber Road in the North Bay.
Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060
lineal feet.
Open Space Preservation
The preserved and created seasonal wetlands and
marsh habitat would be located within a 44-acre
permanently preserved area. In addition, the
approximately 11,060 linear feet of enhanced and
created bank habitat shall be preserved in perpetuity.
It is envisioned that ownership of the 44 acres of
open space preserve areas as well as the enhanced
bank habitat on ECCID property and Pantages Island
and the created banks within the bays and coves will
be transferred to RD 800, and that a conservation
easement would be conveyed to the Town of
Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD)
for preservation in perpetuity. The TDBCSD would
also function as the Preserve Manager and conduct
the long-term monitoring and maintenance of the
preserve areas in perpetuity. On the adjoining
Ravenswood project, a conservation easement has
been conveyed to the TDBCSD for the same purpose
pursuant to Corps Permit No. 199400928. TDBCSD will
therefore be able to ensure consistent and
coordinated management of the two conservation
areas. RD 800 will own and be responsible by
conservation covenants to monitor and maintain the
bank habitat within Pantages Bays in perpetuity.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-41
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. Funding will be provided through annual assessments
of homeowners in Pantages Bays that are secured
through a binding, permanent agreement. This
funding and monitoring is separate from the
compensatory mitigation monitoring for the created
wetlands is outlined in the Conceptual Wetland and
Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for
Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC
(dated November 15, 2006). Alternative long-term
mitigation monitoring acceptable to permitting
agencies may also be considered.
A 5-year monitoring program will be established to
monitor the progress of the wetland mitigation
toward an established goal. At the end of each
monitoring year, an annual report will be submitted
to the Corps, RWQCB and Contra Costa County. This
report will document the hydrological and vegetative
condition of the mitigation wetlands, and will
recommend remedial measures as necessary to
correct deficiencies.
Aside from the minimum replacement ratio and in
perpetuity protection, various regulatory agencies
may provide additional conditions and stipulations for
permits. Permits for impacts to waters of the U.S. will
be required by the Corps. Similarly, permits for
impacts to waters of the state will be required by
both the RWQCB and CDFG prior to the impacts
occurring. These agencies will likely impose their own
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-42
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. mitigation requirements. Any other conditions that
are stipulated for impacts to waters of the U.S. or
state by the Corps, RWQCB, and/or CDFG shall also
become conditions of project approval.
Impact CUM BIO-1: Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation
and Wildlife Resources
S The mitigation measures prescribed above would
offset cumulative impacts to special-status species,
wetlands, trees, and plant communities/wildlife
habitats to levels regarded as less than significant.
Mitigation that includes creation and enhancement of
impacted “waters of the U.S.,” stream channels, and
bank habitat would offset this cumulative impact to
levels regarded as less than significant.
LTS
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Construction of the project could
potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5.
S Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event that any
prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological
resources are discovered during ground-disturbing
activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources
shall be halted and the applicant shall consult with
the County and a qualified professional (historian,
archaeologist and/or paleontologist as determined
appropriate and approved by the County) to assess
the significance of the find.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-43
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Cultural Resources (continued)
Impact CUL-1, continued. If any find is determined to be significant,
representatives of the County and the consulting
professional shall determine the appropriate
avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by
the consulting professional to mitigate impacts to
cultural resources, the County shall determine
whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such
as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and
other considerations.
If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures,
such as data recovery, shall be instituted. Work may
proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All
significant cultural materials recovered shall, at the
discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional
standards.
At the County’s discretion, all work performed by the
consulting professional shall be paid for by the
applicant and at the County’s discretion, the
professional may work under contract with the
County.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-44
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Cultural Resources (continued)
Impact CUL-2: Construction of the project could
potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an unknown archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5.
S Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts
from changes in the significance of an archaeological
resource to a less-than-significant level.
LTS
Impact CUL-3: Construction of the project potentially
could directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource on site or unique geologic
feature.
S Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to
paleontological resources or a unique geologic
feature to a less-than-significant level.
LTS
Impact CUL-4: Construction of the project could
potentially disturb human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries.
S Mitigation Measure CUL-4: In the event of the
accidental discovery or recognition of any human
remains in any location other than a dedicated
cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human
remains until:
The coroner of the county in which the
remains are discovered must be contacted to
determine that no investigation of the cause
of death is required, and
If the coroner determines the remains to be
Native American:
The coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24
hours;
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-45
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Cultural Resources (continued)
Impact CUL-4, continued. The Native American Heritage Commission
shall identify the person or persons it
believes to be the most likely descended
from the deceased Native American;
The most likely descendent may make
recommendations to the landowner or the
person responsible for the excavation work
for means of treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains
and any associated grave goods as
provided in Public Resources Code Section
5097.98; or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the
landowner or his authorized representative shall
rebury the Native American human remains and
associated grave goods with appropriate dignity
on the property in a location not subject to
further subsurface disturbance:
The Native American Heritage Commission is
unable to identify a most likely descendent or
the most likely descendent failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being
notified by the Commission;
The identified descendant fails to make a
recommendation; or
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-46
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Cultural Resources (continued)
Impact CUL-4, continued. 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.
Energy
There are no significant impacts to energy.
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: Implementation of the project could
expose people and developments to adverse effects
from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic
related ground failure including liquefaction and
lateral spreading.
S Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: The project applicant
shall design structures and foundations to withstand
expected seismic sources in accordance with the
current version of the California Building Code, as
adopted by the County.
Mitigation GEO-1b: At least 60 days prior to recording
the Final Map the applicant shall submit updated
improvement plans for the project for review by the
County’s Peer Review Geologist and review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator. For the
purposes of geologic review, the plans shall provide
detailed information on the bank stabilization wall
system being proposed along the waterfront
residential lots.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-47
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Geology and Soils (continued)
Impact GEO-1, continued. Mitigation GEO-1c: Prior to the issuance of building
permits, the applicant shall submit an updated
geology, soils and foundation report meeting the
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section
944.420 for review by the Peer Review Geologist and
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
report shall address the specific approach to grading
and development indicated by the Final Subdivision
Map and Improvement Plans, and shall provide
technical data and engineering analysis that
addresses the stability of the residential lots.
The project geotechnical engineer shall use the
following performance criteria:
Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static
conditions,
Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static
conditions, and which takes into account the
potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity
(Great Valley seismic zone) and
Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down.
Mitigation GEO-1d: During the construction of
subdivision improvements, the project geotechnical
engineer shall provide observation and testing
services and issue a grading/shoring wall completion
report. The report shall provide documentation on
the bank stabilization wall depths and appropriate
testing of fill compaction to determine the
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-48
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Geology and Soils (continued)
Impact GEO-1, continued. effectiveness of the bank stabilization measures in
preventing lateral spreading failures toward the
Kellogg Creek channel.
Impact GEO-2: Development of the project site could
result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
S Mitigation GEO-2: The applicant shall submit a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review
and approval by the Building Inspection Division of
the Department of Conservation and Development.
The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the
State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the
manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the
County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP
resources available on its website:
http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
With regard to long-term control of sedimentation
and protection of water quality, a Storm Water
Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006)
was prepared for the project and submitted to the
County’s Public Works Department in order to comply
with County water quality requirements. Engineered
linear bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the
selected stormwater runoff treatment for this project,
which are area based storm water treatment
facilities.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-49
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Geology and Soils (continued)
Impact GEO-3: The project could expose structures
to substantial adverse effects related to expansive
and corrosive soils on the project site.
S Mitigation GEO-3: At least 30 days prior to
recordation of the final map, the project applicant
shall submit a plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads
and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate how the
results of the study will guide design of concrete and
ferrous materials that are in contact with the ground.
LTS
Global Climate Change
Impact CUM GCC-1: The project would generate GHG
emissions in excess of the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6
metric tons of CO2e per service population per year
and would have a considerable contribution on global
climate change.
S Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1a: The County shall
ensure that the project applicant(s) employs green
building techniques in the design of proposed
structures within the Pantages Bays project.
Specifically, structures shall conform at a minimum to
the California Green Building Code or equivalent
green building standards.
Mitigation Measure CUM-GCC-1b: The applicant has
agreed to incorporate the following measures within
the proposed project:
Project landscaping shall include water-efficient
native and adaptive plants in combination with
high-efficiency irrigation equipment;
Recycled content shall be included in project
building materials, including the use of pre-
consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project
walkways, driveways, roadways, and non-plant
landscape elements;
SU
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-50
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Global Climate Change (continued)
Impact CUM GCC-1, continued. To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior
paints, carpets, adhesives, sealants, and coatings
selected for the project shall have a low
concentration of volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs);
The heating, ventilation, and air conditions
(HVAC) systems within each single family home
shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants
(i.e. non CFC-based refrigerants);
Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall
include high-efficiency systems to provide
enhanced indoor air quality as potential
pollutants would be ventilated through the
building at a faster rate;
The project shall install high efficiency restroom
fixtures including low-flow or dual flush toilets to
reduce potable water use;
Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as
certified by the Forest Stewardship Council) shall
be used in wood materials for the single family
homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving,
doors, and countertops; and
The project shall install water and energy efficient
appliances and lighting fixtures, including
EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration
equipment.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-51
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The project could potentially cause the
release of hazardous materials into the environment
during demolition, grading, and construction
activities.
S Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of
grading permits, soil samples shall be collected from
the paint disposal area and analyzed for metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile organic
compounds. Soil samples shall be compared to the
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined
by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board San Francisco Bay Region. If soil samples
exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated and
remediated under the oversight of the Contra Costa
Environmental Health Division (CCEHD). Additionally,
the site shall be inspected by an environmental
professional, appointed by the County, during
demolition and preliminary grading activities.
In the event that previously unidentified
contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall
be reported to CCEHD and investigated and
remediated under the oversight of CCEHD in
accordance with existing regulatory programs.
LTS
Impact HAZ-2 The project could potentially release
hazardous materials during demolition of the existing
residence.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a: Prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to
the County that all asbestos-containing materials
have been removed at the existing residence located
to the south of Point of Timber Road, in compliance
with state regulations.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-52
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (continued)
Impact HAZ-2, continued. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b: Prior to the issuance of
a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof
to the County that all lead-based paint (LBP) has been
removed at each of the existing former residences on
the project site, in compliance with state regulations.
Impact HAZ-3: Project demolition and construction
activities could expose individuals at the Timber Point
Elementary School to hazardous emissions or
materials.
S Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-
2a, and HAZ-2b would ensure that all potentially
hazardous materials, including lead-based paint,
asbestos containing materials, and soil contamination
from prior use of the site is properly removed and
disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste contractor
in accordance with state regulations.
LTS
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: Construction activities would alter the
existing drainage patterns resulting in erosion,
sedimentation, and contamination of storm water
runoff which could degrade water quality in adjacent
water bodies.
S Mitigation Measure HYD-1a: A qualified hydrologist
on the project team shall perform, at minimum,
weekly monitoring of the water quality in Kellogg
Creek adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine
whether adjustments to their position or depth are
required. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as
needed, to accurately assess water quality
degradation.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1b: The applicant shall
submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building
Inspection Division of the Department of
Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall be
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-53
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality (continued)
Impact HYD-1, continued. consistent with the terms of the State Construction
Storm Water General Permit, the manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the
County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP
resources available on its website:
http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
Mitigation Measure HYD -1c: To prevent pollution of
receiving waters due to equipment fueling, storage,
and maintenance, the contractor shall develop a
detailed set of guidelines to follow. Final plan notes,
and contractor bid documents shall include the
following specifications:
1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for
storage of maintenance materials, and refueling
purposes.
2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any
runoff so that any contaminants such as spilled
fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving
waters.
3. If heavy-duty construction machinery is left
overnight in an area that is not protected from
direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall
be placed beneath the engine block and hydraulic
systems.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-54
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality (continued)
Impact HYD-2: Abandoned groundwater wells on the
project site could act as direct conduits to
groundwater for hazardous waste.
S Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the project applicant shall coordinate
with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division
(CCEHD) to identify and survey the existing and
abandoned groundwater wells on the project site.
The identified groundwater wells shall be properly
decommissioned and/or retrofitted under permit
from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the
decommissioned wells for approval.
LTS
Impact HYD-3: The project site is located within areas
of projected tidal inundation due to sea level rise,
which would place people and structures within a
flood hazard associated with long-term sea level rise.
S Mitigation Measure HYD-3a: The final map and
improvement plans, including grading plans shall
include, at minimum, a finished floor elevation of
residential units at 14.1 feet.
Mitigation Measure HYD-3b: The final map and
improvement plans, including grading plans shall
include, at minimum, a finished street level elevation
of 12.1 feet.
LTS
Land Use and Planning
There are no significant impacts to land use and planning.
Mineral Resources
There are no significant impacts to mineral resources.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-55
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise
Impact NOI-1: Project construction would cause a
substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels.
S Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: All noise generating
construction activities shall be limited to the hours of
7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and
shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on
the calendar dates that these holidays are observed
by the state or federal government as listed below:
New Year’s Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and
Federal)
Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and
Federal)
Lincoln’s Birthday (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day (State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and
federal holidays occur, please visit the following
websites:
Federal Holidays:
http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-56
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise (continued)
Impact NOI-1, continued. California Holidays:
http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm
Signs shall be posted at the construction site that
include permitted construction days and hours, a day
and evening contact number for the job site, and a
day and evening contact number for the County in the
event of problems.
An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall
be available to respond to and track complaints. The
manager will be responsible for responding to any
complaints regarding construction noise and for
coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The
manager will determine the cause of any complaints
and coordinate with the construction team to
implement effective measures (considered technically
and economically feasible) warranted to correct the
problem. The telephone number of the coordinator
shall be posted at the construction site and provided
to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager will
be trained to use a sound level meter and should be
available during all construction hours to respond to
complaints.
At least one week prior to commencement of grading
or construction activities for each major phase of
construction the applicant shall prepare a notice that
grading or construction work will commence. The
notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-57
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise (continued)
Impact NOI-1, continued. owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of
the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on
the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall
include a list of contact persons with name, title,
phone number and area of responsibility. The person
responsible for maintaining the list shall be included.
The list shall be kept current at all times and shall
consist of persons with authority to indicate and
implement corrective action in their area of
responsibility. The names of individuals responsible
for noise and litter control, tree protection,
construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and
the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly
identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued
with each phase of the project and a copy shall be
mailed to the Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: The project applicant
shall prepare a detailed construction noise mitigation
plan for review and approval by the County. The goal
of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying
neighbors of the extent of the noise that can be
expected during particular phases of the project
grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to
call if there are noise-related complaints. Submission
of this construction noise mitigation plan shall be
required as part the building permit application.
The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-58
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise (continued)
Impact NOI-1, continued. California Model Community Noise Ordinance limits
of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60 dBA for
stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation
goals.
Information in the plan shall include but not be
limited to the following:
Construction schedule showing dates and location
of activities.
List of equipment to be used during each major
construction phase and sound level estimates for
each phase.
Height, length, and location of any recommended
noise barriers. The barriers can be constructed
out of wood or other materials as long as they
have a minimum surface weight of approximately
2.5 pounds per square foot. Possible materials
include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully
overlapping 1x redwood boards (1-1/2-inch-thick
total). The barriers would likely be 6 to 8 feet tall
but this would be refined as part of the
construction noise control plan. Issues to
consider when determining the ultimate height,
length, and location of the barriers are the actual
construction practices, including equipment to be
used and the location and duration of noisier
activities. The topography will also need to be
considered in the final determination of barrier
heights and effectiveness.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-59
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise (continued)
Impact NOI-1, continued. Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise
sensitive locations. The project applicant shall
limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week
set by Contra Costa County.
Location of stationary equipment as far from
residents as is practicable and/or enclose noise
sources.
The project applicant shall require the contractor
to use electric or hydraulically powered rather
than diesel or pneumatically powered equipment
and construction tools as feasible.
Provide intake silencers and “resident-type”
exhaust mufflers on vehicles and equipment
and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools
as feasible.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1c: The project applicant
shall construct temporary noise barriers along the
western property line neighboring the existing
residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay
West subdivisions. Noise barriers shall provide noise
reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA.
Population and Housing
There are no significant impacts to population and housing.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-60
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Public Services and Recreation
Impact PS-1: The project would be required to provide
2.6 acres of parkland to meet the County’s parkland
dedication requirement.
S Mitigation Measure PS-1: The project applicant shall,
concurrent with the recording of the map, dedicate to
the County or other public agency approximately 2.6
acres of public trails and two passive recreation
locations with tables and seating next to the open
water, including the eight foot side walk leading from
Point of Timber Road to the public trails through the
preserved open space. The public trail through the
open space area also serves as an EVA and must
comply with Fire Department standards. In
combination with the dedication of the public trail the
project shall pay a park dedication fee of $1351 per
dwelling unit upon issuance of building permits. The
future residence of Pantages would pay for the
maintenance of the public trails and passive
recreation areas for their use and that of the public.
LTS
Public Utilities
Impact UTIL-1: Per the requirements of Title 22 of the
California Waterworks Standards, the Town of
Discovery Bay Community Services District does not
currently have sufficient legal water supply capacity to
serve the project.
S Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to final map
recordation, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the County (i.e., Can & Will Serve
letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator that the TDBCSD has identified
and secured sufficient financing for the construction
of any required improvements outlined in the Water
MP to ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the
project.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-61
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Public Utilities (continued)
Impact UTIL-1, continued. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit,
the Applicant shall provide documentation to the
County Zoning Administrator that said improvements
needed to serve the project are constructed and
operational.
Impact UTIL-2: Town of Discovery Bay Community
Services District does not currently have sufficient
wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project.
S Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Prior to final map
recordation, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the County (i.e., Can & Will Serve
letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator that the TDBCSD has identified
and secured sufficient funding for the construction of
any capacity or treatment improvements outlined in
the Wastewater MP and necessary so that serving the
project does not exceed the requirements of the
RWQCB.
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit,
the Applicant shall provide documentation to the
County Zoning Administrator that said improvements
needed to serve the project are constructed and
operational, and that any source control measures
are being implemented consistent with the
requirements of the RWQCB.
LTS
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with
other reasonably foreseeable projects, would have a
considerable contribution to long-term water supplies
within the project area.
S Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1: The project
applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-62
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Public Utilities (continued)
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with
other reasonably foreseeable projects, would have a
considerable contribution to long-term wastewater
treatment within the project area.
S Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2: The project
applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure UTIL-2.
LTS
Transportation and Circulation
Impact TRA-1: Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at
the SR4/Byron Highway (south intersection) signalized
intersection.
S Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron
Highway (south) can be achieved by adding a second
northbound to westbound left-turn lane from Byron
Highway onto SR4 and its associated receiving lane.
This improvement is currently identified in the 2007
Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement &
Preservation Program, although funding has not been
identified. If this improvement is not included in a
County fee program or other funding program at the
time of project approvals, the project applicant shall
be responsible for their fair share of the improvement
prior to the issuance of building permits.
LTS
Impact TRA-2: Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions
on Vasco Road.
S Mitigation Measure TRA -2: The project applicant
shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra
Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA)
fee program to upgrade existing roadways.
SU
Impact TRA-3: Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes on nearby rural roads, and
create conflicts with the farm equipment that share
these roads during the peak summer months.
S Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would
require the project applicant to pay regional roadway
fees to upgrade existing roadways and/or construct
new facilities in the project area.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-63
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-1: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Byer
Road/Byron Highway (No. 6).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Byer
Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and a southbound left turn
lane. This improvement is not identified in any
funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the
project applicant would be required to contribute 12
percent of the total costs for this improvement.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-2: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersections of Holway
Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway (No. 23).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1): Mitigation
of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway
Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway intersections can be achieved by installing a
traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway and providing left-turn pockets on all
approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound
Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-64
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-2, continued. left again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway would
instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation
would require modifications to the adjacent railroad
crossing west of the intersection to provide the
required left turn pocket on the eastbound approach.
This improvement is included in the Draft East County
Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update
project list. The project applicant shall pay the
required AOB fee.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2): As an
alternative to Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option
1), mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at
the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by
installing traffic signals at both intersections, in
addition to adding a northbound left-turn lane pocket
at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection.
Traffic would not be shifted under this mitigation, and
a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing at the
Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection
would not be needed.
A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway
intersection is not identified in any funding program.
Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding
program.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-65
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-2, continued. If these improvements are not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits.
This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections
identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative
conditions and not identified in a fee program. As
indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project applicant would
be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14
percent of the total costs for this improvement.
Impact CUM TRA-3: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at
all four intersection approaches.
This improvement is included in the Draft East County
AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list.
The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
this impact to less-than-significant.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-4: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Timber Road/Byron Highway (No. 12).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in
the Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee
Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the
required AOB fee.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-66
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-5: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Timber Road/Bixler Road (No. 13).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at
all four intersection approaches. This improvement is
not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the
project applicant would be required to contribute
between 30 and 39 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-6: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek
Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal. This improvement is
included in the Draft East County AOB Transportation
Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project
applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-67
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-7: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road (No. 18).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek
Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not
identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the
project applicant would be required to contribute
between 10 and 11 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-8 Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the signalized intersection of SR4/Byron
Highway (south) (No. 19).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron
Highway (south) intersection can be achieved by
adding a second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway
approach and a second through lane on the
southeast-bound SR4 approach.
The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway
approach improvement is currently identified in the
2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement
& Preservation Program, although funding has not
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-68
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-8, continued. been identified. The second through lane on the
southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any
funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17, the
project applicant would be required to contribute
between 9 and 11 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
Impact CUM TRA-9: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of
SR4/Newport Drive (No. 21).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Newport
Drive intersection can be achieved by installing a
traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in
any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-69
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-9, continued. intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the
project applicant would be required to contribute
between 4 and 6 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
Impact CUM TRA-10: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the signalized intersection of Camino
Diablo Road/Vasco Road (No. 22).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo
Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by
adding a northbound right turn lane. This
improvement is included as one of several
improvements at this intersection in the Draft East
County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update
project list. The project applicant shall pay the
required AOB fee.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-11: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions along Vasco Road.
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11: The project
applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East
Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority
(ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways.
SU
Impact CUM TRA-12: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions along Marsh Creek Road.
S Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would
require the project applicant to pay regional roadway
fees to upgrade existing roadways and/or construct
new facilities in the project area. However, as there
are no specific plans to provide additional capacity on
this segment of Marsh Creek Road, the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
SU
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-70
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
Impact VIS-1: The project would create new sources of
light and glare which could adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
S Mitigation Measure VIS-1: The project applicant shall
prepare a lighting plan for the review and approval by
the Zoning Administrator. Exterior lighting shall be
low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall
utilize motion detection systems where applicable. In
general, the light footprint of individual units shall not
extend beyond the periphery of each property.
Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all
buildings shall also comply with the standard
California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy
Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading
of light to surrounding uses.
LTS
Notes: LTS = Less than significant
S = Significant
SU = Significant and unavoidable
Source: Circlepoint, 2012.
3-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Pantages Bays Project (project) is a proposed 292 single-family residential
development that would form part of the Discovery Bay community in eastern
Contra Costa County (County). The project applicant, Pantages at Discovery Bay,
LLC, is proposing the development of 116 waterfront lots with individual or shared
docks and deep water access, and 176 interior residential lots.
As part of the project, the portion of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the project
site would be widened. Reclamation District No. 8001 (RD 800) is co-sponsoring the
proposed widening, which would reduce water velocities in that section of Kellogg
Creek, thereby improving public safety. The widening would also reduce bank
erosion and sedimentation, and would limit the need for dredging.2
The project would preserve approximately 16 acres of existing emergent marsh in
the northern portion of the property, and also includes the creation of new seasonal
wetlands and enhanced creek bank aquatic habitat. These project components are
described in more detail in Section 3.4, Project Components, of this chapter.
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County, within
the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line (ULL) (see Figure 3-1). The closest
incorporated city is Brentwood, located approximately 4.5 miles to the northwest.
The site is surrounded by residential development, both existing and planned:
The existing town of Discovery Bay is located to the east and south, comprising
approximately 3,700 residences, a golf course, marina and harbor, commercial
uses, a church, and Discovery Bay Elementary School.
1 RD 800 controls and is responsible for the waterways in Discovery Bay.
2 RD 800 is a co-applicant in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit process and related resource
agencies applications, per personal communication with Jeff Conway, District Manager and as
described in the Cost-Sharing Agreement dated September 2003.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-2
The existing Centex Development to the southwest at Bixler Road and State
Route 4 is comprised of approximately 378 residences.
The following recently developed subdivisions are located west and north of the
project site:
The Ravenswood development includes 181 single-family residential units
and 22 duplexes.
Discovery Bay West includes five “Villages” that will total 1,999 units when
fully constructed. Village I includes Timber Point Elementary School and
Regatta Park. Village II is commonly referred to as the Lakeshore
subdivision. Villages III, IV, and V make up the Lakes at Discovery Bay
community.
Other non-residential development in the vicinity of the project site includes:
The East Contra Costa County Irrigation District Dredge Cut/Intake Channel
(ECCID Dredge Cut) along the northern project boundary.
Agricultural production northeast of the project site, north of Kellogg Creek and
the Town of Discovery Bay.
3.3 PROJECT SETTING
Figure 3-2 depicts information related to the environmental setting. The
approximately 171-acre project site consists of 162 acres of land owned by the
project applicant, and 9.2 acres of land owned by the ECCID, including Pantages
Island and land along the ECCID Dredge Cut. The project site is comprised of 10
assessor parcels that are designated Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation (DR)
and Water (WA) by the Contra Costa General Plan and are zoned General
Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3).
The project site is vegetated with 80 trees and low-lying non-native annual
grasslands. The site contains three abandoned homesites, including one residence
and associated outbuildings near the center of the site, and one barn on the eastern
portion of the site.
The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 2 to 8 feet. The entire
project site falls within Special Flood Hazard Zone A on the Flood Insurance Map for
the County (FEMA 2009), which indicates that the area is subject to flooding during
a 100-year storm event in the Delta. Approximately 8 acres of the project site,
mainly along the site perimeter, is currently subject to tidal variations.
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-1FigureRegional Location and Project Site
.25
MILES
.1250 .5
C
ONTRA COSTA COU
N
T
Y
S
AN JOAQUIN COUN
T
Y
4
4
4
Balfour Road
Bixler RoadDiscovery Bay Boulevard Kellogg CreekOld Kellogg CreekIndian Slough
Point of Timber Road
VILLAGE
IV
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL CORE
VILLAGE
III
PROJECT
SITE
VILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
VILLAGE
I
VILLAGE
V
RAVENSWOODDISCOVERY BAY
PANTAGES
ISLAND
ECCID Dredg e C u tLegend
Project Site (171 Acres)
Discovery Bay West
The Lakes at Discovery Bay
(Villages III, IV and V)
Ravenwood
Urban Limit Line (Unincorporated)
County Line
ALAMEDA COUNTY
SAN
FRANCISCO
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PROJECTSITE
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-4
Figure 3-1 Regional Location and Project Site (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-5
A large emergent marsh and three seasonal wetlands are located throughout the
site. The site was used for grazing until approximately 1981. Between 1981 and
1992, the site—excluding the emergent marsh—was planted with oats, wheat, and
rye grass. Several shallow irrigation ditches associated with this prior use still exist.
Since 1992, the site has been disked annually and seeded with a grass mixture, and
a small herd of cattle (approximately 10) currently graze the site.
Over the past decade RD 800 has used the site as part of its dredging program to
improve navigation functions along Kellogg Creek. RD 800 created six siltation
ponds in the central portion of the site to decant and store dredge spoils (See Figure
3-2). The siltation ponds, created in 2003, consisted of large earthen berms
approximately 20 feet tall. Dredged material from Kellogg Creek was pumped in
and allowed to settle. Once the sediments had precipitated, the remaining water
was pumped back into Kellogg Creek.
3.4 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project applicant is concurrently seeking approval from the County of the
following four applications:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE NO.
GP99-0008)
The project applicant is seeking a general plan amendment to change the general
plan designations of the project site from Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation
(DR) and Water (WA) to the following designations (see Figure 3-3):
Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM)
Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH)
Water (WA)
Public/Semi-Public (PS)
Open Space (OS)
Under the amended land use designations, approximately 80 acres of the project
site would be developed with 292 residential homes, and associated streets and
infrastructure. The remaining 91 acres would contain the open-water areas,
emergent marsh, wetlands, open space areas, and a marine patrol substation.
These components are discussed in detail below. Project construction activities and
sequencing are described in Section 3.5, Project Construction, of this chapter.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-6
REZONING (COUNTY FILE NO. RZ04-3146)
The project applicant is seeking a rezoning of the project site from General
Agricultural (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) (see
Figure 3-4).
SUBDIVISION/TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL (COUNTY
FILE NO. SD06-9010)
A subdivision/tentative map approval has been requested by the project applicant
to subdivide the approximately 171-acre project site into 292 single-family
residential lots, private streets, bays and coves, open space and a marine patrol
substation.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (COUNTY FILE NO. DP04-
3062)
Figure 3-5 depicts the Proposed Final Development Plan, which includes 292 single-
family one and two-story residential units with associated streets and infrastructure.
Of the 292 units, 116 units would have direct deep water access. Table 3-1 provides
a breakdown of the lots by type.
Table 3-1 Breakdown of Lots by Type
Type of Residential Lot No. of Units Lot Sizes (feet)
Deep water access via private dock 100 90x140, 80x140
Deep water access via shared dock 16 80x140
Interior Lots (no water access) 176 60x100, 100x110
Notes:
Lot sizes range from 6,000 to 21,320 square feet.
Source: dk Consulting, Project Plans, October, 2009.
The development plan also includes a description of the landscaping, bays and
coves, the widening of Kellogg Creek, open space with a public trail and emergency
vehicle access (EVA), marine patrol substation with 2 docks, wetland preservation
area, and wetland mitigation area. Table 3-2 illustrates the breakdown of acreage
by type of use.
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-2FigureEnvironmental Setting
250FEET1250 500
Ol
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
ECCID Dredge CutRAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
SUBD. 8428
VILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)
60’ x 100’ MIN. LOTS
Ind
ian
S
lough
Legend
Project Site Boundary*
Emergent Marsh (14.14 AC)
Seasonal Wetlands (5.63 AC)
Former Siltation Ponds
Home Sites/Outbuildings
Delineation Data Points
Areas Containing Existing Trees
EM1
SW1—SW6
1 — 5
*Special Flood/Hazard Flow Zone A
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-8
Figure 3-2 Environmental Setting (back)
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-3Figure Proposed Land Use Designations
500FEET2500 1000ECCID Dredge CutPoint of Timber RoadVILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
RAVENSWOOD
VILLAGE I
DISCOVERY BAYIndian Slough Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
O
l
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Project Site Boundary
Legend
Description
NOTE:
1. EAST CONTRA COSTA IRRIGATION
DISTRICT (ECCID) SHALL RETAIN FEE
SIMPLE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PARCEL AND
CONVEY AN EASEMENT TO PANTAGES AT
DISCOVERY BAY, LLC OR ASSIGNEE FOR
COMPLETION OF CREEK BANK CHANGES
AND THEIR MAINTENANCEWETLANDPRESERVATIONAREA
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-10
Figure 3-3 Land Use Designations (back)
PANTAGES BAYS
3-4Figure
CirclePoint
Proposed Zoning
Source: CirclePoint, 2011.
Point of Timber Road
VILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
RAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
Indian Slough
Kellogg CreekOld Kellogg CreekEC
C
I
D
D
r
e
d
g
e
C
u
t
Legend
Project Boundary
P-1 Planned Unit
1000FEET500
0 2000
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-12
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-5FigureProposed Final Development Plan
NORTH COVEBOTTOM ELEV. -103.16 ACRES
NORTH BAYBOTTOM ELEV. -1011.97 ACRES
SOUTH BAYBOTTOM ELEV. -109.54 ACRES
SOUTH COVEBOTTOM ELEV. -105.01 ACRES
Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
Ol
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
kECCID Dredge CutVILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)RAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
EMERGENCY VEHICLE & FOOTAND BICYCLE ACCESS ONLYPUBLIC TURNAROUND &ENTRANCE TO PUBLIC TRAIL
250FEET1250 500
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-14
Figure 3-5 Proposed Final Development Plan (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-15
Table 3-2 Breakdown of Acreage by Type of Use
Type of Use Acreage
Residential Lots (includes Public Utilities Easement) 63
Streets (includes linear bioretention facilities) 17
Open-water (includes bays and coves) 47
Open Space Areas (includes wetland and marsh) 44
Landscaping (common area at end of Point of Timber Road) <1
Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation 0.51
TOTAL 171
Source: dk Consulting, Project Plans, October, 2009.
Base Flood Elevations for Project Development
The project as currently designed greatly exceeds the County requirements for
protection from the 100-year flood. As described below the County imposes two
standards for flood protection: interior lots are subject to one standard, while a
higher standard is imposed upon areas subject to tidal variation (such as the land
along Kellogg Creek).
The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the 100-year storm event, as defined by FEMA
and the County,3 is the elevation that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded by floodwaters in any one year. The 100-year BFE for the project site is
7.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)4 . In locations subject to tidal
variations, the County’s flood design standard requires a minimum of 2 feet of
freeboard5 between the finished floor elevation of a home and the BFE of the 100-
year flood event. Lots along Kellogg Creek would therefore require a finished floor
elevation of at least 9.5 feet NGVD.6
As shown in Table 3-3, the finish floor elevation of all lots would exceed the
County’s standard by more than 3 feet. The following section provides information
on the additional design standards related to predictions for sea level rise.
3 As defined in the Contra Costa County Code, Section 82-28.486 – One Hundred –year flood.
4 NGVD is a vertical (elevation) unit of measurement similar to mean sea level (msl) that takes into
account the local gravitational forces due to astronomical phenomenon, as well as local wind patterns,
river stages, and storms. NGVD addresses the fact that local msl is not always equal to zero in all
places.
5 Freeboard is a factor of safety expressed in feet above a known flood level
6 Contra Costa County Code Section 82-28.1002, 3A.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-16
Table 3-3 Base Flood Elevations for Project Development
Lot Type County’s Design
Standard
Proposed Finished
Floor Elevations
Additional Feet of Freeboard
Above County’s Design
Standard
Interior Lots 7.5 10.9 3.4*
Waterfront Lots 9.5 12.7 3.2
Lots Exposed to Tidal
Variation
9.5 12.7 3.2
*Interior lots are not subject to tidal variations and therefore are not required to have 2 feet of freeboard between
the finished floor elevation and the 100-year BFE.
Note: All measurements in approximate feet NGVD. The proposed finished floor elevations demonstrate the
lowest residential lots on the current project site plans.
Source: dk Consulting, Project Plans, October, 2009.
Project Design — Sea Level Rise Elevations
CEQA documents now include analysis of potential impacts related to the predicted
rise in sea level.
The California State Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08 (signed November, 14,
2008), directs state agencies planning development projects in areas vulnerable to
future sea-level rise to assess risk and, where feasible, reduce that risk. The Order
calls for the development of planning guidelines by the state over the next several
years to address the complex issue of sea level rise.
Executive Order S-13-08 notes that if a project has filed a Notice of Preparation
(NOP) prior to the date the Executive Order was issued (November 2008), the
project proponents may, but are not required to, account for these planning
guidelines. The project applicant filed a NOP prior to November 2008 and thus
would be exempt from these planning guidelines. However, due to the location of
the project and the adjoining Delta tidal waterways, the project applicant has
proactively designed the project to comply with predicted future elevations related
to sea level rise.
There have been a number of recent projections on the future magnitude of sea
level rise in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The State of California Resources
Agency recommends the consideration of the following sea level rise scenarios for
planning purposes in the Delta region and California as a whole:
Year 2050 – 16-inch rise (equivalent to 1.3 feet or 0.4 meters)
Year 2100 – 55-inch rise (equivalent to 4.6 feet or 1.4 meters)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-17
These scenarios have been adopted as policy by the California State Coastal
Conservancy and are used by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) and other state agencies for planning purposes. As such, the
project applicant used these scenarios to address sea level rise on the project site.
As shown in Table 3-4, the current design of the project meets the design standards
for the Year 2050 scenario for sea level rise, but does not meet the design standard
for the Year 2100 scenario.
In order to satisfy the 2100 sea-level rise scenario, the minimum finished floor
elevation with a concrete slab foundation would have to be 14.1 feet. The project
applicant is proposing to account for the Year 2100 scenario for sea level rise by
redistributing the finished grades as part of the final grading plans. Mitigation is
included in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality to ensure that these
proposed changes to the grading plan are implemented.
Table 3-4 Base Flood Elevations for Project Development
BFE
(County Design
Standard for
Project Site)
Currently Proposed
Finished Floor
Elevation
Finished Floor
Elevations Proposed
for Final Map
Interior Lots
100 year BFE 7.5 10.9 14.1
100 year BFE in 2050 8.8 10.9 14.1
100 year BFE in 2100 12.1 10.9 14.1
Water front Lots (must be designed with an additional 2 feet of free board)
100 year BFE 9.5 12.7 14.1
100 year BFE in 2050 10.8 12.7 14.1
100 year BFE in 2100 14.1 12.7 14.1
Source: Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC, 2010.
OPEN-WATER AREAS
As shown in Figure 3-5, the open-water areas created by the project would include
the widening of Kellogg Creek (17.05 acres), the North Cove (3.16 acres), North Bay
(11.97 acres), South Cove (5.01 acres), and South Bay (9.54 acres).7 Consistent with
7 17.05 + 3.16 + 5.01 +11.97 + 9.54 = 46.73 acres, personal communication with Catherine Ginn at dk
Consulting Inc., December 4, 2009
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-18
RD 800 standards, constructed bays and coves would be excavated to a depth of at
least 10 feet below msl to allow for safe boat passage at low tide.8 The project
would require approval from the Contra Costa LAFCO for annexation to the RD 800
sphere of influence and corresponding service boundary.
As required by RD 800 standards, Kellogg Creek would be widened to 300 feet at the
elevation of 3 feet above msl to provide adequate access for docks on both sides of
the channel.9 At the northern end of the project site, the widening would require
the removal of the northeastern tip of Pantages Island. At the southern end of the
project site, Old Kellogg Creek would be widened from its current width of 60 feet to
a maximum of 200 feet to provide adequate access, per RD 800 requirements, to
areas with docks on one side. Old Kellogg creek would also be excavated to a depth
of 5 to 10 feet below msl.10
ACQUISITION OF PANTAGES ISLAND AND LANDS
OWNED BY ECCID
On December 12, 2006, Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC and the ECCID entered into a
Property Transfer Agreement whereby the project applicant will acquire
approximately 9 acres of land owned by the ECCID, commonly known as Pantages
Island. This land would be used for creek bank restoration and as open space.
The project applicant is also working with the RD 800 and ECCID to secure
conservation easements over RD 800 properties in the vicinity of the project site.
These properties include Parcel “C” and “D” near the project’s northern boundary,
and the west and east banks of Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State
Route 4 (SR4). The conveyance of this ECCID property (i.e., Pantages Island) and the
RD 800 conservation easements would take place prior to final map approval.
The project would preserve the majority of Pantages Island, with the exception of a
small portion of the northeasterly tip that would be removed as part of the
widening of Kellogg Creek. As part of the mitigation included in Section 4.3,
Biological Resources, the project applicant would be required to enhance 11,060
linear feet of creek bank habitat on Pantages Island and along the ECCID dredge cut
to provide high and moderate quality shaded riverine aquatic habitat. The west and
east banks of Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route 4 would also
be enhanced to establish high quality bank restoration.
8 Personal communication with Jeff Conway, RD 800 District Manager.
9 RD 800 minimum standards per Jeff Conway.
10 Old Kellogg Creek would be widened to 200 feet at the opening to the main Kellogg Creek, and
would be widened to 60 feet at the westernmost portion.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-19
SITE ACCESS
Roadways, Parking, and Water Access
Access to the site would be via Point of Timber Road. A public turnaround and
gated entry would be constructed at the Point of Timber Road entrance, and
vehicular access would be limited to residents and guests. Wilde Drive would be
designated as an emergency vehicle access and would be used for emergency
evacuation only, although a gate would be provided for day-to-day use by bicyclists
and pedestrians. The project streets and cul-de-sacs would be privately owned and
maintained by a homeowners association. Internal circulation is depicted in Figure
3-5.
All deep waterways would be owned by RD 800 and would be open to the public as
navigable water. Use of any individual docks within the project site would be
limited to the homeowners and their guests.
The project would create approximately 1,995 parking spaces, including 1,420 off-
street spaces (garage and driveway spaces) and up to 575 on-street parking
spaces.11 Streets would be designed in compliance with County private road
standards and requirements of emergency service providers. With two exceptions,
streets would include a 56-foot right-of-way (36 feet measured from each edge of
pavement), with room for parking on both sides and 10 feet on each side of the
street for separated sidewalks and a landscaped linear bioretention facility (swale).12
Exception #1: The extension of Point of Timber Road from its current terminus
to the site’s internal circulation roadway would be 40-feet wide within a 70-foot
right-of-way.
Exception #2: ‘C’ Court is a short cul-de-sac with homes fronting on one side
only. Therefore, it is designed within a 43-foot right-of-way and has a 28-foot
road measured from each edge of pavement, a 5-foot swale on both sides, and
parking and a 5-foot sidewalk on only one side. As such, it meets County private
road standards and East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD)
requirements. Cul-de-sac bulbs would be designed to meet ECCFPD turning-
radius requirements.
11 The estimate for off-street parking spaces is based on a mix of lots with two and three-car garages. It
assumes that approximately half the lots will have a three car garage (i.e., six off-street spaces), while
the remaining lots will have two car garages (i.e., four off-street spaces).
12 Linear bioretention facilities (swales) are landscaped elements designed to remove silt and pollution
from surface runoff water.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-20
Open Space and Emergency Vehicle Access
Public pedestrian and bicycle access would be provided to the open space areas via
a public trail/emergency vehicle access (EVA) road to be constructed through the
emergent marsh and proposed wetland mitigation/open space area. In compliance
with ECCFPD standards, the public trail/EVA would be constructed as an all-weather,
permeable surface that would provide access to the edge of Kellogg Creek, as
illustrated in Figure 3-6.
The public trail/EVA road would be 3,840-feet-long and 20-feet wide, with an 8-foot
paved trail in the middle and a 6-foot compacted aggregate shoulder on each side.
The applicant also proposes a 16-foot-wide bridge across the emergent marsh.
Pedestrian and bicycle public access to the trail would be provided at the Point of
Timber Road entrance to the project site as shown in Figure 3-7.
The public trail/EVA road would include interpretive signage, kiosks, and a seating
area at the end of the trail to enhance the public’s use and enjoyment. The cost of
maintaining the public trail/EVA road would be borne by the homeowners as part of
a landscaping and lighting district. The public trail/EVA land would be dedicated to
the County as part of the Final Map.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The project would require approval from the Contra Costa LAFCO for annexation to
the Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD) sphere of influence and
corresponding service area for water and wastewater service. As shown in Figure
3-8, a portion of the site is located within the service district boundary; the project
includes annexation of the rest of the site into the TDBCSD service area.
The existing electrical, gas, and utilities that serve Discovery Bay are located within a
joint trench in a public utility easement that crosses the site under the private
extension of Point of Timber Road and continues under Kellogg Creek and into the
Discovery Bay community. The utility lines would be relocated as part of the project
to run under ‘C’ Street and ‘D’ Street, where they would reconnect to the existing
lines at Kellogg Creek.
Stormwater Facilities
A Storm Water Control Plan C.3 Report, dated July 14, 2006, was determined to be
preliminarily complete by the Public Works Department. It should be noted that a
Final Storm Water Control Plan, modified to match any changes made during the
preparation of improvement plans will be required to be submitted and approved
prior to recordation of the Final Map.
BRIDGE
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-6FigurePublic Access and Open Fence Plan
250FEET1250 500
Ol
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
ECCID Dredge CutRAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
SUBD. 8428
VILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)
60’ x 100’ MIN. LOTS
Ind
ian
S
lough
Legend
Description Proposed Existing
Project Site Boundary
Retaining Wall
Emergent Marsh
Wetland Mitigation Area
Pedestrian Trail & EVA*
8’ Sidewalk
Open-Type Fencing
(i.e. wrought iron)
NA
20FEET100 40
Open fencing for waterfront lots.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-22
Figure 3-6 Public Access and Open Fence Plan (back)
O
L
D
ECCID DREDGE CUTPLANT MATERIAL KEY
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE
Source: Rose Associates, 2006.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-7FigureLandscaping Plan
FEET
0 300
150
FEET
0 60
30
FEET
0 60
30
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-24
Figure 3-7 Landscape Plan (back)
PANTAGES BAYS
3-8Figure
CirclePoint
Discovery Bay Community Services District Service Area Boundary
Source: CirclePoint, 2011.
Point of Timber Road
VILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
RAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
Indian Slough
Kellogg CreekOld Kellogg CreekEC
C
I
D
D
r
e
d
g
e
C
u
t
Legend
Project Boundary
Within DBCSD Service Area
1000FEET5000 2000
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-26
No storm water runoff would be discharged into the emergent marsh or wetland
mitigation areas or over the creek bank enhancement areas. These open areas of
the project site would remain in their natural state and would be self-retaining and
self-treating.
To accommodate runoff from the roofs, driveways, roadways, and sidewalks of the
project, linear bioretention facilities (swales) would be provided along each side of
internal streets in order to comply with County C.3 water quality requirements. The
approximately 5-foot-wide swales would provide soil filtration for storm water
runoff prior to its release into the bays and coves. As designed, the swales would
accommodate all calculated runoff from these proposed impervious surface areas.13
The TDBCSD would maintain the swales through the creation of a landscaping and
lighting district.
The storm drain outlets would be protected with flap gates to prevent water from
back-flowing into the streets during very large storm events. During large storm
events, water would flow overland into the bays. All overland flow outlets into the
bays are 2 feet above the 100-year BFE and 1.5 feet above the 300-year BFE at high
tide. The overland releases would be set at elevations below the adjacent finished
floor elevations. The effects of this project design element are more fully discussed
in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR.
LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND FENCING
Landscaping
The project would provide landscaping, including approximately 770 trees to be
planted along project roadways and at the project entrance. Figure 3-7 illustrates
the proposed landscaping plan. As a preliminary design, the project landscape
architects have proposed the species types and approximate counts, as listed in
Table 3-5. Additional trees would be planted along enhanced and created creek
banks to provide shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) habitat14 consistent with the
recommendations of Stillwater Sciences, the applicant’s fisheries biologist. Eighty
trees were surveyed on the existing project site including Modesto ash, Fremont
cottonwood, and manna gum. All 80 trees are proposed for removal during project
construction.
13 See Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
14 SRA habitat is defined by the US Fish and Wildlife Services as the near-shore aquatic area occurring
at the interface between a river and adjacent woody riparian habitat. Attributes of SRA habitat include
providing temperature-reducing shade and nutrient cycling for aquatic life.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-27
Table 3-5 Proposed Tree Landscaping Palette
Quantity Botanical Name Common Name
Street Trees
302 Fraxinus o. 'Raywood' Raywood ash
351 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen ash
Accent Trees
58 Prunus 'Krauter Vesuvius' Flowering plum
Entry Trees
4 Aesculus californica California buckeye
12 Chamerops humilis Mediterranean fan palm
4 Cornus sericea Creek dogwood
11 Phoenix dactylifera Date palm
10 Platanus racemosa California sycamore
6 Populus fremontii Cottonwood
6 Salix babylonica Weeping willow
12 Schinus molle California pepper tree
Notes:
For street trees, there would be an estimated two trees per lot (typical), and five trees at corner lots.
Source: Rose Associates, 2006.
Lighting
The project includes installation of low-glare neighborhood street lights on all
streets and courts and at the main entry. Street lights would be approximately 115
feet apart on 16 foot poles, and would be designed to minimize sky glow and to
prevent light from penetrating adjacent open space and water areas.15 Similar
restrictions on residential outside lighting are also proposed.
Fencing
The project would include 6-foot-high fencing, typically associated with single-family
development. The backyard fencing for lots along the emergent marsh would be
open, consistent with the recommendation of the applicant’s wetland consultant.
15 Street light fixture submittal information by the landscape architect, dated June 21, 2007.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-28
On the waterfront lots, side-yard fencing facing the street would be open-type
fencing (i.e. wrought iron) and one side yard of each waterfront house would be
conditioned to minimize obstructions along the entire length of the side yard in
order to provide pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers with views of the water. (Side
yard fences running from the street to the back of the lots do not need to be open).
See the Public Access and Open Fence Plan on Figure 3-6.
Marine Patrol Substation
The proposed Sheriff’s marine patrol substation would be located on the northeast
portion of the project site adjacent to an area of high boat traffic (see Figure 3-5).
The substation would be a primary point of deployment for the Sheriff’s marine
patrol, and would enhance marine patrol enforcement in the Discovery Bay area by
allowing the sheriff to more efficiently respond to calls. Currently, the Sheriff’s
marine patrol is dispatched either from a mobile location or the substation located
near the Antioch Bridge in Oakley. The Sheriff’s Department currently keeps two
patrol vessels in the marina at Discovery Bay to patrol the area and respond to calls.
The project applicant has consulted with the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner on the
design of the substation, which would include an approximately 1,450 square-foot
permanent modular building with 2 boat docks.16 The building would have
electricity, a restroom and a small office. There is no holding facility planned for the
structure.
The approximately 0.5 acre site would be accessible via a 20-foot EVA and would
contain a 100-foot x 100-foot Medivac helicopter landing area to provide emergency
air-lift services on the rare occasion when boating accident victims need to be
airlifted to a hospital. Landing a Medivac helicopter at this location is within federal
aviation regulations17 and is preferred by responders over landing on the nearby
levees. Based on discussions with the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner, the project
applicant proposes that property owners would fund the cost of one deputy who
would perform either marine patrol or limited land services within the Pantages
development and surrounding area, depending on the need.
In keeping with the management of existing waterways within Discovery Bay, boat
traffic would be controlled through designation of a no wake zone (5 miles per
hour). The speed requirements would be clearly specified in the homeowner
association’s covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs).
16 Letter from Mark Armstrong to Lt. Will Duke, dated March 25, 2008, and response letter from
Sheriff Warren Rupf, dated May 21, 2008.
17 Personal communication with Capt. Will Duke on October 15, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-29
A separate parcel comprised of the substation and associated facilities would be
dedicated to the County or their designee at the time of recordation of the final
map. The access road to the substation will also serve as a public trail.
3.5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The project would be developed in overlapping phases, including project clearing,
mass grading, excavation of soils, wetland creation, habitat enhancement,
installation of underground and surface improvements, and construction of the
marine patrol station and homes.
The project applicant expects to complete the construction of all finished lots and
homes within a seven or eight year period. To accommodate this schedule, the
project applicant would undertake some of the grading construction work between
October 15 and April 15 during the rainy season. For the purposes of this EIR, it is
assumed that earthmoving activities (i.e., grading and utility installation) would start
in 2013 and end in 2015. The construction of homes would begin immediately
following completion of earthmoving activities, and the project is assumed to be
fully developed by 2020. Ultimately, market conditions would shorten or increase
this anticipated schedule.
Soils would be balanced on the site, meaning the soil excavated to create the open-
water area and waterfront lots would be used as fill for elevated roads and lots. No
import or export of soils is anticipated.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
The sequence of construction is described below:
Removal of trees, demolish existing abandoned homes and associated
structures, and clear the project site
Partially grade streets “C” and “D” to allow for relocation of the subsurface joint
trench/utilities transmission lines and installation of new utility lines serving the
Town of Discovery Bay
Excavate soil material from the site and construct a 50-foot-wide pad on
engineered fill behind water front lots for use by the operators of shoring
equipment that would install and form the permanent shoring wall
Install permanent shoring wall at the rear of the proposed waterfront lots
through the use of a technique referred to as “cement deep soil mixing”. The
cement deep soil mixing wall would be installed through drilling linear holes and
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-30
back filling with a mix of cement and soil. The holes would also be reinforced
with steel I-beams that would be placed within the cement and soil mixture. No
pile driving or deep compaction would be necessary to construct the walls
Install turbidity barriers along Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek banks that
will be excavated in sections of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 linear feet and
install turbidity barriers (work to be completed only between August 1 and
November 30 to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered species of fish)
Excavate the proposed South Bay, North Bay, and North Cove (leaving a plug of
soil to separate work zone from Kellogg Creek)
Create building pads, roadways, and EVA with excavated material
Allow water levels to stabilize in South Bay, North Bay and North Cove
Install turbidity barriers in Kellogg Creek, and excavate the South Bay and North
Bay soil plugs to protect Kellogg Creek (work to be completed only between
August 1 and November 30 to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered
species of fish)
Construct bridge over emergent marsh for EVA. Create new seasonal
wetlands/emergent marsh expansion and enhance existing creek bank habitat
along ECCID Dredge Cut and Pantages Island. The new creek bank would be
enhanced as it is constructed (e.g., new bank habitat created in Old Kellogg
Creek and to widen Kellogg Creek channel)
Complete marine patrol substation facilities and construction of homes
3.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project has the following two main objectives:
Build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and a
proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-water
access and individual docks; and
Widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site to
reduce water velocities and improve public safety in that section of Kellogg
Creek.18
18 The existing channel is narrower than is the width generally required by RD 800.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-31
Other key project objectives include:
Construct market-rate housing to meet the needs of present and future
residents of eastern Contra Costa County;
Develop a project consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods (i.e.,
6,000- to 21,320-square-foot lots) to the east and west of the project site and
that creates an improved link between the original Discovery Bay and Discovery
Bay West;
Provide for flood protection in a conservative manner that exceeds current
County minimum standards for finished floor elevations above the 100-year
storm BFE;
Reduce the need for dredging by RD 800 and improve water quality in Kellogg
Creek and Indian Slough through appropriate bank stabilization and habitat
restoration along the project shoreline, further reducing the amount of scour
and associated sedimentation;
Create new high- and moderate-quality bank habitat in and near the project site
and enhance existing banks from low-quality to high-quality SRA habitat to
benefit native fish species;
Preserve the majority of the emergent marsh in the northwestern portion of the
site and all of the emergent marsh on Pantages Island;
Provide public pedestrian/bicycle access to and through the preserved open
space areas on the north side of the project site, with open views of the Delta
water, and provide seating areas and kiosks with educational signage; and
Provide improved safety for project residents and within Discovery Bay by
constructing a marine patrol substation with a two-boat dock at the
northeasterly point on the project site, and provide funding by future property
owners through a police service district tax for an extra deputy sheriff who
could operate out of the substation on an as-needed basis.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-32
This page intentionally left blank.
4-1
4.0 SETTINGS, IMPACTS, AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
This chapter describes the existing conditions and evaluates the potential
environmental impacts that would occur with development of the Pantages Bays
project (project). Sections 4.1, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, through 4.17,
Visual Resources and Aesthetics, of this chapter analyze each resource topic that
could be affected by the project. Each subsection describes the environmental
setting as it relates to the specific resource topic; the impacts that could result from
implementation of the project; and mitigation measures that would avoid, reduce,
or compensate for any significant impacts of the project.
ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT EIR
The following topics are addressed in this chapter:
Agricultural and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Global Climate Change
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Public Utilities
Transportation and Circulation
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
FORMAT OF ISSUE SECTIONS
In general, the analysis of each environmental issue consists of five subsections:
Existing Conditions, Regulatory Setting, Analysis of Potential Impacts, Cumulative
Impacts, and References. An overview of the information included in these sections
is provided below.
Pantages Bays Project
4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Draft EIR
4-2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
According to Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, existing conditions are the
physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project at the time the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The NOP for the project was published in
2007. While the baseline condition for the project is the condition of the site at the
time the NOP was issued (e.g., existing land uses, existing soil conditions, existing
traffic conditions), given the amount of time that has passed since the publication of
the NOP some of these descriptions have been updated where recent site visits
identified altered conditions and where new relevant information was available.
REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting section provides a description of the relevant regulations and
guidelines that pertain to the issue area. This setting section may contain
information from a variety of sources, such as the Contra Costa County General
Plan, or other local, regional, state, or federal agency guidelines or regulations. A
policy consistency analysis is also provided for each regulation. This analysis
provides a brief evaluation of the project’s conformity with the applicable policies
and regulations.
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The analysis of potential impacts begins with a listing of the applicable significance
criteria, followed by an evaluation of impacts that would result from
implementation of the project.
Significance Criteria
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Section 21068), a significant
effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the
environment. The CEQA guidelines direct that this determination be based on
scientific and factual data. The significance criteria have been developed using
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (March 2010) as a foundation, with some
refining of the criteria based on local regulations and other applicable federal, state,
and local agencies’ guidelines and regulations.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4-3
Evaluation of Impacts
The evaluation of impacts considers the significance criteria, the level of
environmental impact, and makes a determination as to whether there is: “no
impact,” a “less-than-significant impact,” or a “significant impact.” Therefore, this
subsection is divided into three categories: Discussion of No Impacts, Discussion of
Less-than-Significant Impacts, and Discussion of Significant Impacts.
A “no impact” designation is used for an issue that would not be affected by project
implementation. For example, since the project site is not located on an area
designated to have mineral resources, the project would not result in the loss of any
known mineral resources. “Less-than-significant” impacts are those project related
effects that would not reach a level of significance. For example, for a sensitive
biological species, project impacts would be significant if there was a potential to
harm members of the species, or to reduce their habitat. Conversely, impacts
would usually be considered less than significant if the habitats and species affected
were common and widespread in the region and in the state, and ample habitat
remained. A “significant” designation is used under circumstances where the
environmental impacts would meet or exceed one of the significance criteria
identified in Appendix G.
Any identified impacts are numbered and shown in bold type. For significant
impacts, mitigation measures are provided that would reduce the effects of these
impacts. Following the discussion of mitigation measures, there is an evaluation of
the “Significance after Mitigation.”
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an evaluation of a
project’s contribution to cumulative environmental impacts. According to Section
15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are defined as “two or more
individual effects which, when taken together, are considerable, or which can
compound or increase other environmental impacts.” As stated in the Guidelines,
an individual project may not have significant impacts; however, in combination
with other related projects, these cumulative effects may be considerable. When
evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA recommends one of two methods:
1. Projects to consider in the cumulative analysis include any past, present, and
probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including
projects outside the control of the lead agency, or
Pantages Bays Project
4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Draft EIR
4-4
2. The cumulative analysis would consider projections contained in an adopted
local, regional, or statewide plan, or would use a prior environmental document
which has been adopted or certified for such a plan.
For the majority of this analysis the second method was used, based on the County
General Plan and associated EIR. Where indicated, the cumulative analysis is
enhanced through the consideration of specific individual projects identified from a
list compiled from both the City of Brentwood and Contra Costa County. The list of
projects is provided in Table 4-1. The location of each project is shown in
Figure 4-1. The cumulative projects list incorporates reasonably foreseeable,
relevant projects and focuses on those that, when combined with the Pantages Bays
project, could contribute to cumulative impacts.
Table 4-1 Development Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Project
No. Name/Owner Project Scale Status General Plan
Amendment
Discovery Bay/Unincorporated Contra Costa County
N/A Discovery Bay
West/Hoffman Company 700 residential units
1,999 residential units
approved in the early 2000s,
approximately 65%
constructed and occupied.
700 lots remain to be
developed.
No
SD10-9282 The Villages at Discovery
Bay/Hoffman Company
80 Townhomes /
Commercial/Community
Center
Application being
processed. Yes
LP07-2025 Orwood Resort and RV
Park/John Caprio
Addition to existing
restaurant and adding RV &
camping sites
Application being processed No
SD09-9278 Newport Pointe/ Disco
Bay Partners, LLC 67 lots, residential units Application being processed Yes
City of Brentwood1
8627 Garin Corners/Signature
Properties 168 residential units Under Construction No
9154 Mission Grove/Discovery
Builders 132 residential units Application being processed No
8548,9095
to 9098
Barrington/Standard
Pacific 494 residential units Approved No
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4-5
Project
No. Name/Owner Project Scale Status General Plan
Amendment
City of Brentwood, continued.
8534
8825
The Parc at
Cedarwood/Signature
Properties
177 residential units Under Construction No
DR 06-14 Delta Fence/Frank
Martin
25,916 square feet –
industrial Permit Issued No
DR 08-11 Neighborhood
Church/Neal Doty 27,017 square feet – other Approved Yes
DR 07-08 The Plaza at Balfour
II/Pacific/Bowie Martin 20,000 square feet – office Approved No
DR 03-10 Garin Commercial/The
Festival Companies
44,300 square feet – retail
55,500 square feet – office Permit Issued No
DR 05-30 Brentwood Plaza
II/Nazanin Parvizi
7,430 square feet – retail
1,301 square feet –
industrial
Approved No
TSM 9152 Sciortino Ranch/New
Urban Com. Ptns. N/A Approved Yes
DR 07-16 Civic Center/City of
Brentwood 94,200 square feet – office Permit Issued Yes
DR 08-01
Kendall
Plaza/Brentwood 2010
LLC
4,400 square feet – retail
7,110 square feet- office
17,592 square feet –
industrial
Permit Issued No
DR 03-09 Best Western Motel 28,260 square feet – hotel Permit Issued No
Notes:
1 Projects east of Brentwood Boulevard and south of Lone Tree Way.
Source: Contra Costa County and the City of Brentwood February 12, 2010 Project Status Report.
The closest active projects to the project site include Discovery Bay West, located
immediately west of the project site, the Villages at Discovery Bay, the Orwood
Resort, and Newport Pointe. Other projects considered in this cumulative analysis
are at least ¼-mile or more from the project site.
The spatial boundary for the study of a project’s cumulative impacts varies
depending on the resource of concern. For example, impacts related to geology and
archeological resources are generally site specific, while air and noise impacts can
encompass larger areas. Most of the project's impacts are site-specific and limited
Pantages Bays Project
4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Draft EIR
4-6
in terms of geography, and do not have the ability to compound impacts from past,
existing or future projects beyond the project area. In these circumstances, CEQA
directs that it is not necessary to address in detail the impacts from other projects:
“[w]here a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect
that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not consider that
effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the
incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines, §§
15130, subd. (a); and
“[a]n EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the
project evaluated in the EIR”. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130, subd. (a)(1).
REFERENCES
This subsection list the references used to prepare the environmental setting and
impact analysis for each section of the EIR.
Source: Contra Costa County City of Brentwood, 2010.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4-1FigureCumulative Projects
BRENTWOOD PROJECTS
Garin Corners (R)
Mission Grove (R)
Barrington (R)
The Parc at Cedarwood (R)
Delta Fence (C)
Neighborhood Church (R)
The Plaza at Balfour II (C)
Garin Commercial (C)
Brentwood Plaza II (C)
Sciortino Ranch (C)
Civic Center (C)
Kendall Plaza (C)
Best Western Motel (C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
1
2
3
10
11
6
8
7
13
4
5
12
9
24
3
Project Area
General Plan Amendments
Residential
Commercial
NOT TO SCALE
KEY
(R)
(C)
DISCOVERY BAY PROJECTS
Discovery Bay West (R)
Villages at Discovery Bay (R)
Orwood Resort and RV Park (C)(Approved in August 2001)
Newport Pointe (R)
1
2
3
4
Pantages Bays Project
4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Draft EIR
4-8
Figure 4-1 Cumulative Projects (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-1
4.1 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This section describes the existing agricultural and forest resources on and in the
vicinity of the project site. Applicable legislation relating to these resources is
summarized in Subsection 4.1.2, Regulatory Setting. The analysis in this section is
based on project site plans, the Contra Costa County General Plan, the Contra Costa
County Important Farmlands Map, and agricultural soil classifications, as reported
by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
The project would require approval from the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) for annexation to the Discovery Bay Community Services
District sphere of influence and corresponding service area for water and
wastewater service.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR, LAFCO submitted a
comment letter requesting that the impacts to agricultural land be addressed
pursuant to Section 56064 of the California Government Code. This scoping
comment is addressed below in Subsection 4.1.2.
4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Agricultural Uses
The project site is located in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County (County)
in the community of Discovery Bay, within the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
(ULL). The closest incorporated city is Brentwood, which lies approximately 4.5
miles to the northwest of the project site. The unincorporated land that lies
between the project site and the City of Brentwood is designated as the Agricultural
Core of the County (see Figure 3-1). Much of the land in this designation is under
active cultivation of row crops, primarily orchards. Lands within this designation
contain soils that are considered the most favorable for farming a wide variety of
crops. Agricultural land uses within the Agricultural Core are protected by the
County, in accordance with Measure C. Although Contra Costa has been one of the
fastest-growing counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, in 2007 approximately 72
percent of the County was dedicated to non-urban uses (Roche 2008).
Local Agricultural Resources
Although the project site has been used for agriculture production in the past, this
use was discontinued in 1992, and the site has remained vacant since that time.
The current owner leases the property to a tenant that runs a small herd of 10 cattle
as a hobby.
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-2
In 2003, the site was used by Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) for detention of
dredge spoils as part of a channel dredging program in Discovery Bay. Preliminary
geotechnical exploration correlates with this recent activity, indicating that near-
surface soils consist of irregularly dispersed artificial fill that includes poorly-
consolidated deposits of clay, silt, and sand.
Subsurface soils at the project site include fine-grained alluvium deposits consisting
of Marcuse Clay, Pescadero Clay Loam, Sacramento Clay, and Brentwood Clay Loam,
all of which are typically used for irrigated and dryland pasture and the cultivation of
fruit, vegetables, and grains (see Figure 4.1-1) (Monk and Associates 2010). These
types of soils are included in the NRCS Land Capability Class IV, and are not
considered significant agricultural resources (NCRS 2009).
Forest Land Resources
In accordance with the definition under California Public Resources Code Section
12220(g), "Forest land" is land that can support, under natural conditions, 10
percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, and that allows for
management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and
wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
The project site is vegetated with 80 trees dispersed throughout the site,
constituting less than 10 percent native tree cover. Furthermore, none of the lands
within the project site—or the County at large—are used for timber harvesting
(Contra Costa County General Plan, Land Use Element 2005).
4.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was
adopted in 1965 to encourage the preservation of the state’s agricultural lands and
to prevent their premature conversion to urban uses. The Williamson Act
established an agricultural preserve contract procedure by which any county or city
within the state may tax a landowner at a lower rate, using a scale based on the
actual use of the land for agricultural purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted
market value. In return for a reduced tax rate, the owner guarantees that the
property remains under agricultural production for a 10-year period. The contract is
automatically renewed on an annual basis until the property owner indicates a
desire to terminate the contract.
The project site is not covered by a Williamson Act contract (Luzano 2007).
PANTAGES BAYS
4.1-1Figure
CirclePoint
Soils on the Project Site
Source: Monk & Associates, 2009.
800FEET4000 1600
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-4
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
In 1982 the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established by
the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection.
The FMMP provides a consistent and impartial analysis of agricultural land use and
land use changes throughout California, and produces Important Farmland Maps by
county every two years.
The 2010 Important Farmland Map for Contra Costa County designates the northern
half of the project site as “Urban and Built-up Land,” the southern half of the site as
“Farmland of Local Importance.” Two small areas in the northwest and northeast
corners of the site as “Other Land.” The FMMP defines these lands as follows:
Urban and Built-up Land - Land that is occupied by structures with a building
density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre
parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial,
institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills,
sewage treatment, and water control structures.
Farmland of Local Importance - Land of importance to the local economy, as
defined by each county's local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of
Supervisors. Contra Costa County defines Farmlands of Local Importance as
lands typically used for livestock grazing. These lands are also defined as
capable of producing dryland grain on a two-year summer fallow or longer
rotation with volunteer hay and pasture. The farmlands in this category are
included in the NCRS Land Capability Classes I, II, III, and IV, and lack some
irrigation water.
Other Land - Land not included in any other mapping category. Common
examples include low-density rural developments, brush, timber, wetland and
riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing, confined livestock, poultry, or
aquaculture facilities, strip mines, borrow pits, and water bodies smaller than 40
acres.
California Government Code Section 56064
LAFCO uses Government Code Section 56064 of the California Government Code to
evaluate potential impacts to farmland resulting from proposed requests for
annexation. Section 56064 considers "prime agricultural land" as an area of land,
whether it is a single parcel or a contiguous parcel, that has not been developed for
a use other than an agricultural use. These lands must meet any of the following
qualifications:
Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not
land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-5
Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating.
Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that
has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre
as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National
Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands, July, 1967, developed pursuant
to Public Law 46, December 1935.
Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a
nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the
commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of
unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars
($400) per acre.
Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant
products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per
acre for three of the previous five calendar years.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project does not meet the definition of prime agricultural land as set forth by
Government Code section 56064.
According to the NRCS online Web Soil Survey, the soils identified on the project site
are classified as Class IV soils, and are rated as grade 2 through 5, scoring less than
80 in the Storie Index. Therefore, the soils at the project site would not be
considered “prime agricultural land” under Section 56064(a) or (b).
The land is not currently used to support live stock for the production of food and
fiber. The current tenant runs a small herd of cattle (10 units) and does not meet
the livestock support criteria under Section 56064(c).
The land is not planted with fruit or nut bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops; and
would not therefore meet the minimum return requirements for unprocessed
agricultural plant products under Section 56064(d).
The land has not been cultivated during the past five years (and hasn’t been since
1992) and therefore does not meet the minimum annual gross value of $400 per
acre for three of the past five years under Section 56064(e).
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-6
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Land Use and Conservation Elements of the General Plan contain the following
relevant policies related to agricultural land uses.
Land Use Element
3-11: Urban uses shall be expanded only inside the Urban Limit Line where
conflicts with the agricultural economy will be minimal.
3-12: Preservation and buffering of agricultural land should be encouraged as it is
critical to maintaining a healthy and competitive agricultural economy and
assuring a balance of land uses. Preservation and conservation of open
space, wetlands, parks, hillsides, and ridgelines should be encouraged as it is
crucial to preserve the continued availability of unique habitats for wildlife
and plants, to protect unique scenery, and provide a wide range of
recreational opportunities for County residents.
3-14: Protect prime productive agricultural land from inappropriate subdivisions.
Conservation Element
8-29: Large continuous areas of the County should be encouraged to remain in
agricultural production, as long as economically viable.
8-30: In order to reduce adverse impacts on agricultural and environmental
values, and to reduce urban costs to taxpayers, the County shall not
designate land located outside of the ULL [Urban Limit Line] for an urban
land use.
8-31: Urban development in the future shall take place within the Urban Limit
Line and areas designated by this plan for urban growth.
8-32: Agriculture shall be protected to assure a balance in land use. The policies
of Measure C-1990 shall be enforced.
8-33: The County shall encourage agriculture to continue operating adjacent to
developing urban areas.
8-38: Agricultural operations shall be protected and enhanced through
encouragement of Williamson Act contracts to retain designated areas in
agricultural use.
In addition to the above-mentioned policies, the County enacted the 65/35 Land
Preservation Standard as part of Measure C-1990, which calls for the preservation of
at least 65 percent of the land in the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands,
parks, and other non-urban uses. Measure C-1990 also established the Urban Limit
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-7
Line (ULL), which was extended to 2026 by the passage of Measure L in 2006. Inside
the ULL there are approximately 15,930 acres, including the Pantages property,
designated as agricultural land (Contra Costa County 2010).
Contra Costa County General Plan and Zoning
Designations
The Contra Costa General Plan designates the 10 parcels that comprise the project
site as Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation (DR) and Water (WA). The current
zoning of the site is General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District
(A-3).
The project is seeking approval of a general plan amendment that changes the land
use designations to the following; Single Family Residential High Density (SH) which
has a density range of 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre, Single Family Medium Density
(SM), which has a density range of 3.0 to 4.9 units per net acre, Open Space (OS),
Public Semi-Public (PS), and Water (WA). The project is also requesting to rezone
the project site to Planned Unit Development (P-1)
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be consistent with the General Plan policies related to
agricultural resources. The project area is within the County ULL and therefore in
compliance with policies 3-11, 8-30 and 8-31. The project lands are not held in
Williamson Act contract, and are not considered prime farmland, and so the project
would not conflict with policy 3-14 or 8-38. In reference to policies 8-29, 8-32, and
8-33, the project site is surrounded by existing or planned residential development,
and is not part of a larger agricultural production area that would be subdivided by
the project. Analysis of the consistency of the project with the land use planning
and policies is included in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
4.1.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have a significant effect on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
impact on agricultural resources if it would:
a) 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;
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-8
b) 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));
c) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use;
d) 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; or
e) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be no impacts related to
prime farmland or forest resources. The following discussion presents the evidence
in support of this conclusion.
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?
The project site does not contain farmland designated “Prime,” “Unique,” or of
“Statewide Importance.” Furthermore, the project site does not contain “prime
agricultural land” as defined in Section 56064 of the California Government Code.
Construction of the project would therefore not result in any impacts related to the
conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance to a non-agricultural use.
b) 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))?
and
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-9
c) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
While the project site is vegetated with 80 trees, these trees are dispersed
throughout the site, and are not considered forest land as defined by California
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Furthermore, none of the land within the
County is used for timber harvesting. Construction of the project would therefore
not result in the conversion or loss of forest resources.
d) 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 project site is not currently used for agricultural production and does not
contain any forest resources. Development of the project would not therefore
involve changes to the existing environment, which due to their location or nature,
would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Furthermore, the
project site is generally surrounded by development, including the Ravenswood,
Discovery Bay West, and Discovery Bay communities; and development of the
project would not contribute indirectly to the conversion of adjacent lands.
e) Would the project conflict with a Williamson Act contract?
The site is not under Williamson Act contract and so the project would not result in
any conflicts with this Act.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
less-than-significant impact for one of the five significance criteria. The following
discussion presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
e) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use?
The project site is currently zoned General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy
Agricultural District (A-3) and the project would conflict with this zoning. As noted
above, the ULL includes the project site and surrounding area within the urban limit,
and the surrounding properties have already been approved for residential
development and are actively being developed.
The project site is no longer used for agricultural production, and the project
includes a request for rezoning to Planned Unit District (P-1). The requested zoning
designation would reflect the intent of the ULL and would be consistent with the
residential developments on surrounding properties.
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-10
4.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for agricultural and forest resources is Contra Costa County.
Forest Resources
None of the land within the County is used for timber harvesting; therefore, the
project in combination with the other development within the County would not
result in cumulative impacts to forest resources (Contra Costa County General Plan,
Land Use Element 2005).
Agricultural Resources
The 2005 General Plan update identified a cumulatively significant trend of
conversion of agricultural land uses to urban development. The EIR noted that build-
out of the General Plan would result in the loss in East Contra Costa County of 3,895
acres of prime agricultural land (Class I and II) and 4,904 acres of non-prime
agricultural land. The General Plan update concluded that the conversion of these
agricultural lands to urban uses is a significant cumulative impact. The County
adopted overriding considerations as part of the adoption of the General Plan, and
the General Plan EIR notes the following two reasons as a basis for this
consideration:
1. the County is required by State Law to provide for its fair share of the regional
housing need, as determined by ABAG, and to do so, the County must designate
a certain amount of land for residential uses; and
2. the economic welfare of the County, and its continued ability to provide for the
employment needs of its residents, would allow this conversion to occur.
As discussed in this section, the project site is currently designated for agricultural
uses (AL), and the project would therefore result in the conversion of approximately
171 acres from an agricultural designation to non-agricultural uses.
Because the site was not formally reclassified in 1990 for residential use, it was not
included in the General Plan EIR analysis of the conversion of 4,904 acres of non-
prime agricultural land noted above. The conversion of the site from agricultural
use to non-agricultural use represents a considerable contribution towards this
cumulative impact that is unavoidable.
4.1.5 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County General Plan, Conservation Element, Table 8-3. January 2005.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Land Use Element. 2005.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-11
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Land Use Element, Table 3-3.
Updated 2010.
Contra Costa County (2000). Methods and results for the 65/35 land preservation
standard inventory. Available at: http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/cd/current/advance/6535_staffreport.htm; Last
accessed: July 7, 2010.
Luzano, Al, Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office. Personal Communication, April
25, 2007.
Monk and Associates, Biological Resources Analysis. 2010.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Web Soil Survey. Available online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
Last accessed December 3, 2009.
Roche, Patrick, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development.
Personal Communication, February 4, 2008.
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-12
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-1
4.2 AIR QUALITY
This section describes and evaluates the effects the project would have on local and
regional air quality. The analysis includes a discussion of existing air quality,
construction-related impacts, and emissions associated with the project operation,
and identifies mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate any potentially
significant impacts.
The methodologies and assumptions used in the preparation of this section follow
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), as adopted in June 2010. Information on
existing conditions, federal and state ambient air quality standards, and pollutants
of concern was obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
California Air Resources Board (ARB), and BAAQMD. Quantitative analysis was
conducted by Don Ballanti (2010) using URBEMIS2007. The URBEMIS2007 output
can be found in Appendix A of this draft EIR and is available for review at Contra
Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California.
There were no public or agency comments related to air quality received in
response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR. However, please
note that the NOP was distributed prior to the recently adopted 2010 BAAQMD
guidelines.
4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Physical Setting
The project site is located south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), at the
eastern boundary of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) Air Basin.
San Joaquin County, located approximately 2 miles east, is part of the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin.
The potential for high pollutant concentrations developing at a given location
depends on the quantity of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere in the
surrounding area or upwind, and the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the
contaminated air. The atmospheric pollution potential, as the term is used here, is
independent of the location of emission sources and is instead a function of factors
such as topography and meteorology.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-2
The climate of the Bay Area, including Discovery Bay, is a Mediterranean-type
climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The climate is
determined largely by a high-pressure system that is often present over the eastern
Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of North America. In winter, the Pacific high-
pressure system shifts southward, allowing storms to pass through the region.
During the fall and winter months, the high pressure condition over the interior
regions of the United States (known as the Great Basin High) can produce extended
periods of light winds and low-level temperature inversions. This condition is
frequently characterized by poor atmospheric mixing resulting in degraded regional
air quality. Ozone (O3) pollution typically occurs when this condition occurs during
the warmer months of the year.
The air pollution potential is lowest in regions closest to the bay, due largely to good
ventilation and less influx of pollutants from upwind sources. Light winds in the
evenings and early mornings occasionally results in elevated pollutant levels. Wind
flow patterns are controlled by air circulation in the atmosphere, which is affected
by air pressure and the variable topography of the coastal areas adjacent to the
Carquinez Strait, which is the only sea-level gap between San Francisco Bay and the
Central Valley. During the summer and fall months, high pressure offshore coupled
with low pressure in the Central Valley causes marine air to flow eastward through
the Carquinez Strait.
The air flowing from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins
developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early
afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in
velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part
upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong,
and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited and stagnant
conditions are likely to result. Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air
pollution. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (i.e., fall and
winter, and early morning) and at night.
The Delta has a relatively low potential for air pollution given the persistent and
strong winds typical of the area. Wind records from the closest wind-measuring
sites show a strong predominance of westerly winds. Average wind speed is
relatively high and the frequency of calm winds is quite low. These winds dilute
pollutants and transport them away from the area, so that emissions released in the
project area have more influence on air quality in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
valleys than they do locally. There are, however, several major stationary sources in
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-3
upwind cities that can influence local air quality, and the project's location
downwind of the greater Bay Area also means that pollutants from other areas are
transported to the area.
Criteria Air Pollutants and Effects
Air quality studies generally focus on five pollutants that are most commonly
measured and regulated: carbon monoxide (CO), ground level O3, nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter, specifically, PM10 and
PM2.5, as listed in Table 4.2-1. In Contra Costa County (County), O3 and particulate
matter are the pollutants of greatest concern, as measured air pollution levels show
high concentrations of these pollutants at times.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause
morbidity or mortality, usually because they cause cancer. TACs include, but are not
limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed in Table 4.2-1. TACs are found in ambient
air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel
combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically
found in low concentrations, even near their source, but because chronic exposure
can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and
federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air, and is estimated to represent
about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs based on the statewide average.
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles, which
makes the evaluation of its health effects a complex scientific issue. The ARB
previously identified some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust (e.g., benzene,
formaldehyde) as TACs; they are listed as carcinogens either under Proposition 65 or
under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. To reduce diesel particulates,
California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk-reduction program. In 2006, the
U.S. EPA also enacted low-sulfur diesel fuel standards for delivery and transport
trucks that will reduce diesel particulate matter substantially.
Smoke from residential wood combustion can also be a source of TACs. Wood
smoke is an irritant and is implicated in worsening asthma and other chronic lung
problems. It is typically emitted during the winter months when dispersion
conditions are poor, and localized concentrations can result when cold stagnant air
traps smoke near the ground and there is no wind. The pollution can persist for
many hours, especially in sheltered valleys during winter. Wood smoke also
contains a significant amount of PM10 and PM2.5.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-4
Table 4.2-1 Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is an
odorless, colorless gas
that is highly toxic; it is
formed by the
incomplete combustion
of fuels.
Impairment of oxygen
transport in the
bloodstream
Aggravation of
cardiovascular disease
Fatigue, headache,
confusion, dizziness
Can be fatal in the case
of very high
concentrations
Automobile exhaust,
combustion of fuels,
combustion of wood in
woodstoves and
fireplaces.
Ozone (O3) A highly reactive
photochemical pollutant
created by the action of
sunshine on ozone
precursors (primarily
reactive hydrocarbons
and oxides of nitrogen);
often called
photochemical smog.
Eye Irritation
Respiratory function
impairment
The major sources
ozone precursors are
combustion sources
such as factories and
automobiles, and
evaporation of
solvents and fuels.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Reddish-brown gas that
discolors the air; formed
during combustion.
Increased risk of acute
and chronic respiratory
disease
Automobile and diesel
truck exhaust,
industrial processes,
fossil-fueled power
plants.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Sulfur dioxide is a
colorless gas with a
pungent, irritating odor.
Aggravation of chronic
obstructive lung disease
Increased risk of acute
and chronic respiratory
disease
Diesel vehicle exhaust,
oil- and coal-burning
power plants,
industrial processes.
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5 / PM10)
Solid and liquid particles
of dust, soot, aerosols
and other matter which
are small enough to
remain suspended in the
air for a long period of
time.
Aggravation of chronic
disease and heart/lung
disease symptoms
Combustion, factories,
construction, grading,
demolition agricultural
activities, woodstoves
and fireplaces, and
automobiles.
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-5
Carbon Monoxide
CO is a non-reactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion and is
mostly associated with motor vehicle traffic. High CO concentrations develop
primarily during winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of
ground-level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early
morning). These conditions result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor
vehicles also exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures. When
inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and
reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood, resulting in reduced levels of
oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially
critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease or anemia.
Ozone
Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to
respiratory infections, and can also cause substantial damage to vegetation and
other materials. Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is a
secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of
photochemical reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx. ROG and
NOx are known as precursor compounds for ozone. Significant ozone production
generally requires ozone precursors to be present in a stable atmosphere with
strong sunlight for approximately three hours.
Ozone is a regional air pollutant because it is not emitted directly by sources, but is
formed downwind of sources of ROG and NOx under the influence of wind and
sunlight. Ozone concentrations tend to be higher in the late spring, summer, and
fall, when long sunny days combine with regional subsidence inversions to create
conditions conducive to the formation and accumulation of secondary
photochemical compounds.
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a lung irritant and high concentrations can make breathing difficult. Levels of
NO2 are relatively low in the Bay Area.
NO2 is formed through a reaction between nitrogen oxide (NO) and atmospheric
oxygen. NO is generally emitted from vehicle exhaust, industrial processes, and
fossil-fuel power plants. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as NOx and are
major contributors to the formation of ozone. NO2 also contributes to the
formation of PM10.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-6
Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels such as coal, which
are restricted in the Bay Area. SO2 is also a precursor to the formation of
atmospheric sulfate and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and contributes to the
formation of atmospheric sulfuric acid that could precipitate downwind as acid rain.
The maximum SO2 concentrations recorded in the project area were well below
federal and state standards.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter consists of airborne particulates that are 10 microns or less in
diameter (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). PM10 and PM2.5
represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages
and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects.
Particulate matter in the atmosphere results from many kinds of dust- and fume-
producing industrial and agricultural operations, fuel combustion, and atmospheric
photochemical reactions. Some sources of particulate matter, such as demolition
and construction activities, are more local in nature, while others, such as vehicular
traffic, have a more regional effect. Very small particles of certain substances (e.g.,
sulfates and nitrates) can cause lung damage directly, or can contain adsorbed gases
(e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Particulates also can
damage materials and reduce visibility.
Lead
Lead has a range of adverse neurotoxin health effects. Prior to 1996, lead was
released into the atmosphere via leaded gasoline. The phase-out of leaded gasoline
in California resulted in decreasing levels of atmospheric lead. As the project would
not introduce any new sources of lead emissions, lead emissions are not required by
the BAAQMD to be quantified and are not further evaluated in this analysis.
Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is found in nature around some hot springs, geothermal
sources, and oil fields (sour gas). It is also produced by anaerobic decomposition,
and is sometimes called swamp gas. The human nose can detect H2S at
concentrations well below toxic levels. Heavier than air, this gas is considered
obnoxious and unpleasant. At higher levels it desensitizes the nose, and can be fatal
because it blocks oxygen uptake by the blood. Mainly a health threat to industrial
workers, H2S is usually regulated to eliminate nuisance for nearby residents or
property owners.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-7
National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air quality is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the
atmosphere. The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of
pollutants emitted within the area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding
areas, local and regional meteorological conditions, and the topography of the air
basin. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).
As required by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS or federal standards) have been established for seven major air
pollutants: CO, NOx, O3, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and lead. California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS or state standards) are generally more stringent than the
corresponding federal standards.
Both state and federal standards are summarized in Table 4.2-2. The “primary”
standards have been established to protect the public health. The “secondary”
standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for adverse air
pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of
the general welfare.
Air Monitoring Data
The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the national and state
standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. BAAQMD is also responsible
for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources,
issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources
of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality
and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions,
conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities. BAAQMD
has jurisdiction over much of the nine-county Bay Area counties.
The BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than 30 locations throughout
the Bay Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is in Bethel Island,
approximately 7 miles north of the project site.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-8
Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
Federal Standards
California Standards Primary1 Secondary2
Ozone 1-hour -- Same as Primary 0.09 ppm
8-hour 0.075 ppm 0.07 ppm
Carbon
Monoxide
1-hour 35.0 ppm
None
20.0 ppm
8-hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Annual 0.053 ppm Same as Primary 0.03 ppm
1-hour 0.100 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual 0.03 ppm -- --
24-hour 0.14 ppm -- 0.04 ppm
3-hour -- 0.5 ppm --
1-hour -- -- 0.25 ppm
PM10
Annual --
Same as Primary
20 μg/m3
24-hour 150 μg/m3 50 μg/m3
PM2.5
Annual 15 μg/m3
Same as Primary
12 μg/m3
24-hour 35 μg/m3 --
Lead
30-Day Average n/a -- 1.5 μg/m3
Calendar Quarter 1.5 μg/m3
Same as Primary
--
Rolling 3-month
average 0.15 μg/m3 --
Sulfates 24-hour n/a n/a 25 μg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-hour n/a n/a 0.03 ppm
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene) 24-hour n/a n/a 0.01 ppm
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8-hour n/a n/a
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer – visibility of 10 miles or
more due to particles when relative
humidity is less than 70 percent
Notes:
Notes regarding terms and definitions used in this table are available at the link below and incorporated herein by
reference.
1 Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public
health.
2 Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant
ppm = parts per million
μg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter
n/a = not applicable
Source: Air Resources Board, 2010. (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-9
Attainment Status
Areas that violate standards are considered to be in “nonattainment.” Areas that do
not violate standards are considered to be in “attainment.” Federal regulations also
include a designation known as “unclassified,” which identifies areas where data are
incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or non-attainment.
Ozone (O3): The Bay Area as a whole is in nonattainment for ground level O3,
according to state and federal standards. The Bay Area also is classified as
marginally nonattainment according to the federal 1997 8-hour O3 standard.
U.S. EPA is considering new 8-hour ozone standard that would become effective in
2011. The range of standards under consideration would be a significant change,
which would undoubtedly result in a nonattainment designation for the Bay Area
and much of California.
Carbon Monoxide (CO): The Bay Area has met the CO standards for over a decade
and is classified as being in attainment by the U.S. EPA.
PM10 and PM2.5: The Bay Area is classified as nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5
according to state standards, which are more stringent. The U.S. EPA grades the
region unclassified PM10 and PM2.5; however, the U.S. EPA has recently proposed
designating the region as nonattainment for the new 2006 PM2.5 standard due to
recent monitoring data in Vallejo and San Jose that indicate levels slightly above the
standard. The EPA designation will be effective 90 days after publication of the
regulation in the Federal Register. President Obama has ordered a freeze on all
pending federal rules; therefore, the effective date of the designation is unknown at
this time.
The U.S. EPA and the state grade the region “in attainment” or “unclassified” for all
other air pollutants.
The BAAQMD has for many years operated a multi-pollutant monitoring site
approximately 7 miles north of the project site in Bethel Island. Table 4.2-3 shows
the number of days per year that air pollutant levels exceeded state or nation
standards from 2006 to 2008. As discussed above, Table 4.2-3 shows that all federal
ambient air quality standards were met in the project area with the exception of the
8-hour ozone standard. The state ambient standards of ozone and PM10 were
exceeded in 2006 and 2008, with nine exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard in
2006 and four exceedances in 2008.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-10
Table 4.2-3 Annual Number of Days Exceeding Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Standard
Days Standard Exceeded During:
2006 2007 2008
Ozone
1-Hour State
1-Hour Federal
8-Hour Federal
9
0
13
0
0
1
4
0
4
Carbon Monoxide
8-Hour Federal
8-Hour State
1-Hour State
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour State 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide 1-Hour State
24-Hour State
0
0
0
0
0
0
PM10 24-Hour State
24-Hour Federal
1
0
0
0
3
0
Source: Air Resources Board, 2010. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/php_files/aqdphp/topfour1.php.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses with population
concentrations that would be particularly susceptible to disturbance from dust,
noise, vibration, air pollutant concentrations, or other disruptions associated with
project construction and/or operation. Residences, schools, childcare centers,
hospitals, residential care facilities, retirement homes, convalescent homes,
libraries, parks, and churches are generally considered sensitive receptors.
The closest sensitive land uses to the project site are the residents of Discovery Bay,
located across Kellogg Creek, and the residents of the Ravenswood and Lakeshore
subdivision, located west.
Odors
Offensive odors can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the
public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the
BAAQMD. Offensive odors are typically associated with wastewater treatment
plants, sanitary landfills, feedlots and dairies, and industrial facilities. The
occurrence and severity of odor problems depends on numerous factors, including
the nature, frequency and intensity of the source, wind speed and direction, and the
sensitivity of the receptor(s). BAAQMD Regulation 7 places general limitations on
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-11
odorous substances, and specific emission limitations on certain odorous
compounds. The regulation applies when and if the BAAQMD receives validated
odor complaints from 10 or more complainants in a 90-day period.
4.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing the Federal CAA. The U.S. EPA is also
responsible for establishing the NAAQS. The U.S. EPA regulates emission sources
that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft,
ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency establishes various emission
standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California.
Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission standards
established by ARB.
Policy Consistency
The project would be required to comply with federal regulations and standards set
by the U.S. EPA.
California Air Resources Board (ARB)
ARB, part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for
meeting the state requirements of the Federal CAA, administering the California
CAA, and establishing the CAAQS. The California CAA requires all air districts in the
state to endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS. ARB regulates mobile air
pollution sources, such as motor vehicles, and is responsible for setting emission
standards for vehicles sold in California for other emission sources, such as
consumer products, and for certain off-road equipment. ARB has established
passenger vehicle fuel specifications and oversees the functions of local air pollution
control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn prepare air
quality attainment plans at the regional level. ARB also conducts or supports
research into the effects of air pollution on the public and develops innovative
approaches to reduce air pollutant emissions.
ARB Regulations of Construction Vehicles
On July 26, 2007, ARB adopted new regulations intended to reduce emissions of
PM10 and PM2.5 and NOx from certain diesel-powered vehicles by requiring
businesses to retrofit or "turnover" their fleets over time (13 CCR SEC. 2449). The
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-12
regulations apply to any person, business or government agency that owns or
operates any diesel-powered off-road vehicle in California with 25 or greater
horsepower, including vehicles used in construction (i.e., backhoes, tractors).
The emission requirements are intended to require fleets to apply exhaust retrofits
that capture pollutants before they are emitted, and to accelerate turnover of fleets
to newer, less-polluting engines. "Turnover" means retrofitting an engine to
capture pollutants, replacing a dirty engine with a clean engine, retiring a dirty
vehicle, replacing a vehicle with a new or used piece, or re-designating a vehicle as
"low-use." "Low-use" vehicles (which operate for less than 100 hours per year) are
exempt from emission requirements, but still must be properly labeled and reported
to ARB.
The requirements and deadlines for compliance vary depending on fleet size. For
small fleets, which include small businesses or municipalities with a combined
horsepower of 2,500 or less, implementation does not begin until 2015. Medium
fleets, with 2,501 to 5,000 horsepower, have until 2013, while large fleets, with over
5,000 horsepower, must begin complying in 2010. State and federally owned fleets
are considered "large fleets" without regard to total horsepower. Affected vehicles
include bulldozers, loaders, backhoes and forklifts, as well as many other self-
propelled off-road diesel vehicles. The regulations also include standards regarding
the use of gasoline-powered vehicles to replace diesel vehicles.
ARB expects the new regulations will result in a 92 percent reduction of diesel PM
and a 32 percent reduction of NOx from 2000 emissions by 2020.
Project Consistency
The project would be required to comply with state regulations pertaining to
emissions of air pollutant during construction and operation of the project.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the national and state
ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area.
BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations
concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air
pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen
complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding
grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns,
as well as many other activities. BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine-
county Bay Area counties, including Contra Costa County, in which the project is
located.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-13
Clean Air Plans
To achieve the CAAQS, the BAAQMD develops air quality plans addressing the
California CAA and updates them approximately every three years. On September
15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP). The
2010 CAP became effective immediately and includes 55 measures for reducing
pollution. In general the 2010 CAP furthers the goals of the Bay Area 2005 Ozone
Strategy and serves to:
Update the current Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the
requirements of the California CAA to implement “all feasible measures” to
reduce ozone;
Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and
greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan;
Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and
Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented between
the 2010 to 2012 timeframe.
BAAQMD adopts and enforces rules to reduce particulate matter emissions and
develops public outreach programs to educate the public to reduce PM10 and PM2.5
emissions (e.g., Spare the Night Program). BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3 restricts
operation of any indoor or outdoor fireplace, fire pit, wood or pellet stove, masonry
heater or fireplace insert on specific days during the winter when air quality
conditions are forecasted to exceed the NAAQS for PM2.5. Rule 3 also limits excess
visible emissions from wood burning devices and requires clean burning technology
for wood burning devices sold (or resold) or installed in the Bay Area.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
In April 1996, the BAAQMD prepared its BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as a guidance
document to provide government agencies, consultants, and project proponents
with uniform procedures for assessing air quality impacts and preparing the air
quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to CEQA.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were revised by the BAAQMD in December 2009,
and adopted on June 2, 2010. This document describes the criteria that the
BAAQMD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental
documents, such as this draft EIR. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend
thresholds for use in determining whether projects would have significant adverse
environmental impacts, identify methodologies for predicting project emissions and
impacts, and identify measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality
impacts.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-14
Project Consistency
The project would be required to comply with BAAQMD standards and regulations
regarding air pollutant emissions during project construction and operation. This
draft EIR section was prepared following BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. A discussion of
project consistency with the BAAQMD Air Quality Plans and regulations is provided
in Subsection 4.2.3, Analysis of Potential Impacts under Impact AQ-1.
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County has no direct responsibility or authority to regulate air quality.
However, as the CEQA Lead Agency, the County is responsible for assessing the air
quality impacts of proposed developments, and when necessary, adopting measures
to mitigate those impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Conservation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan contains the
following relevant policies related air quality.
Conservation Element
8-99: The free flow of vehicular traffic shall be facilitated on major arterials.
8-100: Vehicular emissions shall be reduced throughout the County.
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.
8-102: A safe and convenient pedestrian system shall be created and maintained in
order to encourage walking as an alternative to driving.
8-103: When there is a finding that a proposed project might significantly affect air
quality, appropriate mitigation measures shall be imposed.
8-104: Proposed projects shall be reviewed for their potential to generate
hazardous air pollutants.
8-105: Land uses which are sensitive to air pollution shall be separated from
sources of air pollution.
8-106: Air quality planning efforts shall be coordinated with other local, regional,
and State agencies.
8-107: New housing in infill and peripheral areas which are adjacent to existing
residential development shall be encouraged.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-15
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
As part of the environmental review period, and in compliance with policies 8-103,
8-104, and 8-106, the project would be required to comply with state and federal air
quality plans, incorporating mitigation measures where applicable. Although the
project would result in an increase in local roadways, the project would not impede
or congest the roadways to the extent that it would substantially increase vehicular
traffic, in compliance with policies 8-99 and 8-100. Refer to Section 4.16,
Transportation and Circulation, for a discussion of project generated-traffic.
In response to policies 8-101 and 8-102, roadways and sidewalks would be
constructed to provide public and private pedestrian and trail access. In addition,
the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) would serve as a pedestrian/bike trail,
equipped with signage, seating areas, and kiosks.
The project site is surrounded by residential development. In particular, the
Ravenswood development to the west, including 181 single-family units and 22
duplexes, was constructed over the past few years. As such, the project is in
compliance with policy 8-107 as it is an infill site that is adjacent to existing
residential development, and is also in compliance with policy 8-105 as it is not
located near a land use identified as a significant source of air pollution.
4.2.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant air
quality impact if it would:
a) Result in a community risk due to an increased cancer risk of greater than 10
people in a million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard
Index, or increased PM2.5 of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3) if the project is within 1,000 feet from a TAC source.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
d) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-16
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
f) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, adopted June 2, 2010, were used to evaluate the
environmental air quality impacts of the project as follows (see Table 4.2-5):
The operational thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx are 54 pounds per
day and 10 tons per year.
The PM10 operational threshold is 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year,
considering only exhaust emissions.
The PM2.5 operational threshold is 54 pounds per day or 10 tons per year
(exhaust emissions).
The construction thresholds of significance are equivalent to the operational
thresholds and are based on averaged daily emissions.
Construction dust impacts would be determined by whether the following Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are to be utilized:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-17
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.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that no impacts would result for one of the
criterion. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
a) Would the project result in a community risk due to an
increased cancer risk of greater than 10 people in a million, an
increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index, or
increased PM2.5 of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3) if the project is within 1,000 feet from a source?
The most recent BAAQMD guidance requires local community risk and hazards
associated with TACs and PM2.5 emissions to be identified because emissions of
these pollutants can have significant health impacts. The discussion below refers to
community risk related to project operation. Refer to discussion of significant
impacts below for a description of construction TAC impacts.
Operational
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines describe the potential for significant
community risk impacts to occur when sensitive receptors are located near sources
of TAC and/or PM2.5 emissions. Common sources include high-volume roadways
such as freeways, stationary combustions sources permitted by BAAQMD, and
gasoline stations. BAAQMD recommends that these types of sources within 1,000
feet of a project with sensitive receptors be assessed to evaluate potential impacts.
These types of TAC or PM2.5 emission sources have not been identified within 1,000
feet of the site. The closest TAC or PM2.5 emission source is State Route 4 (SR4) and
is located approximately 1 mile from the project site. Therefore, this issue is not
discussed further in this draft EIR.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-18
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that less-than-significant impacts would
result for three of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to
cause high localized concentrations of CO, and CO emitted from project traffic is the
only localized air pollutant of concern associated with the project. Emissions of
other air pollutants, such as PM, are spread out over a large enough area so that
they are not a concern locally.
Measured CO levels have been at healthy levels (i.e., below state and federal
standards) in the Bay Area since the early 1990s. As a result, the region has been
designated as attainment for the standard. Highest measured 8-hour CO levels over
the last 3 years are 1 part per million (ppm) in Bethel Island,1 which are well below
ambient air quality standards of 9.0 ppm (see Table 4.2-3).
The contribution of project-generated traffic to levels of CO emissions was predicted
following the screening criteria recommended by BAAQMD. A review of
intersection traffic volumes and level of service was conducted to identify
intersections with the potential for the highest CO levels based on project-
generated traffic. Two intersections—the Marsh Creek Road/Walnut Boulevard
intersection and the Byron Highway/ SR4 intersection—were considered the worst
intersections in terms of potentially elevated CO levels from project-generated
traffic.
Predicted CO concentrations associated with the project are shown in Table 4.2-4.
Screening calculations are also provided in Appendix A of this draft EIR.
1 Bethel Island is the air quality monitoring station closest to the project site.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-19
Table 4.2-4 Predicted Roadside Carbon Monoxide Concentrations.
Intersection Existing
(2010)
Existing Plus
Project (2010)
Cumulative
Plus Project
(2030)
BAAQMD
Threshold
Exceed
Threshold?
Concentrations (ppm)
Marsh Creek Rd./
Walnut Avenue 3.0 3.0 2.1 9.0 NO
SR 4/Byron Hwy 3.5 3.6 2.6 9.0 NO
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
The highest 8-hour concentration with project implementation (2010) is predicted
to be 3.6 ppm over an 8-hour period. In 2030, localized CO levels would be even
lower. The results of this screening analysis indicate that project levels would be
below the California ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. Therefore, the project
would have a less-than-significant impact to air quality standards.
c) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
The project would result in the construction of 292 residential units. Activities
associated with a residential housing development do not typically result in the
creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Facilities
such as wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, petroleum refineries, and
chemical manufacturing plants are the typical types of land uses that emit
objectionable odors. The offensiveness and degree of odor ultimately depends on
the sensitivity of the receptors exposed to the odor. The only potential source of
odor associated with the project would be the garbage or waste associated with
land uses proposed onsite. Any garbage or waste generated by the residential uses
would be collected and disposed of according to policies found in the Contra Costa
County Code Chapter 418: Refuse. Proper collection and disposal of generated
waste would avoid the creation of objectionable odors affecting residents of the
proposed project or surrounding neighborhoods.
Odors could potentially be generated during short-term architectural coating
activities. Architectural coatings contain Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) that
may include odiferous compounds. However, any architectural coatings used for
the project must comply with the low-VOC requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 8,
Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings), which limits the quantity of VOCs contained in
architectural coatings sold, used, or manufactured within the BAAQMD. Compliance
with Regulation 8, Rule 3, would minimize any odor impacts from architectural
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-20
coating operations. Additionally, any odors associated with architectural coatings
would cease following completion of construction, except for minor periodic
maintenance painting. Because the impact would be intermittent and temporary,
the project’s impact with respect to odors would be considered less than significant.
The land uses surrounding the project area are residential and farmlands, and would
not constitute a significant odor source. Therefore, residents of the proposed
project would not be exposed to objectionable odors from adjacent land uses and
the impact with respect to this criterion would be less than significant.
d) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan.
A key element in air quality planning is to make reasonably accurate projections of
future human activities, particularly vehicle activities that are related to air pollutant
emissions. BAAQMD uses population projections made by the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) and vehicle use trends made by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission to formulate future air pollutant emission inventories.
The 2010 CAP was adopted by BAAQMD in 2010. This 2010 CAP is based on regional
population, housing, and employment projections through 2020 compiled by ABAG.
As such, a project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a regional air
quality plan if it is inconsistent with the regional growth assumptions for population
and/or employment.
Section 4.13 Population and Housing, of this draft EIR, found that for the years
2010 to 2020, the 2009 ABAG projections report an anticipated population increase
Countywide of 87,100 and an increase in population in Rural East County of
approximately 1,300. The ABAG projections reflect a trend of continued
development in Rural East County, and the project is included in the population
projections for the next 10 years. Population generated by the project represents
approximately 67 percent of the projected growth in Rural East County and 1
percent of the projected growth estimated for the County as a whole for the same
period.
The project and surrounding properties were included within the Urban Limit Line
(ULL) to indicate an intention for future conversion to urban uses. The timing for
development of these areas is speculative and regional population projections have
attempted to project a reasonable rate of growth based on market conditions.
Section 4.13 Population and Housing concludes that direct and indirect population
increase associated with the project would be within the ABAG population
forecasts.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-21
Additionally, the 2010 CAP includes 17 TCMs. TCMs that would apply to this project
would reduce motor vehicle travel by encouraging use of alternative transportation
modes, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of transportation. The
project addresses the following TCMs by providing pedestrian and bicycle access
through the emergent marsh area:
TCM D-1: Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities
TCM D-2: Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities
TCM D-3: Support Local Land Use Strategies
For the reasons stated above, the project is consistent with the regional growth
predications and would result in a less-than-significant impact with implementation
of the 2010 CAP.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that some degree of impact would result for
two of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
e) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Impact AQ-1: Project development that includes wood burning stoves would
result in a net increase of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), a criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment in an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard. (Significant)
Wood burning stoves and other area sources such as emissions associated with
project traffic would result in new air pollutant emissions within the air basin.
Regional emissions generated by the project have been calculated using the
URBEMIS2007 emission model. The program was used to estimate the vehicular
and area source emissions from the development of 292 single-family residences.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-22
As a worst-case scenario for the purposes of this analysis, the project was assumed
to be built out by the year 2013.2 The URBEMIS2007 output is included in Appendix
A.
The incremental daily emission increase associated with project build out is
identified in Table 4.2-5 for ROG, NOx (two precursors of ozone), PM10 and PM2.5.
Daily emissions are from either summer or winter months, depending on which
season results in the greatest emission. Also shown are BAAQMD daily and annual
thresholds of significance.
Project emissions shown in Table 4.2-5 would exceed the BAAQMD daily threshold
of significance for ROG. This is considered a significant impact on regional air
quality.
Table 4.2-5 Average daily and Annual Operational Emissions
Pollutant
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Daily
Emission
(Lbs/day)
Annual
Emission
(Tons)
Daily
Emission
(Lbs/day)
Annual
Emission
(Tons)
Daily
Emission
(Lbs/day)
Annual
Emission
(Tons)
Daily
Emission
(Lbs/day)
Annual
Emission
(Tons)
Project Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
78 8 38 5 65 8 31 2
BAAQMD Quantitative Threshold of Significance
54 10 54 10 82 15 54 10
Impact
Yes No No No No No No No
Source: Don Ballanti ,2010.
2 Earthmoving construction activities, which generate the highest amount of air pollutants during
construction, are expected to be completed by 2013. Framing of the residential homes is expected to
continue between 2013 through 2018; however, for the purposes of this air quality analysis, and as a
worst-case scenario, air pollutants associated with the construction of the homes is considered to be
complete in 2013.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-23
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Wood burning fireplaces or stoves shall not be
permitted. Only natural gas fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project
plans shall not include wood burning fireplaces or stoves and shall clearly
indicate the prohibition against such use.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.2-6, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce ROG
emissions associated with project development to 36 pounds per day, which is
below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 54 pounds per day. Therefore, the
impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Table 4.2-6 Daily Project ROG Emissions
Scenario ROG (lbs/day)
Total Project Emissions 78
Total Project Emissions after Mitigation Measure AQ-1 36
Percent Reduction 53%
BAAGMD Significance Thresholds 54
Impact No
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
f) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Impact AQ-2: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to criteria air
pollutants during project construction but could expose sensitive receptors to
toxic air contaminants. (Significant)
Construction Emissions
Project emissions of air pollutants would be highest during project construction.
Project construction would result in temporary emissions of dust and diesel exhaust
that could adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors.
During project construction, the operation of equipment and combustion of vehicle
fuel would emit regional pollutants such as ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Clearing,
excavation, grading, foundation, and other ground-disturbing construction activity
would affect air quality. Sources would include on- and off-site equipment and
vehicles, worker trips, and the evaporation of paints and solvents. Construction
emissions would be at a maximum during the roughly 1.5-year period for earthwork
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-24
and grading of the site, which involves the creation of two bays, two coves, shoring
walls, creek bank restoration and the widening of Kellogg Creek. After completion
of this period of relatively intense activity, construction of production and custom
homes is expected to occur over a 5-year period.
Worst case emissions from construction were estimated using the URBEMIS2007
program and assumed that project grading and site improvements would be
completed within a 12-month period (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013). Equipment
usage was estimated by the project applicant for site preparation works. The
URBEMIS2007 program output is included in Appendix A.
Table 4.2-7 shows worst-case average daily construction emissions, in pounds per
day, and maximum annual emissions in tons per year. As shown in the table,
average daily and annual maximum construction emissions do not approach the
proposed BAAQMD significance thresholds, so this impact would be less than
significant.
Table 4.2-7 Average Daily and Annual Construction Emissions
Pollutant
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Daily
Average
(Lbs/day)
Annual
(Tons)
Daily
Average
(Lbs/day)
Annual
(Tons)
Daily
Average
(Lbs/day)
Annual
(Tons)
Daily
Average
(Lbs/day)
Annual
(Tons)
Project Construction Emissions
5.9 1.1 50.3 9.2 2.1 0.4 2.0 0.4
BAAQMD Quantitative Threshold of Significance for Construction
54 10 54 10 82 15 54 10
Impact
No No No No No No No No
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-25
Cancer risk from Toxic Air Contaminants
Diesel-powered vehicles and equipment result in temporary emissions of dust and
diesel particulates that could adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors.
In 1998 ARB identified PM from diesel fueled engines as a TAC. ARB has completed
a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of
activities using diesel-fueled engines. High volume freeways, stationary diesel
engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (i.e.,
distribution centers or truck stops) were identified as having the highest associated
risk.
Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of
exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are
temporary and transient in nature, affecting an area for a period of days to years.
The BAAQMD has not developed quantitative thresholds or guidelines for
identifying impacts related to temporary construction activities where emissions are
mobile and transient in nature. However, BAAQMD has recommended the
measures listed under Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b to help reduce the
impacts of diesel exhaust emissions associated with grading and new construction:
Mitigation Measure AQ-2a: To reduce the air quality impacts of PM associated
with grading and new construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the
following mitigation measures for all phases of construction:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall
be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of
dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-26
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked 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.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b: To reduce health risks from TACs during project
construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation
measures into the project:
Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two
minutes;
Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50
horsepower) to be used in the construction of the project (i.e., owned,
leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-
average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compacted
to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing
emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel
projects, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
projects, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and /or other options as
such become available;
Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be
equipped with best available technology for emission reductions of NOx and
PM; and
Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s more recent
certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.
Significant after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-27
Because of its short duration and the excellent ventilation characteristics of the
site during daylight hours when construction activity occurs, as well as
implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b would reduce health
risks from construction emissions of TAC diesel PM to a less-than-significant
level.
4.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for air quality includes any proposed development within the
jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. The General Plan EIR noted that build-out would
contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air quality. The
County adopted overriding considerations, citing, in part, the need to balance
competing goals such as the need to provide opportunities for jobs and housing,
with the goal of preserving open space and agriculture. In balancing the competing
goals, the County found that the benefits of the General Plan outweigh the
unavoidable environmental impacts.
The recently adopted BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that any project that would
individually have a significant air quality impact would also have a significant
cumulative air quality impact. As described above under discussion of significant
impacts, the project would result in a project-level significant impact related to daily
emissions of ROG and consistency with the local clean air plan.
Cumulative impacts related to ROG emissions are discussed under Impact CUM
AQ-1.
Impact CUM AQ-1: Development of the project in conjunction with other
development in the region would result in a net increase of reactive organic gases
(ROG). (Significant)
As discussed previously, the Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for
ground-level O3 under both the federal CAA and the California CAA. The area is also
considered non-attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. As part of an effort to attain and
maintain ambient air quality standards for O3 and PM10, and PM2.5, BAAQMD has
established thresholds of significance for O3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx)
and PM10 and PM2.5.
As described in Impact AQ-1, the project, without mitigation, would exceed the
BAAQMD-recommended operational threshold of significance for ROG (54 pounds
per day), resulting in a significant impact. According to the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, any project that would individually have a significant air quality impact
would also have a significant cumulative air quality impact.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-28
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which prohibits the uses of wood
burning fireplaces or stoves within the project and permits only natural gas
fireplaces or stoves, would reduce ROG emissions associated with project
development to 36 pounds per day, which is below the BAAQMD significant
threshold (see Table 4.2-6). Therefore, the project’s contribution to this impact
would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.2.5 REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Bay Area 2005 Ozone
Strategy. Available at:
<http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20
Research/Plans/2005%20Ozone%20Strategy/adoptedfinal_vol1.ashx>.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. Aerometric Data Analysis and
Management (ADAM).
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/php_files/aqdphp/topfour1.php
California Air Resources Board (ARB). California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS). Available at: < http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf>.
Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. (2005). Conservation Element.
U.S. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at:
<http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html>.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-1
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Monk & Associates, Inc. has prepared a Biological Resource Analysis report that is
appended in its entirety as Appendix B of this EIR. The purpose of this section is to
provide a description of existing biological resources on the project site and to
identify potentially significant impacts related to the project. The biological
resources reports that have been incorporated into this analysis are available for
review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development,
Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California.
Potential impacts are addressed below in Subsection 4.3.4, Analysis of Potential
Impacts. This biological resources analysis includes mitigation measures that, when
implemented, would reduce impacts to levels considered less than significant
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
submitted a comment letter. Responses to the NMFS letter are included as an
appendix to Monk & Associates’ Biological Resource Analysis report, which is
included in its entirety as Appendix B of this EIR.
4.3.1 METHODOLOGY
Background Research
Background research for the project was initiated by Monk & Associates in 2006 and
updated in 2009 and 2010, and included the following research and consultations:
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Database,
RareFind 3.1 application (CNDDB 2010) identifies historic and recent records of
special-status plant and animal species (that is, threatened, endangered, rare)
known to occur in the region of the project site.
California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) 2010 electronic version of their
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (herein referred to as the
Inventory) (CNPS 2001) lists special-status plant species known from the nine
U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles around the project site.
Sacramento Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provides a
list of special-status species known from the Woodward Island 7.5 minute
quadrangle (the project site quadrangle). All special-status species records were
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-2
compiled into tables by USFWS. Monk & Associates examined all known record
locations for special-status species to determine if these species had the
potential to occur on the project site.
Monk & Associates reviewed several documents prepared for this project site,
including the following:
Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods Wet Season Survey, Pantages Property.
Prepared for Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC. Prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC.
May 2003.
EcoAnalysts, Inc. letter-report on analysis of soil samples at Pantages for fairy
shrimp cysts. August 4, 2003 letter-report to Mr. Jim Gibson of Gibson &
Skordal, LLC.
Results of 2004 Biological Surveys and Habitat Assessment for the California
Tiger Salamander, Pantages at Discovery Bay. Prepared for Pantages at
Discovery Bay, LLC by Miriam Green Associates. November 10, 2004.
Jurisdictional Delineation, Pantages Property. Prepared for Pantages at
Discovery Bay, LLC. Prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC. December 2002.
Delineation Map, Pantages Property. Prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC.
November 2002.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination for the Pantages Bays
Property, January 7, 2009.
Results of Special-Status Species Surveys on the Pantages Property, Contra
Costa, California. Prepared for Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC. Prepared by
Miriam Green Associates. November 1, 2003.
Preliminary Grading & Utility Plan: Pantages at Discovery Bay. Prepared by dk
Associates, Inc. May 2005.
Tree Report, Pantages at Discovery Bay, Contra Costa County, California.
Prepared by HortScience, Inc. August 2006.
Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, dated
October 2006.
Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, dated
May 2007.
Project Development Plans
Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for
Pantages Bays. Prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC. November 15, 2006.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-3
Summary of Biological Resource Issues, Impacts, Mitigation and Findings, March
2007, provided to Monk & Associates by CirclePoint.
Mooring Area Plan for Pantages Bays prepared by dk Consulting August 2010.
Evaluation of Potential California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii)
Habitat on the Pantages Bays Property, Contra Costa County, California. April 1,
2010. Prepared by Mr. Hansen in association with Miriam Green Associates.
Evaluation of Potential California Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat
on the Pantages Bay Property, Contra Costa County, California. April 1, 2010.
Prepared by Mr. Hansen in association with Miriam Green Associates.
Response to Comments from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
dated July 19, 2007 regarding the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental
Impact Report (NOP/EIR) for the Pantages Bays Residential Development
Project. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences. August 5, 2010 (Appendix C).
Response to NMFS July 19, 2007 comment letter on Pantages Bays Notice of
Preparation. Prepared by Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC. August 5, 2010.
Field Reconnaissance
Monk & Associates biologists, Ms. Sarah Lynch and Ms. Hope Kingma, conducted
general surveys of the project site on September 15 and October 26, 2005 to record
biological resources and to assess the likelihood of agency regulated areas on the
project site. The surveys involved searching all habitats on the site and recording all
plant and wildlife species observed.
On September 20, 2006, Monk & Associates biologist Ms. Lynch returned to the site
to note current site conditions and record any wildlife and plants observed. Tables
of plants and wildlife observed during these surveys were compiled and are
included in Appendix B of this EIR.
Monk & Associates’ site evaluation included an examination of the areas within the
project site that would be regulated as waters of the United States and/or State (as
determined during a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) confirmation visit
conducted on June 4, 2003 on the project site with the applicant’s wetland
consultants, Gibson & Skordal LLC). Monk & Associates also noted potential habitats
on or adjacent to the project site that could support special-status species. The
results of Monk & Associates’ literature research and field reconnaissance are
provided in the sections below.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-4
Wetland Delineation Conducted by Gibson & Skordal,
LLC
Two separate wetland delineations were conducted by the applicant’s wetland
consultants, Gibson & Skordal, LLC. The field studies for the first delineation, which
covered the main project site, were conducted on August 7, 2002. This wetland
delineation was conducted according to the Corps’ 1987 Wetlands Delineation
Manual.
The delineation map (dated November 2002) was prepared by dk Associates, Inc. in
coordination with Gibson & Skordal, LLC. On June 4, 2003 the Corps verified that
19.53 acres of waters of the United States are present on approximately 162 acres
of the 171-acre project site.
In 2008, the applicant’s wetland consultants, Gibson & Skordal, LLC, submitted a
supplemental delineation request to expand the project area (approximately 171
acres) to include Pantages Island, Mean High Water around Pantages Island, and
along the Pantages Property, and requested a re-verification of the entire project
site. On January 7, 2009, the Corps submitted a jurisdictional determination to the
project applicant verifying Gibson & Skordal’s May 2008 Jurisdictional Delineation
map that 36.43 acres of waters of the United States, including Indian Slough, Kellogg
Creek and adjacent wetlands, are present within the survey area (see Appendix A of
the Biological Resources Analysis report).
Special-Status Species Surveys and General Wildlife
Surveys Conducted by Others
Special-Status Plant Surveys
Miriam Green Associates conducted special-status plant surveys on the project site
on April 17, June 28, and September 22, 2003. Surveys were conducted by Ms.
Ramona Robison with the assistance of Ms. Tina Costella. According to the Miriam
Green Associates’ 2003 report, plant surveys were designed to coincide with the
blooming periods of the target special-status plants. Surveys were conducted on
foot, and focused on the areas that still supported some native vegetation.
Tree Survey
On February 7, 2006, HortScience, Inc. surveyed all trees growing on the project
site. The survey consisted of identifying tree species, measuring the trunk diameters
at 54 inches above grade (that is, diameter at breast height (DBH)), evaluating the
health and structural condition of the trees, and rating the suitability of each tree
for preservation. In August 2006 HortScience prepared a Tree Report as a result of
their February 7, 2006 survey. On August 23, 2007 HortScience prepared an
addendum to their 2006 tree report to include Pantages Island since the widening of
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-5
Kellogg Creek by Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) would impact trees on this
island. This addendum to their tree report tallies all trees on the project site
including those on Pantages Island.
Vernal Pool Crustacean Survey
In 2003, one season of wet season surveys and one season of dry season surveys
were completed on the project site. Gibson & Skordal, LLC completed the USFWS-
authorized wet season surveys (December 27, 2002 through April 15, 2003).
Christopher Rogers of EcoAnalysts, Inc. completed the USFWS-authorized dry
season sampling (June 2003). The results are presented under the fairy shrimp
species discussion below.
Aquatic Resources Studies
A reconnaissance site visit was conducted on March 8, 2004 by Stillwater Sciences,
the applicant’s fisheries biologists, to make a preliminary examination of aquatic
habitats in and adjacent to the project area. A more detailed habitat
characterization was conducted on March 26, 2004. The latter effort was conducted
by driving a boat along the banks, noting dominant and subdominant habitats, and
delineating the boundary of habitat types on an aerial photo of the project area.
Stillwater Sciences surveyed bank habitat along Kellogg Creek, the East Contra Costa
County Irrigation District (ECCID) Dredge Cut/Intake Channel, Hofmann Mitigation
Spit, the perimeter of the trapezoidal island located at the juncture of the project
site, the Indian Slough Islands, and the ECCID Peninsula, the banks of the two islands
located north of the Discovery Bay development, and the north and south sides of
the ECCID Peninsula. Bank habitat was characterized by the type of vegetation or
lack of vegetation covering the banks. These habitat types were then categorized as
low, moderate, or high quality based on the extent of cover they provide fish
(Stillwater Sciences 2006).
On July 19, 2007, the NMFS prepared comments on the NOP for the Pantages Bays
EIR. In response to the NMFS comments, in 2010, Stillwater Sciences surveyed the
east and west banks of Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route 4
(3,688 ft.) and identified it as low quality habitat that could be restored to high
quality habitat as part of the project. It replaced as superior mitigation previously
proposed low quality habitat located behind some of the shoring walls in the North
Bay, South Bay, and along the North Cove and Kellogg Creek. See revised Table 8
dated June 2010 by Stillwater Sciences and its Footnotes 6 and 7. This table is part
of the response letter Stillwater Sciences prepared to address NMFS’ comments.
Stillwater Sciences’ response letter is included as an appendix to Monk & Associates’
Biological Resource Analysis report which is included in its entirety as Appendix B of
this EIR.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-6
California Black Rail Surveys
In 2003, Miriam Green Associates played taped calls of California black rails
(Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) at the emergent marsh during the early
mornings of June 9 and June 19, 2003 to elicit a vocal response from individuals that
may be present. No California black rails responded to the taped calls and the
habitat was determined to be unsuitable for the species. Hence, this species is not
discussed further in this report.
Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis Gigas) Habitat Assessment
Mr. Hansen conducted a giant garter snake habitat assessment on the project site in
2003. Mr. Hansen is a federal 10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist authorized by the
USFWS to work with the giant garter snake. During Mr. Hansen’s site assessment,
the project site was traversed on foot, by air, by roadway, and the waterways were
traversed by boat in reference to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
topographic maps. A follow-up site visit was conducted by Mr. Hansen on March 2,
2010. During the 2003 site assessment and the 2010 follow-up site investigation, all
aquatic habitats were investigated for the characteristics that constitute the
preferred habitat of this species. Areas of interest included all wetland and bank
side habitat on the project site, as well as upland within 200 feet of such habitat.
Bank side habitat includes segments of Kellogg Creek on the southern and eastern
property boundaries and Indian Slough on the north. Habitat evaluation criteria are
based on recognized minimum characteristics necessary to support giant garter
snakes, scored cumulatively, and represented categorically using geographic
information systems (GIS). All results were then confirmed with a visual assessment
of habitat. The results are presented below in the species discussion under the
heading “Special-Status Species.”
California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment
Miriam Green Associates completed a habitat assessment for California tiger
salamander (Ambystoma californiense) on the project site in 2004. Surveys were
conducted to evaluate habitat suitability of the project site and surrounding area for
California tiger salamander on April 16, April 28, and November 2, 2004. Previous
evaluations of the project site were conducted on February 13 and October 1, 2003,
the results are presented below in the species discussion under the heading
“Special-Status Species.”
California Red-Legged Frog Habitat Assessment
In 2006, Miriam Green Associates prepared a habitat assessment for the California
red-legged (Rana draytonii) frog and submitted it to the USFWS’ Sacramento Field
Office. On March 2, 2010, Mr. Hansen and Ms. Green conducted a follow-up site
assessment. Miriam Green Associates’ biologists also completed a number of site
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-7
surveys in 2003 and 2004 to assess the presence of special-status reptiles and
amphibians on the project site. Diurnal (day time) field surveys for special-status
reptiles and amphibians were conducted February 13 and October 1, 2003 and on
April 16, 28, and November 2, 2004. In addition to conducting field surveys, Miriam
Green Associates reviewed CNDDB records for California red-legged frog within a
6.2 mile (10-kilometer) radius of the project site. The results are presented below in
the species discussion under the heading “Special-Status Species.”
General Wildlife Surveys on the Project Site
Miriam Green Associates conducted general wildlife surveys on the project site on
February 13, April 17, May 9, June 9, June 19, July 25, September 22, and October 1,
2003. Surveyors include Miriam Green, Waldo Holt, and/or Tina Costella. Follow up
surveys were made in 2004 on March 8, April 8, 16, 28, May 13, and November 2,
2004. The March 8, 2004 site visit also included a boat survey of the surrounding
waterways between Discovery Bay and the project site, including Indian Slough and
Kellogg Creek. The March and early April 2004 surveys provided useful information
on shorebird use of the project site since the seasonal wetlands and marsh-
contained water throughout this period. Site visits later in April 2004 concentrated
on the California tiger salamander. The May 13, 2004 survey focused on nesting
birds. The purpose of the November 2004 survey was to ground truth habitat maps
prepared for the California tiger salamander. All wildlife observed during each site
visit was recorded.
4.3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Project Site Topography and Hydrology
The project site is on the USGS Woodward Island 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, Sections 23 and 26 of Township 1 North, Range 3 East (see Figure 2 in
Appendix B of this draft EIR).
Indian Slough forms the northern boundary of the project site and Kellogg Creek
forms the eastern and southern boundaries. These large waterways are subject to
tidal action; however, it is believed that the emergent marsh onsite does not receive
any tidal action from Indian Slough. If there were historical culverts connected to
Indian Slough they are old and buried and no longer functional. The project
applicant’s wetland biologists (Gibson & Skordal) and fisheries biologists (Stillwater
Sciences) could not locate such culverts onsite during their site reconnaissance.
The project site is relatively flat. Recently imported fill material from an adjacent
development project has been stored and distributed throughout the site, primarily
in the western corner on the site. Currently these piles of dirt are higher in elevation
than the surrounding topography. Much of the site was historically leveled and
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-8
drained to accommodate flood irrigation and other farming practices. Several
shallow ditches bisect the site, providing further evidence of past land use
manipulation. In addition, there are several large topographic low areas, or
depressions, present on the project site. These low areas remain saturated or
inundated for prolonged periods of time.
Project Site Soils
Soils on the project site as mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (USDA
1997) are shown in Figure 4.1-1 in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources. There are
four soil units mapped on the project site including Marcuse clay (Mb), Brentwood
clay loam (wet)(Bc), Pescadero clay loam (Pb), and Sacramento clay, alkali (Sb). The
soils map also indicates that Water (W) was mapped over the area of emergent
marsh on the project site, illustrating the long-term inundation of this portion of the
site.
Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats
A large portion of the project site has been disturbed by road grading, berm
construction, disking, and soil dumping. The entire project site north of Point of
Timber Road except for the emergent marsh area had been graded, and the entire
southern portion of the project site south of Point of Timber Road had been disked.
Most of the plant communities and wildlife habitats that were once present onsite
have been substantially altered, and barren soils or areas supporting ruderal
(weedy) conditions currently exist on the project site. It was not therefore possible
to determine the original ground cover/ vegetation communities and/or site
conditions prior to these activities or the wildlife that would use the site prior to
these disturbances.
Plant communities and habitat types identified within the project site are:
non-native annual grassland
emergent marsh
iodine bush scrub
seasonal wetland
ornamental vegetation/landscaping
creek bank habitat
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-9
Three of the four plant communities— emergent marsh, seasonal wetland, and
iodine bush scrub—would be considered significant by the resource agencies and
native plant organizations (CDFG, USFWS, Corps, CNPS), and would warrant
protection. All plant communities/habitat types/landscape types are discussed
below.
Non-Native Annual Grassland
Non-native annual grassland covers the majority of the project site. This plant
community is composed of fox tail barley (Hordeum murinum leporinum), Italian
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), wild oats (Avena fatua),
rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), Italian thistle
(Carduus pycnocephala), fescue (Vulpia myuros), and filaree (Erodium spp.). In the
late-summer months the yellow flowers of tar plant (Centromadia pungens
pungens); formerly known as Hemizonia pungens pungens) cover the grasslands.
Non-native annual grassland provides habitat for graniverous (seed-eating) birds
such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus),
and lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and insectivorous birds such as western
kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), western meadow lark (Sturnella neglecta), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), western
scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica) and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), all of
which have been observed on the project site. Other animals observed in the
grassland included rabbits and rodents such as black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus)
and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beechyi), and raptors such as American
kestrels (Falco sparverius) and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), which prey on
the smaller rodents, birds, and lagomorphs (hares and rabbits). Fox scat, likely red
fox (Vulpes vulpes), was also observed in the grassland. Another larger canid, the
coyote (Canis latrans), was also observed on the project site.
Emergent Marsh
A large emergent marsh habitat is located in the northern portion of the project
site. This marsh was delineated by Gibson & Skordal as 16.08 acres, and stays
inundated through August of most years, with the majority of the marsh drying
down completely by October. During the October 26, 2005 site visit conducted by
Monk & Associates’ the majority of the marsh only supported saturated soils;
however, the southeastern portion of the marsh was still inundated with several
inches of water.
Dominant plants in this community are tule (Schoenoplectus acutus var.
occidentalis; formerly called Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis), brass buttons (Cotula
cornopifolia), spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya); rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon
monspilensis), yellow water primrose (Ludwigia peploides), floating penny wort
(Hydrocotyle sp.), swamp grass (Crypsis schoenoides), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-10
dactylon). In addition, a small area of freshwater emergent marsh occurs along the
southern edge of the project area where the Hofmann Mitigation Spit meets the
project site and is dominated by tule with some areas of yellow iris and non-native
grasses along the water’s edge.
Emergent marshes provide habitat for a variety of animal species. The aquatic
habitat provides wading birds and waterfowl with foraging habitat. During site
surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004, Miriam Green and Associates identified a large
variety of wading birds and waterfowl in the marsh including great blue heron
(Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), snowy egret (Egretta thula), black-
crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos), American coot (Fulica americana), black-necked stilt (Himantopus
mexicanus), and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps).
Monk & Associates biologists observed tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus), and black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus) in the mud
surrounding the water. Raccoons forage for crayfish and frog larvae in the marsh,
while the muskrats and rabbits will eat the green vegetation that the marsh
provides year round. Reptiles expected at this large emergent marsh include
western aquatic garter snake (Thamnophis couchii), which would feed on amphibian
larvae and invertebrates in the water, and the western pond turtle (Emys
marmorata), a special-status species, which has been observed in the emergent
marsh on site. Finally, the non-native amphibian, bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), has
been observed on numerous occasions both by Miriam Green Associates and Monk
& Associates’ biologists.
Iodine Bush Scrub
Two patches of iodine bush scrub occurs onsite. This plant community is an
uncommon native plant community in Contra Costa County (CNPS East Bay Chapter
1997). Iodine bush scrub is dominated by iodine bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis), a
succulent member of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that tolerates salty
soils by taking up salt into plant tissues. This plant community has been identified in
two areas of the project site: one large patch was located in the southwest corner of
the project site; another patch was located in the northwest portion of the site, just
west of the emergent marsh. Both patches have been disturbed by past land use
activities including disking and grading. Iodine bush scrub grows in monotypic
stands with little other vegetation growing in between the bushes except for non-
native grasses.
The two patches of iodine bush scrub on the project site are not large enough to
create any significant wildlife habitats onsite or to attract those animal species that
are typically found using chaparral and coastal scrub habitats. While the iodine
bushes do provide some shrub cover on the project site, the patches are not
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-11
extensive enough for chaparral/coastal scrub animal species to establish nesting
habitats or territories. The bushes most likely provide temporary cover and a seed
source. Animals expected to visit or use the iodine bush scrub habitats either on a
seasonal basis or full time basis include western fence lizard (Sceloporus
occidentalis), northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea), western rattlesnake
(Crotalus viridis), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), golden crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), and white-crowned
sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), all of which have been observed onsite. Rabbits
such as the black-tailed hare and the Audubon’s cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
may also take refuge in these bushes.
Seasonal Wetland
Seasonal wetland habitats have been identified on the project site. These seasonal
wetlands total 5.63 acres (Gibson & Skordal 2008).. All seasonal wetlands onsite
typically sustain seasonal ponding and saturated soil conditions that persist during
the winter rainy season before drying up in the spring. The shallower wetland areas
are dominated by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum
marinum gussoneanum). The deeper areas support Baltic rush (Juncus balticus),
bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), annual rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon
monspilensis), Bermuda grass, and common frog fruit (Phyla nodiflora) (Gibson &
Skordal 2002).
In 2003, vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), a federal listed threatened
species, was identified in one seasonal wetland onsite (Gibson & Skordal 2002).
Fairy shrimp were not found in any of the other wetland habitats onsite after
conducting one season of wet season sampling and one season of dry season
sampling (EcoAnalysts, Inc. 2003).
Ornamental Vegetation/Landscaping
Ornamental trees grow along Point of Timber Road and near the now-abandoned
houses, barns, and sheds on the project site, including Modesto ash (Fraxinus
velutina), California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii), Siberian elm
(Ulmus pumila), and salt cedar (Tamarix sp.). The highest density of trees occurs in
the northeastern corner of the project site, particularly along the channel banks.
Trees growing along channel banks include California black walnut, Manna gum
(Eucalyptus viminalis), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Siberian elm,
California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), silver maple (Acer saccharinum),
weeping willow (Salix babylonica), pomegranate (Punica granatum), plum (Prunus
sp.), silk oak (Grevillea robusta), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), silver dollar gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos), Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Hollywood juniper
(Juniperus chinensis), Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis), Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis), Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), European olive (Olea
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-12
europaea), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and willow (Salix sp.) (HortScience
2006). The trees onsite provide nesting habitat for a variety of bird species including
passerine birds (perching birds) such as sparrows, mourning doves (Zenaida
macroura), western scrub jays (Aphelocoma californica), and northern mockingbirds
(Mimus polyglottos). A pair of white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus) was observed
perched in the Modesto ash trees surrounding the old home site. While these trees
provide nesting opportunities for the kites, no old nests were observed. These trees
also provide roosting habitat for great egrets (Ardea alba) and great blue herons
(Ardea herodias), both of which have been observed by Monk & Associates onsite.
There are not enough trees grouped together or large enough trees for egrets or
herons to colonially nest onsite.
Bank Habitats
Approximately 2 miles of bank habitat associated with Kellogg Creek and the ECCID
Dredge Cut/Intake Channel that occurs within the project site was evaluated and
characterized by Stillwater Sciences (Stillwater Sciences 2006). Stillwater Sciences
also evaluated an additional 4 miles of bank habitat that occurs outside the project
site boundaries. Finally, in 2010 Stillwater Sciences surveyed Kellogg Creek between
Newport Pointe and State Route 4 (Stillwater Sciences 2010).
Habitat quality is classified as high, moderate or low as discussed below. Aquatic
habitat in the project area is primarily of low quality, consisting of eroding cut bank
with adjacent open water. In lesser quantities, there is shaded riverine aquatic
(SRA) habitat, freshwater emergent marsh, and submerged vegetation associated
with the Indian Slough Islands that provides high quality habitat for fish.
High Quality Habitat
Banks with habitat dominated by vegetation that provides in-water shelter or
closely overhanging shelter for fish were classified as high quality. These high quality
habitat types historically dominated the floodplains and banks of the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta and native fish have subsequently evolved to use them during all
phases of their lifecycle (Moyle 2002). High quality habitat includes bulrush
(Schoenoplectus spp., formerly Scirpus spp.), cattails (Typha sp.), large woody debris
(LWD), and shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) habitat. Overhanging vegetation, such as
trees and shrubs that make up SRA or riparian habitat, provides cover from
predators, shading that can aid in camouflaging fish, and provides suitable
conditions for food organisms that support larger fish species. In addition, riparian
habitat provides stability along channel banks, protecting them from the erosive
force of waves and tidal changes (Gordon et al. 1993). Large woody debris from
fallen trees and shrubs, bulrush, and cattails also provide important in-water hiding
places to escape from predators, as well as spawning substrate, rearing habitat, and
feeding areas (Stillwater Sciences 2006).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-13
Moderate Quality Habitat
Banks with vegetation that provides only overhanging cover for fish, mostly during
high tide, was classified by Stillwater Sciences as moderate quality. The moderate
quality habitat onsite includes non-native Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor),
grasses and forbs, non-native yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), and non-native pampas
grass (Cortaderia jubata).
Low Quality Habitat
Banks with no vegetation and/or those that were eroding provide no shelter or only
small hiding places in between rubble and were therefore categorized as low quality
habitat. Low quality habitat includes concrete rubble/drain pipe, eroding cut banks,
riprap, and tarps/tires/other debris (Stillwater Sciences 2006).
Lack of aquatic vegetation or cover, and high levels of boating activity may limit fish
abundance. Spawning and rearing habitat for these species may be present, but is
likely to be of low quality due to the developed and disturbed nature of the project
area in general. Adjacent habitat associated with Discovery Bay is comprised of
artificial channels used to harbor boats, and is generally considered to be low
quality habitat for fish.
Potential Special-Status Plants on the Project Site
Figure 4.3-1 provides a graphical representation of the CNDDB records of special-
status species recorded within 5 miles of the project site. Only one special-status
plant—Delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum)—is known to have occurred in
the past on the project site, and none are known to occur there now.
The CNDDB has a 1988 record on the project site for Delta button celery (Eryngium
racemosum), a state listed endangered species, and this is the only known record
for Delta button celery in Contra Costa County. According to the CNDDB record, in
1998 approximately 1,500 individual Delta button celery plants were identified
south of Point of Timber Road in an alkali wetland adjacent to Kellogg Creek. These
plants were growing in association with iodine bush, alkali heath, hyssop loosestrife
(Lythrum hyssopifolium), salt grass, alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis), and
Mediterranean barley. Monk & Associates contacted the observer of this
population, Ms. Leslie Zander of Zander Associates, and confirmed that the sighting
was made on the project site. Ms. Zander vouchered a specimen of the plant at the
University and Jepson Herbarium in Berkeley. The site is therefore presumed to be
suitable habitat for this species.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.3-1Figure
CirclePoint
Known CNDDB Records of Special-Status
Species Within 5 Miles of the Project Site
Source: Environmental Vision, 2010.
1MILES.50 2
Legend
Green Sturgeon critical habitat
5-mile radius around the project site
5 miles
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-15
Monk & Associates conducted a search of the project site in September 2006 for
Delta button celery and was unable to find it. However, at the time of Monk &
Associates’ 2005 and 2006 surveys the project site had been disked, making plant
identification difficult.
Potential Special-Status Animals on the Project Site
Figure 4.3-1 provides a graphical representation of the CNDDB records of special-
status species recorded within 5 miles of the project site. According to the CNDDB
and the USFWS’ list, a total of 33 special-status animal species are known to occur in
the region of the project site. Of these 33 species, 2 have been identified on the
project site: vernal pool fairy shrimp and western pond turtle.
All 33 species are discussed in Table 4 of the Biological Resources Analysis report.
The vernal pool fairy shrimp and western pond turtle are discussed below along
with six threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish species and ten other special-
status animal species that have potential to occur onsite. All other special-status
fish and animal species considered for this project site were dismissed due to an
absence of habitat.
Invertebrates
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
The vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is a federally-listed threatened
species. It has no state status. This fairy shrimp is found in vernal pool habitats of
the Central Valley, central coast mountains, and south coast mountains (Eng et al.
1990). It is typically found in pools and swales with clear to tea-colored water that
have a grassy substrate. In 2003 USFWS-approved protocol surveys for vernal pool
crustaceans were conducted on the project site. The vernal pool fairy shrimp was
identified in an isolated wetland on the project site, labeled SW2 (Appendix A of the
Biological Resources Analysis report; Appendix B of this EIR). Due to the presence of
this listed fairy shrimp on the project site, mitigation will be required. See
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of the
mitigation required to mitigate project impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp.
Reptiles
Western Pond Turtle
The western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) is a state “species of special concern.”
This designation does not provide direct legal protection pursuant to CESA.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-16
The western pond turtle is a habitat generalist, inhabiting a wide range of fresh and
brackish, permanent and intermittent water bodies from sea level to about 4,500
feet above sea level (USFWS 1992). Typically, this species is found in ponds, marshes,
ditches, streams, and rivers that have rocky or muddy bottoms.
The pond turtle also requires upland areas for burrowing habitat where it digs nests
and buries its eggs. These nests can extend from 52 feet to 1,219 feet from
watercourses (Jennings and Hayes 1992); however most pond turtles nest in
uplands within 250 meters of water (Bury, unpublished). Upland nest sites are
usually found in areas with sparse vegetation. Sunny, barren, and undisturbed (not
disked) land provides optimal habitat, while shady riparian habitat and planted
agricultural fields do not provide suitable habitat (op. cit.). Eggs are typically laid
from March to August (Zeiner et. al. 1988), with most eggs being laid in May and
June. Hatchlings will stay in the nest until the following April (Bury, unpublished).
Predators of juvenile pond turtles include the non-native bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana) and Centrarchid fish (sunfish). This turtle is most visible between April
and July when it can be observed basking in the sun. In areas where the water is
very warm during these months, however, it will bask in the warm water and will be
more difficult to observe. It eats plants, insects, worms, fish and carrion (Stebbins
2003).
Basking western pond turtles have been identified on the project site on multiple
occasions in the emergent marsh habitat and along Kellogg Creek. In addition to the
project site providing basking and aquatic habitat for turtles, the surrounding
upland habitat may provide suitable nesting habitat. Based on the known presence
of the western pond turtle on the project site, potential impacts to this species are
regarded as potentially significant. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce
potentially significant impacts to this species and its habitat to levels regarded as
less than significant. See Impact BIO-6 and Mitigation Measure BIO-6 under
Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts to the western pond
turtle, and the mitigation measure required to reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Giant Garter Snake
The giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) was federally listed as threatened in its
entire range on October 20, 1993. Critical habitat has not been designated for this
species. It is also a state listed threatened species.
The giant garter snake is one of the largest garter snakes, reaching a total length of
at least 63 inches. Dorsal background coloration varies from brownish to olive with a
checkered pattern of black spots, separated by a yellow dorsal stripe and two light
colored lateral stripes. Giant garter snakes feed primarily on small fishes, tadpoles,
and frogs. Habitat requirements consist of the following:
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-17
adequate water during the snake's active season (early-spring through mid-fall)
to provide food and cover;
emergent, herbaceous wetland vegetation, such as cattails and bulrushes, for
escape cover and foraging habitat during the active season; grassy banks and
openings in waterside vegetation for basking; and
higher elevation uplands for cover and refuge from flood waters during the
snake's dormant season in the winter.
In 2003, Mr. Hansen conducted a Habitat Assessment for the giant garter snake on
the project site. Mr. Hansen is a federal 10(a)(1)(A) permittee authorized by the
USFWS to survey for and handle the giant garter snake. Mr. Hansen visually
surveyed all aquatic habitats on the project site for the characteristics that
constitute the preferred habitat of this species. His 2003 habitat assessment
concluded that the site contains potential habitat for the giant garter snake,
especially along the west bank of Kellogg Creek and adjacent uplands. The
assessment also notes that the high level of human disturbance, persistent cattle
grazing, historical agricultural practices, and absence of either historical or recent
sightings of this species within a 9-mile radius make the occurrence of giant garter
snakes here unlikely. An update to this assessment conducted in 2010 reached the
same conclusion, quantifying 16.04 acres of perennial emergent marsh and the
vegetated edges of Kellogg Creek and ECCID Dredge Cut as suitable habitat.
On February 15, 2006, the USFWS stated that the site is assumed to be habitat for
both the red-legged frog and giant garter snake and that formal protocol level
surveys would not be required. Based on the USFWS direction, this EIR assumes that
the site contains suitable habitat for the giant garter snake. Hence, impacts to this
species must be regarded as potentially significant. Mitigation could be
implemented to reduce such impacts to levels regarded as less than significant
pursuant to CEQA. See Impact BIO-5 and Mitigation Measure BIO-5 under
Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts to the giant garter
snake, and the mitigation measures required to reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Fish
Anadromous fish species such as Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (federally listed
at threatened), Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) (federally and state listed as threatened), Central Valley fall/late fall
run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (California species of special
concern), and Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) (federally and state listed endangered species) migrate through the
Delta and the Bay as part of their life cycle.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-18
Spawning for these species does not occur in the project vicinity, therefore impacts
to eggs or fry are not expected (Stillwater Sciences 2007). Adult migration through
the Delta is generally restricted to larger rivers; therefore, adults are not expected
to occur in the project area or vicinity where they may be affected; however, a small
number of juveniles may occur in the project area, and construction-related
turbidity and noise could temporarily affect foraging and predator avoidance
behaviors for a small number of juveniles. Thus, mitigation will be required to
reduce potentially significant impacts to these species to levels regarded as less
than significant. See Impact BIO-7 and Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under Subsection
4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
For anadromous fish species such as Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate), and
River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi), it is also unlikely that adult migration or spawning
of this species would occur within the project area, since the area is not along a
primary migration corridor. However, juveniles may be present during emigration
because they rear in the soft, muddy or sandy bottoms of the Delta channels, and
larvae may be widely dispersed by tidal action and other hydrodynamic forces in the
Delta. Construction-related turbidity may impact foraging and predator avoidance
behaviors for a small number of lamprey juveniles. Such impacts would be regarded
as potentially significant. Accordingly, mitigation will be required to reduce impacts
to levels regarded as less than significant. See Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under
Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of the mitigation measures.
For Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), it is also unlikely that adult migration or
spawning of this species would occur within the project area, since the area is not
along a primary migration corridor. However, larvae may be present during
emigration because they may be widely dispersed by tidal action and other
hydrodynamic forces in the Delta. Short-term, construction-related impacts may
occur from in-water work that increases turbidity and suspends pollutants in the
water column which could smother longfin smelt eggs and disrupt larval
development and dispersal (Stillwater Sciences 2007). Such impacts would be
regarded as potentially significant. Mitigation will be required to reduce such
impacts to levels regarded as less than significant pursuant to CEQA. See Impact
BIO-7 and Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed
description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
Delta Smelt
Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) is listed as threatened under both the state
and federal Endangered Species Acts. Delta smelt are endemic to the Sacramento-
San Joaquin estuary and are found seasonally in Suisun Bay and Suisun Marsh. The
project site is within the region designated as critical habitat for this species. Critical
habitat for Delta smelt consists of all water and all submerged lands below ordinary
high water and the entire water column bounded by and contained in Suisun Bay
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-19
(including the contiguous Grizzly and Honker Bays); the length of Goodyear, Suisun,
Cutoff, First Mallard (Spring Branch), and Montezuma Sloughs; and the existing
contiguous waters in the Delta (59 FR 65256). Critical habitat for delta smelt is
designated in: Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo.
The project area contains suitable spawning and rearing habitat for Delta smelt.
Short-term, construction-related impacts may occur from in-water work that
increases turbidity and suspends pollutants in the water column which could
smother eggs and disrupt larval development and dispersal. Turbidity may also
disrupt juvenile and adult feeding, predator avoidance behavior, and migration
patterns.
Green Sturgeon
The southern population of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) was listed as
threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act on April 7, 2006 and is
designated as a California “species of special concern.”
Critical Habitat for this species was designated and became effective on November
9, 2009. The project site lies within designated Critical Habitat (73 FR No. 174,
52110). The Sacramento River supports the southernmost spawning population of
green sturgeon (Moyle 2002). The green sturgeon is anadromous, but it is the most
marine-oriented of the sturgeon species and has been found in near shore marine
waters from Mexico to the Bering Sea (70 FR 17386).
Spawning does not occur in the project vicinity, therefore impacts to eggs or fry are
not expected (Stillwater Sciences 2007). Adult migration through the Delta is
generally restricted to larger rivers; therefore, adults are not expected to occur in
the project area or vicinity where they may be affected; however, a small number of
green sturgeon juveniles may occur in the project area. Construction-related
turbidity may impact foraging and predator avoidance behaviors for a small number
of green sturgeon juveniles, and such impacts would be regarded as potentially
significant pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation will be required to reduce these impacts to
levels regarded as less than significant pursuant to CEQA. See Impact BIO-7 and
Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of
project impacts and mitigation measures.
Sacramento Splittail
Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) is designated as a California
“species of special concern.” This title affords no legally mandated protection for
this species; however, pursuant to CEQA (14 CCR §15380), any project-related
impacts to this species would be regarded as significant. This native freshwater fish
is found as far south as the lower reaches of all tributaries of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta (Wang 1986). Spawning occurs from late January to July in tidal
freshwater and flooded rivers where submerged aquatic vegetation is present. Eggs
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-20
are adhesive and attach to aquatic vegetation. Larvae are able to tolerate brackish
water and remain near shore before moving to deeper water as they grow.
Potentially suitable shallow water habitat for spawning splittail and juveniles occurs
in the project area in the western portion of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel.
However, the habitat is of low quality, with little submerged aquatic vegetation. It is
unlikely that spawning would occur in the project area (Stillwater Sciences 2007)..
Construction-related turbidity may impact foraging and predator avoidance
behaviors for a small number of Sacramento splittail juveniles. Such impacts would
be regarded as potentially significant. Accordingly, mitigation will be required to
reduce impacts to levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-7 and
Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of
project impacts and mitigation measures.
Amphibians
California Tiger Salamander
The project site falls into the range of the Central California Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense).
The Central California DPS of the CTS was federally listed as threatened on August 4,
2004. The USFWS designated critical habitat for the Central California DPS in the
summer of 2004. The project site is located outside of the closest mapped critical
habitat unit for the Central California DPS. Critical Habitat Units 14-17 (Contra Costa
County) were excluded because they are part of the East Contra Costa Habitat
Conservation Plan. On March 4, 2010, the CTS was also state listed as a threatened
species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Finally, under Title 14,
CCR 41 (1996), CTS is also a protected amphibian that may only be “taken or
possessed” under a special permit issued by the CDFG pursuant to sections 650 and
670.7 of these regulations, or Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code.
CTS occur in grasslands and open oak woodlands that provide suitable aestivation
(over summering) and/or breeding habitats. They typically only emerge from their
subterranean refugia (typically, in Contra Costa County, California ground squirrel
burrows) for a few nights each year during the rainy season to migrate to breeding
ponds. Stock ponds, seasonal wetlands, and deep vernal pools typically provide
most of the breeding habitat used by CTS. Occasionally CTS are found breeding in
slow moving streams or ditches. Aquatic habitats that support predators of CTS such
as fish, bullfrogs, red swamp crayfish, or signal crayfish, almost never constitute
suitable breeding habitat. In most of the northern range of the CTS, seasonal
wetlands that are used for breeding typically must hold water into the month of
May to allow enough time for larvae to fully metamorphose.
Miriam Green Associates evaluated the project site for CTS in April and November
2004. Miriam Green Associates concluded that the project site does not provide
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-21
habitat for this listed species based on an absence of CTS records within 3.1 miles of
the project site, the presence of CTS predators in the emergent marsh onsite, the
site’s isolation from known CTS populations and the high level of local urbanization
and landscape disturbance. Thus, development of the project site should not impact
CTS.
California Red-Legged Frog
The California red-legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii) was federally listed as
threatened on May 23, 1996 and as such is protected pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act. This frog is also a California “species of special concern.”
On March 16, 2010, the USFWS issued the final rule on CRLF critical habitat (USFWS
2010). The project site is located outside designated critical habitat. The CRLF is
typically found in slow-flowing portions of perennial streams, and in ephemeral
streams, and hillside seeps that maintain pool environments or saturated soils
throughout the summer months. Riparian vegetation such as willows (Salix sp.) and
emergent vegetation such as cattails are preferred red-legged frog habitats, though
not necessary for this species to be present, as this frog is also found in open water
ponds. Adult California red-legged frogs are primarily nocturnal (USFWS 2010).
Populations of California red-legged frog will be reduced in size or eliminated from
ponds supporting non-native species such as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana),
Centrarchid fish species (such as sunfish, blue gill, or large mouth bass), and signal
and red swamp crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii,
respectively), all known California red-legged frog predators. However, M&A
biologists have observed California red-legged frogs of all age classes in ponds
supporting bass and in streams supporting sunfish.
According to the CNDDB, the closest known record for CRLF to the project site is
located 4.6 miles to the southwest (Occurrence Number 541).
The applicant’s biological consultant, Eric Hansen, in association with Miriam Green
Associates, completed an assessment of the project site as to its suitability for the
CRLF. The assessment, entitled Evaluation of Potential California Red-Legged Frog
(Rana aurora draytonii) Habitat on the Pantages Bays Property, Contra Costa
County, California (April 1, 2010), concluded that the project site contains habitats
suitable for California red-legged frogs in the form of a 14.24-acre perennial
emergent marsh. However, the high level of human disturbance, persistent cattle
grazing, historical agricultural practices, presence of bullfrogs, lack of larvae and
adults during both dip-netting and visual amphibian survey in 2003, isolation by
surrounding residential development, broad tidal rivers and channels, intensive row-
crop agriculture, and lack of either historical or recent sightings of this species
within a 5-kilometer radius combine to make the occurrence of red-legged frogs
here unlikely, either now or in the future due to the site’s distinct isolation from
suitable or occupied habitats.” The USFWS, in a communication dated February 15,
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-22
2006, stated that the site is considered suitable habitat for red-legged frog and giant
garter snake and that protocol-level surveys would not be authorized. Further, this
agency would be requiring compensation for impacts to these species. The USFWS
also stated that compensation could probably be handled by contributing to the
ECCHCP.
Thus, based on this email communication from USFWS, it has been determined that
impacts to the CRLF from future site development are potentially significant.
Mitigation for the project’s potential impact to CRLF will be required to reduce such
impacts to a level regarded as less than significant pursuant to CEQA. See Impact
BIO-4 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed
description of project impacts and mitigation measures to the CRFL.
Birds
Swainson’s Hawk
The Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsonii) is a state listed threatened species
pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act, Title 14, California Code of
Regulations. While it has no special federal status, it is protected from direct take
under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). Swainson’s
hawks, their nests, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and
Game Code (§3503, §3503.5, §3513, and §3800). Swainson’s hawks are known to
nest within one-tenth (0.1-mile) of a mile (northeast) of the project site along Indian
Slough (CNDDB Occurrence Number 1211). While Swainson’s hawks have not been
observed nesting on the project site by Miriam Green Associates or Monk &
Associates, the eucalyptus trees and pine trees along the project site’s northern
boundary provide suitable nesting habitat for this raptor. Monk & Associates
observed one Swainson’s hawk exhibiting defensive behavior at our presence during
our September 20, 2006 survey. This hawk flew out of an ash tree onsite towards
Monk & Associates, circled overhead screaming for a minute before flying off to the
east (towards Kellogg Creek). This behavior indicates that this hawk’s nesting
territory likely encompasses the project site.
CDFG has prepared a Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s
Hawks in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994) (hereinafter the Mitigation
Guidelines) that prescribe avoidance and mitigation guidelines for impacts to
Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitats. This document emphatically
presents a case that impacts within 10 miles of any active nesting territory that are
not mitigated, would be contrary to protections afforded Swainson’s hawks through
CEQA (14 CCR §15380). The Mitigation Guidelines further state that acceptable
mitigation to offset impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat can be met by Fee
Title acquisition of Swainson’s hawk habitat, or by acquisition of conservation
easements over lands that can be managed for this hawk species (hereinafter
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-23
Habitat Management Lands). Any land acquired through Fee Title would have to be
donated to a suitable conservation organization for management. In addition to
providing Habitat Management Lands, applicants would be assessed a management
fee for the long-term management of the Habitat Management Lands by a suitable
conservation organization.
Any disturbance within 0.5-mile of a Swainson’s hawk nest that is not characteristic
of the normal activities around the nest site, would likely be regarded by CDFG as a
violation of CESA (unless the activities were well tolerated by the Swainson’s hawks
as determined by a qualified raptor biologist). Typically, CDFG requires that any
impact to a Swainson’s hawk nest be permitted through a Fish and Game Section
2081 management authorization. The management authorization would include
provisions to off-set the loss of any nesting tree. If an active nest occurs on the
project site, “to avoid potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of
listed species), project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites
should be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1-
September 15 annually)” (CDFG 1994). Since there are no known Swainson’s hawk
nests on the Project site, a 2081 management agreement with CDFG would not be
required for the project. However, because there are nest sites within 5 miles of the
project site, CDFG would regard the proposed project as having impacts to
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. CDFG requires that applicants/project
proponents mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat within 10 miles of
active nest sites. See Impact BIO-9 and Mitigation Measure BIO-9 under Subsection
4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures for
Swainson’s hawk.
Pursuant to CEQA, any impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting and/or foraging habitat
would normally be considered a significant impact. However, impacts to foraging
habitat may be mitigatable to a level considered less than significant. Also, since the
eucalyptus and pine trees onsite may provide future nesting habitat for the
Swainson’s hawk, nesting season surveys should be conducted on the project site
prior to any earth-moving or tree removal activity.
White-Tailed Kite
The white-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus) is fully protected under the California Fish
and Game Code. Fully protected birds may not be “taken” or possessed (i.e., kept in
captivity) at any time (§3511). It is also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). The white-tailed kite is typically found foraging in
grassland, marsh, or cultivated fields where there are dense-topped trees or shrubs
for nesting and perching. They nest in a wide variety of trees of moderate height
and sometimes in tall bushes, such as coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis). Native trees
used are live and deciduous oaks (Quercus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), cottonwoods
(Populus spp.), sycamores (Platanus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), toyon (Heteromeles
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-24
arbutifolia), and Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa). Although the
surrounding terrain may be semiarid, kites often reside near water sources, where
prey is more abundant. The particular characteristics of the nesting site do not
appear to be as important as its proximity to a suitable food source. Kites primarily
hunt small mammals, with California meadow voles (Microtus californicus)
accounting from between 50 to100 percent of their diet.
Monk & Associates observed a pair of white-tailed kites perched in an ash tree on
the project site in September 2006. Monk & Associates also observed white-tailed
kites foraging over the project site in September 2005. Miriam Green Associates also
observed white-tailed kites foraging over the project site during the course of their
2003 surveys. Some of the landscape trees on the project site provide suitable
nesting habitat for white-tailed kites. As such, the proposed project could result in
potentially significant impacts to nesting white-tailed kites. Mitigation could be
implemented to reduce such impacts to levels regarded as less than significant. See
Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed
description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
Northern Harrier
The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) is a state species of special concern. This
raptor is also protected under California Fish and Game Code §3503.5 that protects
nesting raptors and their eggs/young. The northern harrier is also protected from
direct take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). Northern harriers build
grass-lined nests on the ground within dense, low-lying vegetation in a variety of
habitats, though they are typically found nesting in grassland or marsh habitats. They
usually nest on level to near level ground. This species is particularly vulnerable to
ground predators such as coyotes (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and various
snake species. Ground nesting birds in general are also subject to disturbance by
agricultural practices.
Northern harriers likely forage over the project site and may nest in or around the
open grasslands that provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. Hence,
development of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts
to nesting northern harriers. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce such
impacts to levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation
Measure BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts
and mitigation measures.
Western Burrowing Owl
The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) is a California “species of
special concern.” Its nest, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and
Game Code (§3503, §3503.5, and §3800). The burrowing owl is also protected from
direct take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-25
Burrowing owl habitat is usually found in annual and perennial grasslands,
characterized by low-growing vegetation. Often, the burrowing owl utilizes rodent
burrows, typically ground squirrel burrows, for nesting and cover. They may also on
occasion dig their own burrows, or use man-made objects such as concrete culverts or
rip-rap piles for cover. They exhibit high site fidelity, reusing burrows year after year.
Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat can be verified at a site by observation
of these owls during the spring and summer months or, alternatively, its molted
feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement (white wash) at
or near a burrow. Burrowing owls typically are not observed in grasslands with tall
vegetation or wooded areas because the vegetation obscures their ability to detect
avian and terrestrial predators. Since burrowing owls spend the majority of their time
sitting at the entrances of their burrows, grazed grasslands seem to be their preferred
habitat because it allows them to view the world at 360 degrees without obstructions.
The burrowing owl has been recorded within one mile of the project site at the
Discovery Bay West (Villages III, IV, and V) project site. Burrowing owls were not
observed on the project site during Miriam Green Associates’ site surveys or during
Monk & Associates’ three project site surveys; however, no protocol-level surveys
have been conducted to confirm presence/absence. The site does contain enough
burrows such that the owl could be found on the project site, and accordingly, CDFG
would regard the project site as suitable habitat for this owl species. Until formal
surveys are conducted that demonstrate the absence of this owl on the Project site,
impacts must be regarded as potentially significant. Mitigation could be
implemented to reduce such impacts to levels regarded as less than significant. See
Impact BIO-10 and Mitigation Measure BIO-10 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a
detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
Red Shouldered Hawk
Red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) and under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503,
3503.5, 3800, and 3513 which protect nesting raptors and their eggs/young. This
medium-sized raptor prefers the largest trees in a particular area for nest
construction. Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) trees have become favorite
nesting trees for this species in California. A stick nest is constructed and usually two
to four eggs are laid in the spring. Incubation lasts about 27 days. Usually two or three
nests are built over a several year period by a nesting pair and then are reused year
after year. Prey consists of reptiles and small rodents.
Monk & Associates observed red shouldered hawks foraging over the project site.
The project site provides suitable habitat for red shouldered hawks to nest. Hence,
until nesting surveys are conducted that confirms or negates this species’ presence,
impacts to the red shouldered hawk from the proposed project are considered
potentially significant. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce such impacts to
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-26
levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure
BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and
mitigation measures.
Red-Tailed Hawk
The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (50 CFR 10.13) and under California Fish and Game Code §3503.5, 3800, and
3513 which protect nesting raptors and their eggs/young. This raptor species has an
extremely wide tolerance for habitat variation, which can be attributed to its very
broad spectrum of prey.
Monk & Associates and Miriam Green Associates have observed red-tailed hawks
nesting in a variety of tree species including eucalyptus, coast live oak, and valley
oak trees.
The project site’s eucalyptus trees provide suitable nesting habitat for red-tailed
hawks, and the grasslands provide suitable foraging habitat. Preconstruction surveys
should be conducted prior to any proposed earth-moving activity on the project site
to ensure that direct take of this species would not occur. Until such surveys are
conducted proving absence of nesting red-tailed hawks, impacts are regarded as
potentially significant. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce such impact to
levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure
BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and
mitigation measures.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is a California “species of special concern.”
It is also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and
Game Code (§3503 and 3800) that protects birds, their nests, eggs, and young. This
small, predaceous bird of open and often arid habitats prefers areas with scattered
shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, and other acceptable perching locations. This
shrike preys mostly upon large insects, but also takes small birds, mammals,
amphibians, reptiles, fish, carrion, and various invertebrates.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-27
Loggerhead shrikes have been observed hunting over the project site on several
occasions by both Miriam Green Associates and Monk & Associates. The open
grassland community on the project site provides suitable hunting ground for
loggerhead shrikes, and the landscape trees provide suitable nesting habitat. A survey
should be conducted during the nesting season (between April and July) to determine
the shrike’s presence or absence on the project site. Until such a survey is conducted
demonstrating the absence of nesting shrikes, impacts are regarded as potentially
significant. Mitigation would reduce such impacts to levels regarded as less than
significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4
for a detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
Tricolored Blackbird
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a state “species of special concern.” A
gregarious species, the tricolored blackbird is typically found near freshwater,
particularly near marsh habitat. Loss of wetland habitats is regarded as the principal
factor responsible for this species population decline (Beedy 1992).. Nesting colonies
are typically found in stands of cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.), although
they are also known to utilize blackberry patches (Rubus sp.) and thistle clumps
(Cirsium spp. and Cynara spp.) adjacent to water. Flooded lands, margins of ponds, and
grassy fields in summer and winter provide typical foraging habitat for this species.
While no tricolored blackbirds were observed on the project site during Miriam Green
Associates’ extensive surveys, the emergent marsh provides suitable habitat for this
special-status bird species. Hence, prior to grading the site or conducting any
disturbance within 250 feet of this marsh, focused surveys for nesting tricolored
blackbirds should be conducted. Until such surveys are conducted during the nesting
season that demonstrate an absence of nesting, impacts to this species are regarded as
potentially significant. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce such impacts to
levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure
BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and
mitigation measures.
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors are linear and/or regional habitats that provide connectivity to
other natural vegetation communities within a landscape fractured by urbanization
and other development. Wildlife corridors have several functions: 1) they provide
avenues along which wide-ranging animals can travel, migrate, and breed, allowing
genetic interchange to occur; 2) populations can move in response to environmental
changes and natural disasters; and 3) individuals can recolonize habitats from which
populations have been locally extirpated. All three of these functions can be met if
both regional and local wildlife corridors are accessible to wildlife. Regional wildlife
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-28
corridors provide foraging, breeding, and retreat areas for migrating, dispersing,
immigrating, and emigrating wildlife populations. Local wildlife corridors also
provide access routes to food, cover, and water resources within restricted habitats.
A wildlife corridor would connect two regionally important or significant areas. No
such corridors exist on the project site. The project site is isolated from regional
wildlife corridor functions, other than as a migratory bird resting/feeding temporary
use site. It does not provide any known migratory species habitat to special-status
species. Regarding the use of the site as a corridor for mammals, because there is a
creek and/or irrigation channel on two sides of the project site, housing and
agricultural lands on remaining sides of the project site, no significant or major
wildlife corridors are known to occur on the project site. No mammalian corridors
were identified during surveys of the project site.
Finally, there are no known wildlife nursery sites on the project site or other
habitats that provide unique or special use opportunities for wildlife. Similarly, there
are no compelling reasons for any group of animals to translocate to the site either
seasonally or indiscriminately. While the project site does provide breeding/nesting
habitats for common birds, and otherwise protected species such as raptors, it does
not provide unique features that are critical to the survival of such species. Impacts
to such species are also discussed elsewhere in this impacts analysis. There are no
known significant local or regional wildlife corridors and/or wildlife nursery sites of
consequence on the project site. Accordingly, there would be no impacts to these
resources.
4.3.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Endangered Species Act
The primary focus of the FESA of 1973 is that all federal agencies must seek to
conserve threatened and endangered species. FESA contains four main elements,
they are as follows:
Section 4: Species listing, Critical Habitat Designation, and Recovery Planning:
outlines the procedure for listing endangered plants and wildlife.
Section 7: Federal Consultation Requirement: imposes limits on the actions of
federal agencies that might impact listed species.
Section 9: Prohibition on Take: prohibits the "taking" of a listed species by anyone,
including private individuals, and State and local agencies.
Section 10: Exceptions to the Take Prohibition: non-federal agencies can obtain an
incidental take permit through approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-29
In the case of salt water fish and some marine organisms, the requirements of FESA
are enforced by NOAA Fisheries Service (formerly known as National Marine
Fisheries Service or NMFS). The USFWS has jurisdiction and permitting authority
over terrestrial wildlife, fresh water fish, and some marine species.
Project Consistency Analysis
Section 7 consultation with NOAA Fisheries Service will be initiated by the Corps for
the project’s potential impacts to habitat that may support green sturgeon,
steelhead, Central Valley spring run Chinook salmon, and Sacramento River winter
run Chinook salmon. It would also likely include a discussion on the project’s
potential impacts to steelhead critical habitat, green sturgeon critical habitat, and
essential fish habitat for Central Valley fall and late/fall Chinook salmon.
Section 7 consultation with USFWS will likely be initiated by the Corps for potential
impacts to Delta smelt and Delta smelt critical habitat prior to authorizing impacts
to waters of the United States. The Section 7 consultation would also include a
biological opinion on impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp.
While the California red-legged frog and the giant garter snake have not been
observed on the project site, the USFWS believes they reside onsite and this agency
is requiring mitigation for impacts to these species and their habitats (February 15,
2006 email from R. Olah, Chief of Coast/Bay/Delta Branch, Sacramento Field Office
of USFWS, to M. Green, Miriam Green Associates). Mitigation requirements for both
the giant garter snake and the California red-legged frog varies but typically is at a
3:1 ratio (habitat preservation acreage to impacted acreage). The mitigation ratio
for this project would be set by USFWS at the time Section 7 consultation is initiated
by the Corps for authorization to impact waters of the United States onsite. It is also
possible that impacts to federal listed species could be satisfied by making a
financial contribution to the East Contra Costa Conservancy for species covered by
the HCP/NCCP (see the Corps Permitting Section and the Impacts and Mitigations
Section below for further details).
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as
amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) makes it unlawful to
“take” (kill, harm, harass, shoot, etc.) any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 10.13, including their nests, eggs, or young.
Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, wading birds,
seabirds, and passerine birds (such as warblers, flycatchers, swallows, etc.).
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-30
Project Consistency Analysis
White-tailed kite, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, western burrowing owl, red
shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, tricolored blackbird, and loggerhead shrike could
nest on the project site in addition to other common, passerine bird species. These
raptors (birds of prey) and special-status passerine birds would be protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Also, the common songbirds and wading birds that could
occur on the site would be protected pursuant to this Act. To comply with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all active nest sites would have to be avoided while such
birds were nesting and protection buffers would have to be established and typically
fenced with orange construction fencing. Upon completion of all nesting activities,
the project could commence as otherwise planned. More specifics on the size of
buffers are provided in the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.3.4
California Endangered Species Act
Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act
In 1984, the state legislated the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and
Game Code §2050). The basic policy of CESA is to conserve and enhance
endangered species and their habitats. State agencies will not approve private or
public projects under their jurisdiction that would jeopardize threatened or
endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available.
CESA requires that all state lead agencies (as defined under CEQA) conduct an
endangered species consultation with CDFG if their actions could affect a state listed
species. The state lead agency and/or project applicants must provide information
to CDFG on the project and its likely impacts. CDFG must then prepare written
findings on whether the proposed action would jeopardize a listed species would
result in the direct take of a listed species. Because CESA does not have a provision
for "harm" (see discussion of FESA, above), CDFG considerations pursuant to CESA
are limited to those actions that would result in the direct take of a listed species.
State and federal incidental take permits are issued on a discretionary basis, and are
typically only authorized if applicants are able to demonstrate that impacts to the
listed species in question are unavoidable, and can be mitigated to an extent that
the reviewing agency can conclude that the proposed impacts would not jeopardize
the continued existence of the listed species under review. Typically, if there would
be impacts to a listed species, mitigation that includes habitat avoidance,
preservation, and creation of endangered species habitat is necessary to
demonstrate that projects would not threaten the continued existence of a species.
In addition, management endowment fees are usually collected as part of the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-31
agreement for the incidental take permit(s). The endowment is used to manage any
lands set-aside to protect listed species, and for biological mitigation monitoring of
these lands over (typically) a five-year period.
Project Consistency Analysis
One state listed species was positively identified on the project site in the last 12
years: Delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum). The state listed species, which
have the potential to occur on the project site, include the Central Valley spring run
Chinook salmon, Sacramento River winter run Chinook salmon, and Delta smelt.
Two other state listed species have potential to occur on the project site:
Swainson’s hawk and the giant garter snake. Both animals are listed as threatened
under CESA.
The Swainson’s hawk is known to nest within 0.1-mile of the project site and,
according to CDFG’s mitigation guidelines, mitigation for loss of foraging habitat on
the project site would be required.
In addition to being a state listed species, the giant garter snake is also a federal
listed species; hence, protection of this reptile also falls under the authority of
USFWS. In an email dated February 15, 2006, the USFWS stated that the project site
provides suitable habitat for the giant garter snake and that mitigation to offset the
project’s impacts to this species would be required. Implementation of measures
required pursuant to CESA is incorporated into the mitigation measures listed in
Section 4.3.4
California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, 3503.5,
3511, and 3511
California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the “take,
possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.” Disturbance that causes
nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of
eggs or young) is considered a “take.” Such a take would also violate federal law
protecting migratory birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act).
All raptors (that is, hawks, eagles, owls) their nests, eggs, and young are protected
under California Fish and Game Code (§3503.5). Additionally, “fully protected” birds,
such as the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos),
are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). “Fully protected” birds
may not be taken or possessed (that is, kept in captivity) at any time.
Project Consistency Analysis
Raptors that could be impacted by the project include Swainson’s hawk, western
burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, red-tailed hawk, red shouldered hawk, and
northern harrier. Preconstruction surveys must be conducted for these species to
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-32
ensure that there is no direct take of these birds including their eggs, or young. Any
active nests that were found during preconstruction surveys must be avoided by the
project. Suitable non-disturbance buffers must be established around nest sites until
the nesting cycle is complete. More specifics on the size of buffers are provided in
the mitigation measures by species. Implementation of measures required pursuant
to California Fish and Game Code is incorporated into the mitigation measures listed
in Section 4.3.4
Protected Amphibians
Under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1,
Chapter 5, §41. Protected Amphibians), protected amphibians, such as the California
tiger salamander may only be taken under special permit from CDFG issued pursuant
to Sections 650 and 670.7 of these regulations.
Project Consistency Analysis
The California red-legged frog is a “protected amphibian” listed under Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations. Hence, the California red-legged frog is protected
pursuant to these regulations.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 published in January 2005 has
several goals and policies that pertain to the protection of biological resources.
According to the General Plan, the most significant ecological resource areas in
Contra Costa County are defined by three separate categories: (1) areas containing
rare, threatened, and endangered species; (2) unique natural areas; and (3)
wetlands and marshes. The following goals and policies were adopted to protect
these resources:
Vegetation and Wildlife Goals
8-D To protect ecologically significant lands, wetlands, plant, and wildlife
habitats.
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, the California
Endangered Species Act, the California Native Plant Protection Act, and the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-33
Vegetation and Wildlife Policies
8-6 Significant trees, natural vegetation, and wildlife populations generally shall
be preserved.
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.
8-8 Significant ecological resource areas in the County shall be identified and
designated for compatible low-intensity land uses. Setback zones shall be
established around the resource areas to assist in their protection.
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.
8-10 Any development located or proposed within significant ecological resource
areas shall ensure that the resource is protected.
8-11 The County shall utilize performance criteria and standards which seek to
regulate uses in and adjacent to significant ecological resource areas.
8-12 Natural woodlands shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible in
the course of land development.
8-13 The critical ecological and scenic characteristics of rangelands, woodlands,
and wildlands shall be recognized and protected.
8-14 Development on hillsides shall be limited to maintain valuable natural
vegetation, especially forests and open grasslands, and to control erosion.
Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the
County shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or
greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and
other appropriate actions.
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.
8-16 Native and/or sport fisheries shall be preserved and re-established in the
streams within the County wherever possible.
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.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-34
8-18 The filling and dredging of lagoons, estuaries, and bays which eliminate
marshes and mud flats shall be allowed only for water-oriented projects
which will provide substantial public benefits and for which there are not
reasonable alternatives, consistent with State and Federal laws.
8-19 The County shall actively oppose any and all efforts to construct a peripheral
canal or any other water diversion system that reduces Delta water flows
unless and until it can be conclusively demonstrated that such a system
would, in fact, protect, preserve and enhance water quality and fisheries of
the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary system.
8-20 Fish, shellfish, and waterfowl management shall be considered the
appropriate land use for marshes and tidelands, with recreation being
allowed as a secondary use in limited locations, consistent with the
marshland and tideland preservation policies of the General Plan.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8-25 The County shall protect marshes, wetlands, and riparian corridors from the
effects of potential industrial spills.
8-26 The environmental impacts of using poisons to control ground squirrel
populations in grasslands shall be thoroughly evaluated by the County.
8-27 Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall be identified and
protected.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-35
8-28 Efforts shall be made to identify and protect the County’s mature native
oak, bay, and buckeye trees.
Project Consistency Analysis
Many of the policies presented in the General Plan are relevant to the project site
and the project site’s plant communities, wildlife habitats, and wetlands. Under the
current development plan, it will not be possible to adhere to all of these policies
that are in place to protect natural resources. For example, Policy 8-10 that states,
“any development located or proposed within significant ecological resource areas
shall ensure that the resource is protected” will not be adhered to under the current
development plan since the proposed plan calls for filling protected wetland
habitats onsite that support the federally listed vernal pool fairy shrimp. In addition,
Policy 8-27 which states: “seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall
be identified and protected” also cannot be adhered to under the current
development plan since some of the seasonal wetlands on the project site shall be
filled to allow for development. Mitigation measures will be necessary to offset the
project’s impact to these County protected (and agency protected) resources.
County Tree Ordinance
According to the Contra Costa County tree ordinance, a “protected tree” is any one
of the following:
1. On all properties within the unincorporated area of the county:
Where the tree to be cut down, destroyed or trimmed by topping is
adjacent to or part of a riparian, foothill woodland or oak savanna area, or
part of a stand of four or more trees, measures twenty inches or larger in
circumference (approximately 6.5 inches in diameter) as measured four and
one-half feet from ground level, and is included in the following list of
indigenous trees: Acer macrophyllum (Big-leaf Maple), Acer negundo (Box
Elder), Aesculus californica (California Buckeye), Alnus Rhombifolia (White
Alder), Arbutus menziesii (Madrone), Heteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon),
Juglans Hindsii (California Black Walnut), Juniperus californica (California
Juniper), Lithocarpus densiflora (Tanoak or Tanbark Oak), Pinus attenuata
(Knobcone Pine), Pinus sabiniana (Digger Pine), Platanus Racemosa
(California Sycamore), Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood), Populus
trichocarpa (Black Cottonwood), Quercus agrifolia (California or Coast Live
Oak), Quercus chrysolepis (Canyon Live Oak), Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak),
Quercus kelloggii (California Black Oak), Quercus lobata (Valley Oak),
Quercus wislizenii (Interior Live Oak), Salix lasiandra (Yellow Willow), Salix
laevigata (Red Willow), Salix lasiolepis (Arroyo Willow), Sambucus callicarpa
(Coast Red Elderberry), Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood),
Umbellularia californica (California Bay or Laurel);
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-36
Any tree shown to be preserved on an approved tentative map,
development or site plan or required to be retained as a condition of
approval;
Any tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed
tree.
2. On any of the properties specified in subsection (3) of this section:
Any tree measuring twenty inches or larger in circumference (approximately
six and one-half inches diameter), measured four and one-half feet from
ground level including the oak trees listed above;
Any multi-stemmed tree with the sum of the circumferences measuring
forty inches or larger, measured four and one-half feet from ground level;
And any significant grouping of trees, including groves of four or more trees.
3. Specified properties referred to in subsection (2) of this section includes:
Any developed property within any commercial, professional office or
industrial district;
Any undeveloped property within any district;
Any area designated on the general plan for recreational purposes or open
space;
Any area designated in the county general plan open space element as
visually significant riparian or ridge line vegetation and where the tree is
adjacent to or part of a riparian, foothill woodland or oak savanna area.
(Ords. 94-59, 94-22).
Project Consistency Analysis
Most, if not all, of the trees on the project site would be protected under Contra
Costa County’s tree ordinance since the trees are on “any undeveloped property
within any district” (subsection 3A) and most, if not all, of the trees are “twenty
inches or larger in circumference (approximately six and one-half inches diameter),
measured four and one-half feet from ground level…” and several trees on the
project site are “indigenous” trees as listed in subsection 1(A). Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 requires conformance with this ordinance by ensuring protection of trees
during construction.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-37
The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation
Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
(HCP/NCCP)
The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community
Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or Plan) is intended to provide an effective
framework to protect natural resources in eastern Contra Costa County, while
improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on
endangered species. The Plan allows Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the East Bay Regional Park District,
the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, and the Implementing
Entity (known as the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy), (collectively,
the Permittees) to control endangered species permitting for activities and projects
in the region while providing comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem
conservation and contributing to the recovery of endangered species. In October of
2007, Contra Costa County adopted Ordinance NO. 2007-53 adopting the “East
Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation
Plan Fees and Implementation Procedures.”
The project site is located immediately east and outside of the permit area of the
adopted HCP/NCCP, therefore excluding the project area from participation in the
Plan. However, as an option to mitigate for impacts to special status species and
critical habitat the applicant may, with permission from state and federal regulatory
agencies and agreement from the Conservancy, make a financial contribution to the
Conservancy, such contribution shall be used to acquire and manage habitat lands
for covered species.
A financial contribution to the Conservancy would serve to mitigate impacts to
special-status species and critical habitats for California red-legged frog, giant garter
snake, Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, and possibly for vernal pool fairy
shrimp. It should be noted that a financial contribution to the HCP/NCCP will not
provide incidental take coverage and the applicant will need to acquire incidental
take permits from USFWS and CDFG, as required by these agencies. While other
avoidance and minimization measures may be required for impacts to special-status
species, a financial contribution to the Conservancy would likely be all the mitigation
compensation required by USFWS and/or CDFG for impacts to HCP/NCCP covered
species.
Project Consistency Analysis
A federal incidental take permit is required for any activity that could result in take
of a federally-listed species, such as California red-legged frog, the giant garter
snake, and the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Since the applicant is not eligible to receive
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-38
incidental take coverage by participation in the HCP/NCCP, a Section 7 consultation
will be needed in order to provide for take of federally-listed species.
While the Swainson’s hawk is a state-listed species, and its foraging habitat could be
impacted by the project, incidental taking authority (a Section 2081 permit) from
CDFG is not warranted as no nest site would be removed by the project (unless a
nest site is found during preconstruction surveys). Regardless, CDFG has a formal
Swainson’s hawk impact and mitigation policy in effect for impacts to foraging
habitat that would be enforceable pursuant to CEQA (please see Swainson’s hawk
section above). Contribution of funds to the Conservancy, as approved by CDFG,
would mitigate impacts not only to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, but also
impacts to most other special-status animal species that could be affected by the
project including the California red-legged frog, giant garter snake, vernal pool fairy
shrimp, and western burrowing owl (if this owl is later found to be on the project
site). The HCP does not cover impacts to listed fish species.
The HCP requires payment of approximately $10,558.091 per project site acre in the
Zone I (Discovery Bay) area. However, it must be noted that the project site is
located just outside of (east of) the HCP Inventory Area, so the set fee for projects
located within Zone I must be negotiated with the resource agencies (CDFG and
USFWS), and it may be slightly higher or less than the Zone I fee (J. Kopchik, East
Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, pers. comm. with S. Lynch of M&A,
December 11, 2006). The fee would be determined at the time incidental take
permits are under review by CDFG and USFWS for this project. Both CDFG and
USFWS have stated that they would allow use of the HCP to mitigate the Pantages
Project’s impacts to federal and state listed species (J. Gan, CDFG, pers. comm. with
S. Lynch of M&A, November 28, 2006; and, S. Larsen, USFWS, pers. comm. with S.
Lynch of M&A, November 28, 2006).
Please note that mitigation funds paid to the Conservancy would also mitigate many
other special-status species impacts under consideration for the proposed project.
Thus, for example, if western burrowing owls were to move onto the project site,
avoidance measures would have to be implemented while the owls nested. Upon
completion of nesting, the owls could be passively removed from the project site (as
allowed by CDFG). Contribution of funds to the Conservancy would alleviate any
further requirements by CDFG to purchase and preserve burrowing owl mitigation
lands. Use of the HCP would also mitigate impacts to California red-legged frog,
giant garter snake, and vernal pool fairy shrimp as approved by CDFG and USFWS
1 2010 fees are valid from March 15, 2010 until March 14, 2011.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-39
(which approval they have indicated they will grant). Thus, the applicant would not
have to find and seek agency approval for separate preservation lands or methods
for the affected special-status species.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and
General Permitting
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). This requires project
applicants to obtain authorization from the Corps prior to discharging dredged or fill
materials into any water of the United States. "Waters of the United States" are
defined as, “...all interstate waters including interstate wetlands...intrastate lakes,
rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), wetlands, [and] natural ponds, the
use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign
commerce...” (33 CFR Section 328.3).
Section 404 jurisdiction in "other waters" such as lakes, ponds, and streams, extends
to the upward limit of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or the upward extent
of any adjacent wetland. The OHWM on a non-tidal water is the "line on shore
established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics
such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the
character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or
debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the
surrounding areas" (33 CFR Section 328.3[e]). Wetlands are defined as “...those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration to support a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions” (33 CFR Section 328.8 [b]). Wetlands usually must possess hydrophytic
vegetation (i.e., plants adapted to inundated or saturated conditions), wetland
hydrology (e.g., topographic low areas, exposed water tables, stream channels), and
hydric soils (i.e., soils that are periodically or permanently saturated, inundated or
flooded) to be regulated by the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Project Consistency Analysis
On January 7, 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed their jurisdiction
over 36.43 acres of waters of the United States on the project site. This jurisdictional
acreage includes Indian Slough, Kellogg Creek and adjacent wetlands, (see the Corps
determination letter in the Biological Resources Analysis Report in Appendix B of
this EIR). This jurisdictional determination was based on wetland delineations
completed on the project site by Gibson & Skordal, LLC.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-40
A Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for
Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated November 15, 2006).
Minimization of indirect impacts will be accomplished by grading home pads to
drain toward streets and away from open space areas, landscaping with native
plants, constructing bioswales, maintaining natural buffers between the
development and the preserved marsh habitat within the open space areas, and
using native plantings as landscaping buffers between development and open space
preserve areas. An exception is at the EVA crossing of the marsh, where there is no
buffer. The location of the EVA was chosen so that the road crossed the marsh at its
narrowest point. In most other cases, there is a minimum of 50 feet between the
edge of the residential development and the preserved marsh. At some locations,
grading will encroach into the 50 foot width; however, the graded area will be
planted with native vegetation and maintained naturally (no irrigation) such that it
functions as a buffer. The open space preserve area will be separated from adjacent
development or recreational areas with fencing that protects the open space
preserve from unauthorized use while providing a visual connection to the open
space. Where houses back up to the open space preserve, residential fences will be
tubular steel or some other form of permanent, visually open, fencing. Past
mitigation efforts have shown that with open fencing, protected areas are kept
relatively free from trash accumulation and homeowners accept greater
stewardship of preserved open spaces. In addition, along the EVA/trail, kiosks with
educational signage will be developed to reduce human-induced impacts.
Because full avoidance of waters of the United States/State is not possible, potential
impacts will be minimized to the extent feasible through changes in project design.
Impacts will also be minimized by the use of Best Management Practices to protect
preserved wetlands/marsh and ensure water quality in preserved wetlands and
other waters within the project area. These practices can include installing orange
construction fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and other protective measures during
construction. During project construction, the applicant states that a biological
monitor will be on-site to monitor the integrity of preserved wetlands and other
waters. Mitigation is included in Section 4.3.4 to ensure compliance with these
requirements.
Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act as approved on March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C.
408), makes it unlawful for any person to take possession of or make use of for any
purpose, or build upon, alter, destroy, or in any manner whatever impair the
usefulness of any sea wall, bulkhead, jetty, dike, levee, wharf, pier, or other work
built by the United States, or under the control of the United States, in whole or in
part, for the preservation and improvement of any of its navigable waters or to
prevent floods. The Secretary of the Army, on the recommendation of the Chief of
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-41
Engineers, may grant permission for the alteration or permanent occupation or use
of any of the aforementioned public works when in his judgment such occupation or
use will not be injurious to the public interest. This permission will be granted by an
appropriate real estate instrument in accordance with existing real estate
regulations.
Project Consistency Analysis
The removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek must be authorized by the
Secretary of the Army, on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. This
permission will be granted by an appropriate real estate instrument in accordance
with existing real estate regulations. In order to obtain this authorization from the
Corps, the project applicant must submit a request to the Secretary of the Army and
the Chief of Engineers, describing the proposed project and any correspondence
with the local Reclamation District/ Reclamation Board authorizing this work.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) regulate activities in "waters of the State" (which includes
wetlands) through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. While the Corps administers
permitting programs that authorize impacts to waters of the United States, including
wetlands, and other waters, any Corps permit authorized for a proposed project
would be invalid unless it is a NWP that has been certified for use in California by the
SWRCB, or if the RWQCB has issued a project specific certification or waiver of water
quality. Certification of NWPs requires a finding by the SWRCB that the activities
permitted by the NWP will not violate water quality standards individually or
cumulatively over the term of the issued NWP (the term is typically for five years).
Certification must be consistent with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act,
the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and
the SWRCB’s mandate to protect beneficial uses of waters of the State. Any denied
(i.e., not certified) NWPs, and all Individual Corps permits, would require a project
specific RWQCB certification or waiver of water quality.
Additionally, if a proposed project would impact waters of the State, including
wetlands, and the project applicant cannot demonstrate that the project is unable
to avoid these adverse impacts, water quality certification will most likely be denied.
Section 401 Certification may also be denied based on significant adverse impacts to
waters of the United States, including wetlands. The RWQCB has also adopted the
Corps’ policy that there shall be “no net loss” of wetlands. Thus, prior to certifying
water quality, the RWQCB will impose avoidance mitigation requirements on project
proponents that impact waters of the State.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-42
Project Consistency Analysis
Any Section 404 permit authorized by the Corps for the project would be
inoperative without also obtaining authorization from the RWQCB pursuant to
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (i.e., without obtaining a certification of water
quality). Since the RWQCB does not have a formal method for technically defining
what constitutes waters of the state, Monk & Associates expects that the RWQCB
should remain consistent with the Corps’ determination of waters of the United
States. The Corps determined there are 36.43 acres of waters of the United States
on the 171-acre project site. It is likely that the RWQCB will concur with the Corps
findings. Please note that any isolated wetlands or other waters that are
determined to be on the project site that are not regulated by the Corps pursuant to
the SWANCC decision, would still be regulated by the RWQCB pursuant to the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (see next section).
Any impacts to waters of the State would have to be mitigated to the satisfaction of
the RWQCB prior to the time this resource agency would issue a permit for impacts
to such features. The RWQCB requirements for issuance of a “401 Permit” can
parallel the Corps requirements for permitting impacts to Corps regulated areas
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Corps
Applicability Section above for likely mitigation requirements for impacts to RWQCB
regulated wetlands. Also, please refer to the applicability section of the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act below for other applicable actions that may be
imposed on the project by the RWQCB prior to the time any certification of water
quality is authorized for the project. Please note that any isolated wetlands or other
waters that are determined to be on the project site that are not regulated by the
Corps pursuant to the SWANCC decision, would still be regulated by the RWQCB
pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (see below).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Water Code § 13260, requires that
“any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, that could affect
the waters of the State to file a report of discharge” with the RWQCB through an
application for waste discharge (Water Code Section 13260(a)(1). The term “waters
of the State” is defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline
waters, within the boundaries of the State (Water Code § 13050(e)). It should be
noted that pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB
also regulates “isolated wetlands,” or those wetlands considered to be outside of the
Corps’ jurisdiction pursuant to the SWANCC decision (see Corps Section above).
The RWQCB generally considers filling in waters of the State to constitute
“pollution.” Pollution is defined as an alteration of the quality of the waters of the
state by waste that unreasonably affects its beneficial uses (Water Code §13050(1)).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-43
The RWQCB litmus test for determining if a project should be regulated pursuant to
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is if the action could result in any
“threat” to water quality.
The RWQCB requires complete pre- and post-development Best Management
Practices Plan (BMPs) of any portion of the project site that is developed. This
means that a water quality treatment plan for the pre- and post-developed project
site must be prepared and implemented. Preconstruction requirements must be
consistent with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). That is, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be
developed prior to the time that a site is graded (see NPDES section below). In
addition, a post construction BMPs plan, or a Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP) must be developed and incorporated into any site development plan.
Project Consistency Analysis
The Corps determined there are 36.43 acres of waters of the United States were
present on the 171-acre project site. The RWQCB will also exert its jurisdiction over
these areas pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Since any
“threat” to water quality could conceivably be regulated pursuant to the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act, care will required when constructing the
proposed project to be sure that adequate pre and post construction Best
Management Practices Plan (BMPs) are incorporated into the project
implementation plans.
The project site currently does not have a stormwater drainage system, and no
municipal provision for stormwater management exists on the site. As discussed in
Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, treatment of stormwater and extensive
erosion control measures have been proposed to ensure that the project will meet
RWQCB standards.
California Department of Fish and Game Protections
Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG regulates
activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed,
channel, or bank of a stream, which CDFG typically considers to include riparian
vegetation. Any proposed activity in a natural stream channel that would substantially
adversely affect an existing fish and/or wildlife resource, would require entering into a
Streambed Alteration Agreement (SBAA) with CDFG prior to commencing work in the
stream. However, prior to authorizing such permits, CDFG typically reviews an analysis
of the expected biological impacts, any proposed mitigation plans that would be
implemented to offset biological impacts and engineering and erosion control plans.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-44
Project Consistency Analysis
The proposed removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek will require a SBAA.
Impacts from project development include loss of low, moderate, and high quality
bank habitat. The project will remove approximately 5,380 linear feet of the 10,120
linear feet of existing bank habitat along the project site. Mitigation measures will
be necessary to offset the project’s impact to bank habitat subject to CDFG
jurisdiction as detailed in Subsection 4.3.4, below.
Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit
Approval by the Reclamation Board (Board) is required for projects or uses which
encroach into rivers, waterways, and floodways within and adjacent to federal and
State authorized flood control projects and within designated floodways adopted by
the Board. Any proposed project within these areas requires Board approval. The
Board exercises jurisdiction over the levee section, the waterward area between
project levees, a 10-foot-wide strip adjacent to the landward levee toe, within 30
feet of the top of banks of unleveed project channels, and within designated
floodways adopted by the Board. In addition, activities outside of these limits which
could adversely affect the flood control project are also under Board jurisdiction. A
copy of the Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit will be sent to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for review and comment. Applications which must be considered
by the Board are placed on the agenda of the next regular Board meeting. The
Department of Water Resources must be notified ten days before construction
begins. The Department of Water Resources Flood Inspection Section conducts
inspection services on behalf of the Board.
Project Consistency Analysis
This project will require a Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit and all activities
associated with the removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek; this activity must
be coordinated and approved by the Board. Proof of acquisition of such a permit
shall be a requirement of Contra Costa County and incorporated into conditions of
project approval.
4.3.4 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Plants, Wildlife, Waters
In accordance with Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA
Guidelines, implementing the project would have a significant biological impact if it
would:
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-45
a) 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;
b) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan;
c) 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;
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
e) 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service;
or
f) 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.
Waters of the United States and State
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the Corps regulates
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, which
includes wetlands, as discussed in the bulleted item above, and also includes “other
waters” (stream channels, rivers) (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). Substantial
impacts to Corps regulated areas on a project site would be considered a significant
adverse impact. Similarly, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and to
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB regulates impacts to
waters of the state. Thus, impacts to RWQCB regulated areas on a project site would
also be considered a significant impact.
Stream Channels
Finally, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG
regulates activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify
the bed, channel, or bank of a stream which CDFG typically considers to include
riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity that would result in modifications to a
natural stream channel would be considered a significant impact.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-46
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be no impact for two of
the five criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
a) Would the project 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?
The project site does not constitute a wildlife movement corridor, but rather serves
wildlife in their local movement patterns. While local wildlife (deer, skunks,
raccoons, rats, etc.) will likely use the site to move to and from the adjacent housing
developments where they are able to scavenge for food, the loss of this area for
local movements is not a significant impact as these species are capable of moving
through developed areas. Thus, loss of this habitat would not be a considered
significant impact under CEQA. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, impacts to
“corridors” and “interfer[ing] substantially” with these corridors would constitute a
significant impact. In order for there to be a significant impact, first there has to be a
corridor, not just a resident wildlife use pattern established onsite; second,
“substantially” would indicate that the wildlife corridor in question would be
important to special-status species or essential to a population. These criteria are
not met by the project site. Hence, development of the proposed project would not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established corridors. Finally, the project site does not
constitute a native wildlife nursery site. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
The project site is located adjacent to but outside of the HCP/NCCP Inventory Area
and as a result the project is not eligible for take coverage through the HCP/NCCP.
Although the project is located outside the inventory area of the HCP/NCCP, it is
expected that the project may be allowed to make a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy) as mitigation for
impacts to federal- and state-listed special status species. The mitigation funding
would be determined by state and federal regulatory agencies and agreement from
the Conservancy. Further discussion of mitigation funding to the Conservancy is
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-47
included in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. The project would not conflict with
any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and no
impact would occur.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be a less-than-significant
impact for one of the five criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
c) Would the project 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?
Although a specimen of Delta button celery that was identified onsite was
vouchered at the University and Jepson Herbarium, CEQA requires an analysis of the
existing site conditions only and not historic conditions or findings. Thus, as Delta
button celery no longer occurs on the project site, impacts to this species from the
currently proposed development are not expected to result in significant adverse
impacts to this species. As such, pursuant to CEQA, no mitigation requirements for
Delta button celery are warranted.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be a significant impact for
four of the five criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of
this conclusion.
d) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
Impact BIO-1: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
trees. (Significant)
Eighty trees were surveyed on the project site, most of which are greater than 6.5
inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). All of the trees would be removed in
order to widen Kellogg Creek and create the project bays and coves, infrastructure
and residential lots. Indigenous trees, as specified in subsection 1(A) of the Contra
Costa County Tree Ordinance, on the project site include California black walnut,
Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and willows.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-48
Under the Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance, any tree measuring 6.5 inches or
greater DBH on any undeveloped property in any district, and/or any indigenous
tree, is protected. Hence, the trees on the project site are protected. Removal of
protected trees would be a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 as described below would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Landscape Trees.
To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80 trees on the project site, the
project includes landscaping with approximately 770 trees that would be
planted along the project roadways and at the project site entry as part of the
proposed landscaping. This is an approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio. Comply
with the following landscape/irrigation improvement and initial
protection requirements subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator:
A. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading
permit a final landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed
landscape architect shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department (CDD) for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The Final Plan shall be designed in general accord with the preliminary
landscape plan, Sheet 10 of 10 of the Project Plans dated October 2009.
B. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15-
gallon size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size.
C. Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to minimize
landscape maintenance cost.
D. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction Ordinance
Requirements: The landscape plan shall contain sufficient information
to demonstrate compliance with the reporting requirements and
standards of the Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments
ordinance (Chapter 82-26) as amended, and the Sight Obstruction at
Intersections ordinance (Chapter 82-18). The latter ordinance applies to
intersections with public roads. The landscape architect shall certify that
the plan complies with the ordinance improvement standards and
reporting requirements.
E. To assure the long term viability of this landscaping the applicant shall
post a bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus 20%. The
term of the bond shall extend 24 months beyond the installation of
landscaping. Prior to the acceptance of the bond by the County a
qualified landscape designer shall assess the value of the landscape and
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-49
provide a copy of that assessment to the Community Development
Department. Prior to the release of the bond a landscape designer shall
submit a letter to the Zoning Administrator that the landscaping is in
good health.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Planting native trees at a 9.5:1 (mitigation to impacts) ratio in accordance with
an approved tree management and monitoring plan would reduce the project’s
impact to protected trees to a less than significant level because trees that are
being removed will be replaced with a greater number of trees.
e) Would the project 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact BIO-2: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
bank habitat. (Significant)
Impacts from the proposed project would include the loss of low, moderate, and
high quality bank habitat. Overall, the project will remove approximately 5,380
linear feet of the 10,120 linear feet of existing habitat along the project site (Kellogg
Creek, the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel (Old Kellogg Creek), and Pantages
Island.
Specifically, existing low and moderate quality habitat along the east bank of the
project site will be removed to allow for the widening of Kellogg Creek, the creation
of new bays, and the development of waterfront homes. Some high quality bank
habitat along the southern end of the site will be preserved, although other areas of
high quality habitat will be removed.
In order to widen Kellogg Creek, moderate and high quality bank habitat along the
eastern edge of the channel will be removed. Additionally, in order to widen Kellogg
Creek the southeastern corner of Pantages Island will be removed, requiring the
removal of some high quality habitat.
Loss of moderate and high quality bank habitat which provides shelter and habitat
for special-status fish is considered a significant impact. Additionally, impacts to the
creek/channel banks without prior authorization from CDFG pursuant to Section
1602 of California Fish and Game Code, and without prior authorization from the
Bureau of Reclamation, and without prior authorization from the Corps pursuant to
Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act would be a significant adverse impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 described below would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-50
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Bank Habitat
a. Prior to removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek or disturbing any
creek/channel banks within the project site and at Pantages Island, the
applicant shall contact the CDFG, the Corps, the RWQCB, and the
Reclamation Board and determine if permits are warranted for the activities
pursuant to the regulations that are in effect. Proof of permits (for example,
a Section 404 permit, Section 401 permit, Section 1602 permit) or an
absence of requirements for such permits from these resource agencies
shall be provided to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and
Development.
b. All mitigation measures implemented to improve bank habitat shall be
approved by the Corps, the RWQCB, CDFG, and the Reclamation Board (if
necessary) through issuance of necessary permits.
c. Mitigation for loss of bank habitat shall be completed as prescribed by the
CDFG, Corps, RWQCB, and Reclamation Board. The applicant has provided a
report to Contra Costa County describing how the applicant will mitigate
impacts to bank habitats, and these stated mitigations, described below,
shall become a condition of project approval.
d. Specifically, the applicant proposes to mitigate for the loss of 5,380 lineal
feet of excavated low and moderate quality bank habitat by: (1)
enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and moderate low quality
bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high quality bank habitat (shaded
riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on Pantages Island,
ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old
Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route
4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality bank habitat
(shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip-
rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated portion of
Pantages Island, the North Cove and the end of Point of Timber Road in the
North Bay. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet.
e. Enhance existing bank habitat or create new bank habitat on-site,
approximately 11,060 linear feet in total, including shaded riverine aquatic
habitat and shallow water habitat (high quality bank habitat on Pantages
Island and the ECCID portion of the project site; moderate quality bank
habitat on the easterly side of Pantages Island and the northerly side of the
north cove at the northeasterly end of the project site; and low quality bank
habitat at the back of some waterfront lots).
f. The revegetation design shall restore the bank to moderate quality habitat
following construction, which includes the following:
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-51
i. Riprap with willow plantings shall be established between mean low
water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) to provide additional
stabilization and some shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
ii. A shallow sloping or level bench shall be established at approximately
MHW to support larger riparian trees such as Fremont cottonwood.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 5:1 and also planted with riparian
trees and grasses.
iv. Riparian trees planted along the shallow sloping or level bench shall be
planted on 15-foot centers to ensure adequate bank coverage.
v. Native riparian trees such as valley oaks, California buckeyes, and
Fremont cottonwoods and native grasses can be used for revegetation.
vi. The planted riparian trees shall be monitored by a biologist or arborist
annually for a period of 5 years to ensure that mortality does not
exceed 20 percent after 5 years. If there is greater than 20 percent
mortality of planted trees after 5 years, the project proponent shall be
responsible for replanting and monitoring the trees for an additional 3-
year period.
vii. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall also
be conducted. In the event that an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and eradication
program shall be developed and implemented.
viii. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
ix. Once vegetation has become established, the upper bank should
provide overhanging vegetation cover for fish during most tidal
elevations. However, the placement of riprap without natural habitat
features (e.g., large woody debris) along most of the lower bank would
create minimal in-water habitat for fish. Given incorporation of both
high quality and low quality habitat features, this design is characterized
as being overall of moderate value.
To improve the overall habitat value of the bank, installation of tree
species along the lower bank may be possible by installing Sonatubes in
the rip-rap and planting the trees within these tubes. The Sonatubes
allow trees to grow along rip-rap banks without harming the integrity of
the bank.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-52
g. Low and moderate quality habitat along the south side of the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel, the section of Old Kellogg Creek at the southwestern
end of the project site and the east and west sides of Kellogg Creek between
Newport Point and State Route 4, shall be restored to high quality habitat
by creating a slope setback.
h. The setback shall be created by excavating existing bank material from
approximately MLW to the top of the bank.
i. An intertidal berm with a 10:1 or 20:1 slope shall be established to
create shallow water habitat and stabilize the bank.
ii. The berm shall be planted with tules to provide in-water resting and
hiding places for fish.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 3:1 or 5:1 and planted with native
riparian trees and shrubs to create shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
iv. Trees and shrubs planted along upper bank shall be monitored by a
qualified biologist or arborist for a minimum 5-year period. If there is
greater than 20 percent mortality of planted trees and shrubs after 5
years, the applicant shall be responsible for replanting and monitoring
the trees for an additional 3-year period.
v. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall also
be conducted. In the event that an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and eradication
program shall be developed and implemented.
vi. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
i. Existing low and moderate quality bank habitat around the perimeter of
Pantages Island shall be restored to high-quality habitat by implementing
the setback design as described for the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel.
This design shall be established around most of the island, except for bank
habitat adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat along Kellogg Creek shall be
stabilized with riprap to prevent erosion due to wave action from existing
and future boater activity. Therefore, this area of Pantages Island will be
designed to provide moderate-quality bank habitat as prescribed above.
Also to address wave action, moderate quality habitat shall also be created
along the North Cove and in the North Bay at the end of Point of Timber
Road.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-53
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level because the creek
bank would be restored to pre-project conditions in accordance with current
regulations and permit requirements. Subsequent to the creek bank restoration,
a 5-year monitoring program would also be carried out to ensure that any tree
and shrub mortality is documented and the dead trees/shrubs are replaced as
necessary to revegetate the impacted bank.
c) Would the project 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?
Impact BIO-3: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
vernal pool fairy shrimp. (Significant)
The vernal pool fairy shrimp, a federal listed threatened species, has been identified
in a seasonal wetland on the project site. The wetland (349 square feet) where this
species was found is slated for removal to allow for the proposed project. Hence,
impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp from the proposed project are potentially
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 described below would
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Vernal pool fairy shrimp.
a. In order to offset the project’s impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp the
applicant shall implement one of the following measures:
i. Purchase credits in an existing fairy shrimp mitigation bank at a ratio
determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7
Consultation between the Corps and the USFWS;
ii. Acquire suitable mitigation property via fee title at a ratio determined
during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7 Consultation between
the Corps and the USFWS; or
iii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the project proponent shall make a
financial contribution to the Conservancy, to offset the project’s impact
to the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The financial contribution to the
Conservancy or the amount of mitigation land that shall be purchased
via fee title shall be determined during negotiations with USFWS during
Section 7 consultation between the Corps and the USFWS.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-54
b. Prior to impacting the seasonal wetland where the vernal pool fairy shrimp
were found, documentation of the mitigation transaction (e.g., financial
contribution to the Conservancy), and/or a copy of the Biological Opinion
outlining the mitigation requirements and incidental take statement from
USFWS, shall be provided to Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development.
c. Prior to grading onsite, and as prescribed in a Biological Opinion issued for
the project, topsoils from the wetland containing the fairy shrimp egg bank
shall be scalped by a qualified federal 10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist and
redeposited in appropriate seasonal mitigation wetlands that shall be
created within the wetland mitigation preserve onsite.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and purchasing
credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable mitigation property
via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat
Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
because the vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat would be preserved at a suitable
location.
Impact BIO-4: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the California red-legged frog. (Significant)
The California red-legged frog is a federal listed threatened species and a California
species of special concern. It has not been identified on the project site; however,
protocol level surveys following USFWS’ survey protocol have not been conducted
or authorized by this agency.
In an email communication with the applicant’s biologist, the USFWS stated that the
project site provides suitable habitat for this listed frog species and that
compensation for the project’s impact on this species “could probably be handled
by contributing to the [East Contra Costa County] HCP.” The details of which would
be worked out at the time the Corps initiates Section 7 consultation with the
Service.
The 14.14-acre perennial emergent marsh on the project site, and a surrounding
200-foot radius of upland buffer area provides suitable aquatic and upland habitat
for the California red-legged frog (the words “suitable habitat” do not imply that this
frog species is present onsite, only that the habitat conditions onsite are “suitable”
for this species’ presence). Hence, impacts to the California red-legged frog from the
proposed project are regarded as potentially significant. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-4 as described below would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-55
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: California red-legged frog.
a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to aquatic and upland buffer habitat, that
is, for each 1 acre of aquatic or upland buffer habitat impacted, 1 acre of
compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
c. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in
permits/ authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project
shall be completed as stated in the permits/authorizations. Copies of all
survey reports and monitoring reports required by USFWS in the conditions of
the Biological Opinion shall be submitted to Contra Costa County Department
of Conservation and Development.
d. Contra Costa County shall receive copies of all agency agreements/
authorizations related to this species, and shall not issue a grading or building
permit until all agency agreements/ permits relating to the California red-
legged frog have been obtained for this project and mitigation has been
implemented.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and purchasing
credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable mitigation property
via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat
Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level
because the California red-legged frog habitat would be preserved at a suitable
location.
Impact BIO-5: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the giant garter snake. (Significant)
The giant garter snake is a federal and state listed threatened species. It has not
been identified on the project site; however, a trapping study following USFWS’
survey protocol has not been conducted or authorized by this agency.
In an email communication with the applicant’s biologist, the USFWS stated that the
project site provides suitable habitat for this listed snake species and that
compensation for the project’s impact on this species “could probably be handled
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-56
by contributing to the [East Contra Costa County] HCP.” The details of which would
be worked out at the time the Corps initiates Section 7 consultation with the
USFWS.
According to the applicant’s herpetologist, the project site’s perennial emergent
marsh, the vegetated edges of Kellogg Creek, and the ECCID Dredge Cut provides
16.04 acres of suitable aquatic and upland habitat for the giant garter snake. (The
words “suitable habitat” does not imply that this snake species is present onsite,
only that the habitat conditions onsite are “suitable” for this species’ presence.)
Hence, impacts to the giant garter snake from the proposed project are regarded as
potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-5 described below would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Giant garter snake.
a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to suitable aquatic and upland habitat (that
is, for each 1 acre of suitable aquatic and upland habitat impacted, 1 acre of
compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
project proponent may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in
permits/ authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project
shall be completed as stated in the permits/authorizations.
c. Contra Costa County shall receive copies of all agency
agreements/authorizations related to this species, and shall not issue a
grading permit or building permit until all agency agreements/permits relating
to the giant garter snake have been obtained and mitigation for this species
has been implemented.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and purchasing
credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable mitigation property
via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat
Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level
because giant garter snake habitat would be preserved at a suitable location.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-57
Impact BIO-6: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the western pond turtle. (Significant)
The western pond turtle is a California species of special concern that is known to
occur on the project site. Pond turtles have been observed basking in the emergent
marsh onsite and along Kellogg Creek/Indian Slough. It is unknown whether or not
the western pond turtle nests in the uplands onsite. However, due to the amount of
disturbance that has occurred onsite to date due to historic farming practices,
routine disking practices, and soil deposition and grading related to the Bureau of
Reclamation Kellogg Creek dredging project, it seems unlikely that the western pond
turtle nests onsite or has nested onsite in recent years. Regardless, impacts to
individual western pond turtles or their basking/aquatic habitats would be regarded
as a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 as described below would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Western Pond Turtle.
The applicant shall install turbidity barriers around construction areas in Kellogg
Creek and the buffers protecting the preserved emergent marsh to ensure that
western pond turtles do not enter the project construction areas.
a. The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is not
protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the
resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific mitigation
guidelines that must be followed to offset a project’s impact to the western
pond turtle. Mitigation for this special-status species is determined on a
project by project basis. It is likely that any mitigation implemented for the
California red-legged frog and the giant garter snake would also mitigate the
proposed project’s impact on the western pond turtle. The mitigation
measure for impacts to these two listed species would be a 1:1 mitigation
ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land would be
acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat and a
surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would be as worked out by
the applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time applications for
permits/authorizations from these two agencies are submitted.
Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy,
the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-58
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Since the western pond turtle is not a state or federal listed species, there is not
an agency specific mitigation ratio that is required to mitigate impacts to this
species. However, by purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or
acquiring suitable mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial
contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, project impacts
would be mitigated to a less than significant level because western pond turtle
habitat would be preserved at a suitable location. Also, installation of turbidity
barriers would protect individual turtles by keeping them out of project
construction zones.
Impact BIO-7: Development of the project would have potentially significant
impact on federal and/or state listed fish species and fish species designated by
the State of California as Species of Special Concern. (Significant)
Several federal and/or state listed fish species and/or state designated species of
special concern could be impacted by project construction:
Chinook salmon (some ESUs are federally listed, some ESUs are federal
candidates for listing; all are State species of concern)
steelhead (Federal listed threatened species)
green sturgeon (Federal listed threatened species and State species of special
concern)
Delta smelt (Federal listed threatened species, State candidate species)
longfin smelt (State species of special concern)
Pacific lamprey (State species of special concern)
river lamprey (State species of special concern)
Sacramento splittail (State species of special concern)
Short-term, construction-related impacts to listed and other special status fish
species could include direct take of eggs, larvae, juveniles and adult fish due to use
of dredges, pumps, and other in-water construction equipment. Special-status fish
may also be impacted by construction activities that increase turbidity and re-
suspend polluted bottom sediment. These activities can smother eggs, impair gas
exchange, and affect larval development (USFWS 1997). Turbidity may also disrupt
juvenile and adult fish feeding, predator avoidance behavior, and migration
patterns. Construction activities will also temporarily remove habitat available for
spawning, feeding, and resting activities. These impacts have the potential to occur
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-59
where channel widening and excavation of uplands is proposed. The project will
result in impacts to designated Critical Habitat for Delta smelt and the green
sturgeon.
Impacts to longfin smelt, Pacific lamprey, and river lamprey are most likely to occur
during the spring and summer. In addition, construction-related impacts to
Sacramento splittail may occur from in-water work that increases turbidity in the
water column and re-suspends polluted sediment. Turbidity may also disrupt
Sacramento splittail juvenile and adult feeding, predator avoidance behavior, and
migration patterns. Impacts are most likely to occur between early winter and mid-
summer when Sacramento splittail spawning and rearing activities are occurring.
Long-term impacts to fish have the potential to occur due to permanent loss of bank
habitat.
Hence, impacts to Chinook salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, Delta smelt, longfin
smelt, Pacific lamprey, river lamprey and Sacramento splittail from the proposed
project are considered to be potentially significant impacts. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-7 as described below would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Federal and/or State Listed Fish Species and
California Species of Special Concern fish
a. To minimize potential impacts to federal and/or state listed fish and
California “species of special concern” during construction and dredging of
the two interior bays, a levee shall be maintained between the area to be
excavated and the Kellogg Creek channel.
b. A qualified fisheries biologist shall be onsite during all pumping and
siphoning activity to ensure that these activities do not result in take of
federal and/or state listed fish and California “species of special concern.”
c. Silt curtains or suction dredges shall be used when conducting work in the
ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek. Use of this equipment
will localize sediment movement and protect fish from entrainment and the
effects of increased turbidity.
d. All in-water work shall be conducted between August 1 and November 30 to
minimize the potential for take of threatened and endangered fish species.
By conducting work within this time period, the project will avoid most
critical spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for listed fish species.
e. Long-term impacts to fish are not expected provided the proposed bank
habitat mitigation to re-create and replace impacted bank habitat is
implemented by the applicant.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-60
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By maintaining the levee between the area to be excavated and the Kellogg
Creek channel, having a fisheries biologist onsite during all in-water work, and
conducting work outside the critical spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods
for listed fish species, and implementing bank habitat mitigation as described in
Mitigation Measure BIO-2, above, project impacts would be mitigated to a less
than significant level because listed and special-status fish species would not be
likely to be in the area at the time work is conducted and impacts to fish habitat
would be minimized and restored.
Impact BIO-8: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on tree nesting raptors. (Significant)
Suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kite, red-tailed hawk, red shouldered hawk,
Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, and northern harrier occurs on the project
site. Since the Swainson’s hawk is a state listed species which typically requires
greater mitigation then non-listed raptors, the Swainson’s hawk is discussed in a
separate mitigation measure below. Similarly, since the western burrowing owl is a
California species of special concern that has formal CDFG mitigation requirements,
mitigation for the western burrowing owl is also discussed in a separate mitigation
measure below.
The white-tailed kite is fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code
(3511). The northern harrier is a state species of special concern. The white-tailed
kite, the red-tailed hawk, the red shouldered hawk, and the northern harrier are
also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) and their nest,
eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503,
3503.5. Any project-related impacts to these species, their active nests, eggs, or
young would be considered significant. Potential impacts to these species from the
proposed project include loss of nesting habitat, disturbance to nesting birds, and
possibly death of adults and/or young. No nesting raptors (birds of prey) have been
identified on the project site. In the absence of survey results indicating otherwise, the
project may result in impacts to nesting raptors that would be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 as described below would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impacts to unoccupied nesting habitats for these species would not be considered
significant as there are other local and regional nesting habitats available for use by
these species that could be used in subsequent nesting seasons. Consequently no
mitigation is warranted for impacts to unoccupied nesting habitats.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-61
Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Tree Nesting Raptors
a. If possible, tree removal shall be completed outside the nesting season (that
is, between September 2 and February 28). In an abundance of caution, a
preconstruction nesting survey of the tree to be removed shall be
conducted within 30 days of the scheduled removal to ensure no birds are
nesting.
b. If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1 and
September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be conducted
30 days prior to grading/construction of the project or any proposed tree
removal work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all
trees and shrubs within sphere of influence of the proposed project, and not
just of those trees slated for removal.
c. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest
tree shall be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is
on the project site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be
staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking.
d. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be demarcated
per above where the buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer
may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral
observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to
disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified
buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/
harassment to the nesting raptors. This buffer may be reduced no smaller
than 100 feet from the nest tree.
e. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established
buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young
have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills
to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This
date may be earlier than August 1 or later, and would have to be
determined by a qualified raptor biologist.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By conducting tree removal outside the nesting season and/or erecting a
protective buffer around any tree supporting nesting raptors, project impacts
would be mitigated to a less than significant level because there would be no
loss of raptor eggs or nestlings which are protected under California Fish and
Game Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-62
Impact BIO-9: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the Swainson’s hawk. (Significant)
The Swainson’s hawk is a state-listed threatened species. While the Swainson’s
hawk has no special federal status it is protected from direct take under the Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). Swainson’s hawks, their nests,
eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503,
§3503.5, §3513, and §3800). Swainson’s hawks are known to nest within 0.1-mile
northeast of the project site along Indian Slough (CNDDB Occurrence Number 1211).
While Swainson’s hawks have not been observed nesting on the project site (they
have not been observed nesting onsite by the applicant’s biologists or Monk &
Associates), the eucalyptus trees and pine trees along the project site’s northern
boundary provide suitable nesting habitat for this raptor. Additionally, Monk &
Associates observed one Swainson’s hawk on the project site exhibiting defensive
behavior during the September 20, 2006 site visit.
Based on the proximity of known nesting Swainson’s hawks and the suitability of
nesting and foraging habitat on the project site, implementation of the proposed
project would be viewed by CDFG as a loss of Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging
habitat. Pursuant to CEQA, any impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting and/or foraging
habitat would be considered a potentially significant adverse impact (PS).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 as described below would reduce this
impact to less than significant.
CDFG has prepared a Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s
Hawks in the Central Valley of California(CDFG 1994) (hereinafter the Mitigation
Guidelines) that prescribes avoidance and mitigation guidelines for impacts to
Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitats. The Mitigation Guidelines state that
acceptable mitigation to offset impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat can be
met by Fee Title acquisition of Swainson’s hawk habitat, or by acquisition of
conservation easements over lands that can be managed for this hawk species
(hereinafter Habitat Management Lands). Any land acquired through Fee Title
would have to be donated to a suitable conservation organization for management.
In addition to providing Habitat Management Lands, the applicant would be
assessed a management fee for the long-term management of the Habitat
Management Lands by a suitable conservation organization.
In CDFG’s Mitigation Guidelines, to replace impacted Swainson’s hawk foraging
habitat, the acreage requirements for Habitat Management Lands is based upon
how far the proposed development is from an active Swainson’s hawk nest site. The
Mitigation Guidelines require applicants to replace any impacted Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat within 1 mile of a nest site with 1 acre of suitable Habitat
Management Land (1:1 impact to replacement ratio). Impacts that occur to
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat greater than 1 mile from a nest site, but less than
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-63
5 miles require that each impacted acre be replaced with three-quarters of an acre
of Habitat Management Land (1:¾ impacts to replacement ratio). Finally, impacts
that occur to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat greater than 5 miles, but less than
10 miles from an active Swainson’s hawk nest require that each impacted acre be
replaced with 1-half acre of Habitat Management Land (1:½ impact to replacement
ratio). Because the known nest site is located within 1 mile of the project site, CDFG
can be expected to request that the applicant mitigate loss of foraging habitat at a
1:1 impact to replacement ratio.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Swainson’s Hawk.
a. To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to Swainson’s
hawk foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one of the following
scenarios:
i. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat2 (this is a 1:1 impact to
mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation organization.
An operating endowment shall be provided to the conservation
organization to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity.
ii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with approximately
135 acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.
b. To ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting Swainson’s hawks,
preconstruction nesting surveys shall be conducted no more then one month
prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within
1,000 feet of the project site are occupied.
c. If an active nest is found on or adjacent to the project site “to avoid potential
violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species), project-
related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced
or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1- September
15 annually)”(CDFG 1994).
d. If Swainson’s hawks are found nesting on the project site, a qualified raptor
biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site.
The size of this non-disturbance boundary shall be determined by the
2 The mitigation requirement for 135 acres is the 171-acre project site minus the 36.43 acres
of Corps jurisdictional waters of the U.S. onsite which do not provide foraging habitat for
Swainson’s hawk.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-64
qualified raptor biologist in the field and in coordination with CDFG. The
buffer shall be based on the location of the nesting tree, the birds’ tolerance
of noise and other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations).
e. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified raptor
biologist, and in coordination with CDFG, any non-disturbance
boundary/nest buffer could be vacated.
f. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of this tree
shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation measure prescribed for
tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is
proposed as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting: removal).
Replacement nest trees shall be native species (such as oaks or
cottonwoods).
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By implementing all of the above mitigation requirements project impacts to
Swainson’s hawk would be reduced to a less than significant level because loss
of foraging habitat and nesting habitat would be adequately compensated
(mitigated) and nesting Swainson’s hawks would not be disturbed during the
nesting season which would prevent the loss of eggs and/or nestling birds.
Impact BIO-10: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
adverse effect on the western burrowing owl. (Significant)
The western burrowing owl is a state species of special concern. This owl is also
protected under California Fish and Game Code §3503, §3503.5, §3513, and §3800,
and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Burrowing owls have not been observed
on the project site; however, they are known to nest in the immediate Discovery
Bay West area and their presence onsite cannot be ruled out. Burrowing owls are
mobile species and could nest on any upland portion of the project site in
subsequent years. Impacts to burrowing owl from the proposed project would be
regarded as a significant impact. Such an impact could be mitigated to a level
considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA with implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-10 described below.
Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Western Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the methodologies prescribed by
CDFG in their 1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the Burrowing
Owl Consortium in their 1993 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines are more likely to be accepted by CDFG. Below we provide the survey
methodology that shall be used to conduct burrowing owl surveys. These
surveys would meet the standards of care required by CEQA for conducting
surveys for the western burrowing owl and are accepted by CDFG.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-65
a. A nesting survey shall be conducted for western burrowing owl in the spring
of the year prior to construction of the project and again 30 days prior to
construction of the project.
b. If the site would be developed in the winter, then the following surveys
should be conducted in the winter months. Since burrowing owls move
around (through dispersal and local movements) readily in the winter
months, and since there are migrants that can temporarily occupy burrows
in the winter, surveys conducted in the winter months are less reliable at
detecting resident burrowing owls. Regardless of whether development
commences in the winter months, surveys must be completed as described
below for spring/summer surveys.
c. Surveys shall commence at least 90 days in advance of projected site
disturbance and again in the 30 day period just prior to breaking ground. In
accordance with the Consortium’s guidelines, four site visits are
recommended for a complete survey. Two surveys shall be conducted 90
days before ground disturbance associated with the project and two surveys
shall be conducted in the 30 day period prior to ground disturbance
associated with the project. The CDFG Staff Report states that
preconstruction surveys need to be completed within 30 days of grading
prior to CDFG accepting a survey conclusion that no burrowing owls occur in
a proposed study area (i.e., negative findings). If no owls are found during
these surveys, no further regard for the burrowing owl would be necessary.
d. Western burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted from two hours before
sunset to one hour after, or one hour before to two hours after sunrise. All
burrowing owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign (e.g.,
pellets, excrement, and molt feathers) must be counted and mapped.
e. Surveys shall be conducted by walking all suitable habitat on the entire
project site and (where possible) in areas within 150 meters (approx. 500
feet) of the project impact zone. The 150-meter buffer zone is surveyed to
identify burrows and owls outside of the project area which may be
impacted by factors such as noise and vibration (heavy equipment) during
project construction.
f. Pedestrian survey transects shall be systematically spaced to allow 100
percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between
transect center lines shall be no more than 30 meters (approx. 100 ft.) and
shall be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density,
and ground surface visibility. To effectively survey large projects (100 acres
or larger), two or more surveyors shall be used to walk adjacent, parallel
transects.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-66
g. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied burrows
should be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) if in the
non-breeding months (October 1st through February 1st) and 250 feet during
the breeding months (February 1st through October 1st). Disturbance to
occupied burrows and within the established buffers should be avoided
until no burrowing owls occur on the site. Note that CDFG can approve a
passive western burrowing owl eviction plan during the non-breeding
season.
h. If burrowing owls are detected on the site during the breeding season (peak
of the breeding season is April 15 through July 15), and appear to be
engaged in nesting behavior, a fenced 250-foot buffer would be required
between the nest site(s) (i.e., the active burrow(s)) and any earth-moving
activity or other disturbance in the project area. This 250-foot buffer could
be decreased to 160 feet once it is determined by a qualified raptor
biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest). Typically, the
young fledge by August 31. This date may be earlier than August 31, or later,
and would have to be determined by a qualified burrowing owl biologist. If
burrowing owls were found on the project site, a qualified biologist would
also need to delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site.
i. To mitigate impacts to burrowing owls, CDFG prescribes that six and a half
acres (6.5 acres) of replacement habitat be set aside (i.e., protected in
perpetuity) per pair of burrowing owls, or unpaired resident bird. Such a
set-aside will offset permanent impacts to burrowing owl habitat. To
illustrate the extent of mitigation land required by California Department of
Fish and Game, we provide this example: If two pairs of burrowing owls are
identified on the project site, 13 acres of mitigation land would be acquired.
Or, if one pair and one resident bird are identified, 13 acres of mitigation
land would be acquired. The protected lands should be adjacent to occupied
burrowing owl habitat if possible, and at a location selected in consultation
with CDFG. Land identified to offset impacts to burrowing owls must be
protected in perpetuity by a suitable property instrument, e.g., a
conservation easement or fee title acquisition. Any mitigation lands set
aside for burrowing owl would also include preparation of a Mitigation Plan
for burrowing owl and their habitat. A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and
submitted to CDFG for this agency’s review and comment. Contra Costa
County Department of Conservation and Development must approve the
Mitigation Plan prior to issuing a grading permit for the proposed project.
j. The Mitigation Plan shall identify the mitigation site and any activities
proposed to enhance the site, including the construction of artificial
burrows and maintenance of California ground squirrel populations on the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-67
mitigation site. In addition, for each pair of burrowing owls found in the
construction area, two artificial nesting burrows will be created at the
mitigation site. The Plan should also include a description of monitoring and
management methods proposed at the mitigation site. Monitoring and
management of any lands identified for mitigation purposes would be the
responsibility of the applicant for at least five years. An annual report must
be prepared for submittal to CDFG and Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development by December 31 of each monitoring year.
Contingency measures for any anticipated problems should be identified in
the plan.
k. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls and
burrowing owl habitat.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By implementing all of the above mitigation requirements project impacts to
western burrowing owls would be reduced to a less than significant level
because loss of foraging habitat and nesting habitat would be adequately
compensated (mitigated) and nesting burrowing owls would not be disturbed
during the nesting season which would prevent the loss of eggs and/or nestling
birds.
Impact BIO-11: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on other protected nesting birds. (Significant)
Birds protected pursuant to the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CDFG Code
§3503 and §3800 could nest on the project site and may be disturbed to an extent
that eggs and/or young would be lost. Additionally, the loggerhead shrike and the
tricolored blackbird, both California species of special concern, could nest onsite.
Impacts to protected bird species during the nesting season would be regarded as a
significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11 as described below
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Impacts to Other Nesting Birds.
a. A nesting survey shall be conducted prior to commencing with construction
work if this work would commence between March 15 and August 31.
b. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike or tricolored blackbird, are
identified nesting within the area of affect, a 100-foot non-disturbance
radius around the nest must be fenced. No construction or earth-moving
activity shall occur within this 100-foot staked buffer until it is determined
by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-68
nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction
zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than
August 1, or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified
ornithologist. Similarly, the qualified ornithologist could modify the size of
the buffer based upon site conditions and the bird’s apparent acclimation to
human activities.
c. If common (that is, not special-status) passerine birds (that is, perching birds
such as northern mockingbirds) are identified nesting in the trees proposed
for removal, tree removal would have to be postponed until it is determined
by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and have attained
sufficient flight skills to leave the project site. Typically, most passerine birds
can be expected to complete nesting by August 1, with young attaining
sufficient flight skills by this date that are sufficient for young to avoid project
construction zones. Unless otherwise prescribed for special-status bird
species, upon completion of nesting no further protection or mitigation
measures would be warranted for nesting birds.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By conducting preconstruction nesting surveys and implementing protective
nesting buffers as described above project impacts to passerine birds would be
reduced to a less than significant level because the nest site and nesting
attempt would be protected during the nesting season which would prevent the
loss of eggs and/or nestling birds.
f) Would the project 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?
Impact BIO-12: Impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State. (Significant)
The Corps and the RWQCB have jurisdiction over waters of the United States and
State pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, respectively. The
proposed project would result in impacts to 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland habitat
and 0.30 acre of marsh habitat, as confirmed by the Corps. Development of the
proposed project will also result in impacts to approximately 5,800 linear feet of
existing bank along Kellogg Creek. These areas would also meet the RWQCB criteria
as “waters of the State.”
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 published in January 2005 has several
goals and policies that pertain to the protection of biological resources. One goal
detailed in the General Plan states that “The County shall strive to identify and
conserve remaining upland habitat areas which are adjacent to wetlands and are
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-69
critical to the survival and nesting of wetland species.” Another goal states that
“Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall be identified and
protected.”
Because full avoidance of waters of the United States/State is not possible, any
impacts to seasonal wetlands and the adjacent uplands would be regarded as
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 would reduce this impact to
a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Impacts to Waters of the United States and/or
State.
Authorization from the Corps and the RWQCB (for example, an Individual Permit
and a Certification of Water Quality) shall be obtained prior to filling any waters
of the U.S./State on the project site.
A Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan
for Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated November 15,
2006). According to this mitigation plan, minimization of indirect impacts would
be accomplished by grading home pads to drain toward streets and away from
open space areas, landscaping with native plants, construction on bioswales,
maintaining natural buffers between the development and the preserved marsh
habitat within the open space areas, and using native plantings as landscaping
buffers between development and open space preserve areas. An exception is
at the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) crossing of the marsh where there is no
buffer. The location of the EVA was chosen so that the road crossed the marsh
at its narrowest point. In most other cases, there is a minimum of 50 feet
between the edge of the residential development and the preserved marsh. At
some locations, grading would encroach into the 50 foot width; however, the
graded area would be planted with native vegetation and maintained naturally
(no irrigation) such that it functions as a buffer. The open space preserve area
shall be separated from adjacent development or recreational areas with
permanent fencing that protects the open space preserve from unauthorized
use while providing a visual connection to the open space. Residential fences
would be tubular steel or some other form of permanent, visually open, fencing
where houses back up to the open space preserve. Past mitigation efforts from
other development projects have shown that with open fencing, protected
areas are kept free from dumping of trash by homeowners as the community
has more connection and feels more stewardship of the open space. In addition,
along the EVA/trail, kiosks with educational signage will be developed to reduce
human-induced impacts.
Impacts to waters of the United States/State will also be minimized by
implementing the following measures:
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-70
a. The project proponent shall implement best management practices
consistent with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
prepared for the project to protect the emergent marsh and wetland
mitigation area, including installing orange construction fencing, hay or
gravel waddles, and other protective measures.
b. During project construction, a biological monitor shall be onsite to monitor
the integrity of preserved wetlands and other waters.
c. For those wetland areas that cannot be avoided, compensation wetlands
shall be enhanced/created to replace those wetlands permanently affected
by project activities. If possible, wetlands shall be created on-site and shall
resemble those wetlands affected by the project (known as in-kind
replacement).
d. All impacted wetlands shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio (for each
square foot of impact, one square foot of wetland would be
enhanced/created) or as otherwise specified in permitting conditions
imposed by the Corps and RWQCB.
e. The specific mitigation for the project consists of the components listed
here:
Creation of approximately 5.36 acres of seasonal wetland on-site;
Creation of approximately 0.30 acre of marsh habitat on-site;
Creation and enhancement of approximately 11,060 linear feet of bank
habitat on-site, including Shaded Riverine Aquatic habitat and shallow
water habitat;
Creation of approximately 46 acres of open water habitat on-site;
Preservation of all avoided and created aquatic areas; and
Implementation of a comprehensive long-term storm water
management plan designed to protect water quality.
The compensatory mitigation envisioned for the project will consist of two
major efforts. First will be the creation of seasonal wetland habitat in the
uplands adjacent to the preserved marsh, and second will be the creation and
enhancement of bank habitat within the project area.
Creation (Compensatory Mitigation)
Seasonal Wetland/Emergent Marsh/Open Water Habitat
a. A minimum of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland and 0.30 acre
of marsh shall be created within the 44-acre preserve area. Specifically, the
creation of the seasonal wetland will occur in the 12.58-acre upland area in
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-71
the northwest corner of the site. The expansion of the marsh shall be
accomplished either on the eastern side of the existing marsh on the new
peninsula created by the opening of the northern bay or along the western
side of the existing marsh. This represents a 1:1 mitigation ratio (created
wetlands to impacted wetlands).
b. Soil borings shall be taken prior to the construction of the seasonal wetlands
within the open space preserve to verify the suitability of the proposed
wetland soils (e.g. cobbly soils or old alluvium would not be suitable soils).
c. Ground water depths shall also be identified within the open space
preserve.
d. The locations of the created wetlands shall be selected based on the
existing topography within the uplands, soil composition, and ground water
depths, and the created seasonal wetlands shall be excavated to a depth
necessary to accumulate seasonal (winter) groundwater and/or to any clay
layer that will perch rainfall.
e. The upper 6 inches of top soil shall be scalped from the seasonal wetlands
to be impacted and will be placed in the created wetlands for seed source.
These topsoils would contain a seed bank of the impacted pool plant species
which would germinate with fall/winter hydration of the re-created pools.
f. The created wetlands shall be very slightly over excavated to accommodate
the addition of topsoil.
g. This mitigation measure may be substituted by implementing another
wetland compensation plan that is approved for the project by both the
Corps and the RWQCB.
Bank Habitat
Overall, the project will remove approximately 5,380 linear feet of the 10,120
linear feet of existing habitat along the project site. The applicant proposes to
mitigate for the loss of 5,380 lineal feet of excavated low and moderate quality
bank habitat by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high quality bank
habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on Pantages
Island, ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old
Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route 4;
and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality bank habitat (shallow
sloping or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip-rap with
willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated portion of Pantages Island,
the North Cove and the end of Point of Timber Road in the North Bay. Bank
habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-72
Open Space Preservation
The preserved and created seasonal wetlands and marsh habitat would be
located within a 44-acre permanently preserved area. In addition, the
approximately 11,060 linear feet of enhanced and created bank habitat shall be
preserved in perpetuity. It is envisioned that ownership of the 44 acres of open
space preserve areas as well as the enhanced bank habitat on ECCID property
and Pantages Island and the created banks within the bays and coves will be
transferred to RD 800, and that a conservation easement would be conveyed to
the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD) for
preservation in perpetuity. The TDBCSD would also function as the Preserve
Manager and conduct the long-term monitoring and maintenance of the
preserve areas in perpetuity. On the adjoining Ravenswood project, a
conservation easement has been conveyed to the TDBCSD for the same purpose
pursuant to Corps Permit No. 199400928. TDBCSD will therefore be able to
ensure consistent and coordinated management of the two conservation areas.
RD 800 will own and be responsible by conservation covenants to monitor and
maintain the bank habitat within Pantages Bays in perpetuity. Funding will be
provided through annual assessments of homeowners in Pantages Bays that are
secured through a binding, permanent agreement. This funding and monitoring
is separate from the compensatory mitigation monitoring for the created
wetlands is outlined in the Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh
Preservation and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson &
Skordal, LLC (dated November 15, 2006). Alternative long-term mitigation
monitoring acceptable to permitting agencies may also be considered.
A 5-year monitoring program will be established to monitor the progress of the
wetland mitigation toward an established goal. At the end of each monitoring
year, an annual report will be submitted to the Corps, RWQCB and Contra Costa
County. This report will document the hydrological and vegetative condition of
the mitigation wetlands, and will recommend remedial measures as necessary
to correct deficiencies.
Aside from the minimum replacement ratio and in perpetuity protection,
various regulatory agencies may provide additional conditions and stipulations
for permits. Permits for impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required by the
Corps. Similarly, permits for impacts to waters of the state will be required by
both the RWQCB and CDFG prior to the impacts occurring. These agencies will
likely impose their own mitigation requirements. Any other conditions that are
stipulated for impacts to waters of the U.S. or state by the Corps, RWQCB,
and/or CDFG shall also become conditions of project approval.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-73
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By obtaining prior authorization from the Corps and the RWQCB to impact
waters of the U.S./State on the project site and creating mitigation wetlands as
stipulated in the approvals/authorizations provided by these agencies, project
impacts to waters of the U.S./State would be mitigated to a less than significant
level because there would be no net loss of wetlands (waters of the U.S./State).
4.3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
c) Would the project 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?
e) Would the project 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
f) Would the project 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?
Impact CUM BIO-1: Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources.
(Significant)
Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to a cumulative loss of
seasonal wetlands, non-native annual grassland, iodine bush scrub, and creek bank
habitat in the region. Implementation of the project would also result in cumulative
impacts to common plant and animal species. The seasonal wetlands are also known
to support a federal listed species: the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Impacts to the
seasonal wetlands onsite will result in the cumulative loss of this species in the
region. Additionally, the iodine bush scrub, ornamental trees, emergent marsh, and
non-native grassland communities of the project site may also be important for
several special-status animal species such as the Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl,
California red-legged frog, giant garter snake, the loggerhead shrike, and tricolored
blackbird (see Impacts and Mitigations Section above). There are other proposed
projects in Eastern Contra Costa County that would/are impacting similar resources
to those that would be impacted by the project. Project-related impacts would be
considered cumulative with other projects in the region. The mitigation measures
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-74
prescribed above would offset cumulative impacts to special-status species,
wetlands, trees, and plant communities/wildlife habitats to less-than-significant
levels.
Construction of the project would result in cumulative impacts to “waters of the
United States” and stream channels that are regulated by the Corps, RWQCB, the
CDFG, and the Reclamation Board. On a regional basis, these impacts would add to
other development related losses of “waters of the United States” and stream
channels. In addition, by altering drainage patterns and water flow, downstream
aquatic life could be affected as well. Several special-status fish species are known
to occur in waterways in the vicinity, and these fish species could also be adversely
impacted by the proposed project. Mitigation that includes creation and
enhancement of impacted “waters of the U.S.,” stream channels, and bank habitat
would offset this cumulative impact to less-than-significant levels.
4.3.6 REFERENCES
Adams, P.B., C.B. Grimes, S.T. Lindley, and M.L. Moser. 2002. Status review for
North American green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. NOAA, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz,
CA.
Beedy, E.C. 1992. Breeding status, distribution, and habitat associations of the
tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), 1850-1991. Paper presented at the
Western Section of the Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, February 1992.
San Diego, California.
BOC (The California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing owl survey
protocol and mitigation guidelines. April 1993.
Brode, J. M. 1988. Natural history of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi
gigas). In: Proceedings of the conference on California herpetology, H. F.
Delisle, P.R. Brown, B. Kaufman and B. M. McGurty (eds.). Southwestern
Herpetologists Society, Special Publication No. 4:25-28.
Bury, B. 2005. Unpublished presentation at the western pond turtle workshop.
Presented by the SF Bay Area chapter of the wildlife society. April 2005.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1994. Staff report regarding
mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the central
valley of California. June 26, 1994. 26 pps.
CDFG. 1998. A status review of the spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) in the Sacramento River drainage. Report to the Fish and
Game Commission, Candidate Species Status Report 98-01.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-75
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. Natural Diversity Data Base,
Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Electronic Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento, CA.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 1997. Annotated checklist of the East Bay
Flora. Native and naturalized vascular plants of Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, California. Compiled by Dr. Barbara Ertter. Special publication #3
of the California Native Plant Society East Bay Chapter in association with
the University and Jepson Herbaria. April 1997.
Cramer S.P. & Associates. 1995. Central Valley Project Improvement Act
anadromous fish restoration program doubling plan—recommended actions
for the Mokelumne River. Gresham, OR. August.
Cramer, S.P. and D.B. Demko. 1997. The status of late-fall and spring-run Chinook
salmon in the Sacramento River Basin regarding the Endangered Species
Act. Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service on behalf of the
Association of California Water Agencies and California Urban Water
Agencies.
EcoAnalysts, Inc. 2003. Letter to Mr. Jim Gibson of Gibson & Skordal regarding dry
season sampling surveys conducted on the Pantages Project site in the
summer of 2003. 3 pps.
Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and
abundances of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Volume 2:
Species life histories summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 8. NOS/NOAA Strategic
Environmental Assessment Division, Rockville, MD, 329 pp.
Eng, L.L., D. Belk, and C.H. Eriksen. 1990. California anostraca: distribution, habitat,
and status. Journal of Crusatcean Biology, 10(2): 247-277.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual.
Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Gibson & Skordal. 2003. Listed vernal pool branchiopods wet season survey.
Pantages property. Contra Costa County, California. May 2003. 4 pps. plus
appendices.
Gibson & Skordal LLC. 2002. Jurisdictional delineation. Pantages property. Contra
Costa County, California. December 2002.
Gibson & Skordal LLC. 2008. Jurisdictional Delineation Map. Pantages Properties.
Contra Costa County, California. May 2008.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-76
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1993. Stream hydrology: An
introduction for ecologists. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester, West Sussex
P019 UD, England.
Hallock, R.J. 1987. Sacramento River system salmon and steelhead problems and
enhancement opportunities. Report to the California Advisory Committee
on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. Sacramento, California.
Hansen, E.C. and Miriam Green Associates. 2010. Evaluation of potential California
red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) habitat on the Pantages Bays
Property, Contra Costa County, California. April 1, 2010.
Hansen, E.C. and Miriam Green Associates. 2010. Evaluation of giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas) habitat on the Pantages Bays Property, Contra Costa
County, California. April 1, 2010.
Hickman, J. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley. 1400 pp.
Hill, K.A., and J.D. Webber. 1999. Butte Creek spring-run Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) juvenile outmigration and life history 1995–
1998 Sacramento Valley and Sierra Region. Inland Fisheries Administrative
Report No. 99-5. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,
California.
HortScience. 2006. Tree Report. Pantages at Discovery Bay. October 2006.
HortScience. 2007. Addendum to Tree Report. Pantages at Discovery Bay. August
23, 2007.
James, P.C. 1992. Urban-nesting of Swainson's hawks in Saskatchewan. Condor. 94:
773-774.
Jennings, M.R., M.P. Hayes, and D.C. Holland. 1992. A petition to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to place the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii) and the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) on the list of
endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 21 pp.
Jennings, M.R., M.P. Hayes, and Research Section, Animal Management Division,
Metro Washington Park Zoo. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special
Concern in California. Final Report Submitted to the California Department
of Fish & Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA. 255 pp.
November 1.
Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, & falcons of North America: biology and
natural history. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 403
pps.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-77
Jones & Stokes. 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and
Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 2006.
Kochert, Michael N. 1986. Raptors. In: Cooperrider, Allan Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.;
Stuart, Hanson R., Eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver,
CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver
Service Center: 313-349.
McEwan, D.R. 2001. Central valley steelhead. Contributions to the biology of Central
Valley salmonids. Volume 1. (Ed. R. Brown) California Department of Fish
and Game. Fish Bulletin 179.
Mills, T.J., and F. Fisher. 1994. Central Valley anadromous sport fish annual run-size,
harvest, and population estimates, 1967 through 1991. Inland Fisheries
Technical Report. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
Miriam Green Associates. 2003. Results of special-status species surveys on the
Pantages Property, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared for Pantages
at Discovery Bay, LLC. November 1, 2003.
Monk & Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological constraints analysis, Pulte Southpark,
Dixon, California. June 25, 2002. 21 pps.
Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish
species of special concern of California. Second Edition. Department of
Wildlife Fisheries Biology. University of California, Davis. Davis, California
95616. Prepared for the State of California, Department of Fish and Game.
Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, California. Contract No. 2128IF.
June 1995. 72 pp.
Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Revised edition. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2001. Biological opinion for Sacramento
River Bank Protection Project, Contract 42E, proposed levee reconstruction
at River Mile 149.0, Colusa County, California, and five sites along the
mainstem Sacramento River. Sacramento, CA.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Response to notice of preparation
for an environmental impact report for the Pantages Bay Residential
Development Project. July 19, 2007.
NRCS 2004. Hydric Soils of Contra Costa County (02/03/2004). National Resource
Conservation Service.
Palmer, Ralph S., editor. 1988. Handbook of North American birds. Volume 5. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 463 p.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-78
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: California
(Region 0). National Ecology Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. 136 pps. May 1988.
Remsen, J.J., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California: An annotated list
of declining or vulnerable bird species. California Department of Fish and
Game, Wildlife Management Division. Administrative Report, 78 1.
Sacramento, CA, 54 pp.
Schlorff, Ronald W.; Bloom, Peter H. 1984. Importance of riparian systems to nesting
Swainson's hawks in the Central Valley of California. In: Warner, Richard E.;
Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology,
conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference;
1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press: 612-618.
Schmutz, Josef K.; Fyfe, Richard W.; Moore, David A.; Smith, Alan R. 1984. Artificial
nests for ferruginous and Swainson's hawks. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 48:1009-1013.
Shuford, W.D. 1993. The Marin County breeding bird atlas: A distributional and
natural history of coastal California birds. California Avifauna Series 1.
Bushtit Books, Bolinas, California.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition. Houghton
Mifflin Company, New York, NY. 533 pps.
Stillwater Sciences. 2006. Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report. October 2006.
Stillwater Sciences. 2007. Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report. May 2007.
Stillwater Sciences. 2010. Memorandum addressed to Mr. John Oborne, Contra
Costa County Conservation and Development Department. Response to
comments from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) dated July 19,
2007 regarding the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact
Report (NOP/EIR) for the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project.
August 5, 2010. Plus Tables 8 and 9.
USDA. 1977. Soil survey of Contra Costa County, California. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. In cooperation with
the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and University of
California Agricultural Experiment Station.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants; commencement of status review for a petition to list the
western pond turtle and California red-legged frog. Federal Register, Vol. 57,
No. 193, pp. 45761-45762.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-79
USFWS. 1995. Draft Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan: a plan to increase natural
production of anadromous fish in the Central Valley of California. Prepared
for the Secretary of the Interior by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with
assistance from the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group
under authority of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
USFWS. 1996. Recovery plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta native fishes.
Prepared by Delta Native Fishes Recovery Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 1, Portland, OR.
USFWS. 1997. Formal programmatic consultation and conference on the
reauthorized Department of the Army’s Nationwide and Regional General
Permit Program within the “Legal Delta” (Regulatory Branch Number
199700173). Sacramento, CA. 6 October.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
Endangered Species Information.
INTERNET(http://sacramento.fws.gov/es/spp_info.htm
USFWS 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical
Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) 50 CFR
Part 17 Proposed Rule. Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180, pp.
53491-53540. September 16.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-
Legged Frog (Rana draytonii); Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17, Vol 75. No. 51. pps.
12816-12959. March 17, 2010.
Wang, J.C. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent
Waters, California: A Guide to the Early Life Stages. Technical Report 9.
Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Estuary. January. http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/kopec/tr9/html /home.html
Yoshiyama, R.M., F.W. Fisher, and P.B. Moyle. 1998. Historical abundance and
decline of Chinook salmon in the central valley region of California. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:487–521.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1988. California's
wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles. State of California, the
Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-80
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-1
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section discusses known paleontological, archaeological, and historical
resources that may be present on or near the project site, and evaluates the
potential for the project to impact known and unknown cultural resources.
Applicable legislation relating to cultural resources and archaeological sites is also
summarized. This discussion is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment of the
Proposed Pantages at Discovery Bay Development, prepared by Peak & Associates,
Inc. (2003, updated in 2007), which is attached as Appendix C to this draft EIR and is
available for review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and
Development, Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,
California. An online database maintained by the University of California Museum
of Paleontology was accessed and reviewed in 2010.
There were no public comments related to cultural resources received in response
to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR.
4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are traces of human occupation and activity that include
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, districts, and objects; standing historic
structures buildings, districts, and objects; and locations of important historic events
of sites of traditional and/or cultural importance to various groups. Historic cultural
materials may include finds from the late 19th through early 20th centuries that can
be attributed to Hispanic, Asian or other ethnic groups. Potentially significant
objects and features associated with the Historic Period (1769 – present) can
include the following: structural remains or portions of foundations (bricks,
cobbles/boulders, stacked field stone, postholes, etc.); trash pits, privies, wells and
associated artifacts; isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts
(e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood items, etc.); or human remains.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources consist of the fossilized remains of plants and animals,
including vertebrates (animals with backbones) and invertebrates (e.g., starfish,
clams, ammonites, and marine coral). The age and abundance of fossils depends on
the topography and geological formations of the region of interest. Geologic
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-2
mapping of surficial deposits in the Discovery Bay area of Contra Costa County
indicate that most of the higher elevations of the region are the crests of old sand
dunes of Pleistocene (10,000 to 1 million years ago) or early Holocene (present to
10,000 years ago) age, and are underlain by sandy eolian deposits that are generally
considered to have formed more than 7,000 years ago. In the immediate vicinity of
the project site, the lower-lying areas between the crest of dunes are underlain by
younger, fine-grained alluvial fan deposits of Kellogg Creek.
A record search was conducted on July 15, 2010 of the online database maintained
by the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) to identify any
known paleontological resources in the project vicinity. According to the UCMP, no
records of known fossil localities exist on the project site; the closest recorded
paleontological site is located approximately 9 miles south, within Alameda County.
Archeological and Historical Resources
Regional Prehistoric Condition
Human occupation in northern California began at least 9,000 to 11,500 years ago,
with Native American occupation and use of the Bay Area extending over the last
approximately 5,000 to 8,000 years. The following discussion includes a description
of the Native American tribes that are expected to have inhabited the project site
based on the ethnography of the project area as well as archeological discoveries in
the project area. Ethnography is the study of people and is used to characterize the
prehistoric setting of the project region. Ethnographic information and archaeology
are important because they provide the context for what types of artifacts may be
found on the project site.
Ethnographic History
The Yokut people occupied the San Joaquin Valley and neighboring foothills. They
were members of the Penutian language family, a distinct language group in
California, found in the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay, and along the Pacific Coast
from Marin County to Point Sur. Cultural traits were shaped by the environmental
influences of the area. For example, although they spoke different languages, the
Miwok people were culturally more similar to the nearby Yokuts than to the foothill
members of their own language group. Furthermore, the material culture of the
southern San Joaquin Yokut was more closely related to that of their non-Yokut
neighbors than to the Delta members of their own language group.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-3
The Yokuts of the interior valley, somewhat removed from the coastal incursions of
the Spanish, maintained a large degree of cultural cohesiveness until they were
overrun by miners and settlers in the 1850s. The Delta Yokuts, on the other hand,
were nearly all mission Indians by the early 1820s and there is little knowledge of
their aboriginal way of life.
Trade was well developed among the different groups, with mutually beneficial
interchange of needed or desired goods such as obsidian, shell beads, and acorns.
Settlements were oriented around water resources, with major villages situated
near waterways that provided reliable water supplies and substantial food sources.
Regional Archaeological Context
The earliest archaeological discovery within interior portions of Contra Costa County
(County) has a radiocarbon date of 2500-400 Before Christ (B.C.) This time period is
associated with flexed burials and artifacts that reflect the later culture of the Bay
Area (the Berkeley Pattern ). The Berkeley Pattern (lasting until about Anno Domini
(A.D.) 500) is characterized by the use of certain hunting and cooking tools. Around
A.D. 500, the social trends of the later Berkeley Pattern intensified and developed
into the Augustine Pattern. These trends include development of status distinctions
based on wealth emergence of group-oriented religions, greater complexity of
exchange systems to equalize access to resources, and regulation of trade
relationships between different populations. Archeologically, the Augustine Pattern
is marked by the introduction of the bow and arrow.
Regional Historical Conditions
Hispanic Period (1772−1848)
In 1772, Pedro Fages discovered the Carquinez Straits and explored the Contra
Costa County area (Peak & Associates 2003). Between 1769 and 1823, the
Franciscan order of missionary priests, serving as the principal agency of Spain’s
imperial expansion into Alta California, founded 21 missions establishing Hispanic
control over an area from San Diego to the Bay Area. The Franciscan missions were
organized to convert the native people to Roman Catholic Christianity and to a
frontier form of Hispano-European society.
The introduction of disease for which native populations has no natural immunity or
resistance slowly led to the decline of the native population and thus, the mission
system began to fall apart. After 1834, the missions were secularized and
Franciscan control was phased out. The largest part of the mission lands came into
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-4
the hands of opportunistic Spanish colonists. These colonists created a hacienda
system built around a frontier ranching economy, characteristic of Mexican
California in the late 1830s and 1840s (Peak & Associates 2003).
American Period (1848−Present)
After the Mexican War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) transferred
sovereignty of California to the United States. This coincided with the discovery of
gold in the Mother Lode region of the Sierra Nevada, accelerating population
growth in the area. The gold rush and the long-term success of mining encouraged
the development of ranching, farming, trade, and urban growth. These events
began a cycle of development causing California’s population to increase every
decade since the 1850s.
In the late 1800s, Point of Timber, a landing on Indian Slough located within the
project area, proved to be an important shipping point for lumber and grain. Point
of Timber generated enough traffic to create a trading center over a mile west of
the intersection between Point of Timber Road and Byron Highway. The site
included a general store, blacksmith shop, and a post office.
By the end of World War I, the Delta had been transformed from a large tidal marsh
into a series of improved channels and leveed islands that is still recognizable today.
Railroad construction by the Southern Pacific Railroad gave impetus to the
beginning of industrial development in the County.
4.4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
Records Search
Peak & Associates conducted a records search of the project vicinity in December
2002 and September 2007 at Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State
University (NWIS). An additional records search of the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) was conducted by the Northwest
Information Center in January 2010 to confirm the findings of the 2002 and 2007
records searches. The records searches revealed that approximately 1,070 acres
west of the existing Discovery Bay development was part of an earlier field study
conducted by Trent Mears in 1994. This study did not formally record any sites on
the project site but did note three residential/farming complexes that were
considered to be potentially significant historical resources. No prehistoric resources
were observed during that study (see Project Site Survey discussion, below).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-5
The NWIS record search also included a review of the Revised Preliminary Historic
Resources Inventory for Contra Costa County, California (1989), which is derived
from their listing in the California Inventory of Historic Resources. This review found
that Point of Timber shipping point (see Site PA-03-G05, below), on the eastern
edge of the project site, and the Point of Timber Trading Station, outside of the
project site near Byron, are listed on the Revised Preliminary Historic Resources
Inventory.
According to Peak & Associates, Inc., other surveys identified by NWIS were
completed for a project north of Indian Slough directly opposite the project site and
for the route of a Pacific, Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas pipeline to the west of the
project site. Neither of these surveys recorded historical sites near the project site.
Project Site Survey
A field survey of the project site was conducted on March 19, 2003 and September
2007, by Peak & Associates, Inc. to confirm the results of the previous field survey
(Mears 1994). Peak & Associates concluded that the existing soils on the project
site and historical use of the site (i.e., irrigated crop production) result in a low
likelihood of locating prehistoric resources or evidence of historic habitation on the
site.
Topographic maps of the project area (1916 and 1978 United States Geological
Survey (USGS)) were reviewed to determine historical land uses at the project site.
Based on a review of these resources, the historical uses on the site include
residential, agricultural, and grazing uses. According to the 1916 Byron 15’ USGS
quadrangle map, there was one structure at the eastern end of Point of Timber
Road (PA-03-G05) and one residence in the northeastern corner of the project site,
at the end of a minor road leading north from the end of Point of Timber. The 1978
Byron 15’ USGS quadrangle map includes both of these structures as well as two
additional residences: one residence is located at the end of Point of Timber Road
(PA-03-G03) and one residence is located farther west on the north side of Point of
Timber Road (PA-03-G04).
Peak & Associates confirmed that there is no longer a standing structure in the
northeast corner of the project site, although an ornate entry gate, introduced
vegetation, and a small artificial pond are still present. The building’s foundation is
no longer present. Furthermore, there are few artifacts in the area and no
indication of a privy or trash dump, suggesting that historical archaeology would be
unlikely to produce meaningful results.
The three major structures (identified by their field numbers) that were recorded
during the field survey are discussed in greater detail below.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-6
Site PA-03-G03
In 2002, this complex consisted of a residence, barn, and four sheds on the south
side of Point of Timber Road in the western portion of the project site. The house
was a two-story frame structure with stucco walls and a composite shingle roof.
The second-story was an addition to the original one-story house which had a
gabled roof. The second story extended from the rear (south) half of the original
house and had a shed roof sloping downward to the south. The house had a tall
brick chimney on the west side, which had been extended higher by an iron pipe.
The residence appeared to have been heavily modified with architectural features
that were not uniformly consistent. A large hole on the grounds of the complex may
have represented an old well.
To the south and east of the house were four standing sheds and the remains of a
fifth shed. One relatively new shed, located next to the fallen shed, had cinder
block walls and a tin roof. The other three sheds were in disrepair.
The barn had tin roofing and an unusual design. It had an open section facing north
and an enclosed section on the south that was elevated approximately 3 feet above
ground level (probably used for feed storage). The unique design and elevation are
likely related to the wet ground conditions common in the area.
The residence was the only structure on PA-03-G03 that appeared on the most
recent USGS edition (1978) for the project area. This indicates that most of the
complex was built after 1978 and is thus too young to be considered eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The structure bears little resemblance
to its original appearance and there is no known association of the complex with
historical persons or events. In the absence of a privy pit or other locus of older
artifacts, the site is not eligible for NHRP. The complex represents post World War II
farming activity and is of no greater importance at the state or local level than at the
national level. The site is not eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR).
Site PA-03-G04
In 2002, the building group north of Point of Timber Road in the western portion of
the project site, consisted of a residence, tankhouse, and garage. According to the
Peak & Associates report, the residence burned to the ground. A review of aerial
photographs of the site indicated that the site contains only building debris
associated with the complex. The tankhouse was a three-story square tower with a
pyramidal tin roof and a small one-story extension with a gabled roof to the north.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-7
There were numerous artifacts scattered around the site, but none that could be
accredited to anything other than recent occupation. PVC piping in the house
plumbing proved that the site was occupied until quite recently.
The 2007 site inspection revealed that the whole location had been leveled, aside
from a pile of construction debris. The Peak & Associates report found that,
although the tankhouse was a historically interesting type of structure, it was not
unusual enough or sufficiently intact to be considered significant. Thus, the site and
its remains are not eligible for listing in the NHRP. Because the remains of all of the
structures have been removed and/or leveled, there is even less reason to consider
the site significant. In its present condition, it is not eligible for the CRHR.
Site PA-03-G05
The PA-03-G05 complex consists of a residence, barn, and three sheds. The
structural complex is at the end of Point of Timber Road; however the road once
extended north to the far northeastern corner of the project site. This may have
been the location of the Point of Timber shipping point. Even though the 1916
USGS map does not show a waterway in this area, prior to 1916, there would not
have been any reason for the road to extend to unreclaimed swampland, except to
reach the former Point of Timber shipping point. Therefore, it is likely that the
northeast corner of the property is the site of the shipping point.
In 2002, the residence at the site had burned down and the barn appeared to be
relatively modern. The remains of the residence included a trace of a stairway,
indicating that the house was once a two-story structure. The residence was once
connected to a 10- by 20-foot building via a narrow enclosed hallway. The
residence was built without foundations and at one time had a full-length front
porch.
The barn was very large and appeared quite modern. It had characteristic features
of modern barns, including a hay loft with a roof extension at a lower pitch on both
long sides, a small roof extension at the peak on one side to protect hoisting gear,
and concrete wall foundations. The corrugated tin roofing was missing in places and
rusted elsewhere. The vertical plank siding was missing some planks.
To the south of the barn, there was a small shed. The shed was raised about 4 feet
from the ground on a concrete wall, indicating that it was a relatively new addition.
West of this (between the house and the barn) were two other sheds which had
partially fallen down. These sheds were originally frame structures with plank
siding.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-8
The reinspection in 2007 indicated that the residence was more deteriorated and
the sheds on the west side had almost completely collapsed.
The evidence appears to indicate that the northeast corner of the project site is the
former location of the Point of Timber shipping site. However, the surviving
features are not the sort that would be associated with a shipping point. Point of
Timber is the site of an historic event, but there is no longer any physical evidence
associated with the event. None of the surviving or partially surviving structures are
old enough to have been part of the Point of Timber operation. There is no known
association with historic persons or events, the only older structure is nearly
destroyed, and no archeologically interesting artifacts were found. Therefore, the
site is not eligible for listing in the NHRP or in the CRHR.
4.4.3 REGULATORY SETTING
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal
agencies to take into consideration the potential effects of proposed undertakings
on cultural resources listed on or determined eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and to allow the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation the opportunity to comment on the proposed undertaking. The
regulations implementing Section 106 are promulgated by the Secretary of the
Interior, as codified in Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. Section
106 requirements apply to properties not formally determined eligible, but which
are considered to meet eligibility requirements.
Archaeological resources are typically considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP
because of the information they have or may be likely to convey. Intensity of
impacts to archaeological resources relates to the importance of the information
they contain and the extent of the disturbance or degradation.
Determining the NRHP eligibility of a site or district is guided by the specific legal
context of the site’s significance as set out in 36 CFR Part 60.4. The NHPA authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to expand a National Register of districts, sites,
buildings, structures and objects of significance in American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering and culture. A property may be listed in the NRHP if it
meets criteria for evaluation as defined in 36 CFR 60.4. Section 110(d)(6)(A) of the
NHPA allows properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a tribe to
be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-9
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects
that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling
and association and:
1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
2. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
3. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
4. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project area was surveyed for cultural and historically significant resources.
None of the project sites have been determined eligible for the NRHP.
California Register of Historic Resources
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) administers the California
Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), which was established in 1992 though
amendments to the Public Resources Code, to be used by state and local agencies,
private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to
indicate what properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change.
The CRHR includes resources that have been formally determined eligible for, or
listed in, the NRHP, State Historical Landmark Number 770 or higher, Points of
Historical Interest recommended for listing by the State Historical Resources
Commission (SHRC) for listing, resources nominated for listing and determined
eligible in accordance with criteria and procedures adopted by the SHRC, and
resources and districts designated as city or county landmarks when the designation
criteria are consistent with CRHR criteria.
PRC Section 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their
eligibility for listing on the CRHR. The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were
expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria
developed for listing in the NRHP, which is described above.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-10
As defined by Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, a resource shall be
considered historically significant if the resource meets the following criteria:
It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
It 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
It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history. (Criterion D is usually applied only to archaeological sites, rather than in
the evaluation of most historic architectural structures, see below.)
Automatic CRHR listings include NRHP listed and determined eligible historic
properties (either by the Keeper of the NRHP or through a consensus determination
on a project review); State Historical Landmarks from number 770 onward; Points of
Interest nominated from January 1998 onward. Landmarks prior to 770 and Points
of Historical Interest may be listed through an action of the SHRC (CAL/OHP ca.
1999b).
Project Consistency Analysis
The project area was surveyed for cultural and historically significant resources.
None of the sites within the project area have been determined eligible for the
CRHR.
Senate Bill 18
Signed into law on September of 2004, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires cities and
counties to notify and consult with California Native American Tribes about
proposed local land use planning decisions for the purpose of protecting tribal
cultural resources. SB 18 stipulates that, beginning on March 1, 2005, cities and
counties must send any proposals for revisions or amendments to general plans and
specific plans to those California Native American Tribes that are on the Native
American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) contact list and have traditional lands
located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. Cities and counties must also
conduct consultations with these tribes prior to adopting or amending their general
plans or specific plans.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-11
Project Consistency Analysis
The NAHC in Sacramento was contacted for a list of individuals who might be able to
contribute information regarding Native American resources in the project area.
Letters were sent to the recommended individuals in February 2003, but no replies
were received. It should be noted that based on the presence of the peat soils, it is
believed that regular flooding of this project area occurred prior to levee
construction. Therefore, it is unlikely that there was substantial prehistoric
habitation at or near the project site.
Other California Laws and Regulations
The disposition of Native American burials is governed by Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 and fall
within the jurisdiction of the NAHC.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project will follow the procedures required by the California Health and Safety
Code as outlined below in Impact CUL-4 and Mitigation Measure CUL-4 if any
Native American remains are uncovered during project construction. The project
would therefore be consistent with these requirements.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Open Space Element of the Contra Costa General Plan contains the following
relevant policies related to the protection of cultural resources:
Open Space Element
9-32: Areas which are identifiable and important archaeological or historic
significance shall be preserved for such uses, preferably in public ownership.
9-33: Buildings or structures that have visual merit and historic value shall be
protected.
9-34: 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.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be in compliance with General Plan policies related to cultural
resources. As previously stated, and in response to policy OS 9-33, existing
structures on site are not eligible for listing in the NRHP or in the CRHR.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-12
Furthermore, the project site is not in an area identified for archaeological or
historical significance and is therefore in compliance with policies OS 9-32 and
OS 9-34.
4.4.4 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
on cultural resources if it would:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5;
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature; or
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Site surveys and archival research confirmed that no known archeological or
paleontological resources exist on the site. Formal evaluation of the structures on
the site also confirmed that no structure or site is eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources.
However, there is always a possibility that an unknown resource may exist in the
project area and could be discovered during grading, excavation, or construction.
The following mitigation measures would ensure proper identification and
treatment of any resources uncovered during construction of the project.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-13
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Impact CUL-1: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5. (Significant)
As described previously in this section, none of the buildings on the project site
were identified as eligible for listing in the NRHP and therefore their removal would
not constitute a significant impact. However, there is always a possibility that an
unknown site may exist in the project area and could be discovered during grading,
excavation, or construction. Indicators of historic resources include glass, metal,
ceramics, brick, wood, and similar debris.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in
the event that any prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological
resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100
feet of the resources shall be halted and the applicant shall consult with the
County and a qualified professional (historian, archaeologist and/or
paleontologist as determined appropriate and approved by the County) to
assess the significance of the find.
If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the
consulting professional shall determine the appropriate avoidance measures or
other appropriate mitigation.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting professional
to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the County shall determine whether
avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project
design, costs, and other considerations.
If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data recovery,
shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials
recovered shall, at the discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according
to current professional standards.
At the County’s discretion, all work performed by the consulting professional
shall be paid for by the applicant and at the County’s discretion, the professional
may work under contract with the County.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-14
This mitigation provides specific direction to protect unanticipated historical
resources discoveries during project construction. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Impact CUL-2: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an unknown archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Significant)
As previously discussed, no archeological resources were observed or are known to
be present on the project site. However, there is a possibility that resources
meeting the definition of a unique archeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the
Public Resource Code or qualifying as historic resources could become visible once
vegetation is removed or during construction excavation. Indicators of prehistoric
site activity include artifacts, exotic rock, or unusual amounts of shell or bone.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would reduce impacts from changes in the significance of an archaeological
resource to a less-than-significant level.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This mitigation provides specific direction to provide protection of unanticipated
archaeological resources discoveries during project construction.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts
to a less-than-significant level.
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact CUL-3: Construction of the project potentially could directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature.
(Significant)
As previously discussed, no paleontological resources or unique geologic features
were observed or are known to be present on the project site. There is, however, a
possibility that paleonotological resources may become visible once vegetation is
removed or during construction activities such as grading and excavation. Examples
of paleonotological resources include body fossils (e.g., bones, any part of an
organism) and trace fossils (e.g., any evidence of past life such as tracks, trailways,
burrows).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-15
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would reduce impacts to paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature
to a less-than-significant level.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This mitigation provides specific direction to protect unanticipated
paleontological resources or unique geologic feature discoveries during project
construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce
potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact CUL-4: Construction of the project could potentially disturb human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Significant)
Although no signs of human remains or burial sites were observed during the survey
of the project site, or known to be present in the project area, there is always a
possibility that such remains may become visible once vegetation is removed or
during construction activities such as grading and excavation.
The project applicant shall comply with California law regarding the treatment of
Native American human remains as contained in California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and Section 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.
California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials,
skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism
and inadvertent destruction. The California Health and Safety Code requires that if
human remains are found in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, work is
to be halted in the immediate area, and the county coroner is to be notified to
determine the nature of the remains. The coroner is required to examine all
discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on
private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner
determines that the remains are those of a Native American interment, then the
Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to identify the most likely
descendants and the appropriate disposition of the remains.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: In the event of the accidental discovery or
recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated
cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-16
The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be
contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is
required, and
If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours;
The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person
or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the
deceased Native American;
The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for
means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the
human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and
associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a
location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most
likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the
Commission;
The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or
The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the
recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native
American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would ensure compliance with
the requirements of Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15064.5, subd. (e)), which dictate the actions that shall be
taken in the event that human remains are discovered outside of a dedicated
cemetery. Compliance with the provisions of the guidelines would reduce the
significant impact to unknown archeological material and prehistoric human
remains in the project area to a less-than-significant level.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-17
4.4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes the planned developments
within the county that could potentially affect archaeological or historical resources.
As determined by the Contra Costa County General Plan EIR, development
associated with the General Plan buildout would result in potentially significant
impacts to known and unknown historical and archeological resources. As such,
development of the project site, in combination with the planned projects of the
General Plan EIR, would result in a significant cumulative impact to cultural
resources.
No known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources were identified on
the project site, and therefore the project would not contribute to this cumulative
impact. To the extent that construction activities unearth previously undiscovered
resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would
ensure their proper identification and treatment. The project would therefore not
result in a considerable contribution to this cumulative impact.
4.4.6 REFERENCES
Peak & Associates, Inc. (2003, updated in 2007) Cultural Resources Assessment of
the Proposed Pantages at Discovery Bay Development.
University of California Museum of Paleontology. Locality Search. Available at
http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/loc.shtml. Accessed on July 15, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-18
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.5 Energy
4.5-1
4.5 ENERGY
This section describes the potential effects of the project on energy conservation.
The information in this section comes primarily from analysis of the project site
plans and communication with service providers.
There were no public comments related to energy demands received in response to
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR.
4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Electrical and Gas Services
In Contra Costa County, electrical and gas services in the project area are provided
by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E obtains its energy supplies from
power plants and natural gas fields in northern California, as well as from energy
purchased outside its service area and delivered through high voltage transmission
lines and pipelines. Power is generated from various sources, including fossil fuel,
hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and geothermal plants; and is fed into the electrical
grid system serving Northern California.
The project site is located within the southeastern portion of PG&E’s Delta
Distribution Planning Area (DPA), which covers the eastern portion of Contra Costa
County from Bay Point to Middle River. Electricity distribution facilities that serve
the project site are located in a subsection of the Delta DPA – the Brentwood DPA –
which has a current capacity of approximately 335 megawatts (MW) (Lau 2010).
Existing electrical utility lines that serve Discovery Bay are currently located within a
joint trench in a public utility easement that crosses the site under the private
extension of Point of Timber Road.
PG&E supplies natural gas to the project area through a distribution system in
eastern Contra Costa County. An existing 6-inch plastic gas main extends along the
south side of Point of Timber Road, terminating just east of the project site (Tedder
2005).
PG&E updates all load forecasts for gas and electricity services every year. Load
growth forecasts for this area are currently determined using load growth
projection tools that use a number of sources of data including past peak loading,
population, development plans, and temperature history information. If an update
for the distribution area indicates that the load growth is different than forecasted,
an expansion of the existing systems would be timed to match the faster or slower
Pantages Bays Project
4.5 Energy Draft EIR
4.5-2
growth. The distribution systems that would serve the project are designed to
adequately serve the energy demands from projected development within the
County’s Urban Limit Line, including the proposed project (Lau 2010; Nelson 2010).
4.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING
California's Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential Buildings, Title 24
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings were established in 1978 in
response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The
standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2008
Standards went into effect in January 2010. Typically, every three years, energy
efficiency standards are revised and performance requirements are more stringent.
It is expected at least one more update would occur prior to the development of the
project. Building permits submitted on or after this date must comply with the 2008
Standards. In addition, new minimum green building requirements are included in
the most recent California Building Code update, which takes effect in January 2011.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would incorporate ‘green building’ and energy saving measures
pursuant to the Energy Efficiency Standards of Title 24, and the new California
Green Building Code. The project would therefore not conflict with the provisions
of Title 24.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Conservation Element of the General Plan contains the following relevant goals
related to energy conservation:
Goal 8-L: Reduce energy use in the County to avoid risks of air pollution and
energy shortages which prevent orderly development.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would incorporate ‘green building’ and energy saving measures
pursuant to the Energy Efficiency Standards of Title 24, and the new California
Green Building Code. These same measures would reduce the potential energy use
of the project, thereby ensuring consistency with Goal 8-L of the General Plan.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.5 Energy
4.5-3
4.5.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Energy significance determinations utilized in this section are based on Appendix F
(Energy Conservation) of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact will occur if
implementation of the project would:
a) Result in a wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of energy; or
b) Result in a significant demand on regional energy supply or requirements of
substantial additional capacity.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the two
significance criteria stated above shows that less-than-significant impacts would
result for each of the criteria. The following discussions present the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
a) Would the project result in a wasteful, inefficient and
unnecessary use of energy?
b) Would the project result in a significant demand on regional
energy supply or requirements of substantial additional capacity?
Energy Demands/Usage
Based on energy averages provided by PG&E, the project would be expected to
increase peak load demands on gas and electricity services by 2,336 cubic feet per
hour (cfh) and 2 MW (Lau 2010; Nelson 2010).
Gas and electric services would require the extension of existing underground
electrical and gas utility lines from utility corridors in Point of Timber Road. PG&E
has indicated that it has sufficient capacity to serve the project contingent upon
submittal of the appropriate application by the developer. It is not anticipated that
off-site improvements of these service lines would be necessary. However,
realignment and extension of these existing service lines would be necessary on the
project site to accommodate the new building footprints and would be completed
as part of project development. PG&E does not anticipate that service interruption
to existing utility services in the project area would be required during the
realignment and extension of service lines on the project site. If a service
interruption in the surrounding community would be required in order to energize
Pantages Bays Project
4.5 Energy Draft EIR
4.5-4
the new service lines, the interruption would be planned in advance by PG&E and
notices to the community would be sent by PG&E prior to the service interruption
(Lau 2011).
As previously discussed, electrical and gas services would be provided by PG&E. No
deficiencies in electrical and gas service have been identified by PG&E in the vicinity
of the project, nor has PG&E identified any deficiencies that would be caused by the
project. Furthermore, compliance with the Energy Efficiency Standards of Title 24
would reduce the project’s potential to use energy in a wasteful manner. Therefore,
the project’s impact on energy would be less than significant.
4.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for energy impacts is the regional energy distribution
systems that serve the project site and the County. Development proposed as part
of the build out of the General Plan within the County could increase energy
demands on these systems. However, the General Plan EIR does not identify any
cumulative energy impact related to build out.
PG&E has indicated that the distribution systems serving the County are designed to
adequately serve the energy demands from projected development within the
County’s Urban Limit Line, including the proposed project (Lau 2010; Nelson 2010).
As such, the project in combination with the other development in the County
would not result in cumulative impacts to energy.
4.5.5 REFERENCES
Lau, Warren, Electrical Distribution Engineer, PG&E – Diablo Division. Personal
Communication August 20, 2010 and April 18, 2011.
Nelsen, Matt, PG&E, Entry Engineer – Gas Distribution Planning. Personal
Communication September 2, 2010.
Tedder, Gene, Senior Business Manager, PG&E – Antioch, CA Office. Personal
Communication January 4, 2005.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-1
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section describes the geology and soils of the project site and the potential risks
associated with known geologic hazards, including seismic activity (i.e.,
earthquakes). This section assesses the potential impacts to geology and soils as a
result of project implementation and includes mitigation measures to reduce
potentially significant impacts.
Information in this section is based on the following geotechnical reports prepared
for the project by ENGEO, Inc. (ENGEO) in 1999, 2004, and 2006:
ENGEO, 2006, Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California
(revised October 27, 2006).
ENGEO, 2004, Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California.
ENGEO, 1999, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Discovery Shores, Contra
Costa County, California.
The geotechnical reports that have been incorporated into this analysis are available
for review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development,
Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Illustrated
in Figure 4.6-1 are the locations of the various geological investigations on the
project site.
No comments related to the geology and soils were received in response to the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report (EIR).
4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Geology
The project site is located in the Sacramento Delta, within the Great Valley
Geomorphic Province of California. In this region, wind-blown deposits (i.e., weakly
consolidated fluvial, deltaic and eolian) overlie bedrock. The nearest outcrop of
bedrock to the project site is approximately 4.5 miles to the southwest in the
foothills of the Diablo Range.
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-2
Most of the higher elevations of the region are the crests of old sand dunes of
Pleistocene or early Holocene age1, and are underlain by sandy eolian deposits that
are generally considered to have formed more than 7,000 years ago. In the
immediate vicinity of the project site, the lower-lying areas between the crest of
dunes are underlain by younger, fine-grained alluvial fan deposits of Kellogg Creek.
Site Geology
The near-surface sediments across the project site primarily consist of eolian, tidal
wetland, lacustrine (lake-deposited) and alluvial (water-deposited) deposits. These
sediments are typically irregularly stratified, poorly-consolidated deposits of clay,
silt and sand. The geology of the near-surface deposits on the site has been largely
influenced by changes in sea level during the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene
ages.2
Soils on the project site were mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and
presented in the Biological Resources Analysis report, included as Appendix B. The
four soil units mapped on the project site include Marcuse clay (Mb), Brentwood
clay loam (wet)(Bc), Pescadero clay loam (Pb), and Sacramento clay, alkali (Sb). All
of these soils are classified as hydric, meaning they are soils that form in wetlands.
The Marcuse clay, Brentwood Clay Loam (wet), and the Pescadero Clay Loam soils
form in alluvium from sedimentary rock. The Sacramento Clay alkali forms in mixed
alluvium.
Artificial Fill
In 2003, the project site was used by Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) for
detention of dredge spoils as part of a channel dredging program in Discovery Bay.
Artificial fill related to the dredging program was generally identified at the ground
surface along the northern and southeastern edges of the project site, as well as
within the areas of the former siltation ponds located in the central portion of the
project site. The fill primarily consists of up to 3 to 4 feet of stiff, silty and sandy
clay.
1 The Holocene age is a geological time period which began approximately 12,000 years ago. The Late
Pleistocene age is a geological time period that began approximately 10,000 years ago.
2 The Pleistocene Epoch occurred between 1.8 million and 10,000 years ago.
Source: ENGEO, Inc., 2007.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.6-1FigureGeotechnical Location Of Field Investigations
250
FEET
1250 500
Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
ECCID ChannelDISCOVERY BAY
VILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)RAVENSWOODECCID Dredge Cut
O
l
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-4
Figure 4.6-1 Location of Field Investigations (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-5
Fine-Grained Alluvium
Fine-grained alluvium deposited from Kellogg Creek occurs at ground surface across
the majority of the project site. The alluvium deposits typically consist of silty to
sandy clay, clayey to sandy silt, and relatively thin layers of loose to medium dense
sand. These layers are considered relatively weak and potentially compressible.
The soft clayey soils were about 1.5 to 6 feet thick, and encountered at approximate
elevations of 0 to 15 feet below ground surface.
Dune Sand
Fine- to medium-grained silty dune sand occurs at the surface of the elevated areas
on the northern portion of the site. The dune sand deposits are 10 to 15 feet thick,
with base elevations approximately 5 to 15 feet below ground surface. Sands
characterized as having a fine- to medium-grain size and silty texture are relatively
consistent throughout the deposit, and are characteristic of eolian sand deposits
caused by wind transport.
Groundwater
Groundwater beneath the project site was encountered at depths between 3.5 to
13 feet below ground surface. However, groundwater levels on the site are not
static and may fluctuate due to seasonal variation in rainfall, tidal action, or other
factors not in evidence at the time of the subsurface investigation.
Seismic and Geological Hazards
The project site is located in an area of moderate seismic activity. No active or
inactive faults are known to come to the surface on or within the immediate vicinity
of the project site. The closest active fault with surface expression, as identified by
the California Geology Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology), is
the Greenville fault, approximately 9 miles southwest of the project site (California
Geological Survey 2007). Other active faults in the project region include the
Calaveras fault, 22 miles to the southwest; the Hayward fault, 31 miles to the
southwest; and the San Andreas fault, 49 miles to the southwest. No portion of the
project site is mapped within an Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ), as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (California Geological
Survey 2010).
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-6
Although no active faults have been mapped through the project site, a seismically-
active blind thrust belt underlies the Coast Range - Great Valley geomorphic
boundary and passes through the eastern portion of Contra Costa County (County).
Its location is not well established, but it is predicted to lie within 5 miles of the
project site.
Potential seismic hazards at the project site resulting from a nearby moderate to
major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary
seismic hazard is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. Common secondary
seismic hazards include ground shaking, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and land
subsidence.
Surface Rupture
Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement
during an earthquake. The location of surface rupture generally can be assumed to
be along an active major fault trace. No known active or potentially active faults
cross the project site; therefore, the probability of experiencing surface rupture is
low.
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s
surface resulting from an earthquake, and is normally the major cause of damage in
seismic events. An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the
San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) could cause considerable ground shaking at the
project site.3 The degree of shaking would be dependent on the magnitude of the
event, the distance to the seismic source of rupture, and local geologic conditions.
According to the Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan) Safety Element,
the project site is in an area designated as “highest damage susceptibility.” These
areas are defined by the General Plan as weak, water saturated deposits that
possess many adverse engineering characteristics, and have poor earthquake
stability.
3 A probabilistic seismic hazard evaluation prepared for the project site forecasts a horizontal ground
surface acceleration (g) of 0.31 g with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year design
lifetime of the planned improvements.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-7
Slope Stability
Slope failure can occur as either rapid movement of large masses of soil (landslide)
or slow, continuous movement (creep). The primary factors influencing the stability
of a slope are: the nature of the underlying soil or bedrock; the geometry of the
slope (height and steepness); rainfall; and the presence of previous landslide
deposits. However, the project area is flat, and landslide hazards are not expected.
Soil Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated granular sediments
from a solid state to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking. In the
process, the soil undergoes temporary loss of strength, which commonly causes
ground displacement or ground failure to occur. Since saturated soils are a
necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the groundwater
table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the
water table is located at greater depths.
As previously discussed, the upper 10 to 15 feet of the dune sands appear to be
loose to medium dense in consistency across much of the central and northern
portion of the project site. Given that the water table is near the surface (as high as
3.5 feet below ground surface), these upper, loose dune sand layers are potentially
liquefiable. Because of their clay content, the layers of loose to medium dense
alluvial sands encountered in the southern portion of the project site are considered
non-liquefiable.
With regard to liquefaction potential, the Safety Element of the General Plan
presents a map that divides Contra Costa County into three categories: “generally
high,” “generally moderate to low,” and “generally low.” According to this map, the
project site is in the “generally high” category. However, this map is only used as
screening tool by the County during the processing of land development
applications. The classification “generally high” liquefaction does not imply the
presence of liquefiable sands on a parcel. Site specific investigations are needed to
determine if truly liquefiable sands are present on site and to provide stabilization
measures where liquefiable sands are confirmed. Because the site is in the
“generally high” category, quantitative evaluation of liquefaction potential is
required by the County.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a form of horizontal displacement of soil toward an open
channel or excavation boundary. Lateral spreading can result from either the slump
of low cohesion unconsolidated material or more commonly by liquefaction of
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-8
either the soil layer or a subsurface layer underlying soil material on a slope,
resulting in gravitationally driven movement. Earthquake shaking leading to
liquefaction of saturated soil can result in lateral spreading where the soil
undergoes a temporary loss of strength.
The potential for lateral spreading is rated high in the portions of the project site
that are adjacent to open bodies of water and underlain by liquefiable sands.
Additionally, the proposed landscaped slope near the central western entrance to
the site has potential to experience lateral spreading during an earthquake.
Expansive Soils
Expansion and contraction of volume can occur when expansive soils undergo
alternating cycles of wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking). During these cycles,
the volume of the soil changes markedly. As a consequence of such volume
changes, structural damage to buildings and infrastructure may occur if the
potentially expansive soils were not considered in project design and during
construction.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) classifies the expansivity of soils based on their
Plastic Index (PI), as determined by laboratory testing using prescribed test
procedures. The UBC states that PI’s between 91-130 are considered to have a
“High Expansion Potential” and any values in excess of 130 are to be termed “Very
High Expansion Potential”. The distinctions are contained in Table 18-I-B of the
UBC. The near-surface soils in the northern portion of the project site generally
consist of non-plastic (non-expansive) sandy material. By contrast, soils in the
southern portion of the project site consist primarily of clayey materials of medium
to high plasticity (tendency to swell or shrink due to changes in moisture content)
and a moderate to high expansion potential. Soils that rated as highly expansive
represent a significant risk of damage to buildings and infrastructure.
Ground Subsidence
Subsidence can occur in areas where the subsurface materials, such as limestone
rock or salt deposits, are dissolved by fluid flow, creating subsurface voids that can
collapse. Subsidence also occurs where natural resources are extracted, and soil
grains compact. Decomposition of highly organic soils and seasonal drying of
expansive clay soils can result in subsidence, which could damage buildings.
No areas of significant organic soils were encountered during the preliminary
geotechnical investigations on the project site. However, relatively weak and
potentially compressible layers of soft clay were encountered in the south central
portion of the site. Based on the proposed fill thickness, the total consolidation
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-9
settlement across the site is estimated to range from approximately 0.5 to 1 inch.
Approximately 90 percent of the estimated consolidation settlements would be
compacted within 4 months under the weight of the fill (ENGEO 2011).
Corrosivity of Soils
A corrosive substance is one that will destroy or irreversibly damage another surface
or substance with which it comes into contact. The soils at the project site contain a
moderate to severe degree of sulfate, and are severely corrosive to buried metals.
Concrete and metal structures that come into contact with these soils would be at
risk for corrosion, which could result structural damage to buildings and
infrastructure.
Soil Erosion
Soil erosion is a natural process that can be caused by wind or water. Sand mining
and loss of vegetation west of the project area has caused accelerated erosion along
the coast. The eolian soils located beneath the project area are susceptible to wind
erosion. Erosion of these soils could also be accelerated by loss of vegetation or an
increase in channelized water runoff.
Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program (established through the Federal Clean Water Act); the
NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface
water bodies. In California, the NPDES program is administered by the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Board), with local oversight provided by the
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards). Refer to Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, for detailed discussion of NPDES program.
4.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING
California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building
Standards Code, sets minimum requirements for building design and construction.
The 2010 version of the California Building Standards Code are effective as of
January 1, 2011. The California Building Standards Code is a compilation of three
types of building standards from three different origins:
Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change
from building standards contained in national model codes;
Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national
model code standards to meet California conditions; and
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-10
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.
In the context of earthquake hazards, the California Building Standards Code’s
design standards have a primary objective of assuring public safety and a secondary
goal of minimizing property damage and maintaining function during and following
seismic events. The 2010 code assigns a seismic design category (SDC) to each
structure. The SDC is assigned as a means of capturing both the seismic hazard, in
terms of mapped acceleration parameters (spectral values), site class (defining the
soil profile), and the occupancy category (based on its importance or hazardous
material contents). The SDC affects design and detailing requirements as well as the
structural system that may be used and its height.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project and its components would be required to be constructed in accordance
with the 2010 California Building Code (or later adopted codes). Additionally,
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure protection of the
project development and the subsequent community to adverse effects from
seismic related ground failures.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The California Legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in
1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures. The act’s main
purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on
the surface trace of active faults. The act addresses only the hazard of surface fault
rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. Local agencies must
regulate most development in fault zones established by the state geologist.
Project Consistency Analysis
Since the project area does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo EFZ, and no evidence of active
faulting has been documented, the risk of surface fault rupture at the project area is
considered very low, and no actions need to be taken to conform with the Alquist-
Priolo Act.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was adopted in 1990 following the Loma Prieta
earthquake to reduce threats to public health and safety and to minimize property
damage caused by earthquakes. The Act directs the U.S. Department of
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-11
Conservation to identify and map areas prone to the earthquake hazards of
liquefaction, earthquake induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The act
requires site-specific geotechnical investigations to identify potential seismic
hazards and formulate mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments
designed for human occupancy within the Zones of Required Investigation.
Project Consistency Analysis
The California Geological Survey has not yet released Seismic Hazard Maps of the
County. However, the project would be constructed in accordance with the
California Building Code, as previously stated. Additionally, implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure protection of the project development
and the subsequent community to adverse effects from seismic related ground
failures.
Contra Costa County Code, Section 94-4.420
Section 94-4.420 of the Contra Costa County Code (County Code), “Soil Report”, was
adopted in 1978 to mitigate the hazards of unstable soils and geological formations
to structures. Pursuant to the County Code, two copies of the preliminary soil
investigation report prepared for a project must be submitted to the County’s
building inspection department. The report shall indicate the presence of critically
expansive soils, unstable geological formations, or any soil problems which may
present a hazard to structure, buildings, or other improvements. If soil instability
issues arise, a report including the recommended corrective actions taken to
prevent structural damage to buildings, structures, or improvements must also be
submitted. Upon review of the preliminary soil report, the County building
inspector will determine the completeness of the report and the effectiveness of
the recommended corrective actions. If approved, the County building Inspector
shall certify the final map or parcel map and the recommended actions in the report
shall become a condition of approval and incorporated into the development.
Project Consistency Analysis
As identified below under Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the project will require site-
specific geological assessments performed by state-licensed geologists and
specialists to identify potential seismic and geologic hazards and incorporate
recommended mitigation measures into the proposed development of the project
site. The project would be required to comply with all provisions of the County
Code.
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-12
Contra Costa County General Plan
The following policies from the Safety Element of the County General Plan are
relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity issues on the project site.
Safety Element
10-3: Because the region is seismically active, structures for human occupancy
shall be designed to perform satisfactorily under earthquake conditions.
10-6: Structures of human occupancy, and structures and facilities whose loss
would substantially affect the public safety or the provision of needed
services, shall not be erected in areas where there is a high risk of severe
damage in the event of an earthquake.
10-8: Ground conditions shall be a primary consideration in the selection of land
use and in the design of development projects.
10-10: Policies regarding liquefaction shall apply to other ground failures which
might result from groundshaking but which are not subject to such well-
defined field and laboratory analysis.
10-14: Preparation of a geologic report shall be required as a prerequisite before
authorization of public capital expenditures or private development projects
in areas of known or suspected faulting.
10-20: Any structures permitted in areas of high liquefaction danger shall be sited,
designed, and constructed to minimize the dangers from damage due to
earthquake-induced liquefaction.
10-21: Approvals to allow the construction of public and private development
projects in areas of high liquefaction potential shall be contingent on
geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially
hazardous geologic and/or soils conditions, recommend means of
mitigations these adverse conditions; and on proper implementation of the
mitigation measures.
10-27: Soil and geological reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the
County Planning Geologist.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-13
Policy Consistency Analysis
All development within the project site will be designed based on the most recent
state seismic requirements and building codes. These measures would ensure the
reduction of potential risks to people and property resulting from seismic and
geologic hazards. The project would therefore be consistent with the County’s
General Plan policies relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity.
4.6.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
impact on geology and soils if it would:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. 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 or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
ii. Landslides;
iii. Strong seismic ground shaking; or
iv. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;
b) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water;
c) 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;
d) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; or
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-14
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that no impact would
result for one of the five significance criteria. The following discussion presents the
evidence in support of this conclusion.
a) i. Would the project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated by the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map?
As discussed previously, the project site does not include any faults identified as
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Therefore, the project would not expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from these types of
earthquake fault zones.
a) ii. Would the project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving landslides?
The project site generally flat and there is no history of landslides in the vicinity of
Discovery Bay. As such, there is a negligible level of risk related to landslides.
b) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water?
The project site would be served by the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services
District (TDBCSD). Future development would not rely on septic tanks or other
alternative waste water disposal systems, as the urbanized nature of the proposed
development necessitates the use of municipal wastewater collection and
treatment systems (see Section 4.16, Utilities). Therefore no impact would occur.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
significant impact for four of the five significance criteria. The following discussion
presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-15
a) iii. Would the project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
a) iv. Would the project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving seismic-related ground failures, including
liquefaction?
c) 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;
Impact GEO-1: Implementation of the project could expose people and
developments to adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic
related ground failure including liquefaction and lateral spreading. (Significant)
Although the project site is not within an officially designated Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, there is a seismic source in the region capable of generating
considerable ground shaking at the project site. This could lead to potentially
significant impacts resulting from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related
ground failure including liquefaction or lateral spreading.
With proper design and construction, the geological hazards confirmed on the
project site could be successfully mitigated. For example, waterfront bank
stabilization walls are proposed by the applicant to confine liquefiable soils and
thereby reduce the potential for lateral spreading. Additionally, preliminary
geotechnical reports prepared for the project recommend specific criteria and
standards for the following components of the project:
demolition and clearing
selection of earth materials
fill removal
excavation of bays and coves
the use of bank stabilization walls to control lateral spreading
treatment of wet soils
placement of engineered fill
observation and testing
shrinkage
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-16
dewatering
foundation design
performance criteria for wall systems
pavement design
landscape irrigation
backfilling of utility trenching.
The preliminary geotechnical reports prepared for the project site provided
sufficient data to make a preliminary assessment of geological hazards in this draft
EIR. However, final design of the project would require future geotechnical analysis
and plan review, which is required be performed in conjunction with the processing
of construction permits. The County Code make provision for requiring additional
geologic and geotechnical studies during the processing of final maps, grading
permits, and building permits, as discussed in the mitigation measures below.
The California Building Code (2010) has established guidelines for seismic structural
analysis for sites located near active seismic sources. As required by law, the project
would be designed in conformance with current applicable residential standards for
seismic stability as presented in the 2010 California Building Code, or the version in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: The project applicant shall design structures and
foundations to withstand expected seismic sources in accordance with the
current version of the California Building Code, as adopted by the County.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1b: At least 60 days prior to recording the Final Map
the applicant shall submit updated improvement plans for the project for review
by the County’s Peer Review Geologist and review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator. For the purposes of geologic review, the plans shall provide
detailed information on the bank stabilization wall system being proposed along
the waterfront residential lots.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1c: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall submit an updated geology, soils and foundation report meeting
the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 944.420 for review by
the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The report shall address the specific approach to grading and development
indicated by the Final Subdivision Map and Improvement Plans, and shall
provide technical data and engineering analysis that addresses the stability of
the residential lots.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-17
The project geotechnical engineer shall use the following performance criteria:
Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static conditions,
Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static conditions, and which takes into
account the potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity (Great Valley
seismic zone) and
Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1d: During the construction of subdivision
improvements, the project geotechnical engineer shall provide observation and
testing services and issue a grading/shoring wall completion report. The report
shall provide documentation on the bank stabilization wall depths and
appropriate testing of fill compaction to determine the effectiveness of the bank
stabilization measures in preventing lateral spreading failures toward the
Kellogg Creek channel.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building
codes and County Grading Ordinance. The California Building Code (2010)
requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering
analysis of structures to be based on soil profile types. Compliance with
building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally
accepted limits. Peer review of the final design plans and active supervision of
the installation of the project’s seismic components would ensure compliance
with all County approved building requirements.
d) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Impact GEO-2: Development of the project site could result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Significant)
The project site is approximately 171 acres, of which approximately 80 acres is
proposed for development. Construction and/or excavation of associated lots,
private streets, and waterways on the project site would temporarily increase the
amount of exposed (unvegetated) surfaces. Erosion of these surfaces could lead to
increased sedimentation in receiving water bodies (e.g., Kellogg Creek and Indian
Slough).
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building Inspection
Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-18
be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm Water General
Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and
recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP
resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
With regard to long-term control of sedimentation and protection of water
quality, a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006) was
prepared for the project and submitted to the County’s Public Works
Department in order to comply with County water quality requirements.
Engineered linear bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the selected
stormwater runoff treatment for this project, which are area based storm water
treatment facilities.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Effective implementation of the provisions within the SWPPP and SWCP would
keep construction period and long-term erosion and sedimentation to a
practical minimum.
e) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Impact GEO-3: The project could expose structures to substantial adverse effects
related to expansive and corrosive soils on the project site. (Significant)
The expansive characteristics of the soils on the project site may cause ground
subsidence and/or settlement that would damage the proposed building
foundations if not taken into consideration during final design of the project.
Additionally, the soils at the project site contain a moderate to severe degree of
sulfate. Sulfate soils are severely corrosive to buried metals. Concrete and metal
structures that come into contact with these soils would be at risk for corrosion,
which could result structural damage to buildings and infrastructure.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1b and GEO-1c would ensure that the
final development plans for the project were peer reviewed and that any issues to
the stability of the foundations, etc. were properly engineered given the conditions
of the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-3 would ensure
that the corrosivity of the soils was also taken into account.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-19
Mitigation Measure GEO-3: At least 30 days prior to recordation of the final
map, the project applicant shall submit a plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads
and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate how the results of the study will
guide design of concrete and ferrous materials that are in contact with the
ground.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Peer review of the final design plans would ensure compliance with all County
approved building requirements, including those related to expansive and
corrosive soils.
4.6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Geological hazards related to future development in the project vicinity are site
specific and relate to the type of building and building foundation proposed, as well
as the soil composition and slope on the site.
The General Plan EIR noted that build out would increase the potential for new
development in areas subject to seismic shaking, liquefaction, ground failure and
landsliding, thereby increasing the associated risks to persons and property.
As discussed in this section, the project site is not subject to landsliding, liquefaction
or ground failure and would not therefore contribute to this identified cumulative
impact.
Regarding potential seismic shaking, the site is not located in the vicinity of an active
fault line or fault trace and would not therefore be subject to ground rupture.
However, because of the seismically active nature of the region, the project is
required to conform to all general plan conditions requiring analysis and design to
ensure adequate performance during a seismic event. The incorporation of these
design requirements ensure that the project would not make a considerable
contribution to the increase in population exposed to posed injury, death, or
property damage from seismic events in the region.
4.6.5 REFERENCES
California Geological Survey, 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CGS
Special Publication 42.
California Geological Survey. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/. Last Accessed July 13, 2010
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-20
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)– San Francisco Bay
Region. Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, August 2002.
Dk Consulting (2006). Pantages Bays Stormwater Control Plan C.3 Report.
ENGEO, 2011, Summary of Potential Settlement, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California.
ENGEO, 2006, Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California (revised
October 27, 2006).
ENGEO, 2004, Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California.
Engeo, 1999, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Discovery Shores, Contra Costa
County, California.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-1
4.7 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
This section describes the existing greenhouse gas (GHG) conditions and analyzes
the potential GHG emissions that would result from implementation of the project.
Emission sources considered include transportation, natural gas combustion,
indirect emissions from electrical usage, emissions associated with water
conveyance and wastewater treatment.
The impact analysis presented in this section was conducted using guidance
adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in June 2010.
Operational emissions of GHG were estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 model
(version9.2.4), using other BAAQMD emissions factors for area and indirect sources.
The quantitative analysis for greenhouse gas emissions can be found in its entirety
in Appendix A of this draft environmental impact report (EIR).
There were no public comments related to GHG emissions received in response to
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for draft EIR.
Methodology
The effect of a project on global climate change is calculated by quantifying project
emissions of GHG. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the “reference gas” for climate change,
meaning that emissions of GHGs are typically reported in carbon dioxide
equivalents: CO2e.
According to the BAAQMD, no single land use project could, by itself, generate
sufficient GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature
(BAAQMD 2010a). Therefore, GHG emissions are recognized exclusively as potential
cumulative impacts.
Emissions associated with project construction and operation were calculated in
accordance with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
guidance for calculating project emissions. As recommended by the CAPCOA
approach, mobile source (vehicle) emissions and area source emissions (e.g., natural
gas combustion), and indirect emissions (e.g., emissions associated with production
of electricity) were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model.
Emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were estimated separately
based on the URBEMIS2007 estimates of carbon dioxide from vehicles and natural
gas combustion. Because these gases are more powerful global warming gases, the
emissions were multiplied by a correction factor to estimate CO2e.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-2
The URBEMIS2007 model does not predict indirect emissions associated with water
conveyance, wastewater treatment, or electricity consumed by future users of the
project site that are generated off-site. The emissions associated with these
activities were calculated as follows:
GHG emissions related to electricity use were estimated using average annual
electrical consumption per residence recommended by the BAAQMD.
GHG emissions from water conveyance were estimated by multiplying annual
water usage by an estimated “embedded” electrical consumption for northern
California of 1,450 kilowatt hours per million gallons (kwh/MG), as
recommended by the BAAQMD.
GHG emissions from wastewater treatment were estimated by multiplying
annual wastewater generation by an estimated “embedded” electrical
consumption for northern California of 2,500 kilowatt hours per million gallons
(kwh/MG), as recommended by the BAAQMD.
A more detailed methodology and calculations can be found in Appendix A of this
EIR.
4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, preventing it from dissipating into
outer space. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere has been implicated as a
driving force for global climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between
regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described
as the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and
anthropogenic activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere.
Individual projects contribute to the cumulative effects of climate change by
emitting GHGs during demolition, construction and operational phases. The
principal GHGs are CO2, CH4, N2O, ozone (O3),1 and water vapor. While the primary
GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring; CO, CH4, and N2O are largely
emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds
occur within the earth’s atmosphere.
1 Ozone is not directly emitted, but is formed from other gases in the troposphere, the lowest level of
the earth’s atmosphere. Ozone also contributes to the retention of heat.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-3
Emissions of CO are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane
results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other
GHGs, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride have
much greater heat absorption potential than CO2, and are generated in certain
industrial processes.
There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs
have and will continue to contribute to global warming, although there is
uncertainty concerning the magnitude and rate of the warming. Potential global
warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack,
sea-level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large
forest fires, and more drought years (ARB 2006). Secondary effects are likely to
include global rise in sea-level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors,
and changes in habitat and biodiversity.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) estimated that in 2008 California produced
about 478 million gross metric tons (about 527 million U.S. tons) of CO2e GHG
emissions.2 The ARB found that transportation is the source of 36 percent of the
state’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-
state) at 24 percent and industrial sources at 19 percent. Commercial and
residential fuel use (primarily for heating) accounted for 9 percent of GHG emissions
(ARB 2010).
In the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area), fossil fuel consumption in the
transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and
aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately
36.41 percent of the Bay Area’s 95.8 million metric tons of GHG emissions in 2007.
Industrial and commercial sources (including office and retail uses) were the second
largest contributors of GHG emissions with about 36.40 percent of total emissions.
Electricity production accounts for almost 16 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG
emissions, followed by domestic sources (e.g., home water heaters, furnaces, etc.)
at approximately 7 percent. Off-road equipment and farming account for
approximately 4 percent of the total Bay Area GHG emissions (BAAQMD 2010b).
California has taken a leadership role in addressing the trend of increasing GHG
emissions, with the passage in 2006 of California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the
Global Warming Solutions Act. This legislation is discussed below, in Subsection
4.7.2, Regulatory Setting.
2 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently
measured in “carbon dioxide-equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat
absorption (or “global warming”) potential.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-4
4.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
In December 2009, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) made a finding under the federal Clean
Air Act (CAA) that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of the six
generally recognized GHGs (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) “threaten the public health and welfare
of current and future generations,” and that emissions of these gases from new cars
and trucks “contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public
health and welfare” (EPA n.d.). While not imposing any regulatory requirements,
this “endangerment finding” under the federal CAA is required before USEPA can
issue regulations, and will allow the agency to adopt GHG emissions standards that
it proposed in September 2009.
In conjunction with USEPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) anticipate that joint rulemaking for new
heavy-duty engines and vehicles will be proposed in Fall 2010, finalized by July 2011,
and would begin with model year 2014 (EPA 2010). DOT has proposed new fuel
economy standards that would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The
proposed DOT standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined
average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile in model year 2016, equivalent
to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level
entirely through fuel economy improvements (EPA 2009). To address light-duty
vehicles, USEPA and DOT will issue a Notice of Intent by September 30, 2010,
announcing plans for setting stringent light vehicle standards for model year 2017
and beyond, consistent with the respective statutory authorities (EPA 2010).
The DOT published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards; the comment period closed November 9,
2009 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2009). In a related action, in
June 2009, EPA granted California a waiver under the federal CAA, allowing the state
to impose its own, stricter GHG regulations for vehicles beginning in 2009 as
described in more detail below.
State
California has been at the vanguard of state efforts to regulate and reduce GHG
emissions and to plan for the effects on global climate change. The state recognizes
that “there appears to be a close relationship between the concentration of
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-5
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperatures” and that “the
“evidence for climate change is overwhelming.” The effects of climate change on
California remain uncertain. According to a 2009 California Climate Adaptation
Strategy final discussion report prepared by the California Climate Action Team
Report,3 the following climate change effects and conditions can be expected to
occur in California over the course of the next century:
A change in the timing of precipitation, with more falling as rain and less as
snow, resulting in a diminishing Sierra snowpack that would threaten the state’s
water supply;
Increased average temperatures of up to 4.0-9.0 degree Fahrenheit (°F);
A 25 to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are
exceeded in most urban areas;
Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation, increased
temperatures, and lighting storms without precipitation;
Increased challenges for the state’s important agricultural industry from water
shortages, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta;
Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months; and
Increased sea-level rise by 12 to18 inches by 2050 and by 21 to 55 inches by
2100 (Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more detail
related to sea level rise).
Current statewide emissions of GHG gases are estimated at 478 million metric tons
CO2e. Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in California, creating
about 36 percent of the emissions. Electricity generation is responsible for 24
percent of statewide GHG emissions and industrial activities account for another 19
percent. On a per-person basis, GHG emissions are lower in California than most
other states; however, California is a populous state, and the second largest emitter
of GHG in the U.S., making it one of the largest emitters in the world. Under a
“business as usual” scenario (i.e., with no new reduction plans), emissions of GHG in
California are estimated to increase to approximately 600 million metric tons of
CO2e by 2020, a 25 percent increase over current emissions.
3 The “Climate Action Team”, a group of state agencies, was set up to implement Executive Order S-3-
05. Under this order, the state plans to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-6
State of California Executive Order S-3-05
In June 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate
change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets
forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of GHGs would be
progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by
2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to
80 percent below 1990 levels (ARB 2008).
Assembly Bill 32 — The California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections
38500, et seq., or Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)), which requires the ARB to design and
implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and
cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020
(representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions).
AB 32 establishes a timetable for the ARB to adopt emission limits, rules, and
regulations designed to achieve the intent of the Act. In order to meet these goals,
California must reduce its GHG emissions by 30 percent below projected 2020
business as usual emissions levels or about 10 percent from today’s levels. On
December 11, 2008, ARB approved a Scoping Plan to meet the 2020 GHG reduction
limits outlined in AB 32. The Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of 174 million
metric tons (about 191 million U.S. tons) of CO2e.
Transportation Sector Reductions
Approximately 1/3 of the emissions reductions strategies fall within the
transportation sector and include the following: California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG
standards, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG emission
reductions and energy efficiency, and medium and heavy-duty vehicle hybridization,
high speed rail, and efficiency improvements in goods movement. These measures
are expected to reduce GHG emissions by 57.3 million metric tons (63 million U.S.
tons) of CO2e.
Electricity Sector Reductions
Emissions from the electricity sector are expected to reduce another 49.7 million
metric tons (55 million U.S. tons) of CO2e. Reductions from the electricity sector
include building and appliance energy efficiency and conservation, increased
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-7
combined heat and power, solar water heating (AB 1470), the renewable energy
portfolio standard (33 percent renewable energy by 2020), and the existing million
solar roofs program.
Other Reductions
Other reductions are expected from industrial sources, agriculture, forestry,
recycling and waste, water, and emissions reductions from cap-and-trade programs.
Regional GHG targets are also expected to yield a reduction of 5 million metric tons
(5.5 million U.S. tons) of CO2e (ARB 2008).
Applicability to the Project
Measures that could become effective during project implementation pertain to
construction-related equipment and building and appliance energy efficiency. Some
proposed measures will require new legislation to implement, some will require
subsidies, some have already been developed, and some will require additional
effort to evaluate and quantify. Additionally, some emissions reductions strategies
may require their own environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Some
applicable measures that are ultimately adopted will become effective during
construction and operation of the project and the project would be subject to these
requirements.
While ARB has identified a GHG reduction target of 15 percent from current levels
for actions by local governments themselves, it has not yet determined what
amount of GHG emissions reductions it recommends from local government land
use decisions. The Scoping Plan does state that successful implementation of the
plan relies on local governments’ land use planning and urban growth decisions
because local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and
permit land development to accommodate population growth and the changing
needs of their jurisdictions. ARB further acknowledges that decisions on how land is
used will have large effects on the GHG emissions that will result from the
transportation, housing, industry, forestry, water, agriculture, electricity, and
natural gas emission sectors. Many of the measures in the Scoping Plan, such as
implementation of increased fuel efficiency for vehicles (the “Pavley” standards),
increased efficiency in utility operations, and development of more renewable
energy sources, require statewide action by government, industry, or both. Some of
the measures are at least partially applicable to development projects, such as
increasing energy efficiency in new construction, installation of solar panels on
individual building roofs, and a “green building” strategy.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-8
California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts
(Senate Bill 375)
In addition to policy directly guided by AB 32, in 2008 the legislature passed Senate
Bill (SB) 375, which provides for regional coordination in land use and transportation
to incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” into regional transportation
plans that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by ARB. SB 375 also
includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects such as
transit-oriented development. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s
(MTC) 2013 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) will be its first plan subject to SB
375.
SB 375 requires ARB to establish regional GHG reduction targets for GHGs. ARB
appointed a 21-member Regional Targets Advisory Committee to recommend
factors to be considered and methodologies used in setting the regional goals; this
committee provided its recommendations to ARB in September 2009.
Modification to the Public Resources Code (Senate Bill 97)
Pursuant to State Senate Bill (SB) 97, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) was required to “prepare, develop, and transmit” the guidelines to the
Resources Agency on or before July 1, 2009. OPR transmitted draft guidelines to the
Resources Agency in June 2009. In September, 2009, the Resources Agency
released draft amendments to the CEQA Guidelines regarding GHG reductions.
These draft guidelines were adopted on December 30, 2009 and went into effect on
March 18, 2010. These CEQA Guidelines provide direction for determining the
significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment.
The BAAQMD adopted Air Quality Guidelines on June 2, 2010 that include a
significance threshold for GHG emissions within the Bay Area region (BAAQMD
2010a). Refer to Subsection 4.7.3, Analysis of Potential Impacts for further
discussion of the significance thresholds used in evaluating global climate change
and GHG emissions for this project.
California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings,
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations and
California Building Code (Cal Green)
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings were established in 1978 in
response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The
standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2008
Standards went into effect in January 2010. Typically every three years energy
efficiency standards are revised to include more stringent performance
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-9
requirements. It is expected the 2011 standards would be implemented prior to the
development of the project. In addition, new minimum green building
requirements are included in the most recent California Building Code update and
they will be in effect by January 2011.
Regional
BAAQMD Climate Protection Program
In June 2005, the BAAQMD established a Climate Protection Program to reduce
pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the Bay
Area. The climate protection program includes measures that promote energy
efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and develop alternative sources of energy
all of which assist in reducing emissions of GHG and in reducing air pollutants that
affect the health of residents. BAAQMD also seeks to support current climate
protection programs in the region and to stimulate additional efforts through public
education and outreach, technical assistance to local governments and other
interested parties, and promotion of collaborative efforts among stakeholders.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be required to comply with any federal and state regulations
pertaining to GHG emissions. It is the goal of the state (AB 32) to reduce GHG
emissions to previous levels (i.e., 1990 levels by 2020). As discussed in Chapter 3.0,
Project Description, the project would incorporate approximately 770 trees for
landscaping and 44 acres of open space. The project would also include a
pedestrian and bicycle path.
4.7.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
greenhouse gas impact if it would:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment; or
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-10
GHG impacts are evaluated in the context of the cumulative condition, since no
single land use (during construction or operation) can generate enough project-level
emissions to change the global average temperature (BAAQMD 2010a). No project-
level impacts are therefore identified.
The BAAQMD adopted the following CEQA thresholds of significance on June 2,
2010 to clarify the evaluation of GHG emissions in the cumulative context:
4.6 metric tons of CO2e /capita/yr;
1,100 metric tons of CO2e /yr; or
Compliance with a qualified Climate Action Plan.
The project’s operational and construction GHG emissions are quantified on a CO2e
basis and compared against the 4.6 metric tons of CO2e /capita/yr threshold noted
above.
In order to meet the definition of a less-than-significant impact, the total annual
rate of project emissions divided by the total project population (number of
residents) cannot exceed 4.6 metric tons.
The County does not have a Climate Action Plan or other local policies and
regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. Therefore,
the analysis is based upon whether the project by itself would impede or conflict
with the emissions reduction targets strategies prescribed in or developed to
implement AB 32.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
The project would not result in any potentially significant project-level impacts on
global climate change. It is generally understood that no single land use project can
generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average
temperature (BAAQMD 2010a). GHG emissions are therefore recognized exclusively
as cumulative impacts. Refer to Subsection 4.7.4, Cumulative Impacts for a
discussion of the project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions and their
impact on global climate change.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-11
4.7.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact CUM GCC-1: The project would generate GHG emissions in excess of the
BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year and
would have a considerable contribution on global climate change. (Significant)
The project's incremental increases in GHG emissions associated with traffic, and
with direct and indirect energy use, would contribute to regional and global
increases in GHG emissions and associated climate change effects. Table 4.7-1
shows estimated GHG emissions in metric tons per year, and also presents the
project’s annual generation of CO2 equivalents per capita. The methodology and
assumptions used in calculating GHG emissions are described previously in the
“Methodology” subsection and the calculations can be found in Appendix A.
The project would emit approximately 5,080 metric tons of CO2e annually when fully
developed. The project would generate 876 new residents, resulting in a per capita
CO2 emissions rate of 5.79 metric tons per person per year. This rate of emission is
greater than the adopted BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year.
The emissions in Table 4.7-1 do not reflect recently-adopted control measures, such
as the California Green Building Code, which became effective August 1, 2009, with
mandatory compliance becoming effective January 1, 2011. The Green Building
Code is a supplement to the California Building Code, and sets standards for energy
efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource
efficiency, and environmental quality in the planning, design and construction of
buildings. Pursuant to this new code, the project would be required to implement
many energy efficiency measures that would reduce the project’s CO2e emissions.
Implementation of the following measures would be expected to reduce project
GHG emissions by a maximum of 10 percent (i.e., to 5.21 metric tons of CO2e per
capita per year):
Water Usage and Quality: The water usage and quality standards are intended
to promote water use reduction by using low-flow toilets, water-saving kitchen
and lavatory faucets, use of drought-tolerant native plant material, etc.
Energy Performance: Energy performance standard include energy efficient
standards for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system and other
appliances that could be installed in residential units. These appliances include
centralized gas fired water heating, reversible ceiling fans to help distribute air
in summer and winter, central air conditioning utilizing same ducting system as
central heating, and meeting Title 24 requirements for insulation, air infiltration,
and natural lighting.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-12
Environmental Pollution Reduction: Environmental pollution reduction
standards would include storage and collection recyclables; use of low volatile
organic compounds (VOC) paint; etc.
Table 4.7-1 Annual CO2e Emissions Associated with Project Operation
Source Type
Proposed Project Annual
Emissions
(metrica tons CO2 per year)
CO2e per year
(per capitad)
Direct Mobile Sourcesb 3,708 4.23
Direct Area Sources 920 1.05
Indirect Electrical Usage 426 0.49
Indirect Water Conveyance 15 0.02
Indirect Wastewater Treatment 12 0,00
Totalc 5,080 5.79
Notes:
a Metric tons are equal to 0.9072 U.S. tons
b As a conservative approach, emissions from direct mobile sources were calculated using on-road vehicles only.
Also, boats and other water vehicles were not included in the direct mobile sources analysis.
c No Adjustments for project features or Scoping Plan measures. This is likely a conservative estimate as, prior to
project construction, AB 32 will require GHG emission reductions in all sectors. Transportation emission rates
will likely decrease due to increased fuel efficiency and lower carbon content in fuels, which is not adequately
reflected in the URBEMIS 2007 model used for this analysis. Additionally project green building and energy
efficiency measures are also conservatively not factored into the projection. Therefore, actual project CO2
emissions will likely be less.
d Service population (per capita) is 876, based on 292 households and 3 residents per household.
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1a: The County shall ensure that the project
applicant(s) employs green building techniques in the design of proposed
structures within the Pantages Bays project. Specifically, structures shall
conform at a minimum to the County and or California Green Building Code or
equivalent green building standards.
Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1b: The applicant has agreed to incorporate the
following measures within the proposed project:
Project landscaping shall include water-efficient native and adaptive plants
in combination with high-efficiency irrigation equipment;
Recycled content shall be included in project building materials, including
the use of pre-consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project walkways,
driveways, roadways, and non-plant landscape elements;
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-13
To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior paints, carpets,
adhesives, sealants, and coatings selected for the project shall have a low
concentration of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs);
The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems within each
single family home shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants (i.e.
non CFC-based refrigerants);
Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall include high-efficiency
systems to provide enhanced indoor air quality as potential pollutants
would be ventilated through the building at a faster rate;
The project shall install high efficiency restroom fixtures including low-flow
or dual flush toilets to reduce potable water use;
Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council) shall be used in wood materials for the single family
homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving, doors, and countertops;
and
The project shall install water and energy efficient appliances and lighting
fixtures, including EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration equipment.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
The URBEMIS 2007 model was used to determine the amount of reduction in
area source emissions that would results from the above mitigation measures.
According to the URBEMIS 2007 model, implementation of Mitigation Measures
CUM GCC-1a and CUM GCC-1b would reduce total GHG emissions by 10
percent, for a post-mitigation total emission rate of 5.21 metric tons of CO2e per
capita per year, which remains above BAAQMD threshold of 4.60 metric tons of
CO2e per capita per year. The project contribution to global climate change
would remain cumulatively considerable.
4.7.5 REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010a. CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010b Source Inventory of
Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Updated: February 2010. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emis
sion%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx. Accessed March 24,
2010.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-14
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2006. Public Workshop to Discuss Establishing
the 1990 Emissions Level and the California 2020 Limit and Developing
Regulations to Require Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at
http://
www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccei/meetings/120106workshop/intropres12106.pdf.
Accessed March 22, 2010.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A
Framework for Change.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for
2000-2008— by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingpla
n_00-08_2010-05-12.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2010.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2009. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement: Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks, Model Years 2012-2016. Available at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/MY2012-
2016_DEIS.pdf. Accessed on March 24, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
endangerment.html. Reviewed March 24, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. EPA and NHTSA Propose Historic
National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy
for Cars and Trucks. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/ 420f09047a.htm. Accessed
on March 24, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. EPA and NHTSA to Propose
Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucks; Begin
Process for Further Light-Duty Standards: Regulatory Announcement.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f10038.htm. Accessed
on August 10, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-1
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes hazardous materials existing within the project site and its
vicinity, potential impacts related to construction of the project, and mitigation
measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. A discussion of policies and
regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials is also provided.
The information in this section is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) prepared by ENGEO, Inc. in January 2005, and a subsequent third party review
conducted by Baseline Environmental Consulting in April 2007. The ENGEO ESA
included a review of historical land use information and previous studies conducted,
a site reconnaissance, and a review of federal, state, and local regulatory agency
files and databases. The ENGEO ESA is included as Appendix D of this draft EIR and
is available for review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and
Development, Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,
California.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR, one commenter
expressed concern regarding the presence of pesticides on the project site. This
comment is addressed in the impact analysis presented in Subsection 4.8.3,
Analysis of Potential Impacts of this section.
Methodology
An ESA was conducted as an initial screening in order to determine the potential for
hazardous materials to occur within the project site and its vicinity. The following
components listed below were included as part of the ESA.
Regulatory Database Review. A regulatory database review was conducted to
identify known historical releases of hazardous materials within the project site
and its vicinity. Reported release sites were evaluated with respect to the
extent and nature of a given release, the distance of the reported release to the
project site, and the location of the reported release site to known or expected
local and/or regional groundwater flow directions. Generally, reported release
sites located within a 0.25-mile upgradient, within a 0.13-mile cross-gradient, or
adjacent downgradient (with respect to groundwater flow direction) could
potentially have an effect through migration of contaminated groundwater.
The regulatory lists searched as part of the database review included: the
Federal National Priority List; the Federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Corrective
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-2
Action Report (CORRACTS); the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Hazardous Materials Generators; Emergency Response Notification
System (ERNS); State and Tribal Leaking Storage Tank Sites; and State and Tribal
Brownfield sites. Sites that were listed in the regulatory databases, but were
not identified as release sites (e.g., hazardous material handlers and/or
hazardous waste generators with no accidental or unauthorized releases) were
not considered as potential concerns to the project site.
Agency File Review. Nearby sites of concern were further assessed by
reviewing local and regional environmental regulatory files. Regulatory files
contain information on the migration of contamination from identified release
sites, as well as the status of existing remediation plans
Site Reconnaissance. A reconnaissance was conducted on January 12, 2005 to
determine whether there were any visible potential environmental hazards on
the project site
Historical Review. A review of historical records was conducted as part of the
ESA. Historical records included aerial photographs of the project area and
surrounding land, historical topographical maps, and County records (e.g.,
building permits and directories).
4.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Historical Conditions
Topographic maps of the project area (1916 and 1978 United States Geological
Survey (USGS)) were reviewed to determine historical land uses at the project site.
Based on a review of these resources, the historical uses on the site include
residential, agricultural, and grazing uses. According to the 1916 Byron 15’ USGS
quadrangle map, there was one structure at the eastern end of Point of Timber
Road (PA-03-G05) and one residence in the northeastern corner of the project site,
at the end of a minor road leading north from the end of Point of Timber. The 1978
Byron 15’ USGS quadrangle map includes both of these structures as well as two
additional residences: one residence is located at the end of Point of Timber Road
(PA-03-G03) and one residence is located farther west on the north side of Point of
Timber Road (PA-03-G04). Refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, for a discussion
of the residential structures on the project site.
The project site was used for irrigated crops (i.e., oats, wheat, and rye grass) and
cattle grazing until 1992. In 2003, the Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) also used
the site for detention and decanting of dredge spoils as part of a program to remove
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-3
sediment build up in Discovery Bay waterways. The dredged spoils were spread
over portions of the property outside of the delineated wetland areas, primarily in
the central portion of the site.
A 500-gallon underground storage tank (UST) was located along the channel bank
near the former residence located in the northeast portion of the project site. This
UST was removed by Marcor Remediation under permit with the Contra Costa
Environmental Health Division (CCEHD). Laboratory analysis of a soil sample
recovered from the UST excavation found no evidence of a fuel release. CCEHD has
since closed the site.
Current Conditions
As part of the ESA, the project site was viewed for indications of potential sources of
soil or groundwater contamination. Indications of contamination include evidence
of hazardous materials storage, surficial staining or discoloration, debris, and
stressed vegetation. The site was also inspected for fill/ventilation pipes, ground
subsidence, and other evidence of existing or preexisting USTs.
No fuel/chemical storage tanks, pools of potentially hazardous liquid, or odors
indicative of hazardous materials or petroleum material impacts were observed on
the property. Numerous empty drums and containers were observed around two of
the former residence sites. In addition, several drums with apparent solidified
material, or residual liquids, were also noted within the area of the eastern
residence site. No evidence of spillage, staining, or disposal of chemicals was noted
on the property.
Several utility vaults were observed along the existing portion of Point of Timber
Road. According to the ESA, the utilities appear to have been installed fairly recently
and it is unknown whether or not transformers are present. The ESA notes that if
transformers are present, they would not contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
based on their recent installation date.
Minor areas of stained soil were noted within several areas of the site; however, no
areas of stressed vegetation were observed at the time of the reconnaissance. No
disposal of solid waste was evident on the site; however, numerous areas of debris
accumulation were noted in the northern area of the site. The debris consisted of
car parts, wood, demolition debris, tires, sheet metal, plastic pipe, and concrete. No
wastewater conveyance was observed on the property, but at least two former
domestic water wells were noted. Improperly decommissioned and/or abandoned
groundwater wells can represent significant environmental concerns, as the wells
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-4
can act as direct conduits to groundwater for agricultural wastes or other pollutants
that are washed down with stormwater runoff. Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality, for additional discussion of wells.
A records search for well permit applications from 1900 to 2005 for the project site
was completed on December 28, 2009, by the Contra Costa Environmental Health
Division. Two records were found for soil boring. Soil boring is a process in which a
soil sample is extracted from the ground by an auger or mechanical drill to test the
soil for contamination. No other information was revealed during the records
search.
4.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING
National
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the main federal agency
responsible for enforcing regulations relating to hazardous materials and wastes,
including evaluation and remediation of contamination and hazardous wastes. The
U.S. EPA works collaboratively with other agencies to enforce materials handling
and storage regulations and site cleanup requirements. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) is authorized to regulate safe transport of hazardous
materials.
Primary federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials and wastes include the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
RCRA includes procedures and requirements for reporting releases of hazardous
materials, and for cleanup of such releases. RCRA also includes procedures and
requirements for handling hazardous wastes or soil or groundwater contaminated
with hazardous wastes. CERCLA delineates the liability for contamination between
current property owners and others. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act is
administered by the DOT via its performance of inspections and training, and its
issuance of transportation guidelines. The federal government delegates
enforcement authority to the states.
Project Consistency Analysis
Activities associated with construction and operations will be required to be in
accordance with applicable federal laws, as enforced by state and local agencies.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-5
State of California
State agencies that regulate hazardous materials and contamination include the
Department of Health Services (DHS), the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The DTSC
administers U.S. EPA’s standards regarding public health effects of soil
contamination, while the RWQCB administers state water quality standards for
surface and groundwater. Lead responsibility for remediation depends on the
proposed use of a parcel, the character of waste contaminants and the need for site
monitoring. Transport of hazardous materials is administered by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and enforced by the California Highway
Patrol (CHP).
Relevant state laws that address soil and water pollution, hazardous materials
storage, handling, transport and disposal include the State Water Code,
Underground Storage Tank Code, Cortese Act (listing of hazardous waste and
substances sites) and Proposition 65 (safe drinking water and toxics enforcement).
Project Consistency Analysis
Relevant federal and state regulatory requirements will be implemented for the
project at the time of preliminary development plans. Due to the fact that the
project does not propose land uses likely to utilize hazardous materials and/or
petroleum products, the state laws that regulate the storage, handling, transport
and disposal of hazardous materials are not anticipated to be applicable to project
operations.
Contra Costa County
The Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) requires a permit for
destruction of any abandoned wells and septic tanks. If the existence of such
facilities are known in advance or are discovered during construction or other
activities, these should be clearly marked, kept secure, and destroyed or abandoned
pursuant to CCEHD requirements.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Safety and the Public Facilities/Services elements of the Contra Costa County
General Plan (General Plan) contain the following relevant policies associated with
hazards and hazardous materials.
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-6
Safety Element
10-61: Hazardous waste releases from both private companies and from public
agencies shall be identified and eliminated.
10-62: Storage of hazardous materials and wastes shall be strictly regulated.
10-63: Secondary containment and periodic examination shall be required for all
storage of toxic materials.
10-67: In order to provide for public safety, urban and suburban development
should not take place in areas where they would be subject to safety
hazards from oil and gas wells. Development near oil and gas wells should
meet recognized safety standards.
Public Facilities/Services Element
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.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be in compliance with the General Plan policies related to
hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed in this section, the previously existing
UST has been removed in accordance with CCEHD policies and General plan policy
10-61. In regard to policies 10-62 and 10-63, it is not anticipated that toxic
substances would be stored on site. There are no known oil or gas wells in the
project proximity that could cause a potential health threat as noted in policy 10-67,
and the project does not require the construction of any new fuel pipelines. The
project is also not located in an area typically associated with wildfires and would
reduce the potential for contamination by toxic pesticides and herbicides by
changing the land from agriculture to residential use and is therefore in compliance
with policy 7-80.
As part of the environmental review process and in accordance with policy 10-61, a
records search, soil investigations, and an ESA were conducted to identify any
hazardous materials or hazardous waste releases in the area, and none were
identified.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-7
4.8.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
a) 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 a result, would
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
b) 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 for people residing or working in the
project area;
c) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
d) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation system;
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urban areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands;
f) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
g) 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; or
h) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the eight
significance criteria stated above shows that no impacts would result for five of the
criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-8
a) Would the project to 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 a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
A review of regulatory databases maintained by County, state, and federal agencies
found that the project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There is currently no
documentation of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the project site or
within 1 mile of the project site. However, the Pauline Pantages Trust at 4660 Point
of Timber Road, one of the former site addresses, was listed on the HAZNET
database of hazardous material generators and the Contra Costa County Site List as
a UST site. The site became inactive in July 1998 following closure of the site by
CCEHD. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the project being located
on a hazardous materials site list.
b) 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 for people residing or working in the project area?
The project is located approximately 8 miles north of the East County (Byron)
Airport. A review of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
indicates that the project site is not located within the airport sphere of influence
and is not located within the approach zone for either of the airport’s two runways.
Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a safety hazard for
construction workers or future residents.
c) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
The Funny Farm Airport, the nearest private airstrip, is located approximately 2.6
miles northwest of the project site in the Brentwood area. No impacts related to
safety are anticipated as the project would be an infill development surrounded by
similar residential uses to the east, west, and south. The project does not include
any towers or other vertical obstructions that could represent a unique hazard to
the flight path from this airstrip.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-9
d) Would the project impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation system?
The County has not adopted an emergency response plan for the Discovery Bay
area, and thus the project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with such a plan (S. Roseberry, personal communication, September 17,
2009). Additionally, the project is designed to comply with County and fire district
standards for roadways and emergency vehicle access and compliance would be
verified by both agencies prior to and after construction.
Similarly, the project could not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an emergency evacuation system. The Emergency Alert System and Emergency
Digital Information Service are the primary systems used to inform the public of
emergencies and threats to health, safety, and welfare. These systems are
electronic and are operated by government agencies in conjunction with television
and radio stations. In the event of an emergency, these systems are used to
broadcast emergency information, such as evacuation alerts, across all radio and
television stations in the affected area. Due to the electronic nature of these
systems, there is no possibility that they could be impacted by the project.
e) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urban areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
The project site is bounded by waterways to the north, south, and east, and lands to
the west are developed with single-family residential subdivisions. The General Plan
does not identify this project site as a high-risk zone for wildland fires. Therefore,
the project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the eight
significance criteria stated above shows that less-than significant impacts would
result for one of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-10
f) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
No hazardous materials would be stored on the project site other than consumer-
related home and garden products (e.g., cleansers, paint removers, fertilizers).
These hazardous materials are labeled to inform users of potential risk and include
instructions for safe handling, storage, and disposal. Residential uses of these types
of materials are not considered a potentially significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Demolition activities could potentially result in the disposal of hazardous materials
as discussed under Impact HAZ-1.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the eight
significance criteria stated above shows that some degree of impact would result for
two of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
g) Would the project 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 HAZ-1: The project could potentially cause the release of hazardous
materials into the environment during demolition, grading, and construction
activities. (Significant)
RD 800 used the project site for detention and decanting of dredge spoils as part of
a program to remove sediment build up in Discovery Bay waterways. The dredged
spoils were spread over portions of the property outside of the delineated wetland
areas, primarily in the central portion of the site. As part of this process, soil
samples from Discovery Bay, Kellogg Creek, and Indian Slough were tested for
arsenic, an element commonly found in pesticides. The range of reported arsenic
values is below the Delta Dredging and Reuse Strategy’s threshold criteria. The soil
samples were also tested to determine the potential for arsenic to leach into surface
water and/or groundwater. The testing showed that leachable and/or soluble
arsenic is not an issue in Discovery Bay, Kellogg Creek, or Indian Slough. Because
the level of detectable arsenic in Discovery Bay soil is so low, and because the native
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-11
soil is submerged beneath dredge spoils, it can be assumed that there is no arsenic
or pesticide residue on the project site. Therefore, it is not likely that grading
activities would release pesticide residue into the environment.
The ESA identified several drums, pails, and paint cans onsite, including an area near
the channel bank with partially-buried drums and cans. In 2006, Integrated Waste
Management (now CalRecycle) was contracted to remove the drums and pails from
the project site, and transport them to a hazardous waste processing facility.
Although there was no obvious evidence of hazardous materials releases, there is a
potential that the discovery of additional drums and/or cans could occur,
particularly during construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil samples
shall be collected from the paint disposal area and analyzed for metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds. Soil samples shall be
compared to the Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. If
soil samples exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated and remediated under
the oversight of the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD).
Additionally, the site shall be inspected by an environmental professional,
appointed by the County, during demolition and preliminary grading activities.
In the event that previously unidentified contaminants are discovered, the
contamination shall be reported to CCEHD and investigated and remediated
under the oversight of CCEHD in accordance with existing regulatory programs.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This mitigation measure ensures all known and unknown potentially hazardous
materials will be removed from the project site prior to grading activities. If
contaminants are identified on the project site during the site inspection,
contamination will be remediated under the oversight of the CCEHD, reducing
the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact HAZ-2: The project could potentially release hazardous materials during
demolition of the existing residence. (Significant)
Prior to the 1980s, building materials often contained asbestos fibers that were
used to provide strength and fire resistance. Prior to 1978, lead compounds were
commonly used in interior and exterior paints.
According to the ESA, Marcor Remediation Inc. removed asbestos from three of the
four existing four residential clusters located on the project site, by demolishing and
removing the contaminated portions of each structure. The existing former
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-12
residence located to the south of Point of Timber Road in the center of the project
site was not included in the asbestos remediation, and demolition of this residence
could expose asbestos to onsite construction workers. Additionally, demolition of
any of the four existing structures on the project site could expose lead-based paints
(LBP) and/or other hazardous materials to construction workers during demolition
activities.
Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies
not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated
compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations
regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. The Bay Area Air Quality
District (BAAQMD) is vested with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through
both inspection and law enforcement, and must be notified 10 days in advance of
any proposed demolition or abatement work. The U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) require that asbestos be handled by properly certified
professionals.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the
applicant shall submit proof to the County that all asbestos-containing materials
have been removed at the existing residence located to the south of Point of
Timber Road, in compliance with state regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the
applicant shall submit proof to the County that all lead-based paint (LBP) has
been removed at each of the existing former residences on the project site, in
compliance with state regulations.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b would reduce the
risk of exposing people to hazards associated with regulated building materials
by ensuring that materials are removed in accordance with state regulations
prior to start of demolition and construction. This would reduce potential
hazardous material risk to a less-than-significant level.
h) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school;
Impact HAZ-3: Project demolition and construction activities could expose
individuals at the Timber Point Elementary School to hazardous emissions or
materials. (Significant)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-13
The project site is located a quarter-mile from Timber Point Elementary School.
(Other schools in the area, such as Discovery Bay Elementary School and Excelsior
Middle School are located more than a quarter-mile from the project site.) As
discussed previously, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-2a, and
HAZ-2b would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials, including lead-based
paint, asbestos containing materials, and soil contamination from prior use of the
site is properly removed and disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste contractor
in accordance with state regulations.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2a, and HAZ-2b would
ensure that any hazardous material identified on the project site is properly
removed and disposed of, reducing the impact of potential exposure of students
and school faculty to hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.
4.8.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The general plan EIR for Contra Costa County identifies a significant impact related
to risk of accidental release of hazardous materials associated with heavy industry
and other land uses requiring the use, transport, and storage of hazardous
materials. The EIR also notes that new residential and commercial development
would increase the number of people in proximity to these uses thereby increasing
their risk of exposure. The EIR identifies petroleum and other chemical industries
along the San Joaquin River as hazardous lands uses and also identifies the East
County (Byron) airport as a hazardous land use.
Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state and federal laws specifically
to ensure that they do not result in a gradual increase to toxins in the environment.
The County general plan includes policies that reinforce these regulations by
requiring construction and operation pursuant to applicable standards and
regulations, submittal of hazardous materials business plans, risk management and
prevention program information, secondary containment, and creation of buffer
zones for adjacent development. Implementation of these policies occurs as part of
the development review and construction permitting process and was found to
reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to a less-than-significant
level.
The majority of the projects listed in Table 4-1 of Section 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures, of this EIR are consistent with the land use designations
identified in the general plan of Contra Costa County and the City of Brentwood and
were therefore assumed as part of the analysis contained in those documents. The
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-14
following 6 projects, including the Pantages Bays project require general plan
amendments and were not therefore assumed in the analysis: The Villages at
Discovery Bay, Commercial Business Park, Newport Pointe, Neighborhood Church,
Sciortino Ranch, and Civic Center.
Although not specifically assumed in the general plan EIR analysis, these projects are
residential or office/retail projects that do not routinely involve the use of
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, and would not represent a new
significant hazard to the public or the environment that was not already analyzed in
the general plan EIR.
The Pantages Bays residential project is not located in proximity to the identified
hazardous land uses along the San Joaquin River or Byron Airport and would not
therefore contribute to the cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan EIR
associated with proximity to such uses and potential health risk during accidental
release of hazardous materials.
4.8.5 REFERENCES
ENGEO, Inc. 2005. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment: Pantages at Discovery
Bay, Contra Costa County, California.
Roseberry, S. Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services. Personal
Communication. September 17, 2009.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-1
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section describes surface water, groundwater resources, and flooding
characteristics on the project site and its vicinity, and evaluates the potential
impacts of the project on these elements. Additionally, the regulatory agencies and
permits associated with surface hydrology and water quality are also described.
The impact analysis is based on information gathered from the following reports for
the project:
Numerical Modeling. Evaluation of Pantages Bays Project (RMA 2006)
Geotechnical Exploration (Engeo 2006)
Storm Water Control Plan C.3 (dk Consulting 2006)
Additional Hydrology Impacts Memorandum (PWA 2010)
These reports have been incorporated into this analysis and are available for review
at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report
(EIR), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) submitted a comment letter recommending the
inclusion of information related to a number of potential impacts on the water
quality of Discovery Bay. In response to the concerns raised by NMFS, the following
items are addressed throughout this section:
Storm water treatment systems:
design criteria
discharge
maintenance
Construction techniques for the creation of bays and coves
Impacts from increased boating traffic (i.e., erosion from wake wash)
Detailed hydrodynamic analysis for the circulation patterns of the Discovery Bay
waterways
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-2
4.9.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Characteristics
The project site is located in Contra Costa County (County) within the southwest
edge of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). Water that falls in the Great
Central Valley of California and in most of the Sierra Nevada Mountains ultimately
flows to the Pacific Ocean via the Delta and along the shorelines of the County.
More than half of California’s water needs (and a large portion of the County’s) are
met with water pumped from the Delta. The project site and its vicinity are
considered part of the East County Drainages watershed.
Naturally occurring, rich soils in the area have attracted the agricultural industry to
this region. Flood control infrastructure was constructed to protect farmland, and
irrigation canals crisscross the land to channel water through the region. Delta
islands are generally kept dry by peripheral levees, while major levee breaks have
created new water bodies such as Franks Tract and Big Break (Contra Costa County
2003).
Water quality in the Delta is affected by numerous factors including upstream
reservoir releases, tidal changes, the discharge of agricultural diverters, and the
uptake rates of the California State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley
Project (CVP). Today the CVP, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is one of
the world’s largest water storage and transport systems. Its 22 reservoirs have a
combined storage of 11 million acre-feet of water, of which approximately 7 million
acre-feet is delivered per year. In comparison, the SWP’s 20 major reservoirs can
hold 5.8 million acre-feet, with annual deliveries averaging up to 3 million acre-feet
per year. The CVP water irrigates more than 3 million acres of farmland and
provides drinking water to nearly 2 million consumers.
Local Hydrology
The project site is bordered by waterways that include the ECCID Dredge Cut to the
north, Indian Slough to the northeast, Kellogg Creek to the east, and Old Kellogg
Creek to the south (see Figure 3-3). Indian Slough is divided into north and south
channels by narrow, linear islands (Indian Slough Islands), and is connected at its
eastern end to Old River, which then joins the complex of waterways in the
southwest Delta. Kellogg Creek and the ECCID Dredge Cut are hydrologically
connected to the channels of the wider Delta via Indian Slough. The eastern branch
of Discovery Bay has a separate connection to Indian Slough, approximately 1 mile
to the east of the Kellogg Creek connection.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-3
A series of 14 pumping stations (siphons) maintain circulation in Discovery Bay
waterways. The siphons move water from the individual bays to other parts of the
system (e.g., to water the local golf course and agricultural land further to the east
of Discovery Bay West communities) and then back into the Delta.
Tidal Hydrodynamics
Indian Slough and Kellogg Creek are subject to the Delta tide cycle. Tidal cycles are
the rise and fall of sea levels caused by the combined effects of the rotation of the
Earth and the gravitational forces exerted by the moon and the sun. Approximately
8 acres of the project site, mainly along the perimeter of the site, is currently subject
to tidal variations.
NOAA publishes tidal data for mean lower low water (MLLW) (i.e., average low
tides) and mean higher high water (MHHW) (i.e., average high tides) for various
portions of the Delta. NOAA’s tidal station at Borden Highway Bridge, Middle River
(Station ID 9414835) is the closest station to the project site, and is located
approximately 7 miles east-southeast. NOAA reports the current MHHW at the
project site is approximately 3 feet (ft) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).1
The County uses this MHHW level in determining the appropriate elevations of a
proposed development, such that risks related to flooding can be reduced.
Tidal cycles also influence the residence times of water flow, which is amount of
time a body of water is held in one location. As the water rises and falls during the
ebb tides, fresh water enters the bays and coves of Discovery Bay, and the old water
is slowly flushed out. In general, the residence time in Discovery Bay is a function of
this tidal exchange and siphon flows.
Flooding
Existing site elevations range from approximately 2 to 8 feet NGVD. The entire
project site falls within Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map for the County (FEMA 2009), which indicates that the area is subject to
flooding during a 100-year storm event in the Delta. The project site is not
protected by an outside levee, and is directly adjacent to the Delta’s open
waterways.
1 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) is a vertical (elevation) unit of measurement similar to
mean sea level (msl) that takes into account the local gravitational forces due to astronomical
phenomenon, as well as local wind patterns, river stages, and storms. NGVD addresses the fact that
local msl is not always equal to zero in all places.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-4
The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the 100-year storm event, as defined by FEMA
and the County2, is the elevation that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded by floodwaters in any one year. Based on the current MHHW and the
flood elevation data from past storm events, the 100-year BFE for the project site is
7.5 feet NVGD. The 300-year BFE is 8.0 feet NGVD.
Sea Level Rise
The current FEMA floodplain maps do not incorporate higher flood elevations
related to the potential for rising sea levels related to global climate change. As
described in Section 4.7, Global Climate Change, rising temperatures can change
ecosystems, resulting in sea level rise. See Section 4.7, Global Climate Change, for
more detail regarding this topic and a description of the greenhouse effect.
Sea level rise increases the potential for damaging floods that could affect coastal
and tidal areas. Sea level rise, or the increasing volume of water in the global ocean,
is affected by two distinct processes: thermal expansion of warming ocean water
and melting of continental ice, including mountain glaciers and land bound polar ice
on Greenland and Antarctica.3 Over the past century, the global sea level has risen
by nearly 0.2 meters (8 inches) (PWA 2010).
There have been a number of recent projections on the future magnitude of sea
level rise in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). Each of the projections make
different assumptions in relation to the rapid economic growth and large
expansions of greenhouse house (GHG) emissions, as well as several other global
components that affect sea level rise (i.e., thermal expansion, melting of global ice,
oceanic circulation, and vertical land movement).4 The State of California Resources
Agency recommends the consideration of the following sea level rise scenarios for
planning purposes in the Delta region and California as a whole:
Year 2050 scenario – 16-inch rise (equivalent to 1.3 feet or 0.4 meters)
Year 2100 scenario – 55-inch rise (equivalent to 4.6 feet or 1.4 meters)
2 As defined in the Contra Costa County Code Section 82-28.486 – One Hundred –year flood.
3 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability
and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. April 2009.
4 The different sources for sea level rise predictions and assumptions are discussed in Attachment 1 of
the Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment memorandum (PWA, 2010).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-5
These scenarios have been adopted as policy by the California State Coastal
Conservancy and are used by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) and other state agencies for planning purposes. As such, these
scenarios are appropriate for the assessment of project-related impacts.
Channel Hydrodynamics
In order to model the pre- and post-project hydrodynamics (movement of water) of
Discovery Bay, a Delta-wide model was modified to include a detailed
representation of the Discovery Bay waters and Indian Slough (RMA 2006). The
model was calibrated by collecting existing flow data in and near the Discovery Bay
subdivision and the south Delta areas.
Presently, the north end of Kellogg Creek (immediately south of Indian Slough and
the ECCID Dredge Cut) is narrow and produces a funnel for relatively high-speed
tidal currents. These tidal currents contribute to erosion and scour of the Kellogg
Creek banks.5 Along the northern boundary of Discovery Bay, Indian Slough is
divided into a northern and southern channel by a berm.
Levee Erosion
The project site is not currently protected by a levee and no levees are proposed as
part of the project. Levees are discussed in this EIR in the context of boat traffic
generated by the project that could result in erosion of unarmored levees in the
project vicinity.
Approximately 1,100 miles of levees within the Delta protect urban and agricultural
areas from inundation due to high water levels. Levees are constructed using a
wide range of materials and bank cover is highly variable, including rock or concrete
(rip-rap), trees, and vegetation. Levees in Discovery Bay are maintained by
Reclamation District 800 (RD 800), and include urban, agricultural, and dry land
levees. All levees in RD 800 are completely armored and therefore have significantly
reduced the effects of erosional forces.
The erosion of unarmored Delta levees is due to a combination of terrestrial
processes, boat wake, channel scour, and geotechnical instability. A series of
studies funded by the California Department of Boating and Waterways from 1997-
2010 have been conducted to assess the rates of levee erosion in the Delta.
5 High-speed currents have a greater capacity to carry sediment from the bottom and sides of a creek
and/or channel. The removal of sediment from these areas results in erosion and/or scouring.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-6
Preliminary erosion data for several of the closest sites to Discovery Bay (within 5
miles) indicate average horizontal bank change rates of approximately 5 centimeters
per year (cm/yr) along portions of unarmored levees (PWA 2010).
Drainage
Except for the emergent marsh located in the northern portion of the site, the
project site has been leveled, ditched, drained and disked in the past for use as
irrigated cropland and grazing pasture. Several shallow ditches bisect the site,
providing further evidence of past agricultural land use.
RD 800 used site for detention and decanting of dredge spoils as part of a program
to remove sediment build up in Discovery Bay waterways. The dredged spoils were
spread over portions of the property outside of the delineated wetland areas,
primarily in the central portion of the site (see Figure 3-2). Currently, these piles of
dredge spoils are higher in elevation than the surrounding topography.
Existing surface drainage cannot be easily determined due to the extremely flat
terrain of the project site. Generally, storm water flow drains towards the
topographically lower seasonal wetlands and the emergent marshes on the
northern portion of the project site. Ultimately, site drainage reaches Kellogg Creek
and Indian Slough. It does not appear that off-site drainage enters the site from any
direction
Groundwater
Groundwater beneath the project site was encountered at depths between 3.5 to
13 feet below ground surface. However, groundwater levels on the site are not
static and may fluctuate due to seasonal variation in rainfall, tidal action, or other
factors not in evidence at the time of the preliminary geological investigations at the
project site (see Section 4.6, Geology and Soils).
Deeper aquifers located approximately 250 to 350 feet below ground surface are
the primary source of domestic water supply to the Discovery Bay Community
Services District (CSD). Other aquifers occur at higher levels beneath the project
site, but the water quality is poor and unsuitable for domestic consumption.
Additionally, a brackish aquifer occurs in the alluvial sands beneath the project site.
A more detailed appraisal of water supply can be found in Section 4.15, Public
Utilities.
The near-surface sediments across the project site primarily consist of eolian, tidal
wetland, lacustrine (lake-deposited) and alluvial (water-deposited) deposits. These
sediments are typically irregularly stratified, poorly-consolidated deposits of clay,
silt and sand. Deep infiltration and groundwater recharge is not feasible at the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-7
project site due to the low permeability of the clay soils. Surface runoff at the
project site typically flows into the adjacent waterways before having a chance to
permeate into the groundwater table.
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted for the
project in 2005 (refer to Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), there are
at least two former domestic groundwater wells on the project site. Improperly
decommissioned and/or abandoned groundwater wells can represent significant
environmental concerns, as the wells can act as direct conduits to groundwater for
agricultural wastes or other pollutants that are washed down with storm water
runoff.
4.9.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several
times since inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the
United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the
country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation’s rivers,
streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for
regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards
for all “waters of the United States.” Several mechanisms are employed to control
domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the federal level,
the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the
state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCBs). The state of California has developed a number of water quality laws,
rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and
related federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the federal
requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules, and
regulations adopted by the state and regional boards exceed the federal
requirements.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would include a storm water drainage and treatment system to convey
runoff into the developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, which are tidally
influenced. Linear bioretention facilities would serve as soil filtration and would
treat the water to reduce water quality impacts to receiving waters (i.e., Kellogg
Creek) (see Figure 4.9-1).
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-8
The system will be designed per criteria in the County’s C.3 Storm water Technical
Guidance Manual and the California Storm water Best Management Practice
Handbook to provide a level of treatment that meets or exceeds existing standards,
as described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, and elsewhere in this section.
During construction, erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans
would prevent construction-related pollution from contaminating downstream
receiving waters consistent with the above mentioned documents. As such, the
project would be consistent with the Clean Water Act.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
Water runoff quality is regulated by the federal National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program (established by the Clean Water Act of 1972).
The NPDES objective is to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from non-
point discharges. RWQCB administers this program throughout the state. The
RWQCB issues NPDES point source permits for discharges from major industries and
non- point source permits for discharges to water bodies in the Central Valley region
for the municipality’s other dischargers.
Additionally, improvement projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during
construction are required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered under the
State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated
with construction activity. A developer must propose control measures that are
consistent with the State General Construction Permit. A Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed and implemented for each site
covered by the state’s General Permit. A SWPPP must include “Best Management
Practices” (BMPs) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality
through the construction and life of the project.
Contra Costa County Provision C.3 Requirements
The County has the authority to uphold its NPDES permit, and currently exercises
this authority in its adopted Provision C.3 requirements. The provisions require the
installation of post-construction BMPs for new development as part of the federal
NDPES program, and have set standards for their implementation.
In compliance with Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit and the County’s Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 1014), projects creating
and/or replacing (redeveloping) impervious area exceeding 10,000 square feet shall
submit a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) for the review and approval of the Public
Works Department. The SWCP is a separate document from the SWPPP. Provision
Source: DK Consulting, 2006.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.9-1FigureProposed Storm Water Treatment Systems
300FEET1500 600
Stormwater Treatment System Area
5’-Wide Swale
6’-Wide Swale
STREET SECTION (OVERALL WIDTH)
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Kellog
g
C
r
e
e
k
DISCOVERY BAY
O
l
d
ECCID Dredge CutVILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)RAVENSWOOD
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-10
Figure 4.9-1 Storm Water Treatment Systems (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-11
C.3 requires these projects to treat storm water runoff with permanent storm water
management facilities, and requires projects creating and/or redeveloping
impervious area exceeding 1 acre to design such facilities to control runoff rates and
volumes (in addition to treatment).
To comply with these requirements, new developments are required to install water
quality storm water runoff BMPs that filter or treat rainfall runoff generated from
storm events up to approximately the 85th percentile rainfall event (or
approximately the 1-inch storm event) before discharging into natural drainage
systems. Additional hydrograph modification BMPs are also required so that post-
project runoff does not exceed pre-project rates or durations, such an increase
could contribute to erosion in receiving waters downstream from the proposed
project.
Hydromodification Management Plan
Provision C.3.f in the storm water NPDES permit requires developments to manage
increases to peak runoff and increased volume. Erosion of stream channels and
banks can cause channel instability and generation of sediments that adversely
impact the downstream beneficial uses.
The Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) gives four options for meeting the
hydrograph modification management regulations:
Option 1 is demonstrating that the project does not produce a net increase in
impervious area. This option is for sites that have been previously developed.
Option 2 is the use of accepted integrated management practices to slow runoff
and treat it prior to it leaving the site. The Contra Costa C.3 Guidebook contains
information to assist in the sizing and design of these features.
Option 3 is for applicants who wish to custom design flow-control facilities for
their project site. A continuous simulation hydrologic model needs to
demonstrate that the post-development flow regime be within certain limits
compared to pre-development conditions for a variety of storm events.
Option 4 is for projects that rely on the receiving channel to handle the impacts
of post-development conditions. Within Option 4, there are three sub-options:
(a) Low Risk: Applicants must demonstrate that all downstream reaches, from
the project site to the Bay/Delta, are enclosed pipes, hardened channels,
subject to tidal action, or aggrading; (b) Medium Risk: Applicants must use the
methods and criteria in Appendix D to confirm that each reach downstream
from the project site to the Bay/Delta meets the criteria for medium risk (or low
risk) classification including implementing an in-stream mitigation project to
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-12
stabilize stream beds or banks, improve natural steam functions, and/or
improve habitat values (the expected environmental benefits of the mitigation
project must substantially outweigh the potential impacts of an increase in
runoff from the development project); and (c) High Risk: Applicants must
implement a comprehensive program of in-stream measures to improve stream
channel hydrological and ecological functions while accommodating increased
flow.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project must, as a matter of law, comply with the requirements of the regional
NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit for project operation. The applicant would
also be required to submit a NOI to the State Board and apply for coverage under
the NPDES Construction General Permit. The applicant will be required to prepare a
SWPPP and submit it to the RWQCB for review prior to commencing construction.
Once grading begins, the SWPPP must be kept on site and updated as needed
during construction. The SWPPP details the site-specific BMPs to control erosion
and sedimentation and maintain water quality during the construction phase. The
SWPPP also contains a summary of the structural and non-structural BMPs to be
implemented during the post-construction period, pursuant to the non-point source
practices and procedures encouraged by the RWQCB.
This mandatory compliance with the regulatory requirements of the NPDES General
Construction and Group Storm Water Discharge Permits will ensure that the
development envisioned by the project is consistent with all regulations and the
policies and programs of the County General Plan.
In accordance with the C.3 requirements, the project applicant has prepared a
SWCP for the project (dk Consulting 2006). The preferred BMP selected to be used
exclusively throughout the project site are dry linear bioretention facilities.
The project would include a storm water drainage and treatment system to convey
runoff into the developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, which are tidally
influenced. As such, the project would demonstrate compliance with the
requirement to manage increases in runoff peak flows and durations as included in
Option 4a of the HMP. The increases in runoff peaks would not accelerate the
erosion of downstream waterways since the storm drain outfall connects directly
with tidally influenced areas with direct connections to the Delta. The project’s
proposed storm water facilities are discussed in greater detail in Subsection 4.9.3,
Analysis of Potential Impacts.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-13
Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act as approved March 3, 1899, prohibits the
unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States.
The construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United
States, the excavating from or depositing of material in such waters, or the
accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or
capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the
Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army. The instrument of
authorization is designated a Section 10 permit.
Project Consistency Analysis
A Section 10 permit from the Corps under the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) would
be required for dredging to connect Kellogg Creek and the Discovery Bay
embayment with the new bays and coves of the project. See Section 4.3, Biological
Resources, for specific information regarding the permit and agency approval
required for the removal of bank habitat associated with the project.
State of California − Regional Water Quality Control
Board − 401 Certification
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and EPA 404(b)(1) guidelines, in
order for a Corps federal permit applicant to conduct any activity that may result in
discharge into navigable waters, the applicant must provide a certification from the
RWQCB that such discharge will comply with state water quality standards. The
RWCQB has a policy of no-net-loss of wetlands and typically requires mitigation for
all impact to wetlands before it will issue water quality certification.
Also, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code
Sections 13000-14290), the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste
that could affect the quality of the state’s waters, including projects that do not
require a federal permit through the Corps. To meet RWQCB 401 Certification
standards, it is necessary to address all hydrologic issues related to a project,
including:
Wetlands
Watershed hydrograph modification
Proposed creek or riverine related modifications
Long term post-construction water quality
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-14
Project Consistency Analysis
The discharge of dredge or fill will be considered by the Corps and, if approved, the
Corps will issue a 401 permit to the project applicant. Additional requirements
regarding 401 certification are discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this
draft EIR.
State of California — California Department of Fish
and Game
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) regulates activities that divert, obstruct, or
alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed, channel, or bank of a stream,
which CDFG typically considers to include riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity
in a natural stream channel that would substantially adversely affect an existing fish
and/or wildlife resource, would require entering into a Streambed Alteration
Agreement (SBAA) with CDFG prior to commencing work in the stream. However,
prior to authorizing such permits, CDFG typically reviews an analysis of the expected
biological impacts, any proposed mitigation plans that would be implemented to
offset biological impacts and engineering and erosion control plans.
Project Consistency Analysis
The proposed removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek will require a SBAA.
Impacts from project development include loss of low, moderate, and high quality
bank habitat. Mitigation measures will be necessary to offset the project’s impact to
bank habitat subject to CDFG jurisdiction as detailed in the Subsection 4.9.3.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan) includes the following policies
to manage water resources and flood risk, which are presented in Chapter 7, Public
Facilities/Services; Chapter 8, Conservation; and Chapter 10, Safety. The following
policies are relevant to the project site hydrology and water quality.
Public Facilities/Services Element
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.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-15
7-56: All residential and non-residential uses proposed in areas of special flood
hazards, as shown on FEMA maps, shall conform to the requirements of
County Floodplain management applied to all ordinances, approved
entitlements (land use permits, tentative, final, and parcel maps,
development plan permits, and variances) and ministerial permits (buildings
and grading permits).
Conservation Element
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.
8-27: 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.
Safety Element
10-33: Areas within the 100-year floodplain shall be considered inappropriate for
conventional urban development due to unmitigated flood hazards as
defined by FEMA. Applications for development at urban or suburban
densities in areas where there is a serious risk to life shall demonstrate
appropriate solutions or be denied.
10-41: Buildings in urban development near the shoreline and in flood-prone areas
shall be protected from flood dangers, including consideration of rising sea
levels caused by the greenhouse effect.
10-42: Habitable areas of structures near the shore line and in flood-prone areas
shall be sited above the highest water level expected during the life of the
project, or shall be protected for the expected life of the project by levees of
an adequate design.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would include a storm water drainage and treatment system to convey
runoff into the developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, which are tidally
influenced. Linear bioretention facilities would serve as soil filtration and would
treat the water to reduce water quality impacts to receiving waters (i.e., Kellogg
Creek) (see Figure 4.9-1). The project would not introduce any untreated storm
water into the emergent marsh or wetland areas, consistent with policy 8-23.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-16
The system will be designed per criteria in the C.3 Storm water Technical Guidance
Manual and the California Storm water Best Management Practice Handbook to
provide a level of treatment that meets or exceeds existing standards, as described
in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, and elsewhere in this section. During
construction, erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans would
prevent construction-related pollution from contaminating downstream receiving
waters consistent with the above mentioned documents. As such, the project
would be consistent with policies 7-45, 8-23, and 8-91.
The project as currently designed greatly exceeds the County requirements for
protection from the 100-year flood. Flood control measures include finish floor
elevations for waterfront lots at approximately 12.7 feet above mean sea level. This
is 3.2 feet about the County’s flood design standard, thus complying with policies 7-
56 and 10-33.
This section includes an analysis of the potential flooding impacts related to sea
level rise (see Subsection 4.9.3). A 100-year planning horizon is assumed for the
project; therefore, impacts are assessed for current conditions and the 100-year sea
level scenario. Flood control measures that address flooding associated with sea
level rise would be incorporated into the project under Mitigation Measure HYD-3.
As such the project would be consistent with policies 10-41 and 10-42.
4.9.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identified environmental issues to be
considered when determining whether a project could have significant effects on
the environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
impact to hydrology and water quality if it would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);
c) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff;
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-17
d) Substantially alter the established drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map;
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows;
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam;
i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; or
j) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Discussion of No Impacts
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
See Impact HYD-1 and Impact HYD-2 for construction-related water quality impacts,
and the “Water Quality Standards” discussion below regarding operational water
quality impacts.
The project would result in wastewater generated by residential uses. The project
site would be served by a 10-inch sewer main at Wilde Drive, on the southern
portion of the project site, and an 8-inch main at Point of Timber Road. Wastewater
from the project would enter the 10-inch sewer main at Wilde Drive, and would
flow to a lift station along Newport Drive that pumps the water to the Discovery Bay
Wastewater Treatment Facility operated by CSD. The wastewater generated by the
project would not violate any wastewater discharge requirement as residential
wastewater is accepted and treated by the Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment
Facility.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-18
The Wastewater Treatment Facility is operating in compliance with all RWQCB
regulations.6
b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
Deplete Groundwater Supplies
According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the project, the project site contains at
least two domestic groundwater wells associated with the residential structures on
the project site. These wells are currently non-operational. The project is not
proposing to drill new water wells or to directly access groundwater on the project
site through the existing wells. Therefore, the project would not directly deplete
groundwater resources to the extent that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. However, groundwater is
a source of potable water in the Discovery Bay Community Service District, and the
availability and provision of groundwater to the project are discussed in Section
4.15, Public Utilities.
Interfere with Groundwater Recharge
Deep infiltration and groundwater recharge is not feasible at the project site due to
the low permeability of the site’s clay soils. Surface runoff at the project site
typically flows into the adjacent waterways before having a chance to permeate into
the groundwater table. Therefore, the addition of impervious surfaces to the
project site is not expected to significantly affect groundwater recharge on site.
c) Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Implementation of the project would add approximately 70 acres of impervious
surface to the project site; the remaining area would be open water and open
space. The project includes a storm water drainage and treatment system that
6 Prior RWQCB Board Orders in 2008 and 2009 related to effluent limitations have all been addressed
to the satisfaction of the RWQCB; the CSD does not have any outstanding violations.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-19
collects runoff from individual drainage areas into a series of linear bioretention
facilities. Lots, sidewalks, and roadways would drain toward the linear bioretention
facilities via overland flow. Treated runoff would be collected into a series of
perforated pipe underdrains that would discharge the storm water into the
developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, in compliance with Section 401/404 and
C.3 standards. The project would not connect to an existing or planned water
drainage system and would therefore not contribute or exceed its capacity. See
Impact HYD-1 and Impact HYD-2 for construction-related water quality impacts, and
the “Water Quality Standards” discussion below regarding operational water quality
impacts.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
d) Would the project violate any water quality standards or
substantially alter the established drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on-site?
Water Quality Standards
The water quality standards applicable to the project are described above in
Subsection 4.9.2, Regulatory Setting. The project would be subject to the regional
NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit and County’s C.3 requirements during project
construction and operation. This subsection describes the operational impacts of
the project to water quality. See Impact HYD-1 and Impact HYD-2 below for
construction-related water quality impacts.
Residential developments like the proposed project typically discharge pollutants
from vehicles, landscape maintenance, and pest control into the storm management
system. Without proper storm water treatment systems, the project could
contribute sediment, heavy metals, oils and greases, nutrients and pesticides into
the nearby waterways. These pollutants have the potential to degrade the water
quality of local receiving waters.
The project design incorporates a cluster concept for the residential lots, while still
allowing water access. A SWCP C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006) was prepared for
the project and submitted to the County’s Public Works Department in order to
comply with County C.3 water quality requirements for a NPDES permit. Engineered
linear bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the selected treatment BMP for this
project, which are area based storm water treatment facilities.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-20
The project site has been divided into 51 drainage areas. Linear bioretention
facilities would be provided on each side of the streets. In accordance with C.3
requirements, the average linear bioretention facility width proposed throughout
the site is approximately 4-feet to 5-feet wide. Some of the larger lots (i.e., at pie-
shaped lots at the end of cul-de-sacs) would have more extensive impervious areas.
In these areas, additional treatment would be needed, and 6-feet wide linear
bioretention facilities would be provided. The design of the linear bioretention
facilities would take into account the impervious areas of the roofs, driveways,
roadway, sidewalk, and non-self-retaining pervious landscaped yard areas of the
residential homes.
Storm water runoff from the individual areas would drain towards the linear
bioretention facilities via overland flow. The linear bioretention facilities would
serve as soil filtration and would treat the water prior to release into the bays and
coves, which are tidally influenced. No storm water runoff would be discharged into
the emergent marsh or wetland mitigation areas or over the creek bank
enhancement areas. Open areas of the project site would be self-retaining or self-
treating.7
The linear bioretention facilities would be designed with an 18-inch deep sandy
loam soil that contains a high percentage of organic matter and drains rapidly (5
inch/hour). The organic matter in the soil would act as a sponge to absorb the
dissolved pollutants. The linear bioretention facilities would have a perforated
underdrain that feeds into an underground storm drain system, which then
discharges to the various bays and coves throughout the development. To promote
infiltration even in clayey soils, the underdrain would be embedded in Class 2
permeable rock placed under the minimum 18-inch loamy sand layer. In this way,
water would be given an opportunity to infiltrate between storms.
Routine maintenance of the linear bioretention facilities would be required to insure
that storm water flow is unobstructed, that erosion is prevented, and that the
systems were actively treating polluted runoff. Ultimately, the cost of operating and
maintaining the storm water treatment systems would be borne by the Pantages
Bays homeowners as part of a landscaping and lighting district. Until the
establishment of the lighting and landscaping district as a permanent funding
7 The Corps 401/404 permit would not allow for discharge of treated storm water into the wetland
mitigation area, because it would adversely affect the required hydrology for the created seasonal
wetlands. Storm water discharge over the sloped/benched creek bank habitat enhancement areas is
also inconsistent with the required tidal hydrology for that vegetation. For these reasons, the
applicant does not intend to introduce any treated storm water into the emergent marsh or wetland
mitigation area, or over the creek bank enhancement areas.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-21
mechanism by future homeowners, the project applicant would bear the costs for
the operation and maintenance of the storm water treatment systems (dk
Consulting 2006).
As required by law, the project applicant would need to receive a water quality
certification from the SWRCB and comply with all stated permit conditions.
Provided that the project is constructed in adherence to the applicable regulations,
operational impacts to water quality would be less-than-significant.
The project’s C.3 report also identifies source control measures that would reduce
the potential level of pollutants entering the storm water treatment systems.
Table 4.9-1 lists the proposed source control measures.
Table 4.9-1 Sources of Pollutants and Proposed Control Measures
Potential
Source Permanent Controls (BMPs) Operational Controls (BPMs)
On-site dumping
into storm drain
inlets
All accessible on-site inlets will be marked
with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay”
Markings will be periodically repainted
or replaced.
Inlets and pipes conveying storm
water to BMPs will be inspected and
maintained as part of BMP Operation
and Maintenance Plan.
Landscape/outdoor
pesticide use
Final landscape plans will:
Be designed to minimize irrigation and
runoff and to minimize use of fertilizers
and pesticides that can contribute to
storm water pollution.
Specific plantings within bioretention
areas, and bioswales that are tolerant of
the sandy loam soil and periodic
inundation.
Include pest-resistant plants.
Include plantings appropriate to site
soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain,
land use, air movement, ecological
consistency and plant interactions
Landscape will be maintained using
minimum or no pesticides.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
information will be provided to new
homeowners.
Vehicle washing Driveways and parking areas drain to
bioretention area, swales, or bioswales.
Distribute storm water pollution
prevention information to
homeowners.
Source: dk Consulting 2006.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-22
The proposed drainage system has been designed to comply with NPDES and the
County’s C.3 requirements. As required by law, the project applicant would need to
receive water quality certification from the SWRCB and comply with all regulated
permit conditions. Provided that the project is constructed in the adherence to the
drainage system plan and applicable regulations, operational impacts to water
quality would be less than significant.
Open Water Areas
The project would create approximately 47 acres of bays, coves, and open-water
areas. As shown in Figure 3-5, the open-water areas created by the project would
include the widening of Kellogg Creek (17.05 acres), the North Cove (3.16 acres),
North Bay (11.97 acres), South Cove (5.01 acres), and South Bay (9.54 acres).8
Consistent with RD 800 standards, constructed bays and coves would be excavated
to a depth of at least 10 feet below msl to allow for safe boat passage at low tide.9
The project would require approval from the Contra Costa LAFCO for annexation to
the RD 800 sphere of influence and corresponding service boundary.
As required by RD 800 standards, Kellogg Creek would be widened to 300 feet at the
elevation of 3 feet above msl to provide adequate access for docks on both sides of
the channel.10 At the southern end of the project site, Old Kellogg Creek would be
widened from its current width of 60 feet to a maximum of 200 feet to provide
adequate access, per RD 800 requirements, to areas with docks on one side. Old
Kellogg creek would also be excavated to a depth of 5 to 10 feet below msl.11
Improvement to Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek would be funded and
implemented by the project applicant. RD 800 would be responsible to maintain
the waterways within and along the project site. In order to establish long-term
maintenance, the project applicant will establish an Assessment District prior to
selling the residential homes to fund these maintenance activities.
8 17.05 + 3.16 + 5.01 +11.97 + 9.54 = 46.73 acres, personal communication with Catherine Ginn at dk
Consulting Inc., December 4, 2009
9 Personal communication with Jeff Conway, RD 800 District Manager.
10 RD 800 minimum standards per Jeff Conway.
11 Old Kellogg Creek would be widened to 200 feet at the opening to the main Kellogg Creek, and
would be widened to 60 feet at the westernmost portion.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-23
Residence Times12
The excavation of new bays and coves on the project site, in combination with the
widening of Kellogg Creek, would result in increased residence times in the
Discovery Bay Area. The largest increases would occur at the far south end of the
western Kellogg Creek branch. In this area, residence times would increase from 5.7
days to 6.3 days (an approximately 9 percent increase). In the central-south part of
the western branch of Kellogg Creek, residence times would increase from 2.5 days
to 3.0 days (an approximately 20 percent increase). However, relative to the
maximum residence times elsewhere in the Discovery Bay waters (9 days in the
eastern branch), these changes are not considered significant (RMA 2006).
Residence times in the new bays and coves would be less than 2 days.
Tidal Currents and Erosion
Additional hydraulic analyses were conducted (RMA 2006) to understand the
erosion potential that could occur from widening the northern portion of Kellogg
Creek on the Indian Slough. As previously discussed, the existing fast tidal currents
in Kellogg Creek contribute to erosion and scour of the banks and also pose a hazard
for boat users. In order to reduce existing tidal currents, the project would widen
the portion of Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek immediately east of the site.
Based on the modeling conducted for post-project hydrodynamics, the widening of
Kellogg Creek would have a positive impact on reducing the rapid tidal currents
(RMA 2006). Over the tidal cycle, averaged flood velocities (i.e., the speed of water
flow) in Kellogg Creek would be reduced by 55 percent.13
The principal flow controlling peak flood velocities in Indian Slough is the upstream
tidal prism of Kellogg Creek and adjacent bays and coves of Discovery Bay. 14 The
excavation of new bays and coves on the project site, in combination with the
widening of Kellogg Creek, would increase the tidal prism controlling the peak flood
velocities in Indian Slough. With the increased tidal prism from the project, more
water would pass through Indian Slough, and small increases in the flood velocities
of the north and south channels of Indian Slough would occur. Over the tidal cycle,
12 Residence Time is the amount of time a particle spends in a particular system.
13 The widening of Kellogg Creek would reduce peak ebb velocities from 2.37 feet per second (ft/sec) to
1.06 ft/sec (approximately 55 percent) (RMA 2006).
14 A tidal prism is the volume of water in an estuary or inlet between mean high tide and mean low
tide, or the volume of water leaving an estuary at ebb tide.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-24
peak velocities would increase by 3 percent in the southern channel and 9 percent
in the northern channel. However, these small increases would not be enough to
result in scour or cause any problems for boaters (RMA 2006).
Overall, it is expected that post-development flow conditions will not create an
increase in net erosion rather result in a beneficial impact by reducing erosion and
scour of the water banks near the project site and reducing fast tidal currents, which
is hazardous for boat users. Additionally, model results also show that the widening
of Kellogg Creek would not have an impact on the tidal cycle water levels in
Discovery Bay and there would be no impact on the existing siphon flows.
Boat wakes and Levee Erosion
The project would result in an additional 131 new vessels to Discovery Bay;
approximately 3,420 new boat trips per year (see Section 4.16, Transportation and
Circulation). This represents an approximately 3 percent increase in the number of
local boat trips within Discovery Bay. At the Delta-wide scale, the project would
result in an approximately 0.07 percent increase in boat trips.
Limited data exist to accurately quantify erosion rates of mud levees on a per-boat-
passage basis. Observed erosion rates will depend on boat hull size and shape,
speed, water depth, channel width, levee material, vegetative cover, and levee
geometry. Without information on trip routes originating from Discovery Bay it is
difficult to estimate the impact of increased boat trips on levee erosion. However,
for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the increase in bank erosion of
unarmored levees will be proportional to the increase in number of project boats
trips.
Preliminary erosion data for unarmored levee monitoring sites near Discovery Bay
(within approximately 5 miles of the project site) indicate an average horizontal
erosion rate of approximately 5 centimeters/year (cm/yr). With an increase in boat
traffic by approximately 3 percent, the project is only expected to increase erosion
rates by 1 millimeter/year (mm/yr) at this location.
Preliminary erosion data for unarmored levee monitoring sites Delta-wide indicate
an average horizontal erosion rate of 12 cm/yr. With an increase in Delta-wide boat
traffic by approximately 0.07 percent, the project is only expected to increase
erosion rates by less than 1 mm/yr.
Given the relatively minor estimated increases in boat traffic and erosion rates
associated with the project, and the extent of levee armoring near the project site,
this impact is found to be less than significant. Furthermore, boat wakes within the
project site will be controlled in a similar manner as for existing waterways within
Discovery Bay, through designation as a no wake zone (5 mph).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-25
d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
The majority of the project site is considered undeveloped and pervious. Storm
water generally drains towards the topographically lower seasonal wetlands and the
emergent marshes on the northern portion of the project site and ultimately enters
Kellogg Creek and Indian Slough. Implementation of the project would add
approximately 70 acres of impervious surface to the project site; the remaining area
would be open water and open space. The project includes a storm water drainage
and treatment system that collects runoff from individual drainage areas into a
series of linear bioretention facilities. Lots, sidewalks, and roadways would drain
toward the linear bioretention facilities via overland flow. Treated runoff would be
collected into a series of perforated pipe underdrains that would discharge the
storm water into the developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, in compliance with
Section 401/404 and C.3 standards.
The storm drain outlets would be protected with flap gates to prevent water from
back-flowing into the streets during very large storm events. During large storm
events, water would flow overland into the bays, which are tidally influenced.
As previously described, C.3 requires that certain areas within the County
implement a net zero increase in storm water runoff as a result of new impervious
surfaces. However, because all surface water runoff from the project site would
drain into to a connection point within tidally influenced waterways, the project
area does not require a net zero increase in storm water runoff. The project would
demonstrate compliance with the requirement to manage increases in runoff peak
flows and durations as included in Option 4a of the HMP, described above in
Subsection 4.9.2, . The increases in runoff peaks would not substantially contribute
to off-site flooding since the storm drain outfall would connect directly to tidally
influenced areas with direct connections to the Delta.
As the proposed storm drainage would handle all stormwater runoff from the
developed portion of the site, on- and off-site flooding would not occur. The
increase in surface runoff from the project site is therefore considered less than
significant.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-26
e) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as delineated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Zone Map?
f) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?
The entire project site falls within Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map for Contra Costa County (FEMA 2009), which indicates that it is
subject to flooding during a 100-year event in the Delta. The Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) for the 100-year storm event, as defined by FEMA and the County15, is the
elevation that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded by floodwaters
in any one year. Based on the current mean higher high water MHHW (i.e., average
high tides) and the flood elevation data from past storm events, the 100-year BFE
for the project site is 7.5 feet NGVD. The 300-year BFE is 8.0 ft NGVD.
In locations subject to tidal variations (such as the project site), the County’s flood
design standard requires a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard (a factor of safety
expressed in feet above a known flood level) between the finished floor elevation of
a home and the BFE of the 100-year flood event. Given that the 100-year BFE for
the project site is 7.5 feet NGVD, finished floor elevations must be at least 9.5 feet
NGVD.16
The project site is not protected by an outside levee because it is directly adjacent
to the Delta’s open waterways. To ensure adequate flood protection, the applicant
has conservatively designed the project to exceed the BFE of the 300-year storm
event. The finished floor elevations of all waterfront lot homes would be 12.7 feet
NGVD,17 which is a full 3.2 feet above the County’s flood design standard for the BFE
of the 100-year flood event.18
For the purpose of flood protection calculations, the project development is divided
into three groups of homes as shown in Table 3-3 of this EIR. As shown in the table,
the waterfront homes located on lots adjacent to water and subject to tidal
variation would have a minimum finished floor elevation of 12.7 feet NGVD, which is
15 As defined in the Contra Costa County Code Section 82-28.486 – One Hundred –year flood.
16 Contra Costa County Code Section 82-28.1002, 3A.
17 Finished floor elevation is calculated under the assumption that a 10- inch thick Post Tension
Concrete Slab (“PT Slab”) is utilized. If instead a pier and grade beam foundation is utilized, the
finished floor elevation would be higher.
18 300-year base flood event is .5 feet higher than the 100-year event in this location, per the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Special Study Hydrology, dated February 1992, and as confirmed by
Chris Neudeck, engineer for Reclamation District 800.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-27
5.2 feet above the 100-year BFE and 4.7 feet above the 300-year BFE at high tide.
Interior lots would have a finished floor elevation of at least 11.5 NGVD, which is 4.0
feet above the 100-year BFE and 3.5 feet above the 300-year flood elevation.
Based on the current estimated 100-year BFE, the proposed finish floor elevations
of the project would meet the County’s flood design standards, reducing potential
risks from flooding to a less-than significant level.
g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Dam safety is regulated by the State Department of Water Resources, Division of
Safety. All large reservoirs in the County have been investigated for potential
failures, and many have been strengthened. Further, the Office of Emergency
Services has produced inundation maps and emergency plans covering various
scenarios of dam failure in the County.
The closest reservoir is Los Vaqueros, located approximately 7.5 miles to the west.
The project site is located along the eastern edge of the inundation area. The
Contra Costa Water District recently completed an environmental analysis for the
expansion and upgrading of the Los Vaqueros facility. The EIR prepared by the
Contra Costa Water District included a less than significant impact related to
downstream flooding associated with the risk of dam failure, based on the
conservative design of the facility that ensures it can withstand a maximum credible
earthquake, and the policies and procedures that guide the monitoring of
operations of the facility, ensuring that if needed, emergency “drawdown” of water
levels can be implemented to reduce the level of inundation. As such, potential risks
related to dam failure are considered less than significant.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Tsunamis are long sea waves, generated by displacements associated with
earthquakes. These waves can reach great heights when they encounter shallow
water. The project site is located approximately 80 miles from the ocean and the
potential for tsunamis affecting it from this source is remote. Tsunamis can also be
generated in sheltered near shore waters due to landslides and underwater land
movements.
Seiches are caused by seismically-induced ground motions imparted to bodies of
water which cause them to oscillate from side to side. There is no known evidence
of these near-field tsunami and seiches sources and they are not considered a risk
to the project. In any case, the fire department uses a fire boat to respond to
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-28
emergencies within the waterways adjacent to the project site. The fire department
also works with the coast guard and Sheriff Marine Patrol division to responds to
water-related emergencies.
The project site is nearly flat and would thus not be subject to mudflows related to
landslides.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
i) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
Impact HYD-1: Construction activities would alter the existing drainage patterns
resulting in erosion, sedimentation, and contamination of storm water runoff
which could degrade water quality in adjacent water bodies.
Construction will involve earth moving activities, with a large portion being wet
excavation associated with excavating the bays and coves. Demolition, clearing and
site preparation would be performed utilizing excavators/front-end loaders, tracked
dozer with disk, and trucks for debris removal. Rainfall could carry loose soils into
adjacent waterways, resulting in increased sedimentation and degradation of water
quality. Concentrated flow due to grading in some areas would increase the
potential for erosion and potentially increase sediment transport into the adjacent
areas. Construction equipment debris and fuel could also further degrade the
quality of storm water runoff if fueling activity and maintenance products are not
handled properly. This contamination could impact nearby waterways (i.e., Kellogg
Creek) and the on-site marsh lands and wetlands.
The waterfront development would be constructed by excavating bays and
waterways and creating elevated building pads adjacent to a vertical reinforced
shoring wall. Removal of material to depths of up to 10 feet would be required to
excavate the proposed bays and construct the shoring walls. The wet excavation of
bays, coves and the dredging of Kellogg Creek would produce large quantities of
suspended sediment that could impact the water quality in Kellogg Creek.
Excavation of the Bays
Excavation of the South and North Bays would occur in conjunction with the
widening of Kellogg Creek (described below). The bays would be excavated from
within the proposed development area of the project site. Excavated soils from the
bays would be primarily “wet” (i.e., material from below the water table that is
pulled out in a wet or moist condition). The material would be dried on site before
being reused as engineered fill for the project.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-29
Initially, the mouth of each bay would remain closed by an approximately 100-foot-
wide earthen barrier (soil plug). The soil plugs would separate the excavation
operations from Kellogg Creek so that sediment and silt would be prevented from
entering Discovery Bay waterways. With the soil plugs in place, the bays would fill
with water through natural groundwater equalization (i.e., through the ground) or
via gravity flow through an installed culvert pipe. Water would eventually fill the
excavated bays until water levels are equal to Kellogg Creek. Sediment in the bays
would settle to the bottom over a period of one to two days. Once the sediment
has cleared, a small, engineered breach in each of the soil plugs would be created to
allow waters from the bays and Kellogg Creek to mix and stabilize. Once the waters
of Kellogg Creek and the bays were stabilized, the entire soil plug would be
removed.
Turbidity barriers (see Figure 4.9-2) would be placed within Kellogg Creek to provide
an approximately 5-foot buffer around the soil plug as it is breached and removed.
The turbidity barriers would consist of a floating top boom section attached to an
anchored curtain made of tightly woven nylon, plastic, or other non-deteriorating
material. The curtain would allow water to flow between the excavation areas and
Kellogg Creek, while preventing sediment and other larger materials from entering
the Discovery Bay waterways. A qualified hydrologist on the project team would
determine the optimum position of the turbidity barriers. The turbidity barrier
would be removed once all sediment from the construction site has settled.
Widening of Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek
Working north to south along the project site, the banks of Kellogg Creek and Old
Kellogg Creek will be excavated to a maximum depth of 10 feet in order to widen
the Discovery Bay waterways and create the onsite shoring (bank-stabilization)
walls. Turbidity barrier installation (as described above for the creation of the bays)
and excavation would be undertaken in the three segments: (1) northern segment,
which is the north cove; (2) central segment between the North Bay and South Bay;
and (2) southern segment between the North Bay and South Bay.
Back hoe and related excavation operations for the creek widening would be staged
from the landward side of the project site—atop the shoring wall location that
would be created with the engineered technique referred to as “cement deep soil
mixing” in a previous phase. Any wet excavated materials would be dried on site
prior to subsequent use as engineered fill for the project. The enhanced habitat on
the newly formed creek banks along Pantages Island, the northerly side of North
Cove, and at the end of Old Kellogg Creek would also be created as part of this
phase of work (see Section 4.3, Biological Resources, for a detailed description of
the bank habitat restoration).
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.9-2FigureExample Turbidity Barrier
Source: InSite, 2010.
NOT TO SCALEWater Level
Boom/Floats Tensioning Cable
Permeable Silt Skirt
Bottom Anchor
HighWater LowWater
Curtain bottom conformsto river bed to blocksuspended particles
Depth Variesto suit max.water depth
River Bed
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-31
Onsite activities from excavation, grading, and general construction could pose a
potentially significant impact to stormwater quality and water quality in the
surrounding waters of Kellogg Creek and Discovery Bay. Mitigation Measures
HYD-1a through HYD-1c would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1a: A qualified hydrologist on the project team shall
perform, at minimum, weekly monitoring of the water quality in Kellogg Creek
adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine whether adjustments to their
position or depth are required. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as needed,
to accurately assess water quality degradation.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1b: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building
Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The
SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm
Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and
recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP
resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
Mitigation Measure HYD -1c: To prevent pollution of receiving waters due to
equipment fueling, storage, and maintenance, the contractor shall develop a
detailed set of guidelines to follow. Final plan notes, and contractor bid
documents shall include the following specifications:
1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for storage of maintenance
materials, and refueling purposes.
2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any runoff so that any
contaminants such as spilled fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving
waters.
3. If heavy-duty construction machinery is left overnight in an area that is not
protected from direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall be placed
beneath the engine block and hydraulic systems.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Weekly monitoring of the water quality adjacent to the turbidity barriers during
project construction would ensure that potential water quality impacts to
Kellogg Creek are avoided, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-significant
level. Preparation of a SWPPP would include compliance with RWQCB
guidelines, an erosion control plan addressing control of sediment, stabilization
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-32
of erosion, and protection of water quality, and soil stabilization techniques.
These measures would ensure that construction activities would not degrade
water quality, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact HYDRO-2: Abandoned groundwater wells on the project site could act as
direct conduits to groundwater for hazardous waste.
According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the project (see Section 4.8, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials), the project site contains at two domestic groundwater wells.
The wells can act as a direct conduit for pollutants that are washed down with storm
water runoff if they are not properly decommissioned. This is considered a
potentially significant impact to groundwater quality.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
applicant shall coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division
(CCEHD) to identify and survey the existing and abandoned groundwater wells
on the project site.
The identified groundwater wells shall be properly decommissioned and/or
retrofitted under permit from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the decommissioned
wells for approval.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Properly decommissioned and/or retrofitting the existing groundwater wells on
the project site would ensure that pollutants would not be able to seep into the
groundwater through the well sites, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
f) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as delineated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Zone Map?
Impact HYD-3: The project site is located within areas of projected tidal inundation
due to sea level rise, which would place people and structures within a flood
hazard associated with long-term sea level rise. (Significant)
The entire project site falls within Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map for Contra Costa County (FEMA 2009), which a 100-year BFE for
the project site of 7.5 feet NGVD. The 300-year BFE is 8.0 feet NGVD. The flood risk
to the project site is expected to increase with future sea level rise. As previously
discussed in Subsection 4.9.1, Existing Conditions, global sea level is predicted to
rise by approximately 1.3 feet over the next 50 years and 4.6 feet by 2100. A
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-33
relative sea level rise of 4.6 feet over the next 100 years would increase the
project’s existing 100-year BFE of 7.5 feet to 8.8 feet NGVD in Year 2050, and to 12.1
feet NGVD in Year 2100.
Residential Units
The residential structures are currently designed to account for the 2050 sea level
rise scenario. Therefore, impacts associated with long-term flooding hazards are
considered less-than-significant through 2050. However, to satisfy the 2100 sea-
level rise scenario, the minimum finished floor elevation with a concrete slab
foundation would have to be 14.1 feet.
As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the project applicant is proposing
to account for the Year 2100 scenario for sea level rise by redistributing the finished
grades as part of the final grading plans. This design element is not currently
reflected in existing project plans and is therefore added as a mitigation measure to
reduce long-term water flooding impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Street Elevation
The minimum proposed street elevation for the project is 9 feet NGVD. Under the
existing conditions, the proposed elevations of the streets would provide 1.5 feet of
freeboard above the 100-year BFE. However, under the 100-year sea level rise
conditions, the streets and storm drainage systems would be below the 100-year
flood event by 3.1 feet. This is considered a significant impact.
The County requires that all subdivision proposals have public utilities located and
constructed to minimize flood damage.19 Per County requirements, the project
applicant should perform an assessment to minimize any other flood damage due to
this level of street flooding.
Mitigation Measure HYD-3a: The final map and improvement plans, including
grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished floor elevation of residential
units at 14.1 feet.
Mitigation Measure HYD-3b: The final map and improvement plans, including
grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished street level elevation of 12.1
feet.
19 Contra Costa County Code, Section 82-28.1006,4.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-34
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b would require
the applicant to design the project to meet 2100 sea-level rise scenario
predictions. This would reduce long-term flooding impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
4.9.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Water Quality
The 2005 General Plan update identified that an increase in urban runoff due to
urban development would contribute pollutants and sediments to the surface
waters of the Delta. The General Plan determined that this increase in pollutants
was a significant impact to the water quality of the Delta. The discharge of
stormwater runoff from new development in California is highly regulated by local,
state, and federal laws specifically to ensure that they do not result in the gradual
degradation of water quality. The General Plan includes policies that specifically
reinforce these regulations by establishing the County’s active role in water quality
programs. The General Plan policies also establish support for water quality
standards that are adequate to protect human health in important areas like the
Delta estuary. Point sources of pollution are required to be identified and
controlled in order to protect adopted beneficial uses of water. Implementation of
these policies occurs as part of the development review and construction permitting
process and were found to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Therefore, the project in conjunction with the development proposed as part of the
General Plan would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to water
quality.
Flooding and Sea Level Rise
The 2005 General Plan update identified that future development within the 100-
year floodplain would increase the number of persons and amount of property
potentially exposed to flood conditions, including risks from flood hazards caused by
sea level rise and levee or dam failure. As such, the General Plan includes policies
that require all development proposed in areas of special flood hazards to conform
to the County’s flood-resistant design requirements related to building elevations,
drainage requirements, etc. The project has been proactively designed with
building pad elevations that conform to the conservative estimates for sea level rise
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-35
in 2050 and 2100. The project would not therefore increase the number of persons
or amount of property potentially exposed to flood conditions and would result in a
considerable contribution to this cumulative impact.
The General Plan policies also require that the review of development proposals
occur in conjunction with the most recent dam failure inundation maps in order to
determine evacuation routes. As noted earlier in this section, the project is located
at the eastern edge of the inundation area for Los Vaqueros reservoir. As such the
project would be subject to the same evacuation routes identified for the entire
Town of Discovery Bay that have already been established.
4.9.5 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County Community Development Department (2003). Contra Costa
County Watershed Atlas
Contra Costa County (2005). Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020.
Dk Consulting (2006). Pantages Bays Stormwater Control Plan C.3 Report.
ENGEO (2006). Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California
(revised October 27, 2006).
ENGEO (2005). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Pantages at Discovery Bay,
Contra Costa County, California.
ENGEO (2004). Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California.
FEMA (1987). Flood Insurance Rate Map. Contra Costa County, California
(Unincorporated Areas).
InSite (2010). Summary of applicant’s proposed phasing of project grading and site
improvements.
PWA (2010). Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment Memorandum.
RMA (2006). Numerical Modeling of Discovery Bay: Evaluation of the Pantages Bays
Project.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) (2009).
Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay
and on its Shoreline.
Stillwater Sciences (2007). Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-36
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-1
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section describes the existing land uses and land use designations on the
project site and in the project vicinity. Land use designations are defined by the
2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan) and Zoning Ordinance
(Title 8 of the Contra Costa County Code). This section also evaluates project
consistency with applicable General Plan policies. Information regarding land use
and planning in Contra Costa County was obtained from site visits, the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and communication with the County’s Community Development
Division.
No comments related to land use and planning were received in response to the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Land Uses
The project site is within the Discovery Bay area in the eastern portion of Contra
Costa County (County). Contra Costa is adjacent to Alameda, San Joaquin,
Sacramento, and Solano counties in Northern California. According to the General
Plan, the County covers 805 square miles, including approximately 732 square miles
of land and 73 square miles of water.
The County is comprised of three areas: West County, Central County, and East
County. The project site is located within East County, which includes the
communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley. East County also
includes the unincorporated areas of Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, and
Byron. The East County has experienced rapid growth over the past 20 years as
agricultural lands have transitioned to urban uses. Agricultural lands still
predominate along the eastern boundary of the County, while urban uses
(residential, commercial, retail, and education) have continued to develop within
incorporated cities.
Project Site Land Uses
The approximately 171-acre project site consists of 162 acres of land owned by the
project applicant, and 9.2 acres of land owned by the ECCID, including Pantages
Island and land along the East Contra Costa County Irrigation District Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel (ECCID Dredge Cut).
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-2
The project site is comprised of 10 assessor parcels that are designated Agricultural
Lands (AL), Delta Recreation (DR) and Water (WA) by the General Plan and are
zoned General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3). The
project site is within the Urban Limit Line (ULL), as established by the voters of the
County, and is identified for future urban development. Land uses beyond the ULL
are primarily agricultural, including lands to the northeast of the project site,
beyond Indian Slough (see Figure 3-1).
The project site is currently vacant, and has not been cultivated and irrigated since
1992. The site is disked annually and seeded with a grass mixture. A small number
of cows (approximately 10) graze the site, as a hobby of the current tenant. The site
is vegetated with 80 trees and low-lying non-native annual grasslands, and also
contains three abandoned residential structures, including one residence and
associated outbuildings near the center of the site, and one barn on the eastern
portion of the site. Several shallow irrigation ditches bisect the site.
Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 3-1 depicts the land uses surrounding the project site.
The ECCID Dredge Cut forms the northern project boundary, and lands to the
northeast remain in agricultural production.
The Discovery Bay community, located east and south of the site, is comprised of
3,700 residences, a golf course, marina and harbor, commercial uses, a church, and
Discovery Bay Elementary School. Several communities are located west of the
project site. The Ravenswood development includes 181 single-family residential
units and 22 duets as well as Ravenswood Park. A second subdivision, known as
Discovery Bay West, is comprised of five “Villages” that will total 1,999 units when
fully constructed. Village I is located directly west of the Ravenswood development
and contains the Timber Point Elementary School as well as Slifer Park. The
remaining villages are laid out to the north, and include Village II, commonly
referred to as the Lakeshore subdivision; and Villages III, IV, and V, which are known
collectively as the Lakes at Discovery Bay.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-3
4.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Contra Costa County General Plan
The General Plan provides goals, policies, and specific implementation measures
that will guide decisions on future growth, development, and conservation of
resources within the County. The current General Plan was adopted in 2005 and
provides policies to guide development through year 2020.
As previously noted, the General Plan land use designations for the project site are
Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation (DR) and Water (WA) which are defined as
follows:
Agricultural Lands (AL) – The AL designation preserves and protects lands
capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber and plant
materials. The uses that are allowed in the AL designation include all land-
dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and related
activities.
Delta Recreation (DR) – The DR designation encompasses the islands and
adjacent lowlands of the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. Agricultural and
wildlife habitat is to be considered the most appropriate uses in the area, with
limited recreational uses allowed which do not conflict with the predominant
agricultural and habitat uses.
Water (WA) – This designation is applied to approximately 68 square miles of
water in the San Francisco-San Pablo Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River
estuary system in the County.
The project applicant is seeking approval for a general plan amendment from AL, DR
and WA to the following designations: Single-Family Residential-Medium Density
(SM), Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Water (WA), Public/Semi-Public
(PS), and Open Space (OS).
These land use designations are generally defined in the General Plan as follows:
Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM) – The SM designation allows
between 3.0 and 4.9 single-family units per net acre. Lot sizes can range up to
14,519 square feet. Population densities would normally range from about 7.5
to about 12.5 persons per acre.
Primary land uses include detached single-family homes and associated
accessory structures. Secondary land uses considered to be compatible
with low density homes may be allowed, including home occupations, small
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-4
residential care and childcare facilities, churches and other similar places of
worship, secondary dwelling units, and other uses and structures incidental
to the primary uses.
Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) – The SH designation allows
between 5.0 and 7.2 single-family units per net acre. Lot sizes can range up to
8,729 square feet. Population densities would normally range from about 12.5
to about 22 persons per acre.
Primary and secondary land uses permitted in the SH are the same as
described under the SM designation. In addition, in specified areas of the
County with conventional zoning, attached single-family units (duplexes or
duets) may be allowed.
Water (WA) – As noted above, the WA designation covers approximately 68
square miles of water in the San Francisco-San Pablo Bay and Sacramento-San
Joaquin River estuary system located within the County, as well as all large
inland bodies of water such as reservoirs.
Public/Semi-Public (PS) – The PS designation includes properties owned by
public governmental agencies such as libraries, fire stations, schools, etc. This
designation is also applied to public transportation corridors, such as freeways
and highways, as well as privately-owned transportation and utility corridors
such as railroads, Pacific, Gas & Electric (PG&E) lines, and pipelines.
Open Space (OS) – This OS designation includes publicly-owned, open space
lands, such as wetlands and tidelands and other areas of significant ecological
resources, or geologic hazards.
The OS designation also includes privately-owned properties where
development rights have been deeded to a public or private agency. For
example, significant open space areas within planned unit developments
identified as being owned and maintained by a homeowners association fall
under this designation.
Resource management, such as maintaining critical marsh and other
endangered habitats are appropriate uses within the OS designation. Other
appropriate uses are low intensity, private recreation for nearby residents.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project as proposed is not permitted within the agricultural lands (AL) land use
designation. The project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to
change the existing land use designations to those that would allow for the type and
intensity of development proposed. The type and density of development proposed
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-5
is compatible with land uses and densities in the surrounding area, including the
Discovery Bay West subdivisions to the west that were approved recently by the
County through a similar General Plan Amendment and rezoning process.
The project site and surrounding properties were included within the ULL in 1992
when it was originally adopted. By including properties within the ULL, the County
acknowledged the potential for future development of these areas as urban uses,
while preserving lands outside the ULL in the agricultural core. The County has, over
the past 15 years, processed applications for development within the Discovery Bay
ULL, including the Ravenswood, and Discovery Bay West developments.
Zoning Ordinance
Parcels on the site are zoned General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy
Agricultural District (A-3) by the Zoning Ordinance (Title 8 of County Code).
Permitted uses within the A-2 and A-3 districts include:
All types of agriculture, including general farming, horticulture, and floriculture;
Other agricultural uses such as sheds and warehouses;
A stand of agricultural product;
A detached single-family dwelling;
A public foster home or family care home; or
A family day care.
Other uses, such as commercial recreational facilities, medical offices, or churches,
may be allowed with a land use permit. In addition, uses must comply with
development standards related to lot area, width, depth, and height.
The project is seeking approval of a rezoning to P-1. Permitted uses within the P-1
District include:
Any land uses permitted by an approved final development plan that are in
harmony with each other, serve to fulfill the function of the planned unit
development, and are consistent with the general plan;
A detached single-family dwelling on each legally established lot and the
accessory structures and uses normally auxiliary to it.
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-6
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would rezone approximately 171 acres from A-2 and A-3 zoning to a P-1
District. The P-1 District is intended to serve large-scale development such as the
project, and to allow diversification of uses, buildings, lot sizes and open space while
insuring compliance with the General Plan.
The P-1 District classification sets forth the specific development standards of the
project, including lot size, width, setbacks, building heights, etc. The project would
be consistent with these customized standards.
Subdivision Ordinance and Building Code
The Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9 of the County Code) is intended to guide the
adoption of subdivision regulations in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act,
Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California. The
Subdivision Ordinance includes development standards related to site
improvements, streets and roadways, and utilities.
The Building Code (Title 7 of the County Code) establishes the regulations and
standards that apply to all buildings or structures within the County.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project applicant would be required to submit Final Subdivision Maps to the
County for approval. Project plans are required to comply with the County’s
Building Code.
Urban Limit Line – 65/35 Contra Costa County Land
Preservation Plan
County voters approved the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan
(Plan) as part of Measure C – 1990, was adopted on November 6, 1990. The Plan
limits urban development to 35 percent of land within the County and requires that
at least 65 percent of all land within the County be preserved for agriculture, open
space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. According to the General Plan,
168,500 acres (35 percent) of land within the County could potentially be devoted
to an urban use under the 65/35 standard 1 (2005 Contra Costa County General Plan
update).
1 Of the 481,430 acres of land in Contra Costa County.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-7
The purpose of the ULL is two-fold:
To ensure the preservation of identified non-urban agricultural, open space, and
other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be
designated during the term of the Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-
2020, and
To facilitate the enforcement of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard Plan2.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project site is located within the ULL and no adjustment to the ULL boundary is
required. Potential development on the project site is assumed within the 35
percent (168,500 acres) adopted countywide as part of the ULL.
Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies
This section evaluates policies contained in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan that are applicable to the project and determines whether the project
conforms to those policies. Project consistency with policies in other elements of
the General Plan is provided throughout the applicable technical sections of this EIR.
Land Use Element
3-5: New development within unincorporated areas of the County may be
approved, providing growth management standards and criteria are met or
can be assured of being met prior to the issuance of building permits in
accordance with the growth management.
3-8: Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. Proposals that
would prematurely extend development into areas lacking requisite
services, facilities and infrastructure shall be opposed. In accommodating
new development, preference shall generally be given to vacant or under-
used sites within urbanized areas, which have necessary utilities installed
with available remaining capacity, before undeveloped suburban land are
utilized.
2 The 65/63 Land Preservation Standard limits urban development to 35 percent of land within the
County and requires that at least 65 percent of all land within the County be preserved for agriculture,
open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses.
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-8
3-47: The Plan directs most of the residential and commercial growth that is
anticipated to occur in the unincorporated East County area during the
planning period into the Oakley community, with smaller amounts of
recreation-oriented development allowed on Bethel Island.
3-49: The density and development of single-family homes in the East County
area, in lands designated for residential or other urban uses, shall be related
to the service availability criteria.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project site is located within the ULL and is designated for future urban uses. In
reference to policy 3-5, the requested general plan amendment would be
considered by the County since the subject property is located within the ULL. The
project is vacant, and could be considered to be an infill site as it is surrounded by
several large existing residential developments. The project is therefore in
compliance with policy 3-8.
In regards to policy 3-47, while the project site is not located in the Oakley or Bethel
Island communities, the site is located within the adopted ULL and fulfills a pattern
of development that has been implemented over the past 15 years. The project
would be an extension of the existing Discovery Bay water-oriented residential
development. In response to policy 3-49, public water and sewer connections are
available within a public utility easement that crosses the project site to serve the
existing Discovery Bay development. The project would extend existing connections
via project streets subject to LAFCO approval.
4.10.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant land
use impact if it would:
a) Physically divide an established community;
b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan; or
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-9
c) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that no impact would
result for two of the three significance criteria. The following discussion presents
the evidence in support of this conclusion.
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project site is currently vacant, and development of the site would not divide an
established community. The existence of the Discovery Bay community to the east
and recent County approval of subdivisions to the west have resulted in the site
becoming an island of vacant land surrounded by residential development to the
east, west, and south. Implementation of the project would continue the residential
pattern of development that is already defined. There are no impacts related to the
project physically dividing an established community.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
In October of 2007, Contra Costa County adopted Ordinance No. 2007-53 for the
“East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community
Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Fees and Implementation Procedures.” The
HCP/NCCP establishes a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the
“incidental take” of endangered species within eastern Contra Costa County.
The project site is located adjacent to but outside of the HCP/NCCP Inventory Area
and as a result the project is not eligible for take coverage through the HCP/NCCP.
Although the project is located outside the inventory area of the HCP/NCCP, it is
expected that the project may be allowed to make a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy) as mitigation for
impacts to federal- and state-listed special status species. The mitigation funding
would be determined by state and federal regulatory agencies and agreement from
the Conservancy. Further discussion of mitigation funding to the Conservancy is
included in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. The project would not conflict with
any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and no
impact would occur.
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-10
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the three
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be a less-than-significant
impact for one of the three criteria. The following presents the evidence in support
of this conclusion.
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project is currently in conflict with the existing zoning and general plan land use
designation which identify the site for agricultural uses. The project seeks approval
of a general plan amendment from the current designation to Single-Family
Residential – Medium Density (SM), Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH),
Water (WA), Public/Semi-Public (PS), and Open Space (OS) designations to support
the proposed development.
Similarly, the applicant also seeks approval for rezoning from General Agricultural
District and Heavy Agricultural District to Planned Unit District. Approval of the
general plan amendment and rezoning would ensure that the project is consistent
with the applicable land use plan and zoning regulations. If the Board of Supervisors
does not approve the requested general plan amendment and rezoning, the project
as currently proposed would not be implemented.
The project site is located within the ULL, which identifies the site for potential
development with urban uses. As discussed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources,
no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance exists
on the project site. The majority of the project site is designated by the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program as Urban and Built-up Land with a portion located
on the southern end of the project site designated as Farmland of Local Importance
and Other Land. The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes and
is completely surrounded by residential development. As concluded in Section 4.1,
Agricultural Resources, conversion of Farmland of Local Importance to non-
agricultural uses is not considered an impact.
The project would be consistent with all other policies related to land use as
discussed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-11
4.10.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative context for land use and planning includes development projects
listed in Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, and development
anticipated under the County’s General Plan in Eastern Contra Costa County (East
County).
The General Plan EIR noted the change in land use patterns that would occur with
implementation of the Urban Limit Line (ULL); namely, a concentration of growth
within areas designated for urban development and a preservation of the
agricultural core for purely agricultural uses. The General Plan EIR recommended
rezoning and other clarifications to address inconsistencies between existing land
use designations that conflict with the intent of the newly adopted ULL.
The project site was included within the ULL in 1992, as part of an approximately 6-
square-mile island of land designated for urban use. The ULL “island” includes the
community of Discovery Bay and lands immediately adjacent to the east, west, and
north (See Figure 3-1). As shown in Figure 3-1, lands in the northwest quadrant of
this ULL island have recently been developed with residential subdivisions.
Although the zoning for the project site (and all undeveloped lands within the ULL
island) was left agricultural, the County’s intention for future development of these
lands was clearly identified. The ULL was adopted by the voters of the County
through the passage of Measure C, which also provided for ongoing financing via a
sales tax to support infrastructure improvements for the identified urban areas. All
projects listed in Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, have
been designated for future urban development as part of the ULL; therefore, the
combined development of properties within the ULL is not considered a
cumulatively significant land use impact.
4.10.5 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-
2020, January 2005.
Jones & Stokes. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural
Community Conservation Plan, October 2006.
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-12
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11-1
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing mineral resources available on and in the vicinity
of the project site, and assesses the potential for the project to result in a significant
environmental impact to mineral resources. Information regarding mineral
resources was obtained from the Contra Costa General Plan, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and through personal communications with staff at the
Department of Conservation, Mines and Mineral Resources division.
There were no public comments related to mineral resources received in response
to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR.
4.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are no mines or quarries located within the project vicinity. The most valuable
mineral resources mined within Contra Costa County include crushed rock in the
Concord area, shale in the Port Costa area, and sand and sandstone in the Byron
area. There are also regionally significant deposits of diabase, an intrusive igneous
rock used as roadbase and rip-rap to prevent streambank erosion, found in the Mt.
Zion area near Concord and Clayton (Contra Costa County 2005).
The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service identified four soils types on the
project site. Soil series at the project site include Marcuse Clay, Brentwood Clay
Loam (wet), Pescadero Clay Loam, and Sacramento Clay, Alkalai. The southern and
northern portions of the project site are Marcuse clay. Both sides of Point of Timber
Road are Brentwood Clay Loam (wet). The northeast portion of the project site is
Pescadero Clay Loam. The island in the north of the project site is Sacramento Clay,
Alkali. Summaries of the USDA soil descriptions (USDA 2010) for each soil series are
as follows:
Marcuse Clay is characterized as a deep, very poorly drained soil that formed in
alluvium from sedimentary rock. It is subject to ponding, has slow to very slow
water runoff and has slow permeability. This soil is used for irrigated pasture,
dryland saltgrass pasture, and occasionally row crops.
Brentwood Clay Loam (wet) is characterized as nearly level soil formed in valley fill
from sedimentary rocks. This soil is moderately to well drained and runoff is very
slow to medium. It has moderately slow permeability. This soil can be irrigated and
used for tree fruit, nut crops, vegetables, and field crops. Vegetation includes annual
grasses, forbs, and scattered oaks.
Pantages Bays Project
4.11 Mineral Resources Draft EIR
4.11-2
Pescadero Clay Loam is characterized as a very deep, poorly drained soil that
formed in alluvium from sedimentary rock. This soil type occurs in level basins.
Permeability is very slow, and the soil is subject to ponding due to very slow surface
runoff. Vegetation commonly found growing on this soil series includes annual
grasses, saltgrass, pickleweed and forbs. This soil type is mainly used for livestock
grazing.
Sacramento Clay, Alkali is characterized as a nearly level soil located at elevations of
near sea level to 60 feet. The soil is very poorly drained and has very slow to slow
surface runoff. Uncultivated areas of this soil contain willows, cottonwoods,
scattered oaks, and grasses and forbs.
4.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of
1975
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted in 1975
and updated in January 2007 to limit new development in areas with significant
mineral deposits. SMARA is part of California Public Resources Code (PRC), Division
2, Chapter 9, Section 2710 et seq. Through SMARA, the California Geological Survey
(CGS) produces mineral land classification maps and reports to aid in development
and land use plans. Natural resources identified within the maps and reports
include geologic deposits of valuable minerals used in manufacturing processes and
the production of construction materials. SMARA classifies lands into mineral
resource zones (MRZs) according to the known or inferred mineral potential.
The criteria for establishing the zones are based on four general categories,
discussed below:
MRZ 1 Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral
deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for
their presence.
MRZ 2 Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral
deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for
their presence.
MRZ 3 Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be
evaluated.
MRZ 4 Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any
other MRZ zone.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11-3
Project Consistency Analysis
The project is not located within an identified mineral resources area, and would
therefore be consistent with SMARA.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Mineral Resource Areas of Chapter 8, the Conservation Element, in the Contra
Costa County General Plan contains the following relevant policies related to
mineral resources.
Conservation Element
8-54 Mining and quarrying shall be a permitted use in certain privately owned
areas which are in an open space designation in the General Plan (e.g. Open
Space, Agricultural lands, etc.) and which contain known mineral deposits
with potential commercial value. These deposits include, but are not
limited to, rocks, gravel, sand, salt, and clay.
8-56 Incompatible land uses shall not be permitted within the mineral resource
impact areas identified as containing significant sand and gravel deposits (as
shown in Figure 8-4 of the General Plan)
8-57 Incompatible uses are defined as land uses inherently incompatible with
mining and/or uses that require high public or private investment in
structures, land improvements, and landscaping that prevent mining
because of the higher economic value of the land and its improvements.
8-58 Future development in the vicinity of valuable mineral resource zones shall
be planned and designed to minimize disturbance to residential areas or
other sensitive land uses and to permit the safe passage of quarry trucks.
8-59 Development of compatible land uses shall be encouraged within 1,000 feet
of the quarrying sites. Compatible uses include secondary activity related to
the quarry operation, recreation facilities, parks, agricultural uses, and
permanent open space.
Policy Consistency Analysis
The project is not located within an identified mineral resources area and thus
would not cause an incompatible land use near a mine or quarry. Therefore, the
project would be consistent with General Plan policies related to mineral resources.
Pantages Bays Project
4.11 Mineral Resources Draft EIR
4.11-4
4.11.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, a project would have a significant impact on
mineral resources if it would:
a) 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; or
b) 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.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project details and project site characteristics in the context of the
two significance criteria stated above clearly shows that no mineral resource
impacts would result. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of
this conclusion.
a) Would the project 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?
According to the California Geological Survey, the project site is not classified or
designated within a mineral resource zone (S. Kohler, personal communication, May
17, 2007). Furthermore, based on General Plan maps of the area, the project site is
not within an area of known mineral importance. Therefore, the project would not
impact mineral resources
b) Would the project result in the loss of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Neither the project site nor the project vicinity has a history of mining and the
project site is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any known map
or plan. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11-5
4.11.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for mineral resources includes the project in combination
with the cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1. According to the General Plan,
none of these projects are within an area of known mineral importance. Therefore,
the development of the project in combination with other projects in the area
would have no potential to impact state-designated regionally significant mineral
resources and there would be no cumulative impact related to mineral resources.
4.11.5 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020:
Conservation Element.
Kohler, Susan, California Geological Survey – Mineral Resources, State of California
Department of Conservation. Personal Communication, May 14, 2007.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. National Cooperative Soil
Survey. http://soils.usda.gov/partnerships/ncss/.
Pantages Bays Project
4.11 Mineral Resources Draft EIR
4.11-6
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-1
4.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION
This section describes existing sources of noise within the project site and vicinity
and evaluates whether construction and operational noise generated by the project
would exceed applicable noise standards. The section also evaluates potential
vibration impacts associated with project construction.
Information presented in this section was obtained from noise measurements and
modeling conducted by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz as part of an Environmental
Noise Study for Pantages Bays (see Appendix E). The environmental noise study
that has been incorporated into this analysis is available for review at Contra Costa
County, Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development
Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California
To determine the existing noise environment, sound level meters were deployed at
four locations on and around the project site to record fluctuations in sound over
extended periods. Noise measurements were made on April 22 through 26, 2010.
See Subsection 4.12.2, Existing Conditions for a complete description of the noise
monitoring conducted for this analysis.
No comments related to the noise environment were received in response to the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report (EIR).
4.12.1 NOISE AND VIBRATION CONCEPTS
Noise
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and is commonly measured with an
instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter “captures” sound
with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels
are expressed in units called decibels (dB).
To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans
perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-
frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing.
The use of A-weighting is required by most local agencies as well as other federal
and state noise regulations (e.g., the California Department of Transportation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety &
Health Administration and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).
The abbreviation dBA is often used when the A-weighted sound level is reported.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-2
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many
descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual
descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken
together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. There are
four descriptors that are commonly used in environmental studies: the maximum
instantaneous noise level (Lmax), equivalent noise level (Leq), sound level exceeded
90 percent of the time (L90), and community noise equivalent level (CNEL).1
The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness
of a single event such as a car pass-by or airplane flyover. To express the average
noise level, the Leq is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is
typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level
(or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually
generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified
with a descriptor called the L90, which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the
time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the CNEL is used. The CNEL is an
average like the Leq, except it includes a 10-dBA penalty for noises that occur during
nighttime hours and a 5-dBA penalty during evening hours to account for increased
sensitivity during these time periods.
In environmental noise, a change in the noise level of 3 dBA is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5-dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10-
dBA change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
Traffic Noise
The source level of traffic noise depends on four primary factors, including the
volume of the traffic, speed of the traffic, number of trucks in the flow of traffic, and
the condition of the road surface. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is
increased by higher traffic volumes, faster speeds, a greater number of trucks, and
rougher pavement. Noise generally increases 3 dB with each doubling of traffic
volume (all else being equal) and 6 dB with each doubling of speed (all else being
equal). Higher ratios of trucks and rougher pavement do not have as direct of an
effect on the noise levels.
Noise Attenuation
Most noise sources can be classified as either point sources (e.g., stationary
equipment), or line sources, such as a roadway. Sound generated by a point source
nominally diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance
away from the source. For example, a 60 dBA noise level measured at 50 feet from
1 CNEL can also be expressed as the Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn or DNL).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-3
a point source would be 54 dBA at 100 feet from the source and 48 dBA at 200 feet
from the source. Noise from a line source normally attenuates at 3 dBA per
doubling of distance.
Sound levels can also be attenuated by man-made or natural barriers. Solid walls,
berms, or elevation differences typically reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. Closed
windows can reduce interior levels anywhere from 20 to 40 dBA (or higher for very
specialized windows), while buildings with partially open windows can reduce
interior noise levels around 15 dBA.
Vibration
Ground vibrations are small oscillatory disturbances to the soil, which are
transmitted outwards from their source and reduce in magnitude with increasing
distance. The vibration source stimulates the adjacent ground, creating vibration
waves that travel through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of
nearby buildings. The vibration then travels from the building foundation
throughout the remainder of the building structure. Vibration levels are expressed
in units called peak particle velocity (ppv), which is defined as the maximum
instantaneous peak of the vibration amplitude.
The vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration, rattling of items
such as windows or dishes on shelves, or a rumble noise. The rumble is the noise
radiated from the motion of the room surfaces. In essence, the room surfaces act
like a giant loudspeaker. This is called ground-borne noise.
Ground-borne vibration is harder to perceive by people who are outdoors.
Although the motion of the ground may be felt, the motion does not provoke the
same adverse human reaction without the effects associated with the shaking of a
building. In addition, the rumble noise that usually accompanies the building
vibration can only occur inside buildings (FRA 2005).
4.12.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Noise Environment
A series of land uses have been deemed “sensitive” by the State of California. These
land uses require a serene environment as part of the overall facility or residential
experience. Many of these facilities depend on low levels of sound to promote the
well being of the occupants. These uses include, but are not necessarily limited to
schools, hospitals, rest homes, long term care facilities, mental care facilities,
residential uses, places of worship, libraries, and passive recreation areas.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-4
The closest sensitive land uses to the project site are the residential communities of
Discovery Bay and the Ravenswood and Lakeshore subdivisions. Timber Point
Elementary School and Regatta Park are located farther to the west, in the Village I
portion of Discovery Bay West.
There are several sources of noise in the study area, including vehicular traffic on
Point of Timber Road, airplanes from the local private air strip, and motorized boats
and personal watercraft (e.g., jet skis) on Kellogg Creek. Distant noise at the site is
also audible from traffic along Bixler Road and Newport Drive.
Noise Measurements
Existing CNEL noise levels at the project site are between 45 and 53 dBA, reflecting
the vacant state of the property.
Analysis of the existing and future noise environments was based on technical
reports, noise monitoring, and noise prediction modeling. Noise measurements
were made on and around the project site to quantify the existing noise
environment on April 22 through 26, 2010, including two long-term, 4-day noise
measurements (Location A and B) and two short-term, 15-minute measurements
(Locations 1 and 2).
Figure 4.12-1 illustrates the measurement locations. Figure 4.12-2 illustrates the
hourly noise levels at the long-term Locations A and B. Table 4.12-1 lists the results
of the short-term measurements. The measurements span both weekdays and
weekends.
Table 4.12-1 Short-term Noise Measurement Results – April 2010
Location Time/
Date
A-weighted Sound Levels, dBA
Leq L10 L50 L90 CNEL
1
West property line of project
site, adjacent to existing homes.
160 feet north of Point of Timber
Road, 5 ft elevation
3:45 P.M. - 4:00
P.M. (4/22/10) 45 49 41 36 53
2
Along Kellog Creek
5 feet elevation
4:15 P.M. - 4:30
P.M. (4/22/10) 43 47 39 35 45
Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der 2010.
Note: Estimate of CNEL based on comparison of short-term measurements with results of long-term measurement
Noise Measurement Locations
Source: Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc.; Google Earth, 2010.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.12-1Figure
CirclePoint
300
FEET
1500 600Kellogg CreekOld Kellogg CreekVILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)POINT OF TIMBER ROAD
RAVENSWOODDISCOVERY BAY
ECCID D r ed g e C u tA1B
2
Long-term Noise Measurement Results - Location A
Ldn = 52 dBA
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
18:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:00Time/DateHourly Average Noise Level (Leq), dBAThu
22-Apr-2010
Fri
23-Apr-2010
Sat
24-Apr-2010
Sun
25-Apr-2010
Mon
26-Apr-2010
Long-term Noise Measurement Results - Location B
Ldn = 53 dBA
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
18:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:00Time/DateHourly Average Noise Level (Leq), dBAThu
22-Apr-2010
Fri
23-Apr-2010
Sat
24-Apr-2010
Sun
25-Apr-2010
Mon
26-Apr-2010
PANTAGES BAYS
4.12-2Figure
CirclePoint
Long-Term Noise Measurement Results
Source: Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc., 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-7
Watercraft
As stated above, watercraft create noise at the project site and at the existing
homes along the east side of Kellogg Creek. The data from the noise monitor at
Location A was reviewed to quantify the watercraft noise over the two weekend
days of long-term noise measurements. There were 36 distinct boat passbys on
Saturday and 58 on Sunday. The typical watercraft produced an Lmax of between 60
and 70 dBA. The loudest Lmax was 79 dBA. The measured noise levels shown in
Figure 4.12-2 are average noise levels that are dominated by other noise sources
such as distant traffic and construction. The CNEL due to watercraft alone is less
than 50 dBA. These results are representative for both the project site and for the
adjacent homes in Discovery Bay.
Aircraft
Several airplane overflights were observed during the long-term noise
measurements including jets and smaller general aviation aircraft. The infrequent
nature and relatively low noise levels means that they are not a significant
contributor to the average noise at the project site.
Traffic Noise
The main sources of traffic noise in the study area are from traffic along Point of
Timber Road, Bixler Road, and Newport Drive (see Figure 4.16-1). Table 4.12-2
shows the calculated existing noise levels along these roads, which provide access to
the project site.
Table 4.12-2 Existing CNEL for Roads Surrounding Project Area
Road Segment Existing CNEL (dBA) (50 feet
from centerline of roadway)
Bixler Road
Balfour Road to Point of Timber Road 64
Point of Timber Road to Marsh Creek Road 66
Marsh Creek Road to State Route 4 66
Point of Timber Road
Byron Highway to Bixler Road 56
Just east of Bixler Road 55
Just west of project Site 51
Newport Drive
Bixler Road to Slifer Drive 57
Slifer Drive to Newport Lane 55
Newport Lane to State Route 4 56
Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-8
4.12.3 REGULATORY SETTING
California Code of Regulations
California’s Model Community Noise Ordinance (Construction
Noise)
The State of California’s Model Community Noise Ordinance (Office of Noise Control
1977) contains noise level limits of 75 dBA for mobile construction equipment and
60 dBA for stationary construction equipment at single-family residential areas.
Project Consistency Analysis
Although these standards have not been adopted by the County, the noise study
used the California’s Model Community Noise Ordinance limits to assess the
construction noise impacts at residences. The County does not have quantitative
noise performance standards for construction activities.
Without mitigation, project construction would cause a temporary increase in noise
levels that would have significant noise impacts on the surrounding residential
development. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1a – 1b would impose
specific hours for construction and would include other measures to attenuate
sound during the construction period such as temporary barriers, truck routing, and
location of stationary equipment. Implementation of these measures would ensure
consistency with California’s Model Noise Ordinance. See Subsection 4.12.4,
Analysis of Potential Impacts for a complete discussion of the project’s potential
noise impacts.
Harbors and Navigation Code Section 654.05
The California Harbors and Navigation Code (Code) requires all motorized
watercrafts to have a muffling system that is in good working condition, and brings
the vessel into compliance with the noise limits. In accordance with Section 654.05
of the Code, the owner of a motorized watercraft cannot operate a vessel in or upon
the inland waters in a manner that exceeds the following noise levels.
1. For engines manufactured before January 1, 1993, a noise level of 90 dBA when
subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE
J2005, Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for Pleasure
Motorboats.
2. For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1993, a noise level of 88 dBA
when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice
SAE J2005, Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for Pleasure
Motorboats.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-9
3. A noise level of 75 dBA measured as specified in the Society of Automotive
Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J1970 (Shoreline Sound Level
Measurement Procedure). However, a measurement of noise level that is in
compliance with this paragraph does not preclude the conducting of a test of
noise levels under paragraph (1) or (2).
Project Consistency Analysis
Owners of the motorized vessels for future residents of the project traveling within
adjacent waterways will be required by law to comply with the Harbors and
Navigation Code. Marine law enforcement officials regularly use a standardized
method of testing for motorboat noise.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The major objective of the Noise Element of the General Plan is to provide
guidelines to achieve noise/land use compatibility. The Noise Element contains the
following policies designed to meet this objective
Noise Element
11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level
standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
[shown in Figure 4.12-3].
11-2 The applicable standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a
CNEL of 60 dBA. However, a Ldn of 60 dBA or less may not be achievable in
all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints.
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.
11-8 Construction activities should 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.
11-9 Sensitive land uses shall be encouraged to be located away from noise
areas, or the impacts of noise on these uses shall be mitigated.
11-11 Noise impacts upon the natural environment, including impacts on wildlife,
shall be evaluated and considered in review of development projects.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.12-3Figure
CirclePoint
Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environments
Source: Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc., 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-11
Policy Consistency Analysis
As discussed in Subsection 4.12.4, the project would not result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels, and would generally maintain the noise
level standards identified in policies 11-1, 11-2, and 11-6.
Without mitigation, project construction would cause a temporary increase in noise
levels that could have a significant noise impact on surrounding residential
development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a described below
would include restrictions on the hours of construction, consistent with policy 11-8.
The project site is located within an existing residential area that does not
experience high noise levels. As such, the project would be consistent with policy
11-9.
The residential land uses proposed on the project site would not introduce
significant increases in noise levels that could impact the natural environment.
However, temporary increases in noise levels due to the construction of the
proposed improvements could have an effect on nesting birds and other sensitive
wildlife, which is inconsistent with policy 11-11. Potential noise impacts to the
natural environment, including impacts on wildlife, are further discussed in Section
4.3, Biological Resources. Implementation of pre-construction nesting surveys, as
identified in Mitigation Measures BIO-8, BIO-10, and BIO-11 would reduce
potential noise impacts to the natural environment to a less-than-significant level,
consistent with policy 11-11.
4.12.4 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
related to noise if it would result in:
a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,
exposure of people residing of working in the project area to excessive noise
levels;
b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels;
c) 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;
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-12
For this study, an increase of less than 5 dBA from existing conditions is
considered less than significant, while an increase of 5 dBA or greater is
considered significant.
d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project;
e) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels; or
f) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above existing levels existing without the project.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that no impact would
result for two of the six significance criteria. The following discussion presents the
evidence in support of this conclusion.
a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project is located approximately 8 miles north of the East County (Byron)
Airport. The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan indicates that
the project is not within the airport sphere of influence and is not located within the
approach zone for either of the airport’s two runways. The project is too distant
from the airport for there to be airport-related noise impacts.
b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
The Funny Farm Airport, the nearest private airstrip, is located approximately 2.6
miles northwest of the project site in the Brentwood area. This airport services
small private aircraft. Several airplane overflights were observed during the long-
term noise measurements including jets and smaller general aviation aircraft. The
infrequent nature and relatively low noise levels means that they are not a
significant contributor to the average noise at the project site. Given the relative
distance to the project site and the types of aircraft associated with the airstrip, no
airstrip-related noise impacts are anticipated.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-13
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
less than significant impact for three of the six significance criteria. The following
discussion presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
c) Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
d) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
According to the General Plan, a community noise exposure level of up to 60 dBA is
considered normally acceptable for single-family residential uses. There are several
sources of noise in the study area. These include vehicular traffic on Point of Timber
Road and in the adjacent subdivisions, airplanes overhead, and motorized
watercraft such as boats and personal watercraft (e.g., jet skis) on Kellogg Creek.
Distant noise at the site is also audible from traffic along Bixler Road and Newport
Drive. Noise measurements indicate that the existing CNEL is between 45 and 53
dBA. The existing environment therefore maintains a sound level of less than 60
dBA and would not subject the proposed residents to unacceptable levels of sound
as defined by the General Plan.
Residential developments typically do not cause substantial increases in noise.
However, the project would slightly increase noise in the vicinity of the project site
due to greater numbers of automobiles and motorized watercraft, as described in
more detail below. As described in Chapter 3.0 Project Description, the project
includes a Medivac helicopter landing to provide emergency air-lift services for
boating accidents. The landing would only be used for emergency situations to
transport accident victims from the project area to nearby hospitals. The noise
associated with this operation would be temporary and sporadic, and would not
result in a permanent change to the ambient noise environment. Therefore, the
proposed helicopter landing would result in a less-than-significant impact to the
existing and future noise environment.
Traffic Noise
Project-generated traffic has the potential to increase noise on roadways in the
area. These roadways include Point of Timber Road, Bixler Road, and Newport
Drive. Future noise levels were estimated based on the traffic volumes contained in
the traffic study prepared for the project (Fehr & Peers 2010). Table 4.12-3 shows
the predicted CNEL for the project condition and summarizes the resulting increase
in noise.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-14
Table 4.12-3 Existing and Future CNEL for Roads Surrounding Project Area
Road Segment
CNEL at 50 feet from
Centerline of Roadway
Existing Existing Plus
Project
Increase in
CNEL
Bixler Road Balfour Road to Point of Timber Road 64 64 0.1
Point of Timber Road to Marsh Creek
Road
66 67 0.9
Marsh Creek Road to State Route 4 66 67 0.5
Point of Timber
Road
Byron Highway to Bixler Road 56 59 2.2
Just east of Bixler Road 55 57 1.9
Just west of project Site 51 54 3.6
Newport Drive Bixler Road to Slifer Drive 57 58 1.1
Slifer Drive to Newport Lane 55 56 1.0
Newport Lane to State Route 4 56 57 0.4
Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der 2010.
The greatest increase in noise due to project traffic occurs on Point of Timber Road.
The “existing plus project” noise levels are 2.2 to 3.6 dBA greater than the existing
conditions. Since this increase is less than the 5 dB threshold of significance, this is a
less-than-significant noise impact. (The future noise level with the addition of
project traffic would also remain below 60 dBA.)
Watercraft Noise
The project would increase the number of watercraft passbys along Kellogg Creek,
which is a major thoroughfare for Discovery Bay. To predict the increase in noise for
adjacent Discovery Bay residents, the estimated increase in watercraft trips was
based on the proposed number of homes with docks, and ownership rates for non-
waterfront lots.
The project would construct 116 waterfront lots with deepwater access and 176
interior lots. The analysis assumes one boat per waterfront household, and also
assumes additional boats pursuant to County-wide ownership rates for interior lots.
Based on this methodology, the project is estimated to contribute an additional 131
new vessels to Discovery Bay. Based on an average trip rate of 26.1 trips per year
(PWA 2010), Pantages Bays would contribute approximately 3,420 new boat trips
per year, an increase of approximately 2.8 percent in the number of local boat trips
within Discovery Bay.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-15
The type of watercraft resulting from the project is expected to mirror the existing
environment; therefore, the maximum sound level from individual boat passbys
(Lmax) would be the same. The estimated 2.8 percent increase in the number of
watercraft is estimated to result in an increase in watercraft-generated CNEL of less
than 1 dBA, which is not considered a significant increase in ambient noise levels.2
Owners of the motorized vessels for future residents of the project traveling within
adjacent waterways will be required by law to comply with the Harbors and
Navigation Code, which regulates maximum engine noise levels from boats (see
Subsection 4.12.3, Regulatory Setting above).
Marine law enforcement officials stationed on site would use a standardized
method of testing for motorboat noise, when applicable (see subsection Harbors
and Navigation Code Section 654.05 above). Furthermore, boat noise within the
project site will be controlled in a similar manner as for existing waterways within
Discovery Bay through designation as a no wake zone (5 mph). The speed
requirements would be clearly specified in the homeowners association’s
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) which would stipulate that marina
privileges may be suspended if a speeding citation is received.
e) Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive
ground borne vibration levels?
The creation of bays, coves, and waterways around the homes would require the
permanent stabilization of creek banks through the installation of shoring walls.
Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) is the method proposed for installing shoring walls
along the project’s waterfront. The CDSM method introduces and mixes cement-
type materials with local soils by drilling overlapping columns and mixing soil-
cement in place. To resist lateral forces on the soil-cement columns, steel
reinforcement is installed in the form of steel I-beams. The steel is lowered into
each column while the soil-cement mixture is still in a fluid state. Once the columns
solidify other phases of grading can occur to form the completed bank. This
operation involves approximately two large tractor/cranes, pumping equipment to
deliver the soil-cement mixture, and small work trucks to move personnel and
equipment around the job site.
The project does not include any components that would generate excessive ground
borne vibration levels during construction activities such as deep dynamic
compaction. The CDSM method includes drilling columns into the ground, but
control of the drilling speed would render any vibration from the construction area
negligible.
2 This increase in noise level was calculated by using the standard formula of 10 times the logarithm of
the ratio of the number of future boats to the number of existing boats.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-16
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
significant impact for one of the six significance criteria. The following discussion
presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
f) Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels existing without the project?
Impact NOI-1: Project construction would cause a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels. (Significant)
Noise from the construction of the residential improvements would occur from site
preparation, foundation work, framing, and interior work. In addition, the project
would involve extensive excavation and dredging by bulldozers, scrapers, etc., to
create the bays, coves, and waterways around the homes.
Table 4.12-4 shows equipment noise levels for various construction equipment and
activities, including estimated sound levels at a distance of 50 feet and 300 feet
from the source.
The 50-foot distance is representative of the homes along the western property
boundary (in Ravenswood and Village II, Lakeshore). The 300-foot distance is
representative of the homes across Kellogg Creek in Discovery Bay.
As shown in Table 4.12-4, construction activities at the project site would result in
noise levels exceeding 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels decrease at a
rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source.
Earthmoving activities, such as excavation, grading, would occur over a two-year
period, and construction of the homes is expected to occur over a five year period.
Due to the complexities of the grading sequences, including time constraints on
grading Kellogg Creek and the size of the project site, earthmoving activities would
not occur over the entire site for the entire two year period. Site work will progress
systematically throughout the site as different sequences of grading are
commenced and completed. Home construction would also progress systematically
throughout the site. It is anticipated that the custom waterfront lots would be built
out at a slower rate than the interior lots. Similar to the earthmoving activities,
home construction would occur during specific windows of time during the 8-year
construction period, in specific areas of the project site, not the entire site at once.
Based on these assumptions, the noise levels at adjacent residences to the west
could exceed 75 dBA during particular activities in close proximity to the project’s
western boundary. This is considered a significant, but short-term impact.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-17
Table 4.12-4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) dBA
at 50 feet
Maximum Noise Level (Lmax)
dBA at 300 feet
Backhoe 78 63
Compactor (ground) 83 68
Compressor (air) 78 63
Concrete Mixer Truck 79 64
Concrete Pump Truck 81 66
Crane 81 66
Dozer 82 67
Dump Truck 76 61
Excavator 81 66
Front End Laoder 79 64
Generator 81 66
Paver 77 62
Pneumatic Tools 85 70
Pumps 81 66
Roller 80 65
Scraper 85 70
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2006 (FHWA-HEP-05-054)
Bank Stabilization, Excavation and Widening of Kellogg Creek
The creation of bays, coves, and waterways around the homes would require
excavation and the permanent stabilization of the banks through the installation of
shoring walls. As previously stated, the preferred method for installing shoring walls
along the project’s waterfront is CDSM. The noise levels from CDSM are primarily
due to the drill/crane unit, cement silo, and a generator. Therefore, where CDSM is
used, the noise levels would be no more than the ‘generator’ noise levels (as seen in
Table 4.12-4).
Based on the noise levels that would be generated by the equipment used in CDSM
method, noise from the installation of steel I-beams would be well below the state
standards at 240 feet from the noise source, which is the distance of the closest
homes in Ravenswood and Lakeshore to the CDSM construction. Across Kellogg
Creek at the closest Discovery Bay homes (approximately 150 feet), construction
noise levels associated with bank stabilization and excavation are expected to range
up to 75 dBA.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts related
to construction noise at adjacent residences to a less-than-significant level.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-18
Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: All noise generating construction activities shall
be limited to the hours of 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and
shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that
these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below:
New Year’s Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and Federal)
Lincoln’s Birthday (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day (State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please
visit the following websites:
Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/
fedhol/2011.asp
California Holidays: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml
Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted
construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site,
and a day and evening contact number for the County in the event of problems.
An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to
and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any
complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent
land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and
coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures
(considered technically and economically feasible) warranted to correct the
problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-19
construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The
manager will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available
during all construction hours to respond to complaints.
At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction activities
for each major phase of construction the applicant shall prepare a notice that
grading or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the
site and mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of
the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized
assessment roll. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name,
title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for
maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times
and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective
action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for
noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles,
erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly
identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of the
project and a copy shall be mailed to the Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: The project applicant shall prepare a detailed
construction noise mitigation plan for review and approval by the County. The
goal of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying neighbors of the extent
of the noise that can be expected during particular phases of the project
grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to call if there are noise-
related complaints. Submission of this construction noise mitigation plan shall
be required as part the building permit application.
The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the California Model
Community Noise Ordinance limits of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60 dBA
for stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation goals.
Information in the plan shall include but not be limited to the following:
Construction schedule showing dates and location of activities.
List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase and
sound level estimates for each phase.
Height, length, and location of any recommended noise barriers. The
barriers can be constructed out of wood or other materials as long as they
have a minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5 pounds per square
foot. Possible materials include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully
overlapping 1x redwood boards (1-1/2-inch-thick total). The barriers would
likely be 6 to 8 feet tall but this would be refined as part of the construction
noise control plan. Issues to consider when determining the ultimate
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-20
height, length, and location of the barriers are the actual construction
practices, including equipment to be used and the location and duration of
noisier activities. The topography will also need to be considered in the
final determination of barrier heights and effectiveness.
Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive locations. The
project applicant shall limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week set
by Contra Costa County.
Location of stationary equipment as far from residents as is practicable
and/or enclose noise sources.
The project applicant shall require the contractor to use electric or
hydraulically powered rather than diesel or pneumatically powered
equipment and construction tools as feasible.
Provide intake silencers and “resident-type” exhaust mufflers on vehicles
and equipment and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools as feasible.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1c: The project applicant shall construct temporary
noise barriers along the western property line neighboring the existing
residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West subdivisions. Noise
barriers shall provide noise reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
The implementation of restricted days and hours of construction, notification,
sound attenuating barriers, and restrictions on certain activities to summer
months would result in the greatest feasible reduction in temporary sound
levels associated with construction.
4.12.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The General Plan EIR noted that build-out would result in increased ambient noise
levels related to roadway traffic and construction, as well as airport activity,
industrial activity and the extension of BART. The project is not located in the
vicinity of an airport, industrial site, or BART extension, and would not contribute
noise to any of these identified cumulative impacts.
The cumulative impact area for noise includes areas where noise from the project
could be heard and could combine with noise from adjacent land uses. As all of the
surrounding land uses would continue to be residential and/or agricultural, the main
source of cumulative noise would be from local roadways.
The following analysis concludes that the project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to increases in roadway noise.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-21
Cumulative noise levels are based on the forecasted traffic growth in the County,
which was calculated using the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Decennial Travel Demand Model (see Section 4.16, Traffic and Transportation).
Table 4.12-5 identifies the predicted CNEL increase due to cumulative traffic noise
with and without the project.
As shown in Table 4.12-5, cumulative increases in noise levels would not exceed the
5 dBA DNL threshold with the exception of a segment of Point of Timber Road
(between Byron Highway and Bixler). This segment of roadway would experience an
increase of 6.3 dBA DNL in the cumulative scenario and an additional 0.7 dBA DNL
with the project, increasing the current ambient noise level of 57 dBA DNL to 63 dBA
DNL in the cumulative plus project condition. The project’s contribution (0.7 dBA
DNL) is less than 1.0 dBA and is not a cumulatively considerable contribution to this
impact.
Moreover, the area of impact is zoned for agricultural uses, which is subject to a
“normally acceptable” range of sound up to 75 dBA. As noted above, the future
sound level with cumulative development would be 63 dBA DNL, 12 decibels below
the normally acceptable limit. While the cumulative increase exceeds the 5 decibel
threshold, it is worth noting that the future sound level would be well within the
acceptable limits established for this type of land use.
Table 4.12-5 Predicted CNEL Increases Due to Cumulative Traffic Noise
Road Segment
Increase in CNEL (Dba) with respect
to the Existing Conditions
Existing
plus
Project
Cumulative Cumulative
plus
Project
Future
Sound
level
Bixler Road Balfour Road to Point of Timber Road 0.1 0.5 0.6 64.6
Point of Timber Road to Marsh Creek Road 0.9 2.0 2.5 68.5
Marsh Creek Road to State Route 4 0.5 3.3 3.5 69.5
Point of Timber
Road
Byron Highway to Bixler Road 2.2 6.3 7.0 63.0
Just east of Bixler Road 1.9 1.0 2.6 57.6
Just west of project Site 3.6 1.1 4.4 55.4
Newport Drive Bixler Road to Slifer Drive 1.1 3.0 3.6 60.6
Slifer Drive to Newport Lane 1.0 4.2 4.6 59.6
Newport Lane to State Route 4 0.4 3.3 3.5 59.5
Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der, 2010
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-22
4.12.6 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County General Plan, Noise Element.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)(2005). High-speed ground transportation
noise and vibration impact assessment.
Fehr and Peers. June (2010). Pantages Bays EIR Transportation Analysis.
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990). 221 Cal.App.3d 692,720.
Rosen Goldberg Der & Lewitz, Inc. July (2010). Environmental Noise Study for
Pantages Bays.
PWA (2010). Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment Memorandum.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-1
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section describes and evaluates the project’s effects on population and
housing. The analysis includes the existing and projected demographics of
Discovery Bay based on the most current data available from the Contra Costa
County General Plan (General Plan), the U.S. Census, and estimates from the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2009. For the purposes of
this analysis, the project is anticipated to be fully operational by 2018. The
following discussions focus on the most current population, employment, and
housing projections data available. This section also describes relevant policies from
the General Plan related to population and housing, and evaluates the project’s
consistency with those policies.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), a comment was received requesting that the draft EIR quantify the County’s
regional housing needs allocation from ABAG and include the numbers of low, very
low, and moderate housing units that would be provided by the project. The
County’s regional housing needs allocation is shown in Table 4.13-2 below.
However, the project application was deemed complete prior to the
implementation of the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2006, which
requires 15 percent of units in any new residential development be marketed as
affordable. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance does not therefore apply to the
project, and the project is not required to provide affordable units.
4.13.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Population
The project site is located in the community of Discovery Bay, which is an
unincorporated community located in eastern Contra Costa County (County) near
the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and the unincorporated communities of Bethel
Island, Knightsen, and Byron. Within the larger framework of unincorporated
County lands, the community of Discovery Bay is part of the Rural East Contra Costa
County subregional study area (SSA) as designated by ABAG, which includes Bethel
Island, Byron, and other small rural communities in the eastern part of the county.
Table 4.13-1 details current population and housing statistics as well as projections
through 2020. Based on the projections, the population of the Rural East Contra
Costa County SSA (Rural East County) in 2005 was estimated at 16,200. (ABAG
2009)
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-2
ABAG estimates that by 2010 the population of the Rural East County will increase
by 11.7 percent, to 18,100, and by 2020 the population will be 19,400. The
estimated increase represents a growth rate of 20 percent between 2005 and 2020
in Rural East County, similar to the 20 percent increase for the County as a whole
during the same time period.
Table 4.13-1 County and Rural East County Population and Household
Information
Jurisdiction 2005 2010 2015 2020
Contra Costa County
Population 1,023,400 1,049,250* 1,130,700 1,177,400
Households 368,310 375,364* 407,250 424,340
Average Household Size 2.75 2.77* 2.75 2.75
Rural East County
Population 16,200 18,100 18,800 19,400
Households 6,090 6,830 7,050 7,330
Average Household Size 2.63 2.61 2.62 2.61
Source: ABAG 2009
* 2010 data is drawn from the 2010 U.S. Census.
Housing
The total number of households in the Rural East County is expected to keep
relative pace with the rest of the County. As shown in Table 4.13-1, the total
estimated number of households in 2005 was 6,090. According to ABAG Projections
2009, the number of households is expected to grow to 7,330 by 2020 (a 20 percent
increase), similar to the 20 percent increase in the total number of households
Countywide during the same period.
Average Household Size
The number of persons per household in Rural East County in 2005 was 2.63
persons, slightly lower than the countywide estimate of 2.75 persons per
household. In order to account for growth based on the larger-size homes that
characterize development in much of Discovery Bay, a conservative multiplier of 3.0
persons per household is assumed for the project, compared to the ABAG estimate
of 2.61 persons per household in 2020 for Rural East County. (Nelson 2007)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-3
Regional Housing Need Determination
In 2008, ABAG released the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), which
projects each community’s share of the region’s future growth and housing demand
based on forecasts from San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2007-2014.
According to the Contra Costa County Updated Housing Element, and as illustrated
in Table 4.13-2, the total number of RNHA allocation for the County was 27,072
units. The unincorporated areas were assigned approximately 13 percent of the
growth (3,508 units). The balance of the units was assigned to incorporated cities
throughout the County. Between 2007 and 2009, the County provided 1,350 RHNA
units, 38 percent of the County’s total RHNA units to be constructed by 2014.
Table 4.13-2 Share of Regional Housing Needs for 2007-2014
Income Group Total RHNA Allocation
for Contra Costa County
RHNA Allocation for
Unincorporated Areas
RNHA units provided in
Unincorporated Areas
(2007-2009)
Very Low 6,512 815 88
Low 4,325 598 34
Moderate 4,996 687 320
Above Moderate 11,239 1,408 908
Total 27,072 3,508 1,350
Sources: ABAG 2008; Contra Costa County Updated Housing Element 2009; Annual Housing Element Progress
Report 2009.
Employment
Table 4.13-3 illustrates the number of jobs projected for the Rural East County and
Contra Costa County.
According to ABAG, employment in the County is projected to decrease between
2005 and 2010, a reflection of the wider economic downturn. However, ABAG
projects economic expansion from 2010 through 2020, as 69,520 jobs are projected
to be added to the countywide economy, an increase of 18 percent.
Rural East County creates approximately 1 percent of the jobs within the County as
a whole, and this ratio is expected to remain relatively constant throughout the next
10 years. ABAG projects an increase of 790 jobs in Rural East County from 2010-
2020, representing an increase in employment in of approximately 20 percent from
2010 to 2020.
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-4
Table 4.13-3 Rural East County and Contra Costa County Employment
Projections
2005 2010 2015 2020
Rural East County
Total Jobs 3,910 3,870 4,290 4,660
Contra Costa County
Total Jobs 379,030 376,030 409,650 445,550
Source: ABAG 2009.
4.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains the following relevant policies
related to population and housing.
Land Use Element
3-21 The predominantly single-family character of substantially developed
portions of the County shall be retained. Multiple-family housing shall be
dispersed throughout the County and not concentrated in single locations.
Multiple-family housing shall generally be located in proximity to facilities
such as arterial roads, transit corridors, and shopping areas.
3-23 A diversity of living options shall be permitted while ensuring community
compatibility and quality residential development.
3-24 Housing opportunities shall be improved through encouragement of distinct
style, desirable amenities, attractive design, and enhancement of
neighborhood identity.
3-25 Innovation in site planning and design of housing developments shall be
encouraged in order to upgrade quality and efficiency of residential living
arrangements and to protect the surrounding environment.
3-27 Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible
land uses and traffic levels exceeding adopted service standards.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-5
3-28 New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it
will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the
environment and upon the existing community.
Housing Element
An Updated Housing Element was adopted by the County in 2009 and identifies
state, regional, and local housing policies, as well as recognized housing needs of
the County’s residents, housing resources, and housing constraints. As defined by
the State Housing Element law, the Housing Element is required to be “An
assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant
to the meeting of these needs.”
State law requires that this assessment include an analysis of population, household
characteristics, employment trends, regional housing needs, and an inventory of
suitable land for residential development. The assessment should also include an
analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints, special housing needs,
opportunities for energy conservation, and publicly-assisted housing developments
that may convert to non-assisted housing developments. The purpose of these
requirements is to develop an understanding of the existing and projected housing
needs within the County and to set forth policies that promote preservation,
improvement, and development of diverse types and costs of housing throughout
the County.
The Updated Housing Element contains the following relevant policies associated
with population and housing:
7.1 Establish and maintain development standards that support housing
development while protecting quality of life goals.
7.4 Continue to provide for timely and coordinated processing of residential
development projects in order to minimize project holding costs and
encourage housing production.
Policy Consistency Analysis
The project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies of the
Land Use and Housing Elements related to population and housing. The project site
is located within the Urban Limit Line (ULL), which identifies the project site and
surrounding properties for urban development, consistent with policies 7.1 and 7.4.
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-6
As the project proposes 292 single-family residential units, it would retain the
predominantly single-family character of the County and be consistent with policy 3-
21. The project would also comply with Policies 3-23 and 3-24 insofar as it would
provide diversity in terms of waterfront living that is distinct from a more traditional
subdivision.
In reference to policy 3-27, the proposed single-family detached residential units are
designed to be similar to and compatible with the Discovery Bay community,
including waterfront lots with deep water access.
The project design also includes preservation of existing wetland and marsh areas
on a portion of the property and, as documented throughout this EIR, the project
would not create severe unmitigated adverse effects upon the environment and
upon the existing community, consistent with Policies 3-28 and 3-25.
4.13.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
related to population and housing if it would:
a) Displace substantial numbers of existing houses, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere;
b) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
c) Induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure).
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and project site characteristics in the context of the
three significance criteria stated above shows that no impacts would result for two
of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-7
a) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No project-related improvements are proposed that would displace any existing
housing. The project site contains three residential structures that are dilapidated
and abandoned. Demolition of the dilapidated and abandoned residential structures
does not constitute displacement of substantial numbers of housing units since the
units are vacant and uninhabitable. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The residential sites on the project site are vacant; therefore, no individuals would
be displaced or in need of replacement housing as a result of the project. No impact
related to the displacement of people would occur.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the three
significance criteria stated above shows that some degree of impact would result for
one of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
c) Would the project induce substantial population growth in the
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Direct Growth
The project would construct 292 housing units, which would directly increase the
Rural East County population by an estimated 876 people.1 For the years 2010 to
2020, the 2009 ABAG Projections report an anticipated population increase
Countywide of 87,100 and an increase in population in Rural East County of
approximately 1,300 (see Table 4.13-1).
1 This number was determined by using the Contra Costa County projected number of 3.0 persons per
household for the Discovery Bay area. It is anticipated that some of the residential units would be
occupied by persons that already work and/or live in the County.
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-8
The ABAG Projections reflect a trend of continued development in Rural East
County, and the project is included in the population projections for the next 10
years. Population generated by the project represents approximately 67 percent of
the projected growth in Rural East County and 1 percent of the projected growth
estimated for the County as a whole for the same period.2
The project and surrounding properties were included within the ULL to indicate an
intention for future conversion to urban uses. The timing for the development of
these areas is speculative and regional population projections have attempted to
project a reasonable rate of growth based on market conditions.
Given that the direct population increase associated with the project would be
within the ABAG population forecasts, this impact is considered less than significant.
Indirect Growth
The project site is located within the ULL and is identified for potential future urban
development. The project would require the extension of utilities and roads to a
previously undeveloped area, and such extensions can often indirectly induce
growth in adjacent areas. In this instance however, the project is an infill
development and adjacent lands are either already developed with residential uses,
or are located outside the ULL, which prevents further development. Therefore,
indirect impacts related to indirect population growth are considered less than
significant.
4.13.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for population growth and housing includes eastern Contra
Costa County, and the County as a whole. The General Plan EIR stated that build-
out of the General Plan could result in up to 145,206 new residents in the County by
the end of the planning period (2020). The General Plan EIR also noted that
adoption of the General Plan would concentrate population in urban areas, and
would preclude development and extension of urban services and facilities outside
of the ULL.
The General Plan and adoption of the ULL identified an intended pattern of
residential development that included urban development of the area surrounding
Discovery Bay. The General Plan EIR did not identify a significant impact related to
population growth and therefore a cumulative impact related to population and
2 The subdivisions currently under construction to the west are assumed to be included in the 2005
and/or 2010 baseline.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-9
housing does not exist. The General Plan EIR noted that build out in accordance
with the ULL and in tandem with a program of employment development would
create a jobs housing balance that would support a more vibrant and sustainable
community.
The project is located within the ULL and would not require an extension of services
outside the ULL boundary. The project, as well as the proposed 67-lot residential
subdivision (Newport Pointe), and the Villages at Discovery Bay project—which
includes 80 townhomes—would require a General Plan Amendment and were not
therefore assumed as part of the growth increase discussed in the General Plan
because these properties were assumed to stay in agricultural production or
commercial uses, and their development therefore represents new growth (see
Figure 4-1). However, all of these properties are located within the ULL and were
therefore identified for future development in accordance with the 65/35 urban
limit line.
The ULL effectively limits pressure for indirect growth via extension of utilities. As
noted above a cumulative impact relative to population and housing was not
identified in the General Plan EIR. The project in conjunction with other projects
located within the ULL would therefore not generate a cumulatively significant
impact related to direct or indirect growth.
4.13.5 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections, 2009.
Association of Bay Area Governments. San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan
2007-2014, 2008.
Contra Costa County General Plan, Urban Limit Line Map, November 8, 2006.
Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020, January 2005.
Nelson, Will, Senior Planner, Contra Costa County, personal communication, May
28, 2007.
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-10
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-1
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This section evaluates public services and recreation facilities related to the project,
including police and fire protection, schools, parks and recreation, and other public
facilities. Information regarding public services and public recreation was obtained
primarily through personal communications with service providers, service
providers’ websites, and the Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan).
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report
(EIR), one commenter expressed concern regarding public recreational facilities and
access to the Delta. This comment is addressed in the impact analysis presented
below in Subsection 4.14.3, Analysis of Potential Impacts.
4.14.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Police Protection Services
Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office
Police protection services in the project vicinity are provided by the Delta Station of
the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, located at 220 O’Hara Avenue within the
City of Oakley. The Delta Station provides police services to the following three
geographical areas (commonly referred to as “beats”) (Lt. M. Burton February
2010):
Beat 31: Unincorporated areas of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley
Beat 32: Discovery Bay
Beat 33: Bethel Island, Knightsen, and Byron
The Delta Station’s staffing goal for the Discovery Bay beat is to have one sergeant,
three deputies, two resident deputies, and a school resource officer. All areas
within Discovery Bay are accessible within a five minute time frame, in most
situations (ibid.).
The General Plan includes a sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station per
1,000 people within the unincorporated area of the County. As of 2010, the County
is meeting this standard.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-2
Marine Services Division
The Marine Services Division of the Contra Costa County Sheriff Reserve provides
marine patrol services within the Discovery Bay area. The marine patrol is currently
staffed with five full-time deputies, one sergeant, and one lieutenant who are
dispatched from an office space at the Lauritzen Yacht Harbor in Oakley and operate
from one of the following boat slips (Lt. Wright, July 2011):
Three boat slips at Lauritzen Yacht Harbor at 115 Lauritzen Lane in Oakley
Two boat slips at Discovery Bay Marina at 5901 Marina Road in Discovery Bay
Regularly assigned deputies are occasionally supplemented by additional officers
during weekends and holidays, and by reserve officers on an as needed basis. One
patrol vessel services the project area on a daily basis, and is deployed from the
Discovery Bay Marina (see Figure 4.14-1). Typical calls investigated by the Marine
Services Division include boating accidents, derelict vessel reports, and speeding (Lt.
W. Duke July 2010).
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
Fire protection and emergency medical response services for the project area are
provided by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD). Fire protection
to the project site would be provided by Fire Station 59 at 1801 Bixler Road,
Discovery Bay, located approximately 1 mile from the project site
(see Figure 4.14-1). According to the Public Facilities/Services Element in the
County’s General Plan, the County strives to have a minimum of 3 firefighters at
each fire station, and to locate a fire station within 3 minutes and/or 1.5 miles of all
non-rural areas. In suburban areas, the County strives to achieve a total response
time of 5 minutes for 90 percent of all emergency calls.
The ECCFPD currently employs approximately 75 firefighters (career and on-call) (P.
Hubbard, July 2011). Fire Station 59 is staffed by three full-time personnel and is
equipped with one Type I Engine (basic fire engine) and one Type III wildlands
Engine, which is a basic fire engine designed for wildland fire (Chief Henderson
February 1, 2011).
Station 59 was funded and constructed as part of the Discovery Bay West
Development. Any new development in the service area of Station 59 (such as the
Pantages Bays project) is required to pay into a reimbursement fund for
construction of the station.
Source: Google Earth, 2010.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.14-1FigurePublic Services in the Project Vicinity
500 FEET 10000 2000
4
4
4Bixler RoadByron HighwayDiscovery Bay Boulevard Kellogg Creek ECCID Ch a n n e lIndian Slough
Point of Timber Road
PROJECT
SITE
DISCOVERY BAY
Timber Point
Elementary School
Excelsior
Middle School
Discovery Bay
Elementary School
Discovery Bay
Marina
Fire Station 59
Legend
Project Site
Discovery Bay West
The Lakes at Discovery Bay
(Villages III, IV and V)
Ravenwood
Urban Limit Line
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-4
Figure 4.14-1 Public Services in the Project Vicinity (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-5
The ECCFPD relies mainly on property tax revenue to fund operations. Because of a
significant drop in the assessed property values of homes and properties in East
County, the ECCFPD Board met on February 27, 2012, and voted to call a special
election on June 5, 2012 proposing a special tax of $197 per parcel as a revenue
enhancement for the District. The proposed tax will sunset in 2023, unless the
voters decide to extend it. (ECCFPD Town Hall meeting Schedule 1/2012, LAFCO Fire
Service Update 3/14/12).
Schools
The Byron Union School District (BUSD) (Kindergarten through 8th grade) and the
Liberty Union High School District (LUHSD) provide public education services to
students in the Discovery Bay area. Students from the neighborhoods surrounding
the project site attend Timber Point Elementary School, Excelsior Middle School in
Byron, and Liberty High School in Brentwood. Figure 4.14-1 shows the location of
the schools in the project vicinity.
Tables 4.14-1 and 4.14-2 detail the current enrollment and capacity statistics for
schools in the project vicinity. In general, schools in the vicinity have experienced
fairly steady enrollment rates (B. Nicolaisen, July 14 2010).
Table 4.14-1 Byron Unified School District
School Distance from
Project Site
Current
Enrollment Capacity Availability
Discovery Bay Elementary Less than 1 mile 506 720 +214
Timber Point Elementary Less than 1 mile 583 720 +137
Excelsior Middle School Approximately 2.3 miles 587 690 +103
Source: Byron Union School District, Gaby Hellier, Chief Business Official, Personal Communication December 13,
2010.
Table 4.14-2 Liberty Union High School District
School Distance from
Project Site
Current
Enrollment Capacity Availability
Liberty High School 4.6 miles 2,068 2,200 +132
Freedom High School 7 miles 2,472 2,200 -272
Heritage High School 7.5 miles 2,144 2,200 +56
La Paloma High School* 6.5 miles 193 190 -3
* A continuation school.
Source: Wayne Reeves, Director of Project Development, LUHSD. Personal Communication December 2, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-6
Planned Improvements
Middle School
In June 2006, a Measure C Bond was passed to improve the conditions of BUSD’s
campuses, including construction of 14 additional classrooms at the Excelsior
Middle School. As part of this construction, some of the older classrooms will be
removed. The demolition and construction of this improvement at Excelsior Middle
School is on hold until BUSD receives matching state funding. It is unknown at this
time when BUSD would receive this funding from the state. (G. Hellier, December
2010).
High School
The construction of an additional high school is currently being considered by the
LUHSD and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and is awaiting
certification. The high school would be located at the intersection of Delta and
Sellers Avenue in unincorporated Contra Costa County. This high school would not
operate as a comprehensive high school, but as a magnet high school that would
provide capacity for approximately 700 to 800 students. If the project is approved,
it would open in 2014 (Reeves, W. December 2010).
Parks and Recreation
Local Parks
Several local parks are located in the project vicinity as shown in Figure 4.14-2.
Ravenswood Park is immediately west of the project site on Bronte and Poe Drives.
Slifer Park, part of the Discovery Bay West project, is located on the corner of
Newport and Slifer Drives. Regatta Park is southwest of the site, just north of
Highway 4, located on Sailboat Drive. Cornell Park is located on Discovery Bay
Boulevard. Table 4.14-3 presents information related to each local park.
Table 4.14-3 Local Parks
Park Size Distance to
Project Site Amenities
Cornell Park 9 acres 0.75 mile Basketball and tennis courts, baseball and soccer fields,
bocce ball court, picnic tables, children’s play areas.
Regatta Park 3 - 5 acres 1 mile Picnic tables, barbeque pits, playground, pathway, turf.
Ravenswood Park 3 acres 0.05 mile Picnic tables, barbeque pits, soccer field, playground,
pathway
Slifer Park 5 acres 0.25 mile Playground, basketball court, soccer field, pathway.
Source: Virgil Koehne, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay, Personal Communication, November 20, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.14-2Figure
CirclePoint
Local Parks in the Project Vicinity
Source: Google Earth; Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District, 2010.
1000FEET5000 2000
4
4Bixler RoadDiscovery Bay BoulevardCornell Park
Ravenswood
Park
Regatta
Park
Slifer Park Kellogg Creek ECCID Chann e lIndian Slough
Point of Timber Road
PROJECT
SITE
DISCOVERY BAY
Legend
Project Site
Local Parks
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-8
Regional Parks
East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) owns and manages several regional parks
and trails in Contra Costa and Alameda County. The core mission of the EBRPD is to
“acquire, develop, manage, and maintain a high quality, diverse system of
interconnected parklands which balances public usage and education programs with
protection and preservation of natural and cultural resources.”
The closest regional parks to the project site include the Antioch/Oakley Regional
Shoreline, Black Diamond Mines Reserve, Contra Loma Regional Park, Morgan
Territory, and Round Valley Regional Preserve. Table 4.14-4 presents information
related to each regional park.
Table 4.14-4 Regional Parks
Park Acreage Distance to Project Area Amenities
Antioch/Oakley Regional
Shoreline 7.5 14 miles Pier access, fishing,
picnicking.
Black Diamond Mines
Preserve 5,375 20 miles Hiking, camping.
Contra Loma Regional
Park 780 15 miles Boat launch, swimming,
picnic areas, trails.
Morgan Territory 4,708 25 miles Hiking, horseback riding,
picnicking, camping.
Round Valley Regional
Preserve 1,911 10 miles Hiking, horseback riding,
bicycling.
Source: East Bay Regional Parks District, http://www.ebparks.org, 2008. Accessed November 17, 2009
Park Dedication and Fee Requirements
State law authorizes local governments to require the dedication of parkland or
impose a fee (in lieu of land dedication) to offset the additional demand for parks
and recreational facilities generated by new development. State law limits
dedication requirements to at most 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
The General Plan Growth Management Element requires new development to
provide 3 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1,000 people. Pursuant to the
County’s dedication requirements, the 292-unit project would require the
dedication of 2.6 acres of parkland.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-9
Because the project area is within an unincorporated area within the East County,
County Code Section 920-6.602 has established fees which assesses new
development projects a fee of $3,142 per single family residential unit to reduce
park and recreation impacts. However, because the project application was
deemed complete before these new fees were established (new park fees were
adopted May 15, 2007) the project is subject to the previous fee of $1,350 per
dwelling unit.
The County Code also permits a combination of land dedication and fee payment
(Section 920-6.206).
Libraries
Contra Costa Library operates 25 facilities in Contra Costa County, including
Brentwood Library, located at 104 Oak Street in Brentwood, approximately 6 miles
from the project site. The Brentwood Library opened in 1979 and serves a
population of over 40,000 in East County. The Contra Costa Library system is
primarily funded by local property taxes, with additional revenue from
intergovernmental sources.
Hospitals
Contra Costa County Health Services District (CCCHSD) operates 10 health facilities
in the County. CCCHSD is primarily funded by federal and state funding programs,
with additional revenue from local tax resources. County health facilities generally
serve low-income and uninsured patients. The closest public health center to the
project site is the Brentwood Health Center located at 17 Sand Creek Road in
Brentwood, approximately 7 miles to the west. The Brentwood Health Center is a
family practice with internal medicine, pediatrics, prenatal care, and women’s
health care departments.
4.14.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Senate Bill 50
The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, or Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), restricts
the ability of local agencies to deny project approvals on the basis that public school
facilities (classrooms, auditoriums, etc.) are inadequate. School impact fees are
collected at the time when building permits are issued. Payment of school fees is
required by SB 50 for all new residential development projects and is considered
“full and complete mitigation” of any school impacts. School impact fees are
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-10
payments to offset capital cost impacts associated with new developments, which
result primarily from costs of additional school facilities, related furnishings and
equipment, and projected capital maintenance requirements. As such, agencies
cannot require additional mitigation for any school impacts.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be developed within the BUSD and LUHSD boundaries, and would
be subject to school impact fees for both districts. Pursuant to an agreement
between BUSD and Pantages Bays, LLC, Pantages Bays LLC has agreed to pay the
BUSD a sum in excess of the standard school impact fees. For the LUHSD, the
project applicant would pay the standard developer fees for new housing.
The payment of monetary funds would satisfy local and state laws related to school
impacts and school impact fees. Therefore, the project is consistent with SB 50.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Growth Management Element of the General Plan requires 3 acres of public
parks per 1,000 people for all new residential development. The Public
Facilities/Services and Open Space Elements of the General Plan contain the
following relevant public services and recreation goals and policies.
Public Facilities/Services Element
7-1 New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all
existing public facilities it utilizes, based upon the demand for these facilities
which can be attributed to new development.
7-2 New development, not existing residents, should be required to pay all costs
of upgrading existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are
exclusively needed to serve new development.
7-4 The financial impacts of new development or public facilities should
generally be determined during the project review process and may be
based on the analysis contemplated under the Growth Management
Element or otherwise. As part of the project approval, specific findings shall
be adopted which relate to the demand for new public facilities and how
the demand affects the service standards included in the growth
management program.
Public Protection
7-57 A sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station per 1,000 population
shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-11
7-58 Sheriff patrol beats shall be configured to assure minimum response times
and efficient use of resources.
7-59 A maximum response time goal for priority 1 or 2 calls of five minutes for 90
percent of all emergency responses in central business district, urban and
suburban areas, shall be strived for by the sheriff when making staffing and
beat configuration decisions.
7-60 Levels of service above the county-wide standard requested by
unincorporated communities shall be provided through the creation of a
County Service Area or other special government unit.
Fire Protection Policies
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.
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.
7-64 New development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection
facilities and services.
7-70 The effectiveness of existing and proposed fire protection facilities shall be
maximized by incorporating analysis of optimum fire and emergency service
access into circulation system design.
7-75 Fire stations and facilities shall be considered consistent with all land use
designations used in the General Plan and all zoning districts.
Open Space Element
9-1 Permanent open space shall be provided within the County for a variety of
open space uses.
9-36 To develop a sufficient amount of conveniently located, properly designed
park and recreational facilities to serve the needs of all residents.
9-38 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.
9-39 To achieve a level of park facilities of 3 acres per 1,000 population.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-12
9-40 Major park lands shall be reserved to ensure that the present and future
needs of the County’s residents will be met and to preserve areas of natural
beauty or historical interest for future generations. Apply the parks and
recreation performance standards in the Growth Management Element.
9-41 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.
9-47 Recreational development shall be allowed only in a manner which
complements the natural features of the area, including the topography,
waterways, vegetation, and soil characteristics.
Safety Element
10-70 Applications for private or commercial docks which would encroach into
waterways used primarily for recreation boating should be reviewed by the
county to evaluate their aggregate impact upon public safety.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would include the payment of fire impact fees and also includes the
construction of a marine patrol substation to ensure conformance with General Plan
policies related to emergency service response and staffing. Furthermore, the
project is subject to County approval prior to the construction of any docks or
waterways to ensure public safety.
Although the project would not create additional parklands, it would comply with
the County’s dedication requirements through a combination of dedication of a
public access trail within the emergent marsh and payment of an in lieu parkland
dedication fee to fund future acquisition of County parklands.
4.14.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
related to public services if it would:
a) 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
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-13
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following
public services:
i. Fire Protection;
ii. Police Protection;
iii. Schools;
iv. Parks; or
v. Other public facilities.
Recreation impacts are considered significant if the project would:
b) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated; or
c) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which would have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the seven
significance criteria stated above shows that a less-than-significant impact would
result for six of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
a) Would the project 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 following public services?
Fire Protection
According to the ECCFPD, construction and operation of the proposed project would
generate a small increase in the demand for fire protection and emergency medical
services; however, it would not require additional staff, acquisition of new
equipment, or construction of new facilities (Chief Henderson February 2011).
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-14
As previously discussed, fire services would be provided by Station 59. Fire and
emergency response times from Station 59 to the farthest proposed residences
would be approximately 4 minutes (T. Leach December 2009). Therefore, crews
dispatched from Station 59 would be able to respond to emergency calls from the
project site within the 5 minute service threshold established by the Public
Facilities/Services Element in the County’s General Plan. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the project applicant would be required to make a fair share
contribution to the reimbursement fund for the developer funded construction of
Station 59.
Adequate emergency access to the project site would be available through Point of
Timber Road and the project’s Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) road, and would not
require the construction of additional roads. The EVA would be constructed in the
northwest portion of the project site through the proposed wetland mitigation and
open space area. The EVA would connect the northernmost portion of ‘A’ Street to
the northernmost portion of ‘B’ Street, as illustrated in Figure 3-3.1 In addition,
there is a second EVA located in the Ravenswood development connecting Wilde
Drive to “B” Street. The cost of maintaining the EVAs and public trails would be
borne by the Pantages Bays homeowners as part of a landscaping and lighting
district. Furthermore, development of the site would not adversely affect response
times to the adjacent residential developments. Therefore, the project would not
increase or create unsafe emergency response times (Chief Henderson July 2011).
As discussed, implementation of the project would not require the construction any
additional fire facilities, the construction of which could result in environmental
impacts. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact related to fire
protection services.
Police Protection
According to the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, there would be a slight
increase in demand for police and marine patrol services.2 With the project’s
anticipated development of 116 docks with deep water access, the additional boat
traffic generated by the project could exceed the ability of the Marine Services
Division to provide adequate enforcement.
1 Street names will be changed prior to final subdivision map.
2 Personal Communication with Lt. George Wright, April 29, 2011.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-15
As part of the project, a marine patrol substation is proposed at the northeasterly
point of the project site (see Figure 3-4). The applicant has consulted with the
Office of the Sheriff-Coroner regarding the design of the substation.3 The substation
would include a permanent modular building, a two-boat dock, and related
improvements, and would be accessible by the proposed 20-foot EVA. Based on
discussions with the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner, the applicant proposes to fund
through a P-1 Service District the cost of one deputy, who would perform either
marine patrol or land patrol services from this station on an as needed (part-time)
basis.
The Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Station would serve the residents from the project and
surrounding areas, and would significantly decrease response times to Discovery
Bay, such that a sheriff would no longer be deployed from the Lauritzen Yacht
Harbor in Oakley (Lt. W. Duke July 2010).
The environmental impacts associated with the construction of the marine patrol
station are evaluated in the relevant technical sections of this draft EIR (i.e.,
Sections 4.3, Biological Resources, and 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality).
Implementation of the project would not require the construction of any other
police facilities; the construction of which could result in environmental impacts.
The existing staff, equipment, and facilities of the existing Sheriff’s Delta Station
would be able to provide adequate police services to the project site. Although the
Marine Patrol Substation on the project site would not be staffed full-time, the
addition of one part-time sheriff deputy would enhance police services on the
project site and in the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts related to increases in
demand for police services would be less than significant.
Schools
Elementary and Middle School
According to the BUSD, the project would generate 1634 additional students (K-8).
Students generated by the project would attend Timber Point Elementary which has
capacity for an additional 137 students, and Discovery Bay Elementary School which
has capacity for an additional 214 students. Together, these schools have space for
351 additional students. Middle school students generated by the project would
attend Excelsior Middle School, which currently has capacity for an additional 103
3 Letter from Mark Armstrong to Lt. Will Duke dated March 25, 2008 and response letter from Sheriff
Warren Rupf dated May 21, 2008.
4 According to BUSD, the student generation rate is 0.559 students (K-8) per unit. The project would
construct 292 units. 292 units x 0.559 students/unit = 163 students.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-16
students. The elementary schools and middle school serving the project site have
adequate capacity to serve the additional students generated by the proposed
project.
Implementation of the project would not require the construction of any school
facilities; the construction of which could result in environmental impacts. As
confirmed by SB 50, payment of standard school impact fees is considered “full and
complete mitigation” of any school impacts. Pursuant to an agreement between the
BUSD and Pantages Bays LLC, dated September 19, 2006, Pantages Bays LLC agrees
to pay school impact fees in excess of the established impacts fees for this district
(see Appendix F).5 Payment of school impacts fees as required by SB 50 would
reduce the impact of increased elementary and middle school students to nearby
schools to a less-than-significant level.
High School
According to student generation rates provided by the LUHSD, the project would
generate 73 additional high school students.6 Liberty High School, the high school
that would serve the project site, is currently under capacity by 143 students.
Therefore, sufficient capacity exists to serve the project.
Implementation of the project would not require the construction of new high
school facilities; the construction of which could result in environmental impacts.
Pursuant to SB 50, the applicant would pay school fees as “full and complete
mitigation” to LUHSD. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant
impact to the high schools that serve the project site.
Other Facilities
The project is projected to provide housing for approximately 876 residents (see
Section 4.13, Population and Housing, for further discussion). This additional
population could increase the demand for library services, including facilities and
equipment, book or media volumes, and staff time. Neither California nor Contra
Costa County has formal library standards for collections or facilities. The
Brentwood Library, located at 104 Oak Street, serves the project site and other
residents in the area. The Contra Costa Library system is primarily funded by local
property taxes, with additional revenue from intergovernmental sources. Currently
the library serves a population of over 40,000. The Contra Costa County Library
5 See Appendix F, Agreement between Byron Unified School District and Pantages Bays LLC.
6 According to the LUHSD, the Districts “student generation rate” is 0.25 students per household. The
project would construct 292 units. Therefore 0.25 x 292 = 73 students generated.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-17
Services (County Library) has a Strategic Plan which accounts for the existing library
services in the County and planned improvements and facilities. The construction of
a new library is dependent on a needs assessment and available funding. According
to the County Library, a population increase would not, in and of itself, require a
new or expanded library (V. Zito July 2010) and so is considered to be less than
significant.
This additional population could also increase the demand for health services,
including facilities, equipment, and staff time. Neither California nor Contra Costa
County has formal health service standards for facilities. Given that County health
facilities generally only serve low-income populations, and the population
generated by the project would not be low-income, the County would not require a
new or expanded health facility as result of project implementation (K. Stryker July
2010). Therefore, this is considered a less-than-significant impact.
b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
There are a number of parks and recreational facilities available for public use in
East Contra Costa County including local parks such as Ravenswood Park, Cornell
Park, Slifer Park, and East Bay Regional Parks such as Black Diamond Mines Preserve.
According to the Contra Costa County Department of Parks and Recreation, Contra
Costa County owns approximately 52 acres of parkland and 4 other parks and
playgrounds located in east Contra Costa County. Additionally, Black Diamond Mine
Preserve, located east of the project site, alone provides 6,286 acres of parkland to
the County. Therefore, there is no deficiency in parkland in the County and the
existing parks would accommodate the additional 876 new residents generated by
the project.
The project applicant would be required to adhere to the County’s parkland
requirement of 3 acres per 1,000 people as discussed in Impact PS-1. Additionally,
the project would provide approximately 2.6 acres of public trail on-site, which
would be available for use by the new residents generated by the project as well as
the public. Therefore, the County has ample public parkland and other recreational
facilities to support the project. The project would have a less-than-significant
impact related to the substantial deterioration of park facilities that serve the
project site.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-18
c) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which would
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project would allow the development of a 20-foot wide EVA road in the
northwest portion of the project area, through the proposed wetland mitigation and
open space area. The EVA road would also serve as a publicly accessible
bicycle/pedestrian trail and would include interpretive signage, kiosks, and seating
areas. The construction of the public trail and the creation of seasonal wetland and
emergent marsh would occur concurrently (see Chapter 3.0, Project Description).
For a discussion of the impacts of the construction of the trail to the marsh and
other biological resources, see Section 4.3, Biological Resources.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the seven
significance criteria stated above shows that some degree of impact would result for
one of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
a) Would the project 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 following public services?
Parks
Impact PS-1: The project would be required to provide 2.6 acres of parkland to
meet the County’s parkland dedication requirement. (Significant)
The project would result in an estimated population increase of 876 persons. Based
on the County’s parkland requirements of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 people, the
project would be required to provide 2.6 acres of parkland to meet the County’s
parkland dedication requirements.7
7 Section 4.13, Population and Housing calculates a projected increase in population of 876 people.
Based on a standard of 3 acres of park per 1,000 people the project would generate a need for 2.6
acres of parkland. 876/1,000 x 3 = 2.6 acres.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-19
To meet this requirement, the project proposes a public trail system through the
emergent marsh in the northern portion of the site with two passive recreation
locations with tables and seating next to the open water (See Figure 3-4). The trail
system would provide approximately 2.6 acres of recreational use to the future
residents of the Pantages Development and the public for year round use by
walkers, joggers and bikers.
The County Code also permits a combination of land dedication and fee payment
(Section 920-6.206).
Mitigation Measure PS-1: The project applicant shall, concurrent with the
recording of the map, dedicate to the County or other public agency
approximately 2.6 acres of public trails and two passive recreation locations
with tables and seating next to the open water, including the eight foot side
walk leading from Point of Timber Road to the public trails through the
preserved open space. The public trail through the open space area also serves
as an EVA and must comply with Fire Department standards. In combination
with the dedication of the public trail the project shall pay a park dedication fee
of $1351 per dwelling unit upon issuance of building permits. The future
residence of Pantages would pay for the maintenance of the public trails and
passive recreation areas for their use and that of the public.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
The County has determined that the combination of payment of fees and
dedication of land for a public trail represents full and complete mitigation for
parkland impacts. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1
would reduce the project’s impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.14.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Emergency Services
The cumulative setting for emergency services includes any proposed development
within the service districts of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office Delta Station
and East Contra Costa County Fire Department (ECCCFD) that, in combination with
the project, may generate the need for new facilities.
The General Plan EIR noted that buildout of the General Plan would require new
stations, equipment and staffing to maintain acceptable service ratios. The
implementation of the project in combination with the Discovery Bay projects
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-20
identified in Table 4-1 in Chapter 4.0, Setting, Impacts, and MItigation Measures,
would increase demands for police and fire services and would contribute to this
cumulative impact.
In the Discovery Bay area, the service district of ECCFPD has recently been improved
with the construction of Station 59 that would serve the project area. The location
of this facility ensures that acceptable service ratios can be maintained in the
Discovery Bay area and alleviates the cumulative impact for the provision of fire
services within the project’s cumulative setting. Furthermore, the project would
pay fire impact fees that would help the ECCCFD plan additional facility and staff
expansions to serve the East County area.
The ECCFPD relies mainly on property tax revenue to fund operations. Because of a
significant drop in the assessed property values of homes and properties in East
County, the ECCFPD Board met on February 27, 2012, and voted to call a special
election on June 5, 2012 proposing a special tax of $197 per parcel as a revenue
enhancement for the District. The proposed tax will sunset in 2023, unless the
voters decide to extend it. (ECCFPD Town Hall meeting Schedule 1/2012, LAFCO Fire
Service Update 3/14/12).
Regarding sheriff services, the project includes construction of a marine patrol
station to augment services in the region. The Delta Station has not identified a
need for additional facilities beyond the marine patrol substation, indicating that
acceptable service ratios can be maintained in the Discovery Bay area and
alleviating the cumulative impact for the provision of police services within the
project’s cumulative setting.
Parks and Recreation
The cumulative setting to parks and recreation includes any proposed development
that could affect parks and recreational facilities within Discovery Bay, which
includes the projects in Discovery Bay listed in Table 4-1. The General Plan EIR
noted that build out of the General Plan would require the designation of
substantial additional parkland to conform with adopted park standards.
The General Plan requires that any new development include 3 acres of public
parkland per 1,000 people. The County Code also permits a combination of land
dedication and fee payment to mitigate park impacts. In conformance with this
policy, the project would provide parkland, in the form of the public trail through
the open space area as described above and would also pay fees to mitigate impacts
to local parks.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-21
Schools
The cumulative setting to schools facilities and services includes any proposed
development within the BUSD and the LUHSD. The project in combination with
other residential projects in the vicinity, listed in Table 4-1, would generate new
students and would be required to pay development impact fees to the BUSD and
the LUHSD, consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB 50).
Payment of these fees is considered to completely mitigate any impacts to schools.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to school facilities or services would be less than
significant.
4.14.5 REFERENCES
Burton, M., Lt. Personal Communication, February 2, 2010.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Open Space Element.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Public Facilities/Services Element.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Safety Element.
Douglas, Sgt. Marine Services Division, Contra Costa County Sheriff Reserve.
Personal Communication, May 16, 2007.
Duke, W., Lt. Marine Services Division, Contra Costa County Sheriff Reserve.
Personal Communication, September 8, 2006, April 24, 2007, January 21,
2010, and July 26, 2010.
East Bay Regional Parks District. 2008. Available at http://www.ebparks.org,
Accessed November 17, 2009
Hellier, G. Chief Business Officer, Byron Unified School District, Personal
Communication, November 20, 2009; December 2010.
Henderson, H. Fire Chief. ECCCFPD. Personal Communication, August 31, 2006,
May 8, 2007, February 1, 2011, and July 2011.
Hubbard, P. Administrative Assistant. ECCFPD. Personal Communication, July 28,
2011.
Koehne, V. General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District.
Personal Communication, November 20, 2009.
Leach, T. Fire Inspector, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Personal
Communication, December 2, 2009.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-22
Meyer, T. Superintendent, Byron Union School District. Personal Communication,
September 28, 2006, and March 8, 2007.
Nicolaisen, B. Administrative Assistant. BUSD. Personal Communication, July 14,
2010.
Reeves, W. Director of Project Development, LUHSD. Personal Communication,
November 18, 2009, and December 2, 2010.
Steffensen, A. Secretary, ECCCFPD. Personal Communication, July 14, 2010.
Stryker, K. Contra Costa Health Services District. Personal Communication, July 14,
2010.
Williams, Lt. Marine Services Division, Contra Costa County Sheriff Reserve.
Personal Communication, April 24, 2007.
Wright, G. Marine Services and Air Support Unit, Contra Costa County Office of the
Sheriff. Personal Communication, December 6, 2010, April 29, 2011, and
July 28, 2011.
Zito, V. Business Librarian. Contra Costa County Library Services. Personal
Communication, July 21, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-1
4.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
This section describes the utilities serving the project site and the Town of Discovery
Bay, including water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste. Regulations and
policies affecting utilities are also described. As part of this analysis, individual
utility providers were contacted and asked to confirm the anticipated demand and
their ability to serve the project.
No comments related to utilities and service systems were received in response to
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR.
4.15.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Solid Waste
Discovery Bay Disposal Service provides solid waste removal and recycling services
in the project area. Solid waste collected by Discovery Bay Disposal Service is
transported to the Contra Costa Waste Recycling Center & Transfer Station, located
at 1300 Loveridge Road in Pittsburg. From there, solid waste is transported to the
Potrero Hills Landfill, located at 3675 Potrero Hills Lane in Solano County. Potrero
Hills Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of approximately 21.5 million cubic
yards (mcy) (CalRecycle Facilities 2010). The landfill currently receives 1,900
tons/day (seven days per week) and has remaining capacity of approximately 6 mcy.
The expected closure date of the landfill with its current remaining capacity is at the
end of 2016 (Dunbar 2010).
An EIR for the expansion of the landfill was certified by a Solano County Superior
Court Judge in November 2009, allowing for the facility to be expanded to a capacity
of 83 mcy and extended the closure date by 35 years. The court’s ruling allows the
Potrero Hills Landfill and regulatory agencies that oversee landfill operations to
move forward with review of required permits for the expansion.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 mandated that cities and
counties divert 50 percent of all solid waste by 2000 through source reduction,
recycling, and composting activities. Similarly, the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors adopted on July 8, 2004, Ordinance 2004-16, which requires owners of
all construction or demolition projects that are 5,000 square feet in size or greater
to demonstrate that at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition debris
generated on the jobsite is reused, recycled, or otherwise diverted. According to
the Waste Stream Profiles on record with the Department of Resources Recycling
and Recovery, unincorporated Contra Costa County achieved a 50 percent diversion
rate in 2005 and a 54 percent diversion rate in 2006 (CalRecycle Profiles 2010).
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-2
Discovery Bay offers curbside recycling to its residents to encourage waste stream
diversion. Curbside recycling is provided by Knightson Curbside, part of the Oakley
Disposal Service. Materials collected include a variety of glasses, metals, organics,
papers, plastics, motor oil, oil filters, and specialty materials by appointment, such
as cathode ray tubes, computers monitors, and televisions (Contra Costa County
2010).
Water Supply
Water would be supplied to the project site by the Town of Discovery Bay
Community Services District (TDBCSD). Water supply information and analysis are
based on the January 2012 Discovery Bay Water Master Plan (Water MP), prepared
by Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers. The TDBCSD Board of Directors
formally accepted the Water MP at its public meeting on February 8, 2012.1 The
Water MP is incorporated by reference in this draft EIR and is available for review
on the TDBCSD website at: <http://www.townofdiscoverybay.org/>. It is also
included as Appendix H to this draft EIR.
The TDBCSD water supply system derives all of its water supply from five active
groundwater supply wells. Raw water from the wells is delivered and treated at two
water treatment plants (WTPs): the Newport WTP and the Willow Lake WTP. Each
WTP is equipped with storage tanks, booster facilities pumps, standby generators,
and a network of piping to facilitate the distribution of water to the service
community.
Approximately 6,865 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)2 are currently served by the
TDBCSD water supply system. The water use factor for the base unit is
approximately 0.37 gallons per minute (gpm) per dwelling unit (0.37 gpm/EDU).3
The five active groundwater wells are capable of supplying 7,400 gpm during
summer dry years and up to 8,500 gpm during winter wet years.4 The current
maximum day demand (MDD) within the service area is 5,700 gpm and at planning
1 Howard, Rick, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, February 16, 2012.
2 A useful tool in water demand assessment is to represent the demands of each customer type in
terms of equivalence to a base unit. The system is comprised of a mixture of water uses consisting of
four basic categories; residential, commercial, irrigation and other. By making the base unit equal to
one residential unit, the demand of the entire system can be viewed in terms of total number of
equivalent residential units being served. This is also known as an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU).
3 This information is presented on page 2-5, in Section 2.2, Table 2-2, of the Water MP.
4 This information is presented on pages 3-1 and 3-2, in Section 3.2, and on page 3-4, in Table 3-1, of
the Water MP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-3
horizon in 2020 is estimated to be 7,000 gpm, which suggests that the system is
capable of meeting future demand when all wells identified in the Water MP are
operating at capacity.5
California Department of Public Health Waterworks Standards (Title 22, Chapter 16,
California Code of Regulations) require that systems using only groundwater—like
the TDBCSD—must be capable of meeting MDD with the highest capacity source
well off line (i.e., non-operational).6 Under these conditions, the total source
capacity of the TDBCSD system is reduced to 5,600 gpm. With the current MDD for
water in the TDBCSD at 5,700 gpm, the existing source capacity with the highest
capacity source well off-line has a current shortfall of 100 gpm. When all committed
service connections become active, MDD would increase to 6,000 gpm and the
shortfall would be 400 gpm. With all projected growth, MDD would be 7,000 gpm
and the shortfall would be 1,400 gpm.7
The Water MP identifies projected growth through 2020 within the existing TDBCSD
boundaries and through anticipated annexation of in fill adjoining its boundaries.
Projected growth within the TDBCSD was identified by TDBCSD staff and the Board
of Directors following consultations with the County Department of Conservation
and Development.8 This projected growth includes the 292 single-family units
proposed as part of the project. The Water MP includes recommended
improvements and programs to meet the projected water demands through 2020.9
The improvements and programs in the Water MP would be implemented through a
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funded by financial mechanisms approved by the
TDBCSD. The TDBCSD Board of Directors has approved a capacity fee study, which
will be used by the TDBCSD to develop a fair share water supply capacity fee for new
development. New development would be responsible for the costs to construct
improvements that are necessary only to serve new development (e.g., the new
water storage tank described below). A draft capacity fee study is expected to be
completed in May of 2012.10
The majority of improvements identified in the Water MP are expected be located
within the basic footprint of the existing water supply and delivery system, existing
5 This information is presented on page 2-7 of the Water MP.
6 This information is presented on page 4-1, in Section 4.1.1, of the Water MP.
7 This information is presented on page 4-2, in Section 4.1.2, and in Figure 2-2 of the Water MP.
8 This information is presented on page 2-2, in Table 2-1, of the Water MP.
9 This information is presented on page 6-9, in Table 6-1, of the Water MP.
10 Howard, Rick, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, May 10, 2012.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-4
roadways, and TDBCSD easements.11 Specific construction details for these
upgrades are not all available at this time. The construction and operational details
of these improvements would be addressed through subsequent environmental
review by the TDBCSD to the extent required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Such document would evaluate potential impacts to the
physical environment and identify appropriate mitigation measures associated with
any planned improvement as necessary. A summary description of the planned and
recommended improvements is provided below.
Recommended Water System Improvements
The recommended system upgrades, that enable the TDBCSD to meet the current
and projected water demands at planning horizon in 2020, are described below.
The water system components include: water source capacity, water treatment,
system storage, and distribution system. Figure 4.15-1 shows the location of these
water system improvements.
Source Capacity Recommendations
The following water source capacity improvements are included in the Water MP.12
Source capacity is also addressed as a CIP item in the Water MP.13 Ground basin
assessment programs are also discussed in this section below.14
1. Implement well pump equipment upgrades to the largest well off line to
increase production to address the current deficiency of 100 gpm in source
capacity.15
2. Construct a new water supply well to serve the Newport Water Treatment Plant
(WTP). The new water supply well would satisfy source capacity requirements
of the system beyond the projected build-out. The new well is needed
immediately to provide sufficient capacity to meet its future committed service
levels, including this project as well as the existing community within the 10-
year planning horizon.16 It is anticipated that the new well would be
11 With the exception of two new mainlines installed by directional drilling under Kellogg Creek
connecting the Pantages Bays project to Discovery Bay on the other side. This is further discussed in
the “Distribution System Recommendations” subsection below.
12 This information is presented on pages 4-1 through 4-4, in Section 4.1, and in Table 6-1 of the Water
MP.
13 This information is presented on page 6-3, in Section 6.4.1, of the Water MP.
14 This information is presented as a CIP item on page 6-7, in Section 6.4.5, of the Water MP. Ground
basin assessment programs are further discussed in Chapter 5 and in Table 6-1 of the Water MP.
15 This information is presented on page 4-2, in Section 4.1.2 under the “Well Capacity Upgrade”
discussion, of the Water MP.
16 This information is presented on pages 6-2 and 4-3, in Section 4.1.2, of the Water MP.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.15-1Figure
Circlepoint
Locations of Improvements to Water and Wastewater Facilities
Source: Discovery Bay CSD; Circlepoint, 2011.
Note: Wastewater Master Plan also calls for improvements to the 14
wastewater pump stations located throughout the community. The locations
of the pump stations can be found in the Water Master plan. See Table 2-2
Point of Timber Road
VILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
RAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
New main line crossingsNew main line crossings
Upgrade existing well 1B
Upgrade existing well 2
Upgrade existing well 1B
Upgrade existing well 2
Well 5BWell 5B
Indian Slough
Kellogg CreekEC
C
I
D
D
r
e
d
g
e
C
u
t
Newport Water
Treatment Plant:
new water supply well,
new storage tank
Newport Water
Treatment Plant:
new water supply well,
new storage tank
Willow Lake Water Treatment
Plant and well 6: new filter,
tank & pumps; upgrade
existing filters, chemical room
Willow Lake Water Treatment
Plant and well 6: new filter,
tank & pumps; upgrade
existing filters, chemical room
Upgrades
& Expansions
Upgrades
& Expansions
Legend
Project Boundary
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Water District Facilities
16-inch
8-inch
Proposed New Water Main Lines
1000FEET5000 2000
1
2
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-6
constructed on the west side of Discovery Bay near Newport Drive. While there
are currently no details on the location of the new well site, the TDBCSD would
prefer to locate it along its existing raw water line in the vicinity of the RV
storage lot, located at 2400 Newport Drive, and in the rear of the homes on
Newport Court. Impacts from the new water well would be addressed through
subsequent environmental review by the TDBCSD to the extent required by
CEQA. 17
3. Implement a groundwater basin management program.18
4. Create a contingency fund for future replacement of an existing well site.19
5. Monitor trends in well performance and pump station performance through
regular testing.20
Water Treatment Recommendations
The following water treatment recommendations are included in the Water MP.21
1. Construct a new filter, backwash tank, and recycle pumps at the Willow Lake
WTP to meet water demand requirements projected by 2016. Once
constructed, the new treatment equipment would satisfy treatment capacity
requirements beyond the projected planning horizon.
2. Upgrade the filter-face piping and valves on the existing filters at Willow Lake
WTP.
3. Upgrade/remodel the chemical room at Willow Lake WTP to allow all three well
pumps to operate simultaneously.
4. Create a contingency fund to replace filter media, upgrade recycle pumps at
Newport WTP, and test and upgrade booster pumps at both the Willow Lake
WTP and the Newport WTP.
17 Keone, Virgil, Water and Wastewater Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District.
Personal communication, May 11, 2012.
18 This information is presented on page 5-5, in Section 5.5, of the Water MP.
19 This information is presented on page 4-4, in Section 4.1, of the Water MP.
20 This information is presented on pages 5-4 and 5-5, in Section 5.4, of the Water MP.
21 This information is presented as a CIP item on page 6-3, in Section 6.4.2, of the Water MP. Water
treatment recommendations are further discussed on pages 4-4 through 4-7, in Section 4.2, of the
Water MP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-7
System Storage Recommendations
The following system storage recommendations are included in the Water MP.22
Construct a new 275,000 gallon storage tank at the Newport WTP for the
operational and fire safety storage requirements of the treatment plant that are
projected by 2014. The new tank would satisfy the storage capacity requirements
beyond the projected planning horizon in 2020. This new storage tank would be
part of an existing TDBCSD facility.23 The new storage tank would be located
adjacent to the existing tanks at the Newport WTP on land that is to be owned by
the District.24
1. Maintain the existing emergency standby generators to ensure continued
source of emergency storage (supply) in the groundwater aquifer.
Distribution System Recommendations
The following distribution system recommendations are included in the Water MP.25
These distribution system recommendations address system performance
deficiencies during fire flows and initiates a program that replaces the older
mainlines. They are collectively referred to as Alternative 2 pipeline
improvements.26
1. Install two new mainline canal crossings below Kellogg Creek to improve fire
flow performance in the system for project build-out conditions.
2. Replace the existing mainline on Willow Lake Road from Beaver Lane south to
Discovery Bay Boulevard in order to improve fire flow performance in the
system and to begin replacing some older mainlines in the system.
3. Replace the existing mainline on South Point, Surfside Place, Surfside Court,
Shell Court, Beach Court, Marina Circle, and Lido Circle in order to improve fire
flow performance in the system and to begin replacing some older mainlines in
the system.
22 This information is presented as a CIP item on page 6-6, in Section 6.4.4, of the Water MP. System
storage recommendations are further discussed on pages 4-7 through 4-9, in Section 4.3, and in Table
6-1 of the Water MP.
23 Plate 6 of the Water MP depicts this proposed storage tank location.
24 Keone, Virgil, Water and Wastewater Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District.
Personal communication, May 11, 2012.
25 This information is presented in Chapter 4 of the Water MP.
26 This information is presented on pages 4-13 through 4-15, in Section 4.4.7 and 4.4.8, of the Water
MP. Plate 6 of the Water MP depicts the location of the Alternative 2 pipeline improvements.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-8
Wastewater
Discovery Bay wastewater collection and treatment services are also provided by
the TDBCSD. The Discovery Bay WTP is undergoing a phased expansion to provide
adequate service and capacity to both existing and proposed developments within
its jurisdiction. Over the past decade, the treatment plant has undergone several
upgrades and has a current permitted capacity to treat 2.1 mgd27 of wastewater.
The average daily flow to the treatment plant is 1.8 mgd.28 Wastewater originating
from homes in the existing Discovery Bay, Discovery Bay West, and Ravenswood
Estates developments currently enters 8-inch mains along residential streets and
flows to a series of lift stations that gradually pump water to the Discovery Bay
wastewater treatment facility. The project would be served by a 10-inch sewer
main at Wilde Drive, on the southern portion of the project site, and an 8-inch main
at Point of Timber Road.
The TDBCSD has prepared a Wastewater Master Plan (Wastewater MP) as part of
the process to upgrade its wastewater treatment facility. The TDBCSD released the
final draft of the Wastewater MP, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc., in
October 2011. The Wastewater MP is incorporated by reference in this draft EIR
and is available for review on the TDBCSD website at: <http://www.townofdiscovery
bay.org/>. It is also included as Appendix H to this draft EIR.
The Wastewater MP was formally accepted by the Board of Directors at its public
meeting on February 8, 2012.29 The Wastewater MP includes the same projected
growth through 2020 as the Water MP. This projected growth includes the 292
single-family units on the Pantages Bays property proposed as part of the project.30
Waste discharge requirements are discussed in Section 8 of the Wastewater MP. As
described in Section 8, effluent is discharged to Old River. Discharge is regulated
under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and waste
discharge requirements adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), Central Valley Region. Approximately every five years, the TDBCSD
NPDES permit is updated.31 One objective of the Wastewater MP is to provide
27 Recent testing by the TDBCSD confirms that the plant’s actual operating capacity is 2.0 mgd.
28 Draft Final Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan, October 2011.
29 Howard, Rick, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, February 16, 2012.
30 This information is presented on pages 3-1 and 3-2, in Section 3, of the Wastewater MP.
31 This information is presented on page 8-1 of the Wastewater MP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-9
recommendations to assure future compliance with the NPDES permit as it is to be
updated. The Wastewater MP summarizes key NPDES permit requirements, plant
performance, and compliance strategies.32
The improvements would be implemented through a CIP funded by financial
mechanisms approved by the TDBCSD. The plan would include a new capacity fee
to charge new development for its fair share of wastewater treatment upgrades
that are necessary to serve both the existing community and new development.
Any improvements required exclusively to serve new development would be paid
for by new development. A draft capacity fee study is expected to be completed in
May of 2012.33
The Wastewater MP includes recommended upgrades to meet the TDBCSD
projected wastewater demands through 2020.34 Wastewater treatment
improvements are characterized as: immediate improvements; critical
improvements; other certain or likely improvements; reasonably possible or
optional improvements; and unlikely improvements.
All improvements provided for in the Wastewater MP is anticipated to be located
within the basic footprint of the existing wastewater treatment system.
Construction and operational details for these upgrades are not available at this
time. The construction and operational details of these wastewater treatment
improvements would be addressed through subsequent environmental review by
the TDBCSD or the RWQCB, to the extent required by CEQA. Such document would
evaluate potential impacts to the physical environment and identify appropriate
mitigation measures as necessary.
Recommended system upgrades, that enable the TDBCSD to meet the current and
projected water demands through build-out in 2020, are summarized below.
Recommended Wastewater Treatment Improvements
Figure 4.15-1 shows the location of these wastewater treatment system
improvements.
Influent Pump Station Recommendations. As set forth in Section 9 of the
Wastewater MP, modifications and upgrades to the Influent Pump Station
located at Plant 1 are recommended as immediate improvements in order to
mitigate for existing operational issues.
32 This information is presented on page 8-4, in Table 8-1, of the Wastewater MP.
33 Howard, Rick, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, May 10, 2012.
34 This information is presented on page 20-3, in Table 20-1, of the Wastewater MP. Table 20-1 of the
Wastewater MP identifies specific sections of the Wastewater MP in which the need for particular
improvements are discussed.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-10
Ultraviolet Disinfection Recommendations
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is used at the plant to meet permit requirements
for total coliform. Recent improvements have been made to address
deficiencies that resulted in permit violations.35 Additional immediate upgrades
for UV system expansion are identified and include: revisions to the UV
disinfection weirs to improve flow split to UV channels, and conducting viral
bioassay tests to verify existing capacity.36
Secondary Treatment Facilities Recommendations
To address current deficiencies in the secondary treatment facilities37, the
Wastewater MP identifies several upgrades to the system including: installing a
new oxidation ditch and associated facilities at Plant 2 to accommodate for
future growth and supply adequate emergency storage; expanding solids-
handling capacity; and implementing supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA) system improvements for better monitoring and more reliable
service.38 All improvements would be constructed at one time.
Plant Improvement Recommendations
Additional plant improvements that have been identified in the Wastewater MP
as certain or likely in the future include:
Installing facilities (new filters or emergency storage facilities) to address
secondary effluent equalization to limit peak flows to filters, UV channels,
and to the export pump station;
Upgrading the plant’s UV disinfection system; 39
Adding a pump to the export pump station; 40
Adding a second solar dryer to facilitate Phase 1 solids handling
improvements; 41 and
Improving the collection system pump for reliable performance.
35 This information is presented on page 14-1, in Section 14, of the Wastewater MP.
36 This information is presented on page 14-6, in Section 14.5, of the Wastewater MP.
37 This information is presented on page 11-1, in Section 11, of the Wastewater MP.
38 This information is presented on page 4-1, in Section 4, of the Wastewater MP.
39 This information is presented on page 14-5, in Section 14.4, of the Wastewater MP.
40 This information is presented on page 7-1, in Section 7, of the Wastewater MP.
41 This information is presented on page 14-1, in Section 14, of the Wastewater MP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-11
Stormwater
Except for the emergent marsh located in the northern portion of the project site,
the project site has been leveled, ditched, drained and disked in the past for use as
irrigated cropland and grazing pasture. Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) also used
site for detention and decanting of dredge spoils as part of a program to remove
sediment build up in Discovery Bay waterways. The dredged spoils were spread
over portions of the property outside of the delineated wetland areas. Currently,
these piles of dredge spoils are higher in elevation than the surrounding
topography. Several shallow ditches bisect the site, providing further evidence of
past agricultural land use.
Existing surface drainage cannot be easily determined due to the extremely flat
terrain of the project site. Generally, storm water flow drains towards the
topographically lower seasonal wetlands and the emergent marshes on the
northern portion of the project site. Ultimately, site drainage reaches Kellogg Creek
and Indian Slough. No runoff from the site flows into the East Contra Costa County
Irrigation District Dredge Cut/Intake Channel (ECCID Dredge Cut). Off-site drainage
is unlikely to enter the project site from any direction.
4.15.2 REGULATORY SETTING
State Assembly Bills 610 and 221
The purpose and legislative intent of Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) and Senate Bill 221 (SB
221) was to preclude projects from being approved without specific evaluations
being performed and documented by the local water provider proving that water is
available to serve the project. These laws took effect on January 1, 2002.
SB 610 requires the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for large-scale
development projects. Both SB 610 and SB 221 apply to a 500-unit residential
development or a project that would increase the number of the public water
system’s existing service connections by 10 percent. SB 221 requires the local water
provider to provide “written verification” of “sufficient water supplies” to serve the
project prior to approval of a subdivision map. This requires a higher degree of
certainty than is required for approval of a WSA.
At 292-units, the project is below the 500-unit threshold and would increase the
number water service connections served by the TDBCSD by 5 percent. Therefore,
the project does not require the preparation of a WSA and does not need to be
separately analyzed.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-12
Assembly Bill 939
Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), the California Integrated Waste Management Act of
1989, mandated the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. The bill mandated
a minimum 50 percent diversion of material from landfills by 2000. In 2006, 54
percent of unincorporated Contra Costa County's solid waste was diverted from
landfill (CalRecycle 2010).
Contra Costa County General Plan
Policies related to stormwater drainage facilities are discussed in Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality. The Growth Management Element of the General
Plan identifies policies related to water and sanitary sewer.
Growth Management Element
Water
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 to it from consultations
with the appropriate water agency, the applicant 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.
Sanitary Sewer
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
to it from consultations with the appropriate sewer agency, the applicant or other
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-13
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-
ups or comparable evidence of adequate sewage collection and wastewater
treatment capacity availability.
The Public Facilities/Services Element of the General Plan identifies the county-wide
policies listed below related to utility services.
Public Facilities/Services Element
7-1: New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all
existing public facilities it utilizes, based on the demand for these facilities
which can be attributed to new development.
7-2: New development, not existing residents, should be required to pay all costs
of upgrading existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are
exclusively needed to serve new development.
7-4: The financial impacts of new development or public facilities should
generally be determined during the project review process and may be
based on the analysis contemplated under the Growth Management
Element or otherwise. As part of the project approval, specific findings shall
be adopted which relate to the demand for new public facilities and how
the demand affects the service standards included in the growth
management program.
7-19: Urban development shall be encouraged within the existing water Spheres
of Influence adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission; expansion
into new areas within the Urban Limit Line beyond the Spheres should be
restricted to those areas where urban development can meet all growth
management standards included in this General Plan.
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.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-14
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.
7-29: Sewer treatment facilities shall be required to operate in compliance with
waste discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Development that would result in the violation of waste
discharge requirements shall not be approved.
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.
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 is 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 in information furnished or made
available to the County from consultations with the appropriate water
agency, the applicant, or other sources.
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.
7-50: Public access to watercourses shall be required of major new developments
when liability, security, and maintenance issues can be satisfactorily
resolved.
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.
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.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-15
Policy Consistency Analysis
Solid Waste: The Potrero Hills Landfill has existing solid waste capacity to serve the
project. As required by policy 7-88, the landfill has capacity to serve the project site
due to the recent ruling on the expansion of the landfill. As a standard condition of
approval, the County would include a requirement that the project be required to
divert waste from the landfill through the use of recycle programs for residents. This
condition would be in compliance with policy 7-92.
Water Supply: The TDBCSD has completed a Water MP that identifies
improvements needed to ensure sufficient capacity for projected growth at planning
horizon in 2020. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, identified below, will ensure that the
County’s Zoning Administrator is provided sufficient information to determine that
financing for the required water supply improvements is in place prior to final map
recordation of the project. This documentation will also show that the necessary
improvements have been completed and actual capacity exists prior to the issuance
of certificates of occupancy, which is consistent with policies 7-1, 7-2, and 7-4 of the
general plan. Therefore, the project would be in compliance with policy 7-21 which
requires that a project demonstrate that sufficient water capacity exists.
Further, as a condition of approval for the project, the County would require the
project to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce the daily
consumption of water. Implementation of these measures would be consistent
with the intent of policy 7-26 to decrease peak water use. Water conservation
measures shall include, but not be limited to the indoor and outdoor measures
listed below.
Indoor Water Conservation Measures
1. Hot Water Pipe Insulation – Insulation of hot-water pipes, and separation of hot
and cold water piping will avoid heat exchange
2. Low Flow Fixtures (i.e., toilets) – Low flow fixtures will be installed in the
residential units
3. Water-Efficient Dishwashers – Dishwashers with water saving features, such as
water level sensors instead of timed fillers, will be installed in each residential
unit
4. Pressure Reducing Valves or Regulators – Residential units will, at a minimum,
include a regulator that will maintain pressure thus reducing the volume of any
leakage that may occur and preventing excessive flow of water from all
appliances and fixtures
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-16
Outdoor Water Conservation Measures
1. Water-Efficient Landscaping – The project will utilize drought tolerant plant
materials, and require water efficient irrigation systems and controllers
2. Drip Irrigation and/or Misting Systems – Where applicable (i.e., non-turf areas),
drip irrigation and/or misting systems will be encouraged
Wastewater: The TDBCSD has completed a Wastewater MP that identifies
improvements needed to ensure sufficient capacity for build-out through 2020.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2, identified below, will ensure that the County’s Zoning
Administrator is provided sufficient information to determine that financing for the
required wastewater treatment improvements is in place prior to final map
recordation of the project. This documentation will also show that the necessary
improvements have been completed and actual capacity exists prior to the issuance
of certificates of occupancy, which is consistent with policies 7-1, 7-2, and 7-4.
Therefore, the project would be in compliance with policy 7-33 which requires that
a project demonstrate that sufficient wastewater treatment capacity exists.
The RWQCB approved a maximum operating capacity of 2.1 mgd for average dry
weather flows (adfw), per its permit to the TDBCSD dated December 4, 2008. The
TDBCSD wastewater treatment facility is currently operating at 1.75 mgd in adwf,
with an average annual flow (aaf) of 1.80 mgd and an average day maximum
monthly flow (admmf) of 1.98 mgd.42 As described in subsection 4.15.3 below,
project wastewater flows of 0.1 mgd would increase the amount of wastewater
treated by the facility to 1.85 mgd, leaving the facility with a remaining capacity of
0.25 mgd. The remaining capacity, however, is already committed to other planned
and approved development (i.e., Hofmann project), and therefore the treatment
plant would need to be expanded and the District’s NPDES permit would need to be
amended to provide capacity for the proposed project.43
Further, as a condition of approval for the project, the County would require the
project to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce the daily
consumption of water. Implementation of these measures would be consistent
with the intent of policy 7-37 to decrease peak water use. Water conservation
measures would include, but not limited to, indoor and outdoor conservation
measures listed above.
Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): The project would
require approval from the Contra Costa LAFCO for sphere of influence amendments
and corresponding annexation into the TDBCSD service boundary for sewer and
42 This information is presented on page 5-8, in Table 5-2, of the Wastewater MP.
43 Harris, Gregory, Engineer, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, May 10, 2012.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-17
water services. As shown in Figure 3-8 in this draft EIR, a portion of the project site
is located within the TDBCSD service boundary; the project includes annexation of
the rest of the site into the TDBCSD service area. The site is surrounded by
developments serviced by the TDBCSD and is located within the Urban Limit Line
(ULL). The project is in compliance with policies 7-19 and 7-31 which discourage
expansion into areas beyond the sphere that cannot meet all growth management
standards in the general plan.
Access to watercourses: The project would create open water areas, enhance and
create creek bank habitat, bays, and coves that would be for public use. Streets
would be private, but would allow for public pedestrian and bicycle access on the
public trail through the emergent marsh. This would be consistent with policy 7-50,
which requires public access to watercourses in major new developments when the
related liability, security, and maintenance issues can be resolved.
4.15.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies criteria to be used in evaluating
potential impacts related to utilities and service systems. As stated in Appendix G,
the Project would have a significant impact upon utilities and service systems if it
would:
a) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
b) Be served by a landfill without sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs;
c) Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste;
d) Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or be in need of new or expanded entitlements.
e) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board;
f) 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;
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-18
g) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects; or
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
a) Would the project result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
The proposed storm drainage system includes natural on-site drainage and human-
made detention basins. Stormwater would be handled completely on-site, with
treatment either in bio-swales or bioretention basins before release into the area
waterways. Impacts to storm water drainage facilities and storm water
management issues specific to the project are addressed in Section 4.9, Hydrology
and Water Quality. The proposed drainage system has been designed to comply
with NPDES and the County’s C.3 requirements and impacts related to storm
drainage facilities would be less-than-significant.
b) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
The Potrero Hills Landfill that would serve the project site currently receives 1,900
tons per day of solid waste and has a remaining capacity of 6 mcy. According to
CalRecycle, a single family residential unit generates approximately 10 pounds of
solid waste per day. The project includes 292 single-family residential units that
would generate approximately 2,920 pounds per day. The amount of solid waste
generated by the project represents less than 0.1 percent of the daily amount of
solid waste processed by the landfill. This is a conservative estimate since recycling
was not considered.
The landfill has permitted capacity through 2016 and is in the process of applying
for the required permits that would allow the landfill to operate through 2050 and
expand to more than three times its current capacity. Based on the landfill’s
expansion plans for operation through 2050, the landfill would be able to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
c) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project consists of residential land uses that would not result in the generation
of unique types of solid waste that would conflict with existing regulations
applicable to solid waste disposal. The project would be required to comply with
Contra Costa County’s solid waste requirements, including the provisions of AB 939.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-19
Furthermore, the project would have to comply with County Ordinance 2004-16,
which requires owners of all construction or demolition projects that are 5,000
square feet in size or greater to demonstrate that at least 50 percent of the
construction and demolition debris generated on the jobsite are reused, recycled, or
otherwise diverted.
In order to comply with Ordinance 2004-16, the project applicant would be required
as a condition of approval to prepare and submit a Debris Recovery Plan to the
County’s Department of Conservation and Development prior to the issuance of a
building or demolition permit. The plan would address major materials generated
by a construction project of this size, including brush and other vegetative material,
dimensional lumber, metal scraps, cardboard, packaging, and plastic wrap, and shall
address opportunities to recycle such materials or divert them away from the
Potrero Hills Landfill. Prior to final inspection, the project applicant shall submit a
Debris Recovery Report that demonstrates that at least 50 percent of jobsite debris
was diverted from disposal by providing receipts or gate-tags from facilities or
service providers used for recycling, reuse and disposal of jobsite debris. The
project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to solid
waste and this impact would be less than significant.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
be in need of new or expanded entitlements?
Impact UTIL-1: Per the requirements of Title 22 of the California Waterworks
Standards, the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District does not
currently have sufficient legal water supply capacity to serve the project.
(Significant)
The analysis of adequate capacity uses several measurements, including total water
requirements and average day demand, as well as a computation of “peaking
factors” such as mdd, and peak hour demand (phd). The peaking factors are
expressed in gallons per minute (gpm). The State requires water districts to be able
to meet the estimated mdd.44
44 The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) regulations, specifically Section §64554 of the
California Waterworks Standards (Title 22, Chapter 16, California Code of Regulations, CCR); state: “at
all times, a public water system’s water source(s) shall have the capacity to meet the system’s
maximum day demand (MDD).” The source capacity is the estimated capacity of all sources of supply
during the time at which the maximum day demand occurs. Title 22 also states that for water systems
using only groundwater, “the system shall be capable of meeting MDD with the highest-capacity
source off line.”
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-20
Total water requirements in Discovery Bay are currently 1,335 million gallons per
year (mgy), which equates to an average daily demand of about 3.7 mgd, or about
2,540 gpm. The estimated future water requirements based on the expected infill
growth equates to an increase in the total average daily demand to 4.5 mgd, or
about 3,100 gpm.
Using those water demands as a basis, the TDBCSD determined the peaking
factors—mdd and phd—for water consumption in accordance with regulatory
guidelines. For the build-out horizon year 2020, the mdd would be 7,000 gpm.
Table 4.15-1 provides a summary of current and future demand.
As discussed in Subsection 4.15.1, the TDBCSD is currently operating with a legal
shortfall of 200 gpm.45 The TDBCSD is not therefore considered to have sufficient
capacity to serve its existing connections, nor does it have sufficient capacity to
serve the project. Although, the project would result in 292 new residential service
connections, the Water MP conservatively assumed 300 residential service
connections and 1.2 MGY in irrigation, which is equivalent to 6 residential
connections. The Water MP, therefore, assumes the connection of 306 residential
units. The project would construct 292 residential units and would require
approximately 1.2 MGY in irrigation, and would therefore require slightly less water
demand than estimated in the Water MP.
Table 4.15-1 Summary of TDBCSD Demand and Capacity
Total Annual
Requirement Daily Requirements Peaking Factors
(Regulatory Requirement
Million Gallons
Per Year
(mgy)
Million Gallons
Per Day
(mgd)
Gallons per
minute (gpm)
Million Gallons
Per Year
(mgy)
Peak hour
Demand Gallons
per minute
(gpm)
Current Demand 1,335 3.7 2,540 5,700 9,150
Projected
Growth at
Planning Horizon
(2020)
1,630 4.5 3,100 7,000 11,200
Increase 295 0.8 560 1,300 2,050
* The TDBCSD’s system has a current demand of 5,700 gpm and a current capacity of 7,300 gpm. State regulations
require that legal capacity be determined based on a scenario in which the highest-capacity source well is off-line.
Under this scenario the TDBCSD’s system has a legal capacity of 5,500 gpm, resulting in a legally defined shortfall of
capacity of 200 gpm relative to current demand.
45 Although the District has sufficient physical capacity with all five of its groundwater wells in
operation, the State Public Health standards require that capacity be calculated with the highest
producing well offline, thus resulting in a shortfall with that well subtracted from the capacity
calculation. (Title 22, Chapter 16, California Code of Regulations)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-21
As discussed above in Subsection 4.15.1 under the “Water Supply” subheading, the
TDBCSD operates five active groundwater wells which are capable of meeting future
demand when all wells are operating at capacity. Although an adequate water
supply is identified to meet current and future demands, the TDBCSD currently lacks
the appropriate facilities to ensure the source capacity to draw and distribute the
groundwater supplies.
Improvements identified by the TDBCSD to address source capacity issues are
discussed in the Water MP and are summarized above in Subsection 4.15.1 under
the “Recommended Water System Improvements” subheading. These
improvements are required to meet anticipated service demands through 2020,
which includes current demand, project demand associated with the project, and
other future development. The TDBCSD would implement the planned
improvements over time as demand increases.
The TDBCSD has identified specific facility improvements and upgrades which would
address the additional increase in pumping associated with the project.
Construction of a new well near Newport Drive would be required to provide the
project with water supply; this new well is identified as a priority CIP slated for
construction in 2012/2014. Upgrades to Well 1B pump equipment are scheduled
for this year (i.e., 2012) and would also facilitate source capacity. Additional water
storage capacity with a new tank at the Newport WTP would also be required to
serve new development. With the timely construction of these supply
improvements along with construction of the new storage tank, there would be
sufficient supply to serve projected growth, including the project.
Implementation of a combination of the facility improvements and upgrades
discussed above would ensure that an adequate distribution of water to could serve
the planned build-out of the project within the margin required by State Public
Health standards. However, due to the uncertainty in the timing of these facility
improvements and upgrades, the planned improvements may not be constructed at
the time the project seeks a new service connection with the TDBCSD. To account
for this uncertainty, this EIR conservatively assumes that impacts from inadequate
source capacity are significant. The following mitigation would address the event in
which the project would outpace available water distribution and would reduce the
potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall
provide documentation to the County (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter),
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the TDBCSD
has identified and secured sufficient financing for the construction of any
required improvements outlined in the Water MP to ensure sufficient capacity
exists to serve the project.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-22
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide
documentation to the County Zoning Administrator that said improvements
needed to serve the project are constructed and operational.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would require that the improvements to capacity
are in place prior to the project moving forward in the event that the project
outpaces available water distribution resources. Further, as a condition of
approval for the project, the County would require the project to incorporate
indoor and outdoor water conservation measures to reduce the daily
consumption of water. This condition of approval, along with Mitigation
Measure UTIL-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
e) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
f) Would the project 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?
g) Would the project require or result in the construction or
expansion of wastewater treatment facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact UTIL-2: Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District does not
currently have sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project.
(Significant)
Wastewater Conveyance System
The project site would be served by a 10-inch sewer main at Wilde Drive, on the
southern portion of the site, and an 8-inch main at Point of Timber Road.
Wastewater from the project would enter the 10-inch sewer main at Wilde Drive,
and would flow to a lift station along Newport Drive that then pumps the water to
the Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility operated by the TDBCSD. The
TDBCSD has indicated that the existing sewer mains that would serve the project
site are adequately sized to handle wastewater generated by the project (Howard
2011).
Wastewater Treatment Facility
The TDBCSD Wastewater MP provides a wastewater generation rate of 335 gpd per
residence; therefore, the project would generate approximately 98,000 gallons of
wastewater per day. The TDBCSD Wastewater Treatment Facility has an operating
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-23
capacity of adwf of 2.1 mgd, and is currently operating at adwf of 1.75 mgd. The
TDBCSD’s Wastewater Treatment Facility has a remaining capacity of adwf of 0.35
mgd.
Project wastewater flows of 0.1 mgd would increase the amount of wastewater
treated by the facility to an adfw of 1.85 mgd, leaving the facility would a remaining
capacity of 0.25 mgd. The remaining capacity, however, is already committed to
other planned and approved developments (i.e., Hofmann project), and therefore
the treatment facility would need to be expanded and the District’s NPDES permit
would need to be amended to provide capacity for the proposed project.
Please refer to Subsection 4.15.4 for a discussion of the project’s contribution to the
TDBCSD’s planned expansion of its wastewater treatment facility. All improvements
would be located within the basic footprint of the existing wastewater treatment
system (see Figure 4.15-2). Construction and operational details for these upgrades
are not available at this time. However, because all improvements to the
wastewater treatment plant would occur in the existing footprint, no significant
environmental impacts are expected to occur from construction of these
improvements (see Figure 4.15-2).46 In addition, the District will need to amend
their NPDES permit with the RWQCB to accommodate Pantages. The construction
and operational details of these wastewater treatment improvements and NPDES
permit amendments would be addressed through subsequent environmental review
by the TDBCSD or the RWQCB, to the extent required by CEQA.
Wastewater generated by the project would originate from residential sources; no
industrial wastewater would be generated by the project. New sewer lines would
be constructed on-site to accommodate the project-generated flows, which would
be typical of residential areas, and no changes to the wastewater treatment facility
would be required to treat these flows. Treated effluent from the project would not
cause the TDBCSD to exceed its operating capacity permitted by RWQCB after their
NPDES permit is revised. Improvements required to accommodate the increase in
capacity due to projected growth are included in the Wastewater MP Please refer to
Subsection 4.15.4 for a discussion of the project’s contribution to cumulative effects
related to wastewater treatment. By the time the project is ready for construction,
the necessary improvements to increase capacity (such as a new oxidation ditch), if
needed to accommodate this project due to the earlier construction of other
projected growth, should be completed. Consequently, no impacts related to
RWQCB wastewater treatment capacity requirement for the TDBCSD plant would be
expected.
46 Harris, Gregory, Engineer, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, May 10, 2012.
EXISTING
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT
LIFT STATION
EXISTINGADMINISTRATIONBUILDING
EXISTINGEXPORTPUMPSTATION
BRINECONCENTRATOR
REVERSEOSMOSISSYSTEM
EQUALIZATIONBASIN
EFFLUENT
FILTERS
EXISTINGPARSHALLFLUME
EXISTINGUV SYSTEM
EXISTINGCLARIFIER NO.3
EXISTINGCLARIFIER NO.4
CLARIFIER NO.5
OXIDATION DITCH NO.2ACTIVE SOLAR DRYER NO.4
ACTIVE SOLAR DRYER NO.3
BELT PRESS EXPANSION
EXISTING SOLAR DRYING FACILITY
EXISTING SLUDGE
LAGOON NO.1
EXISTING SLUDGE
LAGOON NO.2
EXISTING BELT FILTER PRESS FACILITY
EXISTING FILTRATE PUMP STATION
EXISTING PLANT DRAINPUMP STATION
RASPS
EXISTINGRAS/WAS PS
EXISTING
SOIL
SCRUBBER
EXISTING OXIDATION DITCH NO. 2EXISTINGAEROBICDIGESTER
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.15-2FigureProposed Expansion of the
Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant
Source: Stantec, 2011.
75
FEET
37.50 150
Legend
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-25
The wastewater treatment facility is currently operating in compliance with all
RWQCB regulations (See Appendix G).47 Facility operation consistent with the
Wastewater MP is expected to continue in compliance with RWQCB regulations.
As part of its compliance requirements, the TDBCSD is obligated to secure RWQCB
approval of a Salinity Plan and implement it.48 The Salinity Plan is necessary due to
the 2010 noncompliance with the TDBCSD’s limit on electrical conductivity (i.e., its
limit on salinity of treated effluent that is discharged into Old River). The TDBCSD
has submitted that draft plan to the RWQCB for its review, which is pending.
Per recent monitoring efforts, the TDBCSD engineers believe electrical conductivity
in sewage from new development is greater than conductivity in treated sewage as
a whole due mostly to general use of salt based water softeners in newer homes
and some other older homes in Discovery Bay.49 Future monitoring would be
undertaken to assess the actual impact of such water softeners. Source control is
the most effective means for reducing salinity in wastewater. Implementation of
TDBCSD regulations to limit the use of salt based water softeners may be needed to
reduce electrical conductivity below the RWQCB standard. Alternative water
softeners are available that are not salt based and therefore do not cause increased
salinity in sewage.
It is anticipated that the TDBCSD may require such a restriction on salt based water
softeners in new development like this project. Before a final subdivision map for
this project is ready for approval by the County, it is expected that the TDBCSD
would secure RWQCB approval of a Salinity Plan designed to keep electrical
conductivity below the RWQCB limit in the TDBCSD permit, and that the TDBCSD
would be in compliance with RWQCB requirements for the TDBCSD to implement
that plan and thus be in compliance with the RWQCB permit for the TDBCSD.
Based on the foregoing information, it is determined that the TDBCSD is likely to
have sufficient capacity to serve the project at the time it could seek a new service
connection and that serving the project would not exceed the RWQCB requirements
for wastewater treatment. In that instance, the TDBCSD would issue the connection
and the applicant would pay a capacity fee for its fair share of improvements to the
TDBCSD’s system. In the unlikely event, however, that sufficient capacity is not
available to serve the project in a manner that it would not exceed the RWQCB
requirements of the TDBCSD’s operating permit, the following mitigation would
47 Prior RWQCB Board Orders in 2008 and 2009 related to effluent limitations have all been addressed
to the satisfaction of the RWQCB; the TDBCSD does not have any outstanding violations. See Appendix
G of this draft EIR for RWQCB’s NPDES Permit Order No. R5-2003-0067 for the wastewater treatment
facility. This information is also presented on page 8-4, in Table 8-1, of the Wastewater MP.
48 This information is also presented on page 8-4, in Table 8-1, of the Wastewater MP.
49 This information is also presented on page 8-3, in Section 8.2.3, of the Wastewater MP.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-26
avoid the situation where development would outpace those RWQCB capacity and
operating requirements, and thereby reduce the corresponding potential impact to
a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall
provide documentation to the County (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter),
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the TDBCSD
has identified and secured sufficient funding for the construction of any capacity
or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP and necessary so
that serving the project does not exceed the requirements of the RWQCB.
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide
documentation to the County Zoning Administrator that said improvements
needed to serve the project are constructed and operational, and that any
source control measures are being implemented consistent with the
requirements of the RWQCB.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
The TDBCSD has completed the Wastewater Master Plan that identifies
improvements needed to ensure sufficient capacity for build-out through 2020.
Mitigation is included to ensure that financing for the required improvements is in
place prior to final map recordation and that actual capacity exists prior to issuance
of occupancy permits, which is consistent with policies 7-1, 7-2, and 7-4. Therefore,
the project would be in compliance with policies 7-21 and 7-33, which require that a
project demonstrate that sufficient capacity exists.
4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact for public utilities includes the project area and Town of
Discovery Bay. The General Plan EIR noted that future development would cause an
increase in long-term water demand that could not be accommodated by existing
water agency plans in high growth areas like East County. The EIR also noted that
future development may not have access to adequate quantities or quality of
domestic water supply.
As noted previously, the TDBCSD has completed a Water MP and a Wastewater MP
which are included as Appendix H to this draft EIR. Each of these documents
identifies specific improvements needed to ensure adequate supply and treatment
capacity through 2020.
Both the Water MP and Wastewater MP forecast supply and demand projections to
year 2020; there are no other future forecasts included beyond 2020. These
projections take into account the potential demand created by the project as well as
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-27
the reasonably foreseeable and relevant projects within the TDBCSD service
boundary (Discovery Bay/Unincorporated Contra Costa County) included in Table
4-1 and depicted in Figure 4-1 of this draft EIR.
Water Supply
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term water
supplies within the project area.
Similar to the project-level analysis, this cumulative analysis is based on the Water
MP prepared by the TDBCSD. Implementation of the project would require
approximately 108 gmp of additional water demand from TDBCSD. As
demonstrated above, although there would be an adequate water supply identifies
to meet current and future water supply demands with the project, TDBCSD lacks
the appropriate facilities to ensure capacity to draw and distribute the groundwater
supplies. Given this, planned growth identified for the 2020 horizon year, in the
Water MP, would result in significant cumulative impact under long-term
conditions. Given that the project is included in these forecasts and would require
additional demand, the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be
considerable.
Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1: The project applicant shall implement
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1 would require that the
improvements to capacity are constructed prior to the project moving forward
in the event that the project outpaces available water distribution resources.
With the facilities to ensure capacity to draw and distribute the groundwater in
place, cumulative impacts to water supply would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term
wastewater treatment within the project area.
Similar to the project-level analysis, this cumulative analysis is based on the
Wastewater MP prepared by the TDBCSD. Implementation of the project would
generate approximately 98,000 gallons of wastewater per day. This additional
amount would increase the amount of wastewater treated by the wastewater
treatment facility by 0.1 mgd. As demonstrated above, TDBCSD lacks the
appropriate facilities to provide wastewater treatment capacity for the project and
other forecasted projects without implementation of facility improvements. If the
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-28
improvements are not in place at the time the project, in combination with other
projects, are operable, implementation of forecasted growth could result in a
significant cumulative impact under long-term conditions. Given that the project
would increase wastewater flow to the wastewater treatment plant, the project’s
contribution to this significant impact would be considerable.
Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2: The project applicant shall implement
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2 would require that the
improvements to wastewater treatment capacity are constructed prior to the
project moving forward in the event that the project outpaces RWQCB capacity
and operating requirements. With the facilities to ensure wastewater
treatment capacity in place, cumulative impacts to water supply would be less
than significant.
Solid Waste
The General Plan EIR also noted impacts related to the siting of solid waste facilities.
Future residents of the development would generate demand for additional solid
waste capacity. As discussed above, consultation with existing solid waste providers
indicated that the project would not result in the need for new solid waste facilities
not already planned, and that the existing solid waste facilities would be adequate
to serve the project as proposed.
4.15.5 References
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov. Accessed July 7, 2010.
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/recycle/options/v6073.htm. Accessed
July 7, 2010.
Water Master Plan, The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District, January
2012. www.tdbcsd.ca.gov
Wastewater Master Plan, The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District,
October 2011. www.tdbcsd.ca.gov
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist, Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment
Plant Upgrade, September 3, 2003.
Personal Communication with Jim Dunbar, Potrero Hills Landfill, July 7, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-29
Virgil Koehne, Town of Discovery Bay Community Service Department. Personal
Communication, August 2010, and May 2012.
Rick Howard, Town of Discovery Bay Community Service Department. Personal
Communication, August 2011, February 2012, and May 2012.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-30
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-1
4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This section describes the existing traffic and circulation patterns around the project
site and its vicinity. The evaluation addresses the potentially significant impacts of
the project in terms of trip generation, traffic distribution and assignment, and
intersection and roadway levels of service.
A total of 24 intersections and three roadway segments were evaluated using four
condition scenarios: Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative No Project, and
Cumulative Plus Project. The findings of these evaluations, as prepared in the
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (2011), are
summarized in this section. The TIA is included as Appendix I to this draft EIR and is
also available for review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and
Development, Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,
California.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) submitted a comment letter requesting that the impacts
to the state highway system (i.e., State Route 4 [SR4]) be addressed in the traffic
analysis for the project. Potential impacts to SR4 ramp intersections were included
in the TIA and are addressed below in Subsection 4.16.4, Analysis of Potential
Impacts of this section.
Caltrans also noted that the project applicant would have to apply for an
encroachment permit in the event that traffic control work within the SR4 right-of-
way (ROW) is required. The project does not include any work and/or mitigation
within the SR4 ROW.
4.16.1 METHODOLOGY
Study Area
Twenty-four intersections and three roadway segments were selected in
consultation with Contra Costa County (County) staff. For the purposes of
determining whether a project impact is considered significant, these intersections
are designated as either Suburban or Semi-Rural. Figure 4.16-1 shows the location
of the study intersections.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-1Figure
CirclePoint
Study Intersections
and Project Location
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-3
Study Intersections:
1. Balfour Road/Brentwood
Boulevard (Suburban)
11. Balfour Road/Bixler Road (Suburban)
2. Point of Timber Road/Preston
Drive/Grand Way (Suburban)
12. Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway
(Semi-Rural)
3. Newport Drive/Bixler Road
(Suburban)
13. Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road
(Suburban)
4. Newport Drive/Slifer Drive
(Suburban)
14. SR4/Byron Highway (north
intersection) (Semi-Rural)
5. Newport Drive/Newport Lane
(Suburban)
15. Marsh Creek Road/Walnut Boulevard
(Suburban)
6. Byer Road/Byron Highway
(Semi-Rural)
16. Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue
(Semi-Rural)
7. Holway Drive/Byron Highway
(Suburban)
17. Marsh Creek Road/Byron Highway
(Semi-Rural)
8. Camino Diablo Road/Holway
Drive (Suburban)
18. Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road
(Suburban)
9. Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road
(Suburban)
19. SR4/Byron Highway (south
intersection) (Semi-Rural)
10. Balfour Road/Byron Highway
(Semi-Rural)
20. SR4/Bixler Road (Suburban)
21. SR4/Newport Drive (Suburban) 23. Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway
(Suburban)
22. Camino Diablo Road/Vasco
Road (Semi-Rural)
24. SR4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road (Semi-
Rural)
Study area roadway segments:
1. Camino Diablo Road west of Vasco Road
2. Marsh Creek Road west of SR4
3. Vasco Road south of Camino Diablo Road
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-4
Analysis Scenarios
Traffic Impacts were evaluated for the weekday peak commute periods (i.e., AM
and PM) using the following four condition scenarios:
Existing – Existing conditions based upon data collected in 2010.
Existing Plus Project - Existing conditions based on data collected in 2010 plus
project-related traffic.
Cumulative No Project – Future (Year 2035) forecast conditions based on the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) model.
Cumulative Plus Project – Future (Year 2035) forecast conditions based on the
CCTA model plus project-related traffic.
Analysis Method
Transportation engineers and planners use the term level of service (LOS) to
qualitatively describe the operations of transportation facilities. Level of service
ranges from LOS A indicating free-flow conditions with little or no delay to LOS F
representing oversaturated conditions with excessive delays. The analysis methods
for each of the transportation facilities evaluated in this section are described
below.
Signalized Intersections
Operations of the signalized study intersections were evaluated using Contra Costa
Transportation Authority Level of Service (CCTALOS) method. The CCTALOS method
uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and
signal phasing) to estimate an intersection’s volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. Table
4.16-1 summarizes the relationship between the V/C ratio and LOS for signalized
intersections.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-5
Table 4.16-1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Services Description Sum of Critical
V/C Ratio
A
Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the
green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also
contribute to low delay.
< 0.60
B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop
than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. 0.61 - 0.70
C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or
both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though
many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping.
0.71 - 0.80
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, and/or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of
vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
0.81 - 0.90
E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable
delay. High delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle
lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.
0.91 - 1.00
F
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when
arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may
also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures.
Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to
such delay levels.
> 1.00
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Unsignalized Intersections
For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled)
intersections, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) – Special Report 209,
Chapter 17 method was used. With this method, operations are also defined by the
average control delay per vehicle, based on the delay associated with the stop signs.
For side-street stop-controlled intersections, the delay is estimated for movements
that must yield the right-of-way.1 An intersection average delay is estimated for all-
way stop intersections. Table 4.16-2 summarizes the relationship between delay
and LOS for unsignalized intersections.
1 Includes those turning movements from stopped approaches and left-turns from major
thoroughfares.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-6
Table 4.16-2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle (Seconds)
A Little or no traffic delays < 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Signal Warrant Analysis
Peak hour volume traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted for all unsignalized
study intersections not meeting acceptable LOS standards. The signal warrant
analysis was conducted using the criteria described in the Federal Highway
Administration’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). MUTCD
contains eight warrants (i.e., indicators) which identify whether the installation of a
signal would improve traffic conditions at an intersection operating at an
unacceptable LOS. Generally, meeting one of the signal warrants could justify
signalization of an intersection.
Roadway Segments
Roadways identified as Routes of Regional Significance in the East County Action
Plan were evaluated. The study area roadway segments were evaluated using the
Highway Capacity Software (HCS), which applies the two-lane highway analysis
methodology from Chapter 20 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Table
4.16-3 summarizes the relationship between percent time-spent-following (PTSF)2
and average travel speed with the LOS criteria for the two-lane highway segment
analysis.
2 Percent-time-spent-following (PTSF) is the average percent of total travel time that vehicles must
travel in platoons behind slower vehicles due to inability to pass on a two-lane highway. It therefore
represents the freedom to maneuver and convenience of travel.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-7
Table 4.16-3 Two-Lane Highway LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Percent of Time Spent Following Average Speed (mph)
A ≤ 35% > 55
B > 35-50% > 50-55
C > 50-65% > 45-50
D > 65-80% > 40-45
E > 80% ≤ 40
F Applies whenever the flow rate exceeds the segment capacity
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
LOS Standards
The LOS standards that apply to all study intersections and roadways within the
project site and its vicinity are listed in Subsection 4.16.4.
4.16.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway System
The project site is located east of Bixler Road on Point of Timber Road, in Discovery
Bay. A gated entry on Point of Timber Road provides major access to the project
site. Local access to the project site is provided by Bixler Road, Byron Highway,
Camino Diablo, and Vasco Road. Regional access to the project site is provided by
SR4, located approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site.
Highways
SR4 is a two-lane undivided highway that is east-west oriented east of the
intersection of Byron Highway (south) and west of the intersection of Byron
Highway (north). Between the two intersections with Byron Highway, SR4 and
Byron Highway are considered the same highway, and are oriented in a north-south
direction. The posted speed limit on this highway is 55 miles-per-hour (mph), and
there are paved shoulders.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-8
Byron Highway is a two-lane north-south undivided highway that extends north of
Balfour Road and south to the City of Tracy. As described above, Byron Highway
intersects SR4 in two locations, and is considered SR4 in between the two
intersections. The posted speed limit on this highway varies between 35 mph and
55 mph. Paved shoulders are provided on certain segments of this roadway.
Major Roadways
Bixler Road is a two-lane north-south road that extends north of Balfour Road to
south of SR4. This segment of Bixler Road has been improved with paved shoulders,
turn-lanes at major intersections, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks adjacent to the
existing urban development. The posted speed limit is 50 mph.
Vasco Road is a two-lane north-south roadway that connects the cities of
Brentwood and Livermore. Turn-lanes are provided at major intersections. The
posted speed limit varies between 45 and 55 mph.
Camino Diablo is a two-lane east-west roadway that connects Byron Highway and
Marsh Creek Road. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. There are no paved shoulders
on this roadway.
Other Roadways
Other roadways in the project vicinity include Marsh Creek Road, Balfour Road,
Walnut Boulevard, Sellers Avenue, and Point of Timber Road, all of which are two-
lane rural roads. Figure 4.16-1 includes a map of the study intersections as they
relate to these local roadways.
Existing Traffic and Circulation
Traffic Counts
Intersection turning movement counts were conducted for morning (6:00 to 9:00
AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods in January 2010, while County
schools were in session.
Typical peak hour traffic counts are taken from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to
6:00 PM. However, County staff requested that counts to be taken outside typical
peak hours to address concerns regarding the actual peak hours of travel for
residents of far eastern Contra Costa County. The observed start of the morning
peak hour began between 6:30 AM and 7:45 AM, depending on the intersection.
The start of the PM peak hour ranged from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-9
Existing Intersection Operations
Table 4.16-4 summarizes the results of the existing conditions at the 24
intersections that were evaluated. These results are based on both CCTALOS and
HCM methods previously discussed in Subsection 4.16.1, Methodology. All
signalized intersections (Nos. 1, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24) were analyzed using
the CCTALOS method.
Table 4.16-4 Existing Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
HCM Method CCTALOS Method
Delay2,3 LOS4 V/C Ratio LOS4
1. Balfour Road/ Brentwood
Boulevard Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.52 A
PM n/a n/a 0.50 A
2. Point of Timber
Road/Preston Drive Way/
Grand Way
AWS
AM 8.3 A n/a n/a
PM 7.7 A n/a n/a
3. Newport Drive/Bixler Road SSS
AM 5.9 (19.6) A (C/WB) n/a n/a
PM 2.6 (13.7) A (B/WB) n/a n/a
4. Newport Drive/Slifer Drive SSS
AM 3.1 (9.3) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
PM 3.1 (9.1) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
5. Newport Drive/ Newport
Lane SSS
AM 0.4 (8.9) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
PM 0.6 (9.0) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
6. Byer Road/Byron Highway SSS
AM 3.0 (14.4) A (B/WB) n/a n/a
PM 0.8 (16.8) A (C/WB n/a n/a
7. Holway Drive/Byron Highway SSS
AM 0.9 (13.9) A (B/EB) n/a n/a
PM 10.4 (31.2) A (D/EB) n/a n/a
8. Camino Diablo Road/Holway
Drive SSS
AM 6.8 (12.5) A (B/EB) n/a n/a
PM 5.5 (26.9) A (D/NB) n/a n/a
9. Sellers Avenue/ Balfour Road AWS
AM 10.0 A n/a n/a
PM 10.4 B n/a n/a
10.Balfour Road/Byron Highway AWS
AM 10.0 A n/a n/a
PM 9.2 A n/a n/a
11. Balfour Road/Bixler Road AWS
AM 8.8 A n/a n/a
PM 8.9 A n/a n/a
12.Point of Timber Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 5.6 (10.4) A (B/WB) n/a n/a
PM 3.2 (10.0) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-10
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
HCM Method CCTALOS Method
Delay2,3 LOS4 V/C Ratio LOS4
13. Point of Timber Road/ Bixler
Road SSS
AM 9.9 A n/a n/a
PM 9.0 A n/a n/a
14.SR4/Byron Highway (north
intersection) Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.32 A
PM n/a n/a 0.50 A
15. Marsh Creek Road/Walnut
Boulevard Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.56 A
PM n/a n/a 0.68 A
16. Sellers Avenue/ Marsh
Creek Road SSS
AM 12.9 B n/a n/a
PM 12.1 B n/a n/a
17. Marsh Creek Road/Byron
Highway Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.29 A
PM n/a n/a 0.31 B
18. Marsh Creek Road/Bixler
Road SSS
AM 1.2 (14.9) A (B/EB) n/a n/a
PM 2.2 (13.6) A (B/EB) n/a n/a
19. SR4/Byron Highway (south
intersection) Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.77 C
PM n/a n/a 0.58 A
20. SR4/Bixler Road Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.53 A
PM n/a n/a 0.44 A
21. SR4/ Newport Drive SSS
AM 3.7 (28.0) A (D/SB) n/a n/a
PM 1.6 (16.9) A (C/SB) n/a n/a
22. Camino Diablo Road/Vasco
Road Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.61 B
PM n/a n/a 0.63 B
23. Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 5.3 (17.1) A (C/WB) n/a n/a
PM 6.5 (17.0) A (C/WB) n/a n/a
24. SR 4 Bypass / Marsh Creek
Road Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.39 A
PM n/a n/a 0.39 A
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled
intersection.
2. Signalized and All-Way Stop intersection LOS based on average intersection control delay according to the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000).
3. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay for worst approach (in seconds per vehicle) is presented. All
calculations reflect the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methods. Delay for worst approach is provided (in
parentheses) for SSS controlled intersections.
4. LOS = Level of Service
5. CCTA volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Signalized intersection LOS based on Technical Procedures (Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, 1997)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-11
The remaining unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the HCM method.
Figures 4.16-2a and 4.16-2b present the existing traffic counts for the study
intersections at peak hours. As shown, all of the study intersections operate at
acceptable levels of service during both peak periods.
The eastbound approach at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection (No. 7)
operates at unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour; however, the overall
intersection operates at LOS A. Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets
are provided in Appendix B of the TIA (see Appendix I of this draft EIR).
Existing Roadway Segment Operations
Table 4.16-5 summarizes the results of the roadway segment analysis conducted for
Marsh Creek Road, Vasco Road, and Camino Diablo Road. Both Marsh Creek Road
and Camino Diablo Road operations meet the target Multi-modal Transportation
Service Objective (MTSO) of LOS D or better. However, Vasco Road operates at
unacceptable LOS E in the northbound or southbound directions during the AM or
PM peak hour.
Table 4.16-5 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Delay Index Summary
Roadway Segment Target MTSO1 Direction Eastbound/
Northbound
Westbound/
Southbound
Marsh Creek Road west
of SR4 D
AM C D
PM D D
Vasco Road south of
Camino Diablo Road D
AM E E
PM E E
Camino Diablo Road
west of Vasco Road D
AM C C
PM C C
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011
Bold indicates roadway segment not meeting MTSO
1. Target Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO)
Existing Multi-Modal Facilities
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Caltrans standards provide for three distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally
described below:
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-2aFigure
CirclePoint
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-2bFigure
CirclePoint
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-14
Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) provides a completely separate right-of-way for the
exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. Vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow is
minimized.
Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) provides a restricted right-of-way designated for
the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bike lanes are
generally five feet wide. Vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow is permitted. In
some cases, vehicle parking is permitted adjacent to bike lanes.
Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) provides a right-of-way designated by signs or
pavement markings for shared use between bicyclists and motor vehicles.
Class II Bikeways are provided on Bixler Road and Point of Timber Road. A Class III
Bikeway is designated on Marsh Creek Road. As part of the East County Bikeway
Plan 2005 Update, additional Class III facilities are planned along Vasco Road,
Camino Diablo, SR4, and Walnut Boulevard. Class II facilities are planned on Point of
Timber Road and Byron Highway as well as a Class I bike path along the East Contra
Costa Irrigation District Main Canal Trail (between Point of Timber Road and Balfour
Road).
Sidewalks are provided on Point of Timber Road, on the east side of Bixler Road
between SR4 and Balfour Road, and on segments of Byron Highway.
Transit
Tri Delta Transit provides bus service to Discovery Bay. Route 386 provides bus
service between the Discovery Bay Park and Ride and the Brentwood Park and Ride.
This route provides service three times per day in each direction on weekdays only,
with stops on the Bixler Road/Point of Timber Road and Point of Timber
Road/Preston Drive intersections, as well as the Discovery Bay Park and Ride. As of
March 2010, Route 386 serves 21 passenger trips per day on average.
Boat Traffic
The northwest portion of Kellogg Creek at the Indian Slough junction has been
identified as a congestion point due to its narrow width, high traffic volume (up to
approximately 1,000 boats/day in summer), and confined tidal flows. The minimum
channel width along this reach is approximately 100 feet, which meets the width
requirements for recreational marinas based on both federal (100 feet) and state
(75 feet) guidance. However, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) recommends
consideration of additional factors such as vessel size and maneuverability, traffic
congestion, and the effects of wind, waves, and currents, which may increase the
design width beyond the minimum requirements.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-15
Federal and state guidance does not provide recommendations for additional
channel width required due to boat traffic on a per boat basis for inland waterways
such as Discovery Bay. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the methodology
for sizing entrance channels is based on a minimum required width for the first
1,000 boats plus 100 feet of width per additional 1,000 boats serviced by the
channel. For example, a channel servicing 2,000 boats would require an additional
100 feet of width beyond the existing 100 feet minimum width requirement.
The same type of relationship is applied here to evaluate the existing channel width
in Kellogg Creek. Assuming the northwest portion of Kellogg Creek services
approximately 75 percent of the waterfront homes in Discovery Bay, the channel
should be sized for approximately 2,025 boats.3 The recommended channel size
based on this guidance (assuming a minimum state required width of 75 feet and
1,775 boats beyond the first 1,000) would be approximately 250 feet (i.e., an
additional 175 feet of width required due to high volume of boats). Based on this
rough guidance, the northwest portion of Kellogg Creek is likely undersized relative
to the existing boat traffic.
The waterways within Discovery Bay are designated as no wake zones with a posted
speed limit of 5 miles per hour (mph). The no wake zone begins at the entrances to
Discovery Bay from Indian Slough.
4.16.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Transportation & Circulation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan
contains the following relevant policies related to transportation and circulation:
Transportation & Circulation Element
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 specific period of time.
5-8 Direct frontage and access points on arterials and collectors shall be
minimized.
5-13 Physical conflicts between vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians shall
be minimized.
3 Seventy-five percent of the total 2,700 waterfront homes in Discovery Bay.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-16
5-14 Adequate lighting shall be provided for vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclists
safety, consistent with neighborhood desires.
5-15 Curbs and sidewalks shall be provided in appropriate areas.
5-16 Emergency response vehicles shall be accommodated in development
project design.
5-20 New subdivisions should be designed to permit convenient pedestrian
access to bus transit and efficient bus circulation patterns.
5-25 Planning and provision for a system of safe and convenient pedestrian ways,
bikeways and regional hiking trails shall be continued as a means of
connecting community facilities, residential areas, and business districts, as
well as points of interest outside the communities utilizing existing public
and semi-public right-of-way.
5-31 Local road dimensions shall complement the scale and appearance of
adjoining properties.
5-32 Landscaping and maintenance of street medians and curb areas shall be
provided where appropriate.
Project Consistency Analysis
The development of the project site would generate new traffic volumes that would
reduce the LOS ratings for some of the nearby intersections and roadways.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 and TRA-2 would lessen these
negative effects so that the impacted facilities would be able to operate at an
acceptable LOS, consistent with Policy 5-4.
Streets would be designed in compliance with County standards and requirements
of emergency service providers. In addition, access to the project site would be via
Point of Timber Road, which is not considered an arterial or collector street.
Incorporating an access point along this roadway would therefore not conflict with
Policy 5-8.
Consistent with Policy 5-16, Wilde Drive would provide emergency vehicle access
(EVA) only to the project site. The Wilde Drive EVA would also serve as a publicly
accessible pedestrian/bike access. An internal EVA road would be constructed in
the northwest portion of the project site through the proposed wetland mitigation
and open space area, consistent with Policy 5-16. The EVA road would also serve as
a publicly accessible pedestrian/bike trail and would include interpretive signage,
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-17
kiosks, and seating areas. Other pedestrian walkway systems included as part of the
project are discussed further in Subsection 4.16.4. The provision of these facilities
would make the project consistent with Policy 5-13, 5-15, 5-20, and 5-25.
Street medians and curb areas would be built in compliance with County standards,
and would provide new landscaping where appropriate, consistent with Policy 5-32.
Similarly, the project applicant has prepared a lighting plan for the review and
approval of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department and Zoning
Administrator. The review and approval would ensure that adequate lighting is
provided for vehicular and pedestrian safety, consistent with Policy 5-14.
The road dimensions on the project site would be similar to the adjacent Discovery
Bay and Discovery Bay West residential subdivisions, consistent with Policy 5-31.
4.16.4 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
transportation and traffic impact if it would:
a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks;
b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses;
c) Result in inadequate emergency access;
d) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety
of such facilities;
e) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit; or
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-18
f) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways.
Standards of Significance
The County’s LOS standards listed below were used to determine whether the
project would result in a significant impact to the study intersections and/or
roadway segments. In addition, the standards included for transit systems,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and site access and internal circulation were
developed in coordination with County staff, and are based on accepted industry
practice and adopted guidelines within the Contra Costa General Plan, East Contra
Costa County Bikeway Plan 2005 Update, and 2009 Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan.
Signalized Intersections
Signalized intersections designated as “Suburban” (Nos. 1, 15, and 20): Change
from LOS low-D (a volume to capacity ratio of 0.84 based on CCTALOS
standards) or better to LOS high-D, E, or F.
Signalized intersections designated as “Semi-Rural” (Nos. 14, 16, 17, 19, 22,
and 24): Change from LOS high-C (a volume to capacity ratio of 0.79 based on
CCTALOS standards) or better to LOS D, E, or F.
All signalized intersections: Deterioration in already unacceptable intersection
operations by a change in volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of more than 0.01
Unsignalized Intersections
All-way stop (AWS) intersections designated as “Suburban” (Nos. 2, 9, and 11):
Change from an average LOS low-D (an average delay of 30 seconds based on
HCM standards) or better to LOS high-D, E or F; and intersection meets MUTCD
Peak Hour Signal Warrant.
All-way stop (AWS) intersections designated as “Semi-Rural” (No. 10): Change
from an average LOS low-C (an average delay of 25 seconds based on HCM
standards) or better to LOS D, E or F; and intersection meets MUTCD Peak Hour
Signal Warrant.
Side-street stop (SSS) intersections designated as “Suburban” (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7,
8, 13, 18, 21, 23): Change from LOS low-D (an average delay of 30 seconds
based on HCM standards) or better to LOS high-D, E or F (except at intersections
on SR 4); and intersection meets MUTCD Peak Hour Signal Warrant.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-19
Side-street stop (SSS) intersections designated as “Semi-Rural” (Nos. 6, 12, and
16): Change from LOS C (an average delay of 25 seconds based on HCM
standards) or better to LOS D, E or F; and intersection meets MUTCD Peak Hour
Signal Warrant.
All unsignalized intersections: Deterioration in already unacceptable
intersection operations by a change in average delay of more than 5 seconds.
Roadway Segments
Change from the target Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO) of
LOS D or better to an LOS E or F.
Transit System
Transit impacts would be considered significant if the project conflicts or creates
inconsistencies with adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies or standards.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems
Pedestrian and Bicycle impacts would be considered significant if the project
conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines,
policies or standards.
Site Access and Internal Circulation
A site access or internal circulation impact would be considered significant if the
project would result in any of the following:
Inadequate emergency access; or
Designs for on-site circulation, access and parking areas that fail to meet
industry standard design guidelines.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that no impact would result for four of the
criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
a) Would the project result in a change to air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-20
The project does not involve aircraft or activities that would interfere with air traffic
patterns. The project includes a 100-foot by 100-foot Medivac helicopter landing
area near the Marine Patrol Substation. However, emergencies that would require
a Medivac helicopter landing on the project site are rare and would not result in a
change to existing air traffic patterns since Medivac helicopters currently land on
nearby levees when called for an emergency response. Furthermore, the closest
public or private airstrip is more than 2 miles away.
b) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses?
Internal circulation was reviewed with respect to the proposed roadway lane
widths, sight distance, and vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts. The project includes
seven streets and cul-de-sacs that would be privately owned and maintained by a
homeowners association. Pedestrian walkways would be provided on 5 and 8-foot
sidewalks on both sides of the internal roadways, with a 5-foot landscaped buffer
between the roadway and sidewalk throughout the proposed development. Other
than the EVA/public trail, the roadways within the project site would not have bike
lanes. Therefore, bicyclists would be sharing the road with motor vehicles. Given
that the traffic volumes and vehicular speeds within the project site are anticipated
to be low, road-sharing is not anticipated to cause a major conflict between
bicyclists and motor vehicles.
In addition, the internal roadways were evaluated to determine whether adequate
sight distance is provided for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The Caltrans Highway
Design Manual provides sight distance standards based on the design speed of the
roadway. A design speed of 25 miles per hour (mph) was used for the internal
roadways, which corresponds to a minimum sight distance of 155 feet. All of the
internal intersections provide adequate sight distance for pedestrian and bicyclist
safety.
c) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Streets would be designed in compliance with County private road standards and
requirements of emergency service providers. With two exceptions, streets would
include a 56-foot right-of-way (36 feet measured from each edge of pavement),
with room for parking on both sides and 10 feet on each side of the street for
separated sidewalks and a landscaped linear bioretention facility.4
4 Linear bioretention facilities are landscaped elements designed to remove silt and pollution from
surface runoff water.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-21
Exception #1: The extension of Point of Timber Road from its current terminus
to the site’s internal circulation roadway would be 40-feet wide within a 70-foot
right-of-way.
Exception #2: ‘C’ Court is a short cul-de-sac with homes fronting on one side
only. Therefore, it is designed within a 43-foot right-of-way and has a 28-foot
road measured from each edge of pavement, a 5-foot linear bioretention facility
on both sides, and parking and a 5-foot sidewalk on only one side. As such, it
meets County private road standards and Fire District requirements cul-de-sac
bulbs would be designed to meet Fire District turning-radius requirements.
In addition, an EVA road would be constructed in the northwest portion and
southwest portion of the project site. The EVA in the northwest portion of the site
would be constructed through the proposed wetland mitigation and open space
area. The applicant proposes that EVA/public trail to be 20 feet wide, with an 8-foot
paved trail in the middle and a 6-foot compacted aggregate shoulder on each side.
The EVA would connect the northernmost portion of ‘A’ Street to the northernmost
portion of ‘B’ Street, as illustrated in Figure 3-5.5 A similar EVA would be
constructed to the sheriff’s marine patrol substation. As such, the project would
provide adequate emergency access to the entire project site.
d) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
There is no planned transit service within the project development. However, the
project would connect to existing sidewalks on Point of Timber Road and Wilde
Drive. These sidewalks would provide public pedestrian/bicycle access to the open
space areas within the project site. The sidewalk connections would also provide
access from the site to the closest existing transit service (at the intersection of
Point of Timber Road/Preston Drive), schools, and parks. As such, the project would
not conflict with adopted pedestrian plans or guidelines identified in the Contra
Costa General Plan, East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan 2005 Update, or 2009
Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The project is also consistent with the East
County Trails Master Plan dated July 2009. The Master Plan envisions access
through the Pantages site, but does not identify a precise alignment. In
conformance with this Master Plan, the project provides access via the public trail
5 Street names will be changed prior to final subdivision map.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-22
through the emergent marsh area. Trail users can also exit the Pantages site and
connect to other existing and planned trails that provide access to the south
towards Highway 4, as shown on the Master Plan
The two Tri Delta Transit routes that would serve the project site currently operate
well under capacity. Route 386 has a daily capacity of 312 trips but currently serves
21 average trips per day (approximately 7 percent capacity). The Delta Express has
a capacity of 224 trips per day and currently serves 59 average trips per day
(approximately 26 percent capacity). The excess capacity available on the existing
transit system would accommodate additional transit trips generated by the project.
The project does not conflict with any transit system plans or guidelines and would
therefore not create an impact.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that less-than-significant impacts would
result for two of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
e) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system?
f) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion
management program?
Project Trip Generation
The amount of traffic projected to enter and exit a site is referred to as the project’s
trip generation. Trip generation estimates for the project were calculated using trip
generation data published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) 2008
Trip Generation (8th Edition) and are presented below in Table 4.16-6. The project,
as proposed, is estimated to generate approximately 2,790 daily trips, 219 AM peak
hour trips, and 295 PM peak hour trips.6
6 The project applicant is required to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
pursuant to Section 82-32.010 of the County Code, which applies to residential projects that would
result in 13 or more dwelling units. Possible trip generation reductions from implementation of the
TDM program were not applied to the trip generation in order to provide a more conservative analysis.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-23
Table 4.16-6 Pantages Bays Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Size
(Dwelling Units) Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family1 292 2,790 55 164 219 186 109 295
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: DU = dwelling units.
1. Trip generation based on the average rates for Single-Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210) in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition), as presented below.
Daily Average Rate: T = 9.57 * X
AM Average Rate: T = 0.75 * X (inbound = 25%, outbound = 75%)
PM Average Rate: T = 1.01 * X (inbound = 63%, outbound = 37%)
Where: T = trip ends and X = number of dwelling units.
The project also includes a Sheriff’s Marine Patrol station. The station is expected to
be staffed during summer weekends to patrol the waterways of surrounding the
project site. As such, the station is not expected to generate a significant number of
vehicle trips during the weekday peak hours analyzed in this report. Furthermore,
due to the maritime nature of the station, some officers may arrive via water.
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The routes that trips use to approach and depart from a site and the percentage of
project traffic anticipated to use each route is known as a project’s trip distribution.
Using the CCTA travel demand model and knowledge of existing travel patterns, trip
distribution percentages were developed for the existing (2010) and cumulative
(2035) conditions in the project vicinity. These percentages were presented to and
approved by County staff in December 2009. Two different trip distribution
percentages were computed because the planned growth in the area would affect
project trips in the future, with a greater percentage of trips remaining in the
Brentwood area under cumulative conditions.
Figure 4.16-3 presents the trip distributions for the existing and cumulative
conditions. Peak hour project trip assignments to each study intersection for
Existing Plus Project conditions are presented on Figure 4.16-4a and Figure 4.16b.
The peak hour project traffic volumes were added to the existing traffic volumes to
determine Existing Plus Project traffic impacts. These peak hour traffic volumes are
shown in Figures 4.16-5a and 4.16-5b.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-3Figure
CirclePoint
Project Trip Distribution
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-4aFigure
CirclePoint
Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-4bFigure
CirclePoint
Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-5aFigure
CirclePoint
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-5bFigure
CirclePoint
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-29
Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations
The results of the Existing Plus Project intersection analysis are provided in
Tables 4.16-7 and 4.16-8. With the addition of project generated traffic, levels of
delay and/or V/C ratios are expected to increase somewhat from the existing
conditions. With the exception of the Holway Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7), Camino
Diablo Road/Holway Drive (No. 8), and SR4/Byron Highway (south) (No. 19)
intersections, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable
LOS with the addition of project traffic. However, neither the Holway Drive/Byron
Highway nor Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive unsignalized intersections would
meet the peak hour signal warrant analysis. As previously discussed, an
unsignalized intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS must meet the MUTCD
peak hour signal warrant for the impact to be considered significant. Because
neither intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant, impacts to these
intersections as a result of the project generated traffic are considered less than
significant.
Impacts to the SR4/Byron Highway (south) are discussed further below under
discussion of significant impacts.
Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Operation
Existing Plus Project roadway segment operations were calculated for the weekday
AM and PM peak hours. Impacts were evaluated using the MTSO target of LOS D, as
previously discussed. Table 4.16-9 summarizes the results of the roadway segment
analysis. Both Marsh Creek Road and Camino Diablo would continue to operate at
acceptable LOS D with the addition of project generated traffic.
However, the addition of project traffic would exacerbate the existing deficiency of
Vasco Road, which does not meet the MTSO target of LOS D under Existing or
Existing Plus Project conditions. Impacts to Vasco Road are discussed further below
under discussion of significant impacts.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-30
Table 4.16-7 Existing Plus Project: Peak Hour Intersection HCM Levels of Service
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
Existing Existing Plus Project
Delay2,3 LOS4 V/C Ratio LOS4
2. Point of Timber Road/Preston Drive
Way/Grand Way AWS
AM 8.3 A 9.8 A
PM 7.7 A 8.5 A
3. Newport Drive/Bixler Road SSS
AM 5.9 (19.6) A (C/WB) 6.4 (24.6) A (C/WB)
PM 2.6 (13.7) A (B/WB) 2.4 (15.6) A (C/WB)
4. Newport Drive/Slifer Drive SSS
AM 3.1 (9.3) A (A/WB) 2.8 (9.4) A (A/WB)
PM 3.1 (9.1) A (A/WB) 2.6 (9.2) A (A/WB)
5. Newport Drive/Newport Lane SSS
AM 0.4 (8.9) A (A/WB) 0.3 (8.9) A (A/WB)
PM 0.6 (9.0) A (A/WB) 0.5 (9.2) A (A/WB)
6. Byer Road/Byron Highway SSS
AM 3.0 (14.4) A (B/WB) 3.0 (15.6) A (C/WB)
PM 0.8 (16.8) A (C/WB 0.8 (19.1) A (C/WB)
7. Holway Drive/Byron Highway SSS
AM 0.9 (13.9) A (B/EB) 1.2 (15.0) A (C/EB)
PM 10.4 (31.2) A (D/EB) 20.4 (56.9) C (F/EB)
8. Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive SSS
AM 6.8 (12.5) A (B/EB) 7.9 (13.6) A (B/SB)
PM 5.5 (26.9) A (D/NB) 6.3 (33.9) A (D/NB)
9. Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road AWS
AM 10.0 A 10.3 B
PM 10.4 B 10.8 B
10.Balfour Road/Byron Highway AWS
AM 10.0 A 10.4 B
PM 9.2 A 9.5 A
11. Balfour Road/Bixler Road AWS
AM 8.8 A 8.9 A
PM 8.9 A 8.9 A
12.Point of Timber Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 5.6 (10.4) A (B/WB) 6.6 (11.3) A (B/WB)
PM 3.2 (10.0) A (A/WB) 4.0 (10.7) A (B/WB)
13. Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road SSS
AM 9.9 A 11.7 B
PM 9.0 A 11.5 B
16. Sellers Avenue/Marsh Creek Road SSS
AM 12.9 B 13.5 B
PM 12.1 B 12.7 B
18. Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road SSS
AM 1.2 (14.9) A (B/EB) 1.4 (17.6) A (C/EB)
PM 2.2 (13.6) A (B/EB) 2.8 (16.7) A (C/EB)
21. SR4/Newport Drive SSS
AM 3.7 (28.0) A (D/SB) 3.8 (28.7) A (D/SB)
PM 1.6 (16.9) A (C/SB) 1.8 (20.7) A (C/SB)
23. Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 5.3 (17.1) A (C/WB) 5.3 (17.4) A (C/WB)
PM 6.5 (17.0) A (C/WB) 6.5 (17.3) A (C/WB)
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Notes: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled intersection.
2. Signalized and All-Way Stop intersection level of service based on average intersection control delay according to the Highway Capacity
Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000).
3. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay for worst approach (in seconds per vehicle) is presented. All calculations reflect the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual methods. Delay for worst approach is provided (in parentheses) for SSS controlled intersections. The
worst approach is indicated by WB (westbound), EB (eastbound), NB (northbound), or SB (southbound).
4. LOS = Level of Service
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-31
Table 4.16-8 Existing Plus Project: Peak Hour Intersection CCTA Levels of
Service
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
Existing No Project Existing Plus Project
V/C Ratio2 LOS3 V/C Ratio2 LOS3
1. Balfour Road/Brentwood Boulevard Signal
AM 0.52 A 0.54 A
PM 0.50 A 0.51 A
14. SR4/Byron Highway (north) Signal
AM 0.32 A 0.34 A
PM 0.30 A 0.32 A
15. Marsh Creek Road/Walnut
Boulevard Signal
AM 0.56 A 0.57 A
PM 0.68 B 0.69 B
17. Marsh Creek Road/Byron Highway Signal
AM 0.29 A 0.32 A
PM 0.31 A 0.33 A
19. SR4/Byron Highway (south) Signal
AM 0.77 C 0.81 D
PM 0.58 A 0.62 B
20. SR4/Bixler Road Signal
AM 0.53 A 0.55 A
PM 0.44 A 0.46 A
22. Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road Signal
AM 0.61 B 0.65 B
PM 0.63 B 0.68 B
24. SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road Signal
AM 0.39 A 0.39 A
PM 0.39 A 0.40 A
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection
2. CCTA volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Signalized intersection level of service based on Technical Procedures (Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, 1997).
3. LOS = Level of Service
Table 4.16-9 Existing Plus Project Roadway Operation
Roadway
Segment
Target
MTSO1 Direction
Eastbound/
Northbound
Westbound/
Southbound
Existing Existing Plus
Project Existing Existing Plus
Project
Marsh Creek Road D
AM C D D D
PM D D D D
Vasco Road D
AM E E E E
PM E E E E
Camino Diablo
Road D
AM C C C C
PM C C C C
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011
Bold indicates roadway segment not meeting MTSO
1. Target Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO)
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-32
Boating Traffic
The project would construct 116 waterfront lots with deepwater access and 176
interior lots. Assuming one boat per waterfront household and County-wide
ownership rates for interior lots, the project is estimated to contribute an additional
131 new vessels to Discovery Bay. Based on the California State Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) average trip rate of 26.1 trips per year (PWA 2010), this
would result in approximately 3,420 new boat trips per year originating from
Pantages Bays. This represents an approximately 2.8 percent increase in the
number of local boat trips within Discovery Bay due to the project.
The project would widen the northwest portion of Kellogg Creek to a minimum
width of 300 feet in an effort to reduce boat traffic congestion and tidal flow
constriction (refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality). Assuming the
project would introduce an additional 131 boats to Kellogg Creek, the widened
channel would service approximately 2,906 boats7 and require a minimum width of
approximately 265 feet (per the methods discussed above).8 Since the proposed
widened channel dimensions exceed the recommended width, congestion within
the widened segment of Kellogg Creek is not expected to be a significant impact.
In Indian Slough, which does not currently experience boat traffic congestion
problems, the relatively small increase in number of boats due to the project (2.8
percent) is not expected to have a significant impact on boat traffic (PWA 2010).
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Impact TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and
worsen LOS conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south intersection) signalized
intersection. (Significant)
As shown in Table 4.16-8, the signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway (south
intersection) is projected to deteriorate from LOS C to LOS D during the AM peak
hour with the addition of project trips. This is below the County’s standards of
significance for signalized, Semi-Rural intersections and is therefore considered a
significant impact.
7 As previously discussed, Kellogg Creek is currently estimated to service approximately 2,775 boats.
With the addition of 131 boats from the project, the creek would service approximately 2906 boats.
8 Assuming a minimum width of 75 feet per the first 1,000 boats serviced, plus 100 feet per additional
1,000 boats, the creek would need an additional 190 feet (2,906 – 1,000 ÷ 100 = 190) beyond the
minimum requirement: 75 feet + 190 ft = 265 feet
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-33
Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at
the SR4/Byron Highway (south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound
to westbound left-turn lane from Byron Highway onto SR4 and its associated
receiving lane. This improvement is currently identified in the 2007 Contra
Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although
funding has not been identified. If this improvement is not included in a County
fee program or other funding program at the time of project approvals, the
project applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the improvement
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve traffic conditions at
this intersection to an LOS high-C (a V/C ratio of 0.72) during the AM peak hour
and LOS A during the PM peak hour.
Impact TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and
worsen LOS conditions on Vasco Road. (Significant)
The addition of project traffic would exacerbate the existing deficiency of Vasco
Road, which does not meet the MTSO target of LOS D under Existing or Existing Plus
Project conditions.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2: The project applicant shall pay regional roadway
fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA)
fee program to upgrade existing roadways.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
As there are no specific plans to provide additional capacity on this segment of
Vasco Road, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes on
nearby rural roads, and create conflicts with the farm equipment that share these
roads during the peak summer months. (Significant)
Several roadways serving Discovery Bay and the proposed Project site are two-lane
rural roads that have not been improved to current County standards. While the
Project does not take direct access to these roadways and there are roads that serve
the Project site that have been improved to current standards, the Project could
increase traffic on unimproved rural roadways. These roadways serve active
farming uses and during the agricultural season farm equipment often uses these
roadways to transport items and equipment between fields. The Project, in
conjunction with other approved projects in the area, is expected to increase traffic
on unimproved roadways potentially creating conflicts with farm equipment during
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-34
the peak summer months. As the added vehicle traffic could create increased
hazards with incompatible equipment on unimproved roadways, the Project, in
conjunction with other planned and pending development, could result in a
potentially significant roadway impact during peak farming periods.
Several projects are listed in the Draft East County Regional Area of Benefit (AOB)
Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list that would widen roads to current
County standards and would provide wider shoulders on area roadways that serve
active farms, including Sellers Avenue, Byron Highway and Marsh Creek Road. This
would allow farm vehicles to travel outside the main travel lane, reducing potential
vehicle/farm equipment conflicts. The project shall pay the required AOB fee which
would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project applicant
to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.16.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative impact area for traffic and transportation includes the forecasted
growth in the County. The CCTA Decennial Travel Demand Model served as the
basis for the traffic forecasts. The most recent version of the CCTA model reflects
land use assumptions from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), with
forecasts out to the year 2035. The CCTA forecasts are considered the Cumulative
No Project conditions. Traffic volumes that would be generated by the project were
added to the Cumulative No Project volumes to develop the Cumulative Plus Project
volumes.
This analysis also assumes that several roadway and intersection improvements
would be constructed by the Year 2035. Only roadway improvements with
identified funding were included in this scenario. Major roadway improvements
that are assumed to be completed by 2035 include:
Widening of SR4 Bypass from two to four lanes from Lone Tree Way to Balfour
Road with interchanges at Sand Creek Road and Balfour Road.
Widening of SR4 freeway to provide three mixed-flow lanes and one high-
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction west of Hillcrest Avenue.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-35
Existing intersection lane configurations and controls were assumed to remain the
same at all study intersections under the cumulative conditions, with the exception
of the Newport Drive/Newport Lane intersection, which includes a new two lane
west leg connecting to the proposed Newport Pointe development (refer to the
cumulative Impacts discussion in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures). Traffic signal timings were optimized. The Cumulative No
Project and Cumulative Plus Project intersection HCM and CCTA LOS analysis results
are summarized in Tables 4.16-10 and 4.16-11, respectively. Under Cumulative Plus
Project conditions, 16 of the 24 study intersections are projected to operate at an
unacceptable LOS.
Table 4.16-12 summarizes the results of the cumulative roadway segment analysis.
Vasco Road and Marsh Creek Road do not meet the target MTSO of LOS D in either
direction under the cumulative conditions.
The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient operations at Newport
Drive/Bixler Road (No. 3), Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive (No. 8), and Balfour
Road/Byron Highway (No. 10) intersections; however, none of these intersections
would meet the peak hour signal warrant. As previously discussed, an unsignalized
intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS must meet the MUTCD peak hour
signal warrant for the impact to be considered significant. Because intersection
Nos. 3, 8, and 10 would not meet the peak hour signal warrant, cumulative impacts
to these intersections as a result of the project generated traffic are considered less
than significant.
The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient operations at the
Marsh Creek Road/Walnut Boulevard (No. 15) and SR4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road
intersections (No. 24); however, the addition of project trips would not increase the
V/C ratio by more than 0.01. As previously discussed, the deterioration of already
unacceptable intersection operations (for signalized facilities) must result in a
change in V/C ratio of more than 0.01 for the impact to be considered significant.
Because project generated traffic would not increase the V/C ratio by more than
0.01 at intersection Nos. 15 and 24, cumulative impacts to these intersections are
considered less than significant.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-36
Table 4.16-10 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection LOS (HCM Method)
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project
Delay2,3 LOS4 Delay LOS4
2. Point of Timber Road/Preston Drive
Way/Grand Way AWS
AM 8.7 A 10.0 A
PM 8.1 A 9.4 A
3. Newport Drive/Bixler Road SSS
AM 6.4 (22.5) A (C) 6.9 (26.7) A (D)
PM 6.9 (40.5) A (E) 8.7 (57.2) A (F)
4. Newport Drive/Slifer Drive SSS
AM 3.1 (9.7) A (A) 2.9 (9.8) A (A)
PM 2.9 (10.6) A (B) 2.8 (10.9) A (B)
5. Newport Drive/Newport Lane SSS
AM 2.3 (9.9) A (A) 2.1 (10.1) A (B)
PM 1.9 (10.8) A (B) 1.8 (11.1) A (B)
6. Byer Road/Byron Highway SSS
AM 6.7 (42.2) A (E) 7.8 (51.1) A (F)
PM 2.8 (49.0) A (E) 3.2 (61.5) A (F)
7. Holway Drive/Byron Highway SSS
AM 1.4 (24.8) A (C) 1.8 (28.7) A (D)
PM >100 (>100) F (F) >100 (>100) F (F)
8. Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive SSS
AM 8.3 (19.5) A (C) 10.1 (22.6) B (C)
PM 7.5 (57.9) A (F) 8.8 (73.1) A (F)
9. Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road AWS
AM >100 F >100 F
PM 91.7 F >100 F
10.Balfour Road/Byron Highway AWS
AM 29.5 D 37.2 E
PM 15.4 C 17.3 C
11. Balfour Road/Bixler Road AWS
AM 12.5 B 12.6 B
PM 12.4 B 12.6 B
12.Point of Timber Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 8.4 (20.2) A (C) 12.0 (26.5) B (D)
PM 13.2 (39.9) B (E) 30.2 (93.7) D (F)
13.Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road SSS
AM 12.8 B 16.0 C
PM 20.9 C 46.4 E
16. Sellers Avenue/Marsh Creek Road SSS
AM >100 F >100 F
PM 81.7 F 87.7 F
18. Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road SSS
AM 61.8 (>100) F (F) 86.2 (>100) F (F)
PM 51.8 (>100) F (F) 89.2 (>100) F (F)
21. SR4/Newport Drive SSS
AM 15.6 (>100) C (F) 17.6 (>100) A (F)
PM >100 (>100) F (F) >100 (>100) F (F)
23. Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 80.3 (>100) F (F) 83.5 (>100) F (F)
PM >100 (>100) F (F) >100 (>100) F (F)
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Notes: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled intersection.
2. Signalized and All-Way Stop intersection level of service based on average intersection control delay according to the Highway Capacity
Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000).
3. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay for worst approach (in seconds per vehicle) is presented. All calculations reflect the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual methods. Delay for worst approach is provided (in parentheses) for SSS controlled intersections. The
worst approach is indicated by WB (westbound), EB (eastbound), NB (northbound), or SB (southbound).
4. LOS = Level of Service
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-37
Table 4.16-11 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection LOS (CCTALOS Method)
Location Control1 Peak Hour
Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project
V/C Ratio2 LOS3 V/C Ratio2 LOS3
1. Balfour Road/Brentwood
Boulevard Signal
AM 0.58 A 0.59 A
PM 0.65 B 0.67 B
14. SR4/Byron Highway
(north) Signal
AM 0.68 B 0.69 B
PM 0.53 A 0.55 A
15. Marsh Creek
Road/Walnut Boulevard Signal
AM 0.93 E 0.94 E
PM 1.09 F 1.09 F
17. Marsh Creek Road/Byron
Highway Signal
AM 0.77 C 0.79 C
PM 0.77 C 0.79 C
19. SR4/Byron Highway
(south) Signal
AM 1.00 E 1.02 F
PM 0.89 D 0.92 E
20. SR4/Bixler Road Signal
AM 0.69 B 0.70 C
PM 0.72 C 0.74 C
22. Camino Diablo
Road/Vasco Road Signal
AM 0.72 C 0.74 C
PM 0.87 D 0.89 D
24. SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek
Road Signal
AM 0.86 D 0.86 D
PM 0.82 D 0.83 D
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection
2. CCTA volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Signalized intersection level of service based on Technical Procedures (Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, 1997).
3. LOS = Level of Service
Table 4.16-12 Cumulative Roadway Segment Analysis
Roadway
Segment
Target
MTSO1 Direction
Eastbound/
Northbound
Westbound/
Southbound
Cumulative No
Project
Cumulative
Plus Project
Cumulative
No Project
Cumulative
Plus Project
Marsh Creek Road D AM E E E E
PM E E E E
Vasco Road D AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Camino Diablo Road D AM C C C C
PM C C C C
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011
Bold indicates roadway segment not meeting MTSO
1. Target Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO)
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-38
Impact CUM TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Byer Road/Byron
Highway (No. 6). (Significant)
The westbound approach of the Byer Road/Byron Highway (No. 6) intersection is
projected to operate at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative
No Project conditions, and LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
already deficient westbound operations by more than 5 seconds. This intersection
would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Byer Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and a southbound left turn lane. This improvement is
not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersections of Holway
Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway (No. 23).
(Significant)
The unsignalized intersections of Holway Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino
Diablo Road/Byron Highway (No. 23) are projected to operate at LOS F during the
PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient intersection
operations by more than 5 seconds. Both intersections meet the peak hour signal
warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and
are therefore considered significant impacts.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-39
Table 4.16-13 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Peak Hour Intersection
Levels of Service (HCM Method)
Mitigation Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Plus Project
Delay2,3 LOS4 Delay LOS4
CUM TRA-1 6. Byer Road/Byron
Highway SSS AM 7.8 (51.1) A (F) 11.1 B
PM 3.2 (61.5) A (F) 8.7 A
CUM TRA-2
(Option 1)
7. Holway
Drive/Byron Highway SSS
AM 1.8 (28.7) A (D) 0.7 (25.5) A (D)
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 16.6 (>100) C (F)
23. Camino Diablo
Road/ Byron Highway SSS/Signal
AM 83.5 (>100) F (F) 21.9 C
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 33.7 C
CUM TRA-2
(Option 2)
7. Holway Drive/
Byron Highway SSS/Signal
AM 1.8 (28.7) A (D) 8.3 A
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 15.4 B
23. Camino Diablo
Road/ Byron Highway SSS/Signal
AM 83.5 (>100) F (F) 25.1 C
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 34.2 C
CUM TRA-3 9. Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road
AWS /
Signal
AM >100 F 29.9 C
PM >100 F 31.3 C
CUM TRA-4 12. Point of Timber
Road/ Byron Highway
SSS /
Signal
AM 12.0 (26.5) B (D) 11.5 B
PM 30.2 (93.7) D (F) 14.8 B
CUM TRA-5 13. Point of Timber
Road/ Bixler Road
AWS /
Signal
AM 16.0 C 30.9 C
PM 46.4 E 31.8 C
CUM TRA-6 16. Marsh Creek
Road/ Sellers Avenue
AWS /
Signal
AM >100 F 13.9 B
PM 87.7 F 13.0 B
CUM TRA-7 18. Marsh Creek
Road/ Bixler Road
SSS /
Signal
AM 86.2 (>100) F (F) 21.6 C
PM 89.2 (>100) F (F) 16.7 B
CUM TRA-8 19. SR4/Byron
Highway (south) Signal
AM 68.0 E 27.8 C
PM 43.7 D 16.9 B
CUM TRA-9 21. SR4/Newport
Drive
SSS /
Signal
AM 17.6 (>100) A (F) 16.7 B
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 15.8 B
CUM TRA-10 22. Camino Diablo
Road/ Vasco Road Signal AM 44.5 D 44.4 D
PM 61.0 E 42.1 D
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicates potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled intersection.
2. Signalized and All-Way Stop intersection level of service based on average intersection control delay according to the Highway
Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000).
3. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay for worst approach (in seconds per vehicle) is presented. All calculations
reflect the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methods. Delay for worst approach is provided (in parentheses) for SSS controlled
intersections.
4. LOS = Level of Service
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-40
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1): Mitigation of the unacceptable
traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing a traffic signal
at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and providing left-turn pockets on all
approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound Camino Diablo Road to
northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway
would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway
intersection. This mitigation would require modifications to the adjacent
railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required left turn
pocket on the eastbound approach.
This improvement is included in the Draft East County Regional AOB
Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall
pay the required AOB fee.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2): As an alternative to Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1), mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway intersections can be achieved by installing traffic signals at both
intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn lane pocket at the
Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Traffic would not be shifted under
this mitigation, and a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing at the Camino
Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection would not be needed.
A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection is not identified in any
funding program. Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding program.
If these improvements are not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior
to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14 percent of
the total costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of Option 1 or Option 2 of this
mitigation measure would improve conditions at these two intersections to
acceptable LOS levels.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-41
Impact CUM TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9) is projected to
operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
already deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project
and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at all four intersection
approaches.
This improvement is included in the Draft East County AOB Transportation
Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required
AOB fee. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact
to less-than-significant.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-4: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Byron Highway (No. 12). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway (No. 12) is
projected to operate at acceptable LOS B during the PM peak hour under
Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
intersection operations from LOS B to unacceptable LOS D. This intersection would
meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative
Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection can be
achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the Draft
East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project
applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-42
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-5: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Bixler Road (No. 13). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road (No. 13) is
projected to operate at acceptable LOS C during the PM peak hour under
Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
intersection operations from LOS C to LOS E. This intersection would meet the peak
hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project
conditions, and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved
by installing a traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at all four intersection
approaches. This improvement is not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of the
total costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-6: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Marsh
Creek Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16) is
projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No
Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would
degrade already deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-43
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project
and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be
achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the Draft
East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project
applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-7: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Marsh
Creek Road/Bixler Road (No. 18). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road is projected to
operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
already deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project
and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding
program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 10 and 11 percent of the
total costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-44
Impact CUM TRA-8: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway
(south) (No. 19). (Significant)
The signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway (south) is projected to operate at
LOS E during the AM peak hour and unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour
under Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of project trips would further
degrade intersection No. 19 operations to LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E
during the PM peak hour, and would increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01. This
is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) intersection can be achieved by
adding a second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach and a second
through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach.
The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is
currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement
& Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. The second
through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any
funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the
total costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-14, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-9: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of SR4/Newport Drive
(No. 21). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of SR4/Newport Drive (No. 21) is projected to operate
at LOS F during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus
Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-45
Table 4.16-14 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Peak Hour Intersection
Levels of Service (CCTALOS Method)
Mitigation Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Cumulative Plus
Project
Mitigated Plus
Project
V/C2 LOS3 V/C2 LOS3
CUM TRA-3 6. Byer Road/Byron
Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.65 B
PM n/a n/a 0.59 A
CUM TRA-4A
7a. Holway Drive/Byron
Highway SSS AM n/a n/a n/a n/a
PM n/a n/a n/a n/a
23a. Camino Diablo Road/
Byron Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.60 B
PM n/a n/a 0.71 C
CUM TRA-4B
7b. Holway Drive/Byron
Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.53 A
PM n/a n/a 0.68 B
23b. Camino Diablo Road/
Byron Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.64 B
PM n/a n/a 0.73 C
CUM TRA-5 9. Sellers Avenue/Balfour
Road AWS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.64 B
PM n/a n/a 0.54 A
CUM TRA-6 12. Point of Timber Road/
Byron Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.35 A
PM n/a n/a 0.41 A
CUM TRA-7 13. Point of Timber Road/
Bixler Road AWS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.50 A
PM n/a n/a 0.64 B
CUM TRA-8 16. Marsh Creek Road/
Sellers Avenue AWS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.64 B
PM n/a n/a 0.52 A
CUM TRA-9 18. Marsh Creek Road/
Bixler Road SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.73 C
PM n/a n/a 0.67 B
CUM TRA-10 19. SR4/Byron Highway
(south) Signal AM 1.02 F 0.69 B
PM 0.92 E 0.59 A
CUM TRA-11 21. SR4/Newport Drive SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.76 C
PM n/a n/a 0.68 B
CUM TRA-12 22. Camino Diablo Road/
Vasco Road Signal AM 0.74 C 0.74 C
PM 0.89 D 0.78 C
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled intersection.
2. CCTA volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Signalized intersection level of service based on Technical Procedures (Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, 2006)
3. LOS = Level of Service
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-46
intersection operations by more than five seconds. This intersection would meet
the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus
Project conditions, and is therefore considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the SR4/Newport Drive intersection can be achieved by installing a
traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 4 and 6 percent of the total
costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-10: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of Camino
Diablo Road/Vasco Road (No. 22). (Significant)
The intersection Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road (No. 22) is projected to operate at
LOS D during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project Conditions. The
addition of project trips would increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, which is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved
by adding a northbound right turn lane. This improvement is included as one of
several improvements at this intersection in the Draft East County AOB
Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall
pay the required AOB fee.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-14, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-47
Impact CUM TRA-11: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Vasco Road. (Significant)
Service along Vasco Road, south of Camino Diablo Road, would not meet the MTSO
target LOS D in either the northbound or southbound direction during the AM or PM
peak hour under either cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would
worsen the LOS along this roadway segment. This is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11: The project applicant shall pay regional
roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority
(ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
As there are no plans to provide additional capacity on this roadway segment,
the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact CUM TRA-12: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Marsh Creek Road. (Significant)
Service along Marsh Creek Road, west of SR4, would not meet the MTSO target LOS
D in either the eastbound or westbound direction during the AM or PM peak hour
under either cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen the
LOS along this roadway segment. This is considered a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project applicant
to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways. However, as there are
no specific plans to provide additional capacity on this segment of Marsh Creek
Road, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Fair Share Percentages
Fair share contribution percentages were calculated for each intersection impact
mitigation measure. This is the percentage of cumulative peak hour trips added to
an intersection that are contributed by the project and is calculated by dividing the
project trips by the Cumulative Plus Project traffic volume minus the Existing traffic
volume. This percentage is calculated for the AM and PM peak hours. The larger of
the two peak hour percentages is used for calculating cost allocations. Fair share
contribution percentages are summarized below in Table 4.16-15. The dollar
amount to be paid by the project applicant shall be determined by the project
applicant’s consultant based on the calculated fair share of the total project cost
and submitted to the County Public Works Department for review and approval.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-48
Table 4.16-15 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Fair Share Calculations
Cumulative
Mitigation Intersection Peak Hour Existing
Volume
Cumulative
Plus Project
Volume
Project
Volume
% Fair
Share
CUM TRA-1 6. Byer Road /
Byron Highway
AM 991 1,580 72 12%
PM 979 1,770 97 12%
CUM TRA-2
(Option 2)
7. Holway Drive /
Byron Highway
AM 821 1,405 72 12%
PM 957 1,670 97 14%
23. Camino Diablo
Road / Byron
Highway
AM 736 1,410 11 2%
PM 895 1,590 14 2%
CUM TRA-6 13. Point of Timber
Road / Bixler Road
AM 840 1,337 195 39%
PM 703 1,567 263 30%
CUM TRA-8 18. Marsh Creek
Road / Bixler Road
AM 669 1,460 77 10%
PM 645 1,560 104 11%
CUM TRA-9
19. SR4 / Byron
Highway (south
intersection)
AM 1,868 2,695 72 9%
PM 1,885 2,795 98 11%
CUM TRA-10 21. SR4 / Newport
Drive
AM 1,549 2,120 24 4%
PM 1,805 2,335 33 6%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates larger fair share to be used in cost allocation procedures.
4.16.6 REFERENCES
Fehr & Peers (2011). Pantages Bays EIR Transportation Analysis.
PWA (2010). Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment Memorandum.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-1
4.17 VISUAL RESOURCES AND AESTHETICS
This section analyzes the effects of the project on views from nearby public
viewpoints and private residences. Visual simulations represent the existing and
future views from publicly accessible vantage points. Representative views from the
project site are also presented in this section.
No comments related to the aesthetics of the project site were received in response
to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report (EIR).
4.17.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Characteristics
Regional characteristics of East County include largely flat terrain with partially
obstructed, long-range views of Mount Diablo. In the Discovery Bay area, common
characteristics include large expanses of marshlands, native and non-native annual
grasslands, and an extension of the water and Delta system of the Suisun Bay. The
overall visual character of the project region is rural and consists of agricultural
farmlands and clustered communities of single family residences.
Site Characteristics
The project site is undeveloped except for three abandoned structures. Point of
Timber Road runs east-west through the center of the site, and is partially paved.
Stands of mature trees are clustered in the northeastern corner of the project site,
with a few smaller groups of trees (less than 10) near the abandoned residential
structures. Topographically, the project site is flat and is bordered by open
waterways to the north, east, and south.
Visual Resources
Diablo Range
Significant topographic variations in landscape characterize a majority of the land
within the County. The largest and most prominent of these hills, the Diablo Range,
form the background view for much of the developed areas surrounding the project
site. Long-range views of the Diablo Range are visible from the waters and
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-2
residences of Discovery Bay. However, existing views are partially obstructed by
intervening power lines and the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West residential
subdivisions.
The County General Plan states “…views of these major ridgelines help to reinforce
the rural feeling of the County’s rapidly growing communities.” Views of these
scenic ridges, hillsides, and rock outcroppings are considered scenic vistas.
Scenic Waterways
The Delta system of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays is designated by the
County General Plan as a scenic vista. Kellogg Creek, which forms the eastern and
southern border of the project site, is identified as part of the Delta system and is
also designated as a scenic waterway by the General Plan. The County designates
scenic waterways for the purpose of conserving the scenic character of the Delta,
and gives special consideration to potential impacts to these waterways when
reviewing projects.
Significant Trees
Policies within the County General Plan (General Plan) preserve significant trees and
natural vegetation, including natural woodlands to the maximum extent possible.
The General Plan does not clearly define “significant trees” or “significant natural
vegetation” in terms of visual resources.
While there is no comprehensive list of specific features that automatically qualify
trees as scenic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
certain characteristics can be identified which contribute to the determination of a
scenic resource (see Subsection 4.17.3, Analysis of Potential Impacts for a detailed
discussion of the criteria used to evaluate the project’s potential impacts to visual
resources).
The site contains 80 trees, primarily scattered in small clusters in the northeastern
portion of the site. The trees are not part of larger forest or park, and the analysis
contained Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, did not identify any historically
significant structures or historically significant events associated with the site that
might have suggested the trees were associated with such as resource.
Scenic Roadways
According to the General Plan, a scenic route is defined as a “road, street, or
freeway which traverses a scenic corridor of relatively high visual or cultural value.
It consists of both the scenic corridor and the right-of-way.” The closest designated
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-3
scenic roadway is State Route 4 (SR-4), located approximately 1-mile south of the
project site. Given the relative distance from SR-4 and intervening residential
development, the project site is not visible from SR-4.
Sensitive Viewers
Public views are considered to be sensitive when they have high scenic quality and
are experienced by large groups of people. Sensitive viewers for the proposed
project include adjacent residents, motorists, boaters, and pedestrians. The degree
to which these views would be affected by project development varies depending
on the viewers’ physical location and the duration of the view. For example,
because the general topography of the project site and its vicinity is flat and long-
distance views are generally available, views from motorists travelling along Point of
Timber Road, and views from boaters traveling along Discovery Bay waterways
would likely be of a moderate duration. Views from the adjacent residential
subdivisions would be of an extended duration.
Six publicly-accessible viewpoints were selected for analysis by the County to
represent existing views. Viewpoints A, B, C, and D were determined to provide
representative views into the project site from off-site locations, and best represent
the visual character and quality and/or the unique visual resources of the
surrounding areas. Viewpoint E and F were determined to provide representative
views from the project site towards off-site locations. Figure 4.17-1 provides a key
to the location and direction of these viewpoints.
Views of the Site
The project site is visible from several public viewpoints, including the waters
surrounding Discovery Bay to the east, Indian Slough to the north, and Point of
Timber Road, as well as private properties in the residential subdivisions to the
north, east, and west.
Viewpoint A –Kellogg Creek
Viewpoint A provides a view from Kellogg Creek towards the eastern edge of the
property (see Figure 4.17-2). The viewpoint demonstrates the constrained width of
the creek which would be widened by the project to provide for increased boater
safety. Pampas grass, bushes, and other low-lying foliage are visible along the banks
of Kellogg Creek, and views of the trees lining the ECCID dredge cut indicate the
northern boundary of the project site.
The project conditions depicted in the simulated Viewpoint A are discussed in
Subsection 4.17.3 of this section.
Viewpoint Locations
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Rose Associates, 2006; CirclePoint, 2010.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.17-1Figure
CirclePoint
OLDECCI
D
D
R
E
D
G
E
C
U
T
PROPOSED MARSH CREEK TRAILB
AC
E
D
F
Existing view from Kellogg Creek looking north
Visual simulation of proposed project and marine patrol substation
PANTAGES BAYS
4.17-2Figure
CirclePoint
Viewpoint A: Kellogg Creek
Source: Environmental Vision, 2010.
Discovery Bay
Discovery Bay
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-6
Viewpoint B – Proposed East Bay Regional Park District Trail – Marsh
Creek Trail to Discovery Bay
According to their 2007 Master Plan Map, the East Bay Regional Park District
(EBRPD) proposes to extend the Marsh Creek Regional Trail along the ECCID Dredge
Cut, north of the project site. Viewpoint B provides a view towards the project site
from the proposed “Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay” (see Figure 4.17-3). This
viewpoint, highlights the flat terrain and expansive views currently afforded from
this location. (The project proposes to plant trees along the creek in the foreground
that will eventually screen views from the proposed trail to the project site.) The
housing in Village II, Lakeshore, is visible along the western property boundary.
The project conditions depicted in the simulated Viewpoint B are discussed in
Subsection 4.17.3 of this section.
Viewpoint C − Point of Timber Road
Point of Timber Road is a single-lane roadway that provides access to the project
site from the west. As shown in Figure 4.17-4, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians
at the terminus of Timber Road have unimpeded views into the site. Point of
Timber Road is partially paved and is lined with short, non-native grasses and
shrubs, as seen in the foreground from this viewpoint. Notable elements from this
location include one barn and associated outbuildings in the center of the site and
stands of mature trees, as seen in the mid-ground of this figure. Distant views of
homes in Discovery Bay are visible in the background, although the Delta waters are
not visible because of the flat topography and the intervening distance of
approximately 1,000 feet.
Residents in the Ravenswood and Lakeshore developments would have a similar
view, although both subdivisions include backyard fencing that blocks views to the
west from exterior areas. Views from the second floor of these subdivisions likely
have views to the Delta because of the higher elevation.
Viewpoint D − Discovery Bay
Figure 4.17-5 illustrates the existing views of the project site from the Discovery Bay
residential development (east of the site). As previously described in Viewpoint A,
direct views of the project site are visible from residents of Discovery Bay. Looking
west from the outermost Discovery Bay homes, open views of Kellogg Creek and its
vegetated bank dominate the foreground of this
PANTAGES BAYS
4.17-3Figure
CirclePoint
Viewpoint B: View from proposed
Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay
Source: Environmental Vision, 2010.
Discovery Bay
West
Discovery Bay
West
Existing view from proposed Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay, looking south
Visual simulation of project from proposed Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.17-4FigureViewpoint C: Point of Timber Road
100
FEET
500 200
Source: CirclePoint, 2007.
Existing barn (to be demolished)
Discovery Bay West Subdivision
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.17-5FigureViewpoint D: Discovery Bay
Source: CirclePoint, 2007.
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-10
figure. The project site encompasses the midground views from this location, and
distant, obscured views of the Diablo Range are visible in the background, beyond
the Discovery Bay West subdivision.
Views from the Site
Views from the site include views of the existing residential development to the
north, east, and west, as well as the waters of Discovery Bay. The subdivisions to the
west are organized in a grid-like pattern, whereas Discovery Bay is oriented around
curvilinear streets with intersecting bays and coves. The outermost homes in
Discovery Bay have deep water access and docks. Individual lots, especially those
closest to the project site, often include permanent and temporary structures
associated with water access (docks, boats slips, etc.).
Viewpoint E and F − Discovery Bay and Discovery Bay West
Figures 4.17-6 and 4.17-7 include typical views from the site of the Discovery Bay
and the Discovery Bay West developments.
4.17.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Open Space Element of the General Plan contains the following relevant policies
related to visual resources and aesthetics:
Open Space Element
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.
9-14: High quality engineering of slopes shall be required to avoid soil erosion,
downstream flooding, slope failure, loss of vegetative cover, high
maintenance costs, property damages and damages to visual quality.
Particularly vulnerable areas should be avoided for urban development.
Slopes of 26 percent 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.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.17-6FigureViewpoint E: View of Discovery Bay West from Project Site
Source: CirclePoint, 2007.
Discovery BayWest
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.17-7FigureViewpoint F: View of Discovery Bay from Project Site
Source: CirclePoint, 2007.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-13
9-15: In order to conserve the scenic beauty of the County, developers shall 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 damages to significant trees and other visual
landmarks.
9-16: 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 for all residences.
9-20: New power lines shall be located parallel to existing lines in order to
minimize their visual impact.
9-24: Any new development shall be encouraged to generally conform with
natural contours to avoid excessive grading.
9-28: 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 levee, as otherwise specified in this Plan.
9-47: Recreational development shall be allowed only in a manner which
complements the natural features of the area, including the topography,
waterways, vegetation, and soil characteristics.
In addition to the policies stated, the General Plan identifies portions of the San
Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system as a scenic resource and identifies Kellogg Creek
as a scenic waterway.1
The General Plan does not clearly define “significant trees” or “significant natural
vegetation” in terms of visual resources. While there is no comprehensive list of
specific features that automatically qualify trees as scenic resources under CEQA,
certain characteristics can be identified which contribute to the determination of a
scenic resource. The following is a partial list of visual qualities and conditions
which, if present, may indicate the presence of a scenic resource (Caltrans 2008):
A tree that displays outstanding features of form or age;
A landmark tree or a group of distinctive trees accented in a setting as a focus of
attention; or
An unusual planting that has historical value.
1 Figure 9-1, Scenic Ridges and Waterways, Contra Costa County General Plan, page 9-6.
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-14
Conversely, examples of features that lack the typical characteristics of a scenic
resource include:
Trees that are commonplace and repetitious, occurring frequently along a
roadway;
The fringe trees of a forest; or
Trees that are incompatible with their surroundings.
Policy Consistency Analysis
The project would be consistent with the General Plan policies related to visual
resources.
Although the project would raise the elevations of the building pads for the
residential lots, the topography of the proposed development would remain flat. In
general, the proposed development would conform to the natural contours of the
land, specifically in the areas proposed for the preservation of existing emergent
marsh and wetland habitat.
The project would result in the removal of all vegetative cover on the project site,
but would replace vegetation through the planting of 770 trees throughout the
development, as shown in Figure 3-6. The planting would be based on a palette
that includes primarily drought tolerant and native species. Additional trees and
native vegetation would be planted along enhanced creek banks to provide riparian
habitat. Implementation of these project features, in addition to the preservation
and enhancement of the emergent marsh and wetland habitat on the northern
portion of the site, would be consistent with policies 9-2, and 9-28, and 9-47. As
such, the project would be consistent with policies 9-14, 9-15, and 9-24.
An emergency vehicle access (EVA) road would be constructed in the northwestern
portion of the project site through the proposed wetland mitigation and open space
area. The EVA road would also serve as a publicly accessible pedestrian/bike trail
and would include interpretive signage, kiosks, and seating areas, consistent with
policy 9-16.
Utilities (including electricity) for the project site would be undergrounded,
consistent with policy 9-20.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-15
4.17.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
impact to visual resources/aesthetics if it would:
a) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area.
Discussion of No Impact
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that no impact would
result for one of the four significance criteria. The following discussion presents the
evidence in support of this conclusion.
a) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
There are no state-designated scenic highways within 10 miles of the project site.
As such, the project would have no impacts to views from a scenic highway.
Although there are no state designated scenic highways that would be affected by
the project, the County identifies SR-4 as a local scenic route. As previously
discussed, SR-4 is located more than 1-mile south of the project site, and would not
be visible to motorists travelling along this route. Therefore, the project would have
no impacts to views from this local scenic route.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
less-than-significant impact for two of the four significance criteria. The following
discussion presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-16
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
The General Plan identifies two major visual resources in the County: (1) scenic
ridges, hillsides, and rock outcroppings of the Diablo Range; and (2) the San
Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system. As previously discussed, both resources are
visible from the areas surrounding the project site. In addition, policies within the
General Plan require preservation, to the maximum extent possible, of significant
trees and natural vegetation, including natural woodlands. For the purposes of this
analysis, “significant trees” or “significant natural vegetation” were defined per the
list of visual qualities and conditions presented in Subsection 4.17.2, Regulatory
Setting.
Trees and Vegetation
There are 80 trees scattered in small clusters throughout the project site, primarily
in the northeastern portion of the site. The trees are not part of larger forest or
park, and do not represent a distinctive planting that has historical value, nor do
they represent a unique feature of the area that is the focus of attention. As such,
the trees on the project site are not considered a significant visual resource
protected under the General Plan. The removal of the trees would therefore not
represent a significant impact to visual resources.
The Diablo Range
Distant views of the Diablo Range from Discovery Bay residences are partially
obstructed by residential development and power lines (see Figure 4.17-5).
Construction of the proposed two-story single-family homes would introduce urban
residential uses that would be compatible with surrounding residential
development.2 Given that the project site and vicinity is relatively flat, the proposed
construction would impede long-range views to the west, and would incrementally
obstruct views of the Diablo Range along the distant horizon.
Because views of the Diablo Range are already partially obstructed by the Discovery
Bay West development, and because the development is compatible with the type
and intensity of surrounding development, construction of the project is not
considered a significant impact to a scenic vista.
2 The homes that would be constructed as part of the project would be custom built and/or
production-type products similar to the existing homes in Discovery Bay and Discovery Bay West. As
such, the project applicant does not currently have elevation estimates and/or drawings for the
proposed development.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-17
Scenic Waterways
Kellogg Creek and the associated waterways of the Delta estuary system are not
visible from most of the adjacent private properties to the northwest and west of
the project site due to the flat topography and the 1,000 feet or more of distance.
Views of the Delta from the second story of these residences—to the extent that
they currently exist—would be partially obstructed by the project, although the new
bays and coves would be created in much closer proximity, potentially providing
expanded views of the water.
Views of scenic waterways from Discovery Bay (east of the site) would not be
impacted by the development of the project site, as the proposed improvements
would occur west of Kellogg Creek. Therefore, implementation of the project would
have a less-than-significant impact to a designated scenic waterway.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Development of the project site would introduce one- to two-story residential
buildings on a predominantly undeveloped vacant site. The project would be similar
in type, density, and quality with surrounding subdivisions. The project would not
substantially alter the existing urban-residential character of the area. Figure 4.17-2
illustrates the proposed project conditions for boaters travelling north along Kellogg
Creek. As seen in this figure, the project improvements along Kellogg Creek would
very similar to the existing Discovery Bay development, and would also have the
same types of permanent and temporary structures associated with water access
(i.e., docks, boats slips, etc.).
The project would construct enhanced marshlands on the northern portion of the
site, and would improve the natural habitat that is visible from the north,
northwest, and east. Figure 4.17-3 illustrates future project conditions for
individuals using the proposed EBRPD Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay. This
visual simulation illustrates the distance to the proposed project development from
the future trail, and the amount of space that would be provided as part of the
project’s emergent marsh and open space area. This visual simulation illustrates an
unobstructed view of the project site, and does not show proposed vegetation that
would be planted in the foreground along the canal bank as part of the mitigation
requirements for biological impacts (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2).
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-18
The open space and reconstructed marshlands would create a visual buffer for
individuals looking at the project site from the north. Additionally, views from the
north of the project site, looking south, would not be substantially altered by the
project because of the scale of the proposed development and its consistency with
the surrounding neighborhood developments.
Given the above, impacts related to degradation of the existing character or quality
of the site and its surroundings are considered less than significant.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
significant impact for one of the four significance criteria. The following discussion
presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Impact VIS-1: The project would create new sources of light and glare which could
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Significant)
Existing sources of lighting include nearby residential buildings and headlights from
vehicles travelling along Point of Timber Road. The project would include lighting
elements typical of a residential neighborhood (e.g., porch lights, street lights, etc.)
that would introduce new sources of nighttime lighting to the project site and
surrounding areas. The project applicant proposes the use of street light fixtures
that minimizing uplight and glare. The cutoff optical system (IES) on the streetlight
fixtures allows only 1 percent uplight. This means that the light from this fixture
allows only 1 percent of candela3 intensity to be emitted at an angle above 90
degrees to the ground or other lateral angles around the lamp. This cutoff feature is
designed to minimize sky glow and energy waste. The fixtures would be mounted
on sixteen-foot-tall poles, and spaced at approximately 115 foot intervals along all
project streets.
Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would reduce the potential impact of the new sources of
residential light and glare, and potential for lateral spread of lighting onto adjacent
properties.
3 A candela is a unit of light measurement that refers to the power emitted by a light source in a
particular direction.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-19
Mitigation Measure VIS-1: The project applicant shall prepare a lighting plan
for the review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Exterior lighting shall
be low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall utilize motion detection
systems where applicable. In general, the light footprint of individual units shall
not extend beyond the periphery of each property. Implementation of exterior
lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply with the standard California
Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the
lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This measure includes specific direction to ensure the development of a lighting
system that complies with the requirements of the standard California Building
Code, including provisions to prevent nighttime lighting from spilling out onto
the adjacent properties. Compliance with the provisions of the building codes
would therefore reduce the lighting impacts to a less-than-significant level.
4.17.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for aesthetics includes any proposed development and/or
cumulative projects that would affect scenic resources within the County.
The General Plan EIR noted three primary areas where scenic quality could be
degraded:
development of vacant areas would reduce natural open space and would
change the County’s character.
new development that is obtrusive, inconsistent with surrounding development
or which is placed on a location of unique scenic value.
development of hillsides, ridges, and the Bay and Delta shoreline
For the first impact, the EIR noted that adoption of the ULL would concentrate
development within 35 percent of County lands, preserving 65 percent of County
lands from urban development. Although the project would develop vacant land, it
is within the ULL and is therefore identified for conversion to an urban use, along
with the adjacent subdivisions that have already been developed.
As discussed in this section, the project site is not would be similar in type, density,
and quality to the surrounding subdivisions and would not therefore result in a
cumulative contribution to the degradation of scenic quality noted in the second
impact.
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-20
The project would not develop any hillsides or ridgelines, but would develop the
shoreline along Kellogg Creek to provide private docks with deep water access. This
development would degrade the shoreline from its current state, which is
characterized as low quality creek bank habitat. To address impacts to the shoreline
and associated biological species, the applicant would be required to enhance
11,060 linear feet of creek bank habitat on Pantages Island and along the ECCID
dredge cut to provide high and moderate quality shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
These enhancements would be visible to the public through the public trail to be
provided through the emergent marsh and wetland mitigation area (see Section 4.3,
Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure BIO-2). With the implementation of this
and other associated enhancement measures, the project’s contribution to this
identified impact would not be considerable.
4.17.5 REFERENCES
California Building Code, Title 24, Parts 1 and 6, Building Energy Efficiency
Standards. November 5, 2003
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2008). Standard Environmental
Reference (SER): Chapter 27, Visual & Aesthetics Review.
Contra Costa County General Plan (2005), Open Space Element.
5-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section
15126.6, this draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains a comparative
impact assessment of alternatives to the project. The primary purpose of this
section is to provide decision makers and the general public with a range of
reasonable project alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic project
objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the project’s significant
adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for these alternatives
analyses are noted below.
An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project;
An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency,
but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process;
Reasons for rejecting an alternative include:
Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives;
Infeasibility; or
Inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
5.1.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Pantages Bays Project (project) is described and analyzed in the previous
chapters with an emphasis on significant impacts and mitigation measures to avoid
these impacts. The project would result in the following significant unavoidable
impacts:
Traffic: The project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions
along Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road. As there are no plans to provide
additional capacity on these roadway segments, the impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable. This would also be a significant unavoidable
cumulative impact.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-2
Global Climate Change: The project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in excess of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
(BAAQMD) threshold of 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)
per service population per year and would therefore have a considerable
contribution to global climate change. This would be a significant unavoidable
cumulative impact.
5.1.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The two alternatives to the project analyzed in this section are as follows:
No Build Alternative: The site would remain in its existing condition and no
development would occur.
Reduced Density (No Project Alternative): This alternative assumes future
development would be consistent with the existing general plan and zoning
designations of the project site.
The two alternatives to the project are analyzed below and include a comparison of
the project and each individual project alternative. In several cases, the description
of the impact may be the same under each alternative when compared with the
CEQA thresholds of significance (i.e., both the project and the alternative would
result in a less than significant impact). The actual degree of impact may be slightly
different between the project and each alternative, and this relative difference is
the basis for a conclusion of greater or lesser impacts.
The CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be
identified when compared to the project and other alternatives. If the alternative
with the least environmental impact is determined to be the “no project
alternative,” the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives.
Table 5-1 below presents a summary matrix of the project impacts in comparison
with all three alternatives.
5.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the two main objectives of the project
are as follows:
Build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and a
proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-water
access and individual docks; and
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-3
Widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site to
reduce water velocities and improve public safety in that section of Kellogg
Creek.1
Other key project objectives include:
Construct market-rate housing to meet the needs of present and future
residents of eastern Contra Costa County;
Develop a project consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods (i.e.,
6,000- to 21,320-square-foot lots) to the east and west of the project site and
that creates an improved link between the original Discovery Bay and
Discovery Bay West;
Provide for flood protection in a conservative manner that exceeds current
County minimum standards for finished floor elevations above the 100-year
storm base flood elevation (BFE);
Reduce the need for dredging by Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) and
improve water quality in Kellogg Creek and Indian Slough through appropriate
bank stabilization and habitat restoration along the project shoreline, further
reducing the amount of scour and associated sedimentation;
Create new high- and moderate-quality bank habitat in and near the project
site and enhance existing banks from low-quality to high-quality bank habitat
to benefit native fish species;
Preserve the majority of the emergent marsh in the northwestern portion of
the site and all of the emergent marsh on Pantages Island;
Provide public pedestrian/bicycle access to and through the preserved open
space areas on the north side of the project site, with open views of the Delta
water, and provide seating areas and kiosks with educational signage; and
Provide improved safety for project residents and within Discovery Bay by
constructing a marine patrol substation with a two-boat dock at the
northeasterly point on the project site, and provide funding by future property
owners through a police service district tax for an extra deputy sheriff who
could operate out of the substation on an as-needed basis.
1 The existing channel is narrower than is the width generally required by RD 800.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-4
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain in its current state and there
would be no development of residential housing units, roadways, and utilities
infrastructure. The site would remain privately-owned and the open space wetland
mitigation area would remain unimproved. There would be no changes to parcels
on the site or any amendments to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.
5.3.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Under Alternative 1 no new structures would be built, the existing buildings on site
would remain vacant and no new human occupation or use of the project site would
occur. Project impacts related to construction, new buildings, and human
occupation of the site would therefore be completely avoided. Because annual
disking and cattle grazing would still occur, Alternative 1 would have the potential to
impact biological resources. Alternative 1 would not address abandoned
groundwater wells on the project site, which have the potential to impact water
quality.
The following analysis evaluates the impacts of Alternative 1 in these two topic
areas, as compared to the project. The remaining issue areas are not discussed
further since Alternative 1 would not result in impacts in these categories, although
they are shown in Table 5-1 below.
Biological Resources
Alternative 1 would involve no new human occupation or construction. Therefore
Alternative 1 would avoid many of the impacts to biological resources when
compared with the project. Although Alternative 1 would involve fewer ground
disturbing activities than the project, annual disking of the site has the potential to
result in some impacts to the California red-legged frog, the western pond turtle
and the western burrowing owl. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have biological
resources impacts slightly less than the project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The project site contains abandoned groundwater wells that could act as direct
conduits to groundwater for hazardous waste. Alternative 1 would have the same
risks as the project in terms of water quality impacts from abandoned groundwater
wells in the area (Impact HYD-2), although all other impacts would be reduced
when compared to the project.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-5
5.3.2 CONCLUSION
The No Build Alternative would avoid the project’s significant unavoidable impacts
and would have less impact on most environmental topical areas. However, this
alternative would not advance any of the project objectives.
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 2 – REDUCED DENSITY (NO
PROJECT) ALTERNATIVE
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 (e)(3)(A), when a project is a revision
to an existing land use or regulatory plan, the No Project alternative will be the
continuation of the existing land use or regulatory plan for the project site. Project
site parcels are currently designated by the General Plan as Agricultural Lands (AL),
Delta Recreation and Water (WA), and zoned as a General Agricultural District (A-2)
and a Heavy Agricultural District (A-3).
The Agricultural Lands (AL) land use designation allows for all land-dependent and
non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. The General Plan
permits residential uses at a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per 5
acres. Other uses related to processing of agricultural products, agricultural support
services and small-scale visitor uses are allowed with a land use permit.
The A-2 and A-3 zoning designations allow the site to be developed with agricultural
uses, such as general farming and sheds and warehouses, and with residential uses,
such as a single-family dwelling or a family care home. A detached single-family
dwelling is allowed on each parcel with the A-2 or A-3 zoning designation. Other
uses, such as commercial recreational facilities, medical offices, or churches, may be
allowed with a land use permit.
Alternative 2 assumes primarily rural residential land uses on approximately 171
acres as allowed under the existing general plan and zoning designations. For
purposes of this analysis, five of the parcels on the project site are considered
developable. This alternative assumes five single-family residential units would be
constructed on the project site in accordance with current zoning designations. This
alternative would not require a General Plan amendment.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-6
5.4.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Under Alternative 2, the project site would be developed with rural residential uses
that would include a few agricultural-related structures such as barns and sheds.
This alternative assumes that the existing wetlands and emergent marsh would be
protected, similar to the project. The limits of development would therefore be the
same as the project, but the density would be reduced by approximately 98 percent.
The reduced density of this alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips, reducing
the traffic-related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Project impacts related to
air quality, biology, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous
materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and recreation,
utilities, and visual resources would be similarly reduced.
The following analysis evaluates the impacts of Alternative 2 as compared to the
project.
Agricultural Resources
The project site does not contain farmland designated “Prime,” “Unique,” or of
“Statewide Importance”, or land that is protected under a Williamson Act contract.
Similarly, the project site does not contain any forest land. As such, development
under either the project or Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to
agricultural or forest resources.
Air Quality
In comparison to the project, Alternative 2 provides 98 percent fewer residential
homes, and therefore substantially reduces the emissions form the use of wood-
burning stoves, resulting in reduced air quality impacts from the operation of the
proposed development (Impact AQ-1).
Both the project and Alternative 2 would result in construction-related emissions
(Impact AQ-2); however, as the physical expanse of Alternative 2 would be less than
the project, construction-related emissions that could affect sensitive receptors
would be reduced.
Biological Resources
Although the density of development allowed by Alternative 2 would be significantly
less than the project, some or all of the 80 trees on the project site could be
removed or disturbed during construction of the five residences and associated
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-7
agricultural-related structures under Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2 would
have reduced impacts to protected trees on the project site when compared with
the project (Impact BIO-1).
Alternative 2 would not involve creek widening activities, creations of new bays or
waterfront homes, and would avoid this impact and the need for mitigation (Impact
BIO-2).
Vernal pool fairy shrimp were identified in a seasonal wetland on the project site
that could be avoided by Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts to vernal pool fairy
shrimp under Alternative 2 would be similar to the project (Impact BIO-3).
Project development has the potential to result in impacts to the California red-
legged frog since the project site provides suitable habitat for this species, which is
both federal-listed as threatened, and is also a California species of special concern.
Development of Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to the California red-
legged frog when compared to the project (Impact BIO-4).
Development of the project has the potential to result in impacts to the giant garter
snake since the project site provides suitable habitat for this federal and state-listed
threatened species. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to the
giant garter snake when compared to the project (Impact BIO-5).
The western pond turtle is a California species of special concern that is known to
occur on the project site. Development of the project has the potential to impact
individual western pond turtles and their habitats. Similarly, development under
Alternative 2 would impact western pond turtles and their habitats (Impact BIO-6).
Project construction activities related to channel widening and excavation of
uplands have the potential to impact federal and/or state-listed fish species, as well
as fish species designated by the State of California as Species of Special Concern.
However, Alternative 2 would not involve creek widening activities or excavation of
interior bays or coves. Therefore, Alternative 2 would avoid this impact and
associated avoidance measures (Impact BIO-7). The enhancement of creek bank
habitat along the ECCID dredge cut and Pantages Island would not occur under this
Alternative.
Project construction activities would have a potentially significant impact on nesting
and foraging habitat of tree nesting raptors, Swainson’s hawk, and other protected
nesting birds. Although Alternative 2 would result in the removal of fewer trees
when compared to the project, it would result in similar construction activities that
could impact the nesting and foraging habitat of tree nesting raptors, Swainson’s
hawk, and other protected nesting birds (Impact BIO-8, BIO-9, and BIO-11).
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-8
Project development has the potential to result in impacts to the western burrowing
owl since they are known to nest adjacent to the project site and their presence on
the project site cannot be ruled out. Development of Alternative 2 would have
greater flexibility to avoid impacts to the western burrowing owl when compared to
the project (Impact BIO-10).
The project would have potential impacts to the waters of the Unites States and
waters of the State due to construction and development activities near the
designated waters. Since development of the project site is also proposed under
Alternative 2, impacts to waters of the United States and waters of the State would
be similar.
Cultural Resources
Subsurface construction associated with both the project and Alternative 2 would
have the same potential to damage unknown cultural resources in the project area
(Impacts CUL-1 through CUL-4). However, as the physical expanse of development
under Alternative 2 would be reduced, the likelihood of these discoveries occurring
would be less when compared to the project.
Energy
Under Alternative 2 there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes and
therefore less energy demands than when compared to the project. Neither the
project nor Alternative 2 would result in significant impacts related to Energy.
Geology and Soils
Similar to the project, Alternative 2 would expose new structures and people to
adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic related ground
failure including liquefaction and lateral spreading (Impact GEO-1). Development
under Alternative 2 would also result in similar soil erosion potential when
compared to the project (Impact GEO-2). Taken as a whole, Alternative 2 would
result in fewer homes or structures on the project site such that seismic and soil-
related hazards would endanger fewer people; however, exposure to hazards would
still be possible for anyone on the site, resulting in a similar level of impact.
Global Climate Change
In comparison to the project, there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes
under Alternative 2, and therefore approximately 98 percent fewer greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (i.e., approximately 102 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
[CO2e]) when fully developed. This level of emissions is below the BAAQMD CEQA
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-9
Guidelines’ threshold of significance of 1,100 metric tons CO2e emissions per year.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would substantially reduce the impacts to global climate
change to a less-than-significant level.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 2 would require similar construction activities as the project; therefore,
Alternative 2 would have the same risks associated with the release of hazardous
materials (Impacts HAZ-1 and HAZ-2) and related impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors (Impact HAZ-3) would occur as when compared to the project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Development of the project site under Alternative 2 would alter the existing
drainage patterns in the area to a lesser degree than what is proposed by the
project, resulting in reduced impacts to water quality when compared to the project
(Impact HYD-1). Alternative 2 would have the same risks as the project in terms of
water quality impacts from abandoned groundwater wells in the area (Impact HYD-
2). Development would be subject to the same flood risks from future sea level rise
under either the project or Alternative 2 (Impacts HYD-4 and HYD-5). Alternative 2
would not include waterfront development or the widening of Kellogg Creek, as
such water quality impacts related to these construction activities under the project
(Impact HYD-3) would be avoided under Alternative 2.
Land Use and Planning
Alternative 2 would allow development on the project site consistent with the
current general plan designations. This alternative would not require a General Plan
Amendment or a rezone and would be consistent with applicable land use plans and
policies, similar to the project.
However, Alternative 2 does not allow for a concentration of development within
the boundaries of the Discovery Bay ULL. Although Alternative 2 would be
compatible with land uses and densities in the surrounding area similar to the
project, it should be noted that development allowed by Alternative 2 would be at a
much lower density than surrounding land uses.
Mineral Resources
The project site does not contain any mineral resources. Development under either
the project or Alternative 2 would not result in impacts to mineral resources.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-10
Noise
Construction of either the project or Alternative 2 would create noise levels at
adjacent residences that would exceed the County’s standards (Impact NOI-1). The
project would require a much longer construction period and would involve more
intensive grading, excavation, and shoring of creek banks. Alternative 2 would result
in less intrusive construction-period impacts.
Population and Housing
Under Alternative 2 there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes and
therefore less population growth than when compared to the project.
Public Utilities
Under Alternative 2 there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes and
therefore less population growth than when compared to the project. This
reduction in population growth would result in lesser impacts related to utility
demands (Impact UTIL-1 and Impact UTIL-2).
Traffic and Circulation
In comparison to the project, there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes
under Alternative 2, and therefore substantially reduced traffic. This reduction in
traffic would avoid project-related impacts to the local intersections and roadways
in the project area (Impacts TRA-1 and TRA-2).
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
In comparison to the project, there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes
under Alternative 2, and therefore less impacts related to light and glare when
compared to the project (Impact VIS-1).
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the individual subsections of Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts and
Mitigation Measures, there would be cumulatively significant impacts to many of
the resource areas. For the issue areas where significant cumulative impacts were
identified, the reduced density under Alternative 2 would contribute less to these
impacts than when compared to the project.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-11
Alternative 2 would avoid the cumulative noise impact along Point of Timber Road
between Bixler Road and Byron Highway. The reduction in traffic trips would result
in a less than considerable contribution to the cumulative increase in noise along
this corridor.
Alternative 2 would avoid the conflict with implementation with the Bay Area 2010
CAP, as the property would be developed according to existing land use designation
that were assumed as part of the plan.
5.4.2 CONCLUSION
The Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative would avoid the project’s significant
unavoidable impacts and would have less impact on all environmental topical areas.
However, this alternative would not advance any of the project objectives.
5.5 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE IMPACTS
This section summarizes the comparative impacts of each of the alternatives when
compared to the project. Table 5-1 below lists the level of significance of the
impacts of the project to each environmental area analyzed in Chapter 4.0, Settings,
Impact and Mitigation Measures, and shows whether the impacts anticipated
under each alternative would be equal, lesser or greater than those of the project.
Table 5-1 Summary of Comparative Impacts
Environmental Issue Project Level of
Environmental Impact
No Build
Alternative
Reduced
Density (No
Project)
Alternative
Agricultural Resources Less than significant Lesser Similar
Air Quality (Conflict with
applicable air quality plan) Significant and unavoidable Lesser Lesser
Biological Resources Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Cultural Resources Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Energy Less than significant Lesser Lesser
Geology and Soils Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Similar
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-12
Environmental Issue Project Level of
Environmental Impact
No Build
Alternative
Reduced
Density (No
Project)
Alternative
Summary of Comparative Impacts, continued.
Global Climate Change Significant and unavoidable Lesser Lesser
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Land Use and Planning Less than significant Lesser Similar
Noise and Vibration Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Population and Housing Less than significant Lesser Lesser
Public Services and Recreation Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Public Utilities Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Transportation and Circulation Significant and unavoidable Lesser Lesser
Visual Resources and
Aesthetics
Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Cumulative Impacts Significant and unavoidable Lesser Lesser
Source: Circlepoint, 2011.
5.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT
ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(c), an EIR should identify any alternatives that
were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the
scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s
determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from
detailed consideration in an EIR include: (1) failure to meet most of the basic project
objectives, (2) infeasibility, or (3) inability to avoid significant environmental
impacts. To assist with this discussion, a list of the project objectives is provided in
Section 5.2, Project Objectives.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-13
5.6.1 ALTERNATIVE OFF-SITE LOCATIONS
No feasible off-site locations for the project were found. To attain most of the
project’s objectives, the applicant would require a relatively large area of land to
develop or redevelop. The project proponents do not own or control any other
vacant property adjacent to waterways in the Discovery Bay area similar in nature to
the project site.
5.6.2 AGE-RESTRICTED COMMUNITY
The County considered and rejected an alternative that would allow a subdivision to
operate as an active adult community that would be age-restricted to residents 55
years of age or older. Housing in active adult communities generates half the
number of vehicle trips as traditional sub division housing, and senior apartments
generate even fewer vehicle trips. Although age-restricted housing on the project
site would result in fewer vehicle trips, the reduction in trips would not be enough
to avoid the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts. Furthermore, this
alternative would not reduce many of the other project impacts related to air
quality, biology, cultural resources, geology and soils, global climate change, hazards
and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and
recreation, utilities, and visual resources.
5.6.3 REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The County considered and rejected a Reduced Density Alternative that would
lessen the size of the project to a point where significant and unavoidable impacts
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The County identified an
alternative consisting of 30 residences on the project site to reduce significant and
unavoidable traffic impacts and subsequently reduce significant and unavoidable
impacts related air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise.
However, the Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative that includes the
construction of 5 residences would result in a similar reduction of impacts when
compared to a 30-residence reduced density alternative. Five residential units
represent a 98 percent reduction in density on the project site compared to a 90
percent reduction in density to 30 residential units. Since the analysis of these two
reduced density alternatives would result in the same conclusions, it was
determined that a 30-residence reduced density alternative would be redundant.
The Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative fulfills the reduce density option.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-14
Furthermore, the 30-residence alternative was rejected because of its inability to
meet the majority of the project objectives, specifically the inability to build an
economically viable residential community and to develop a project consistent with
the character of existing neighborhoods to the east and west. This alternative
would also not widen the Kellogg Creek channel and would not result in the
beneficial biological resource impacts of the project. For these reasons, this
alternative was rejected.
5.6.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, development would not be permitted in the northern part of
the project site where existing sensitive biological resources, including emergent
marsh and seasonal wetlands, are located. This alternative would protect trees,
nesting birds, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and habitat for California red-legged frog,
giant garter snake, western pond turtle, and western burrowing owl. This alternative
would not include the enhancement of creek bank habitat along the ECCID dredge
cut and Pantages Island. Furthermore, this alternative would not result in a
reduction of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic, air quality,
noise, and greenhouse gases, nor would this alternative advance a majority of the
project objectives.
5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among
the alternatives to the project. The environmentally superior alternative must be an
alternative to the project that reduces some of the environmental impacts of the
project, regardless of the financial costs associated with this alternative.
As demonstrated in the section, a range of reasonable alternatives were considered,
but rejected because they do not meet a majority of the project objectives or were
deemed infeasible. A comparison merit was included for the No Build Alternative
and a Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative. The reduced density alternative
was developed to avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic, and to
fulfill the requirements of CEQA to considered development under existing land use
plans. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the potential impacts of the No Build
Alternative and the Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative. Both of these
alternatives would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable traffic, air quality,
noise, and greenhouse gas impacts. The No Build Alternative would have less
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-15
impact on most environmental topical areas when compared to the project. The
Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative would have similar or lesser impacts on all
environmental topical areas.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational
procedure and the alternative selected may not meet the goals or needs of the
County. The project under consideration cannot be identified as the
environmentally superior alternative.
Additionally, if the No Build/No Project Alternative is determined to reduce most
impacts, CEQA requires that the EIR identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative
among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). Because a
majority of the alternatives that would reduce and avoid significant impacts would
not attain a majority of the project objectives and were deemed infeasible, the
environmentally superior alternative in this case is the Reduced Density (No Project)
Alternative.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-16
This page intentionally left blank.
6-1
6.0 CEQA−REQUIRED DISCUSSION
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this chapter
provides a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that could be
caused by project implementation and growth-inducing impacts of the project. The
focus of this chapter is on the environmental effects of construction and operation
of the development of the project site and the resulting growth potentially
generated by the project.
6.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
CEQA Section 15126.2(c) requires that an EIR discuss any environmental changes
that would be irreversible if the project were implemented. CEQA defines
irreversible environmental changes as the irretrievable commitment of resources
and/or irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents. Irreversible
changes may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and
secondary or growth inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar
uses. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant
irreversible changes, including changes in land use that would commit future
generations to specific uses; irreversible changes from environmental actions; and
consumption of non-renewable resources.
6.1.1 CHANGES IN LAND USE WHICH WOULD COMMIT
FUTURE GENERATIONS
As the project site is currently undeveloped agricultural land, implementation of the
project would result in the urban development of the project site. The project
would involve the construction of 292 new residential units, utility infrastructure,
roadways, roadway improvements, and creation and enhancement of an emergent
marsh. The applicant is requesting approval of a general plan amendment that
would change the land use on the project site from agricultural lands to residential,
water, public/semi-public and open space. The land use designation for this project
Pantages Bays Project
6.0 CEQA Required Discussion Draft EIR
6-2
would not affect future specific uses at the project site and in the project vicinity
because the land use designation only applies to the specific parcels on which the
project is located.
6.1.2 IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTIONS
The project would involve the construction of new residential and service uses in
Discovery Bay. Non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels would be required for
construction and operation of the project. The change in use from undeveloped
agricultural land to urban development and the associated commitment of non-
renewable resources necessary for construction and operation of the project would
be irreversible.
6.1.3 CONSUMPTION OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
The project includes the development of a residential community. Construction and
operation of this type of development would require the consumption of
nonrenewable resources, such as electricity, natural gas and petroleum products,
and construction materials. Given the changes to the project site, an irreversible
commitment to the use of nonrenewable resources would occur with project
implementation. The investment of resources in this project would be typical of the
level of investments normally required for a residential development of this size.
6.2 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which a project could be growth inducing.
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) identify a project as growth inducing if it
would “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” The CEQA
Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement and
state that growth in any area is “necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment.” CEQA does not require separate mitigation for
growth inducement as it is assumed that these impacts are already captured in the
analysis of environmental impacts (Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures, of this draft EIR). Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR
“discuss the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the
characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities
that could significantly affect the environment.”
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 6.0 CEQA Required Discussion
6-3
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have potential to induce
growth if it would:
Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., through the expansion of public
services into an area that does not currently receive these services), or through
the provision of new access to an area, or a change in a restrictive zoning or
General Plan land use designation.
Result in economic expansion and population growth through employment
opportunities and/or construction of new housing.
In general, a project could be considered growth inducing if it directly or indirectly
affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be
demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in
some other way. However, the CEQA Guidelines do not require a prediction or
speculation of where, when, and in what form such growth would occur.1
6.2.1 ECONOMIC, POPULATION, AND HOUSING GROWTH
Typically, the growth inducing potential of a project is considered significant if it
fosters growth or a concentration of population in a different location or in excess
of what is assumed in pertinent general plans or land use plans, or projections made
by regional planning agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG). Section 4.13, Population and Housing, addresses the direct population
growth as a result of the residential development on the project site. The project
includes the construction of 292 residential units and would house up to 876
people. The new population created by the project would constitute approximately
44 percent of the total population growth anticipated by ABAG in Rural East County
from 2010 to 2025. The 292 units proposed by the project would represent
approximately 36 percent of the projected household growth over the same period.
While the project would not constitute a significant environmental impact as the
population growth would be within the growth projections, the project would be
growth inducing through its introduction of a new population to the project area.
Additionally, the Contra Costa County General Plan identifies the project area for
future urban development, as the area is within the Urban Limit Line (ULL). Since
the General Plan has designated the project area as being within the ULL, growth
would be occurring in an area previously planned for some type of development.
For further discussion of the ULL, refer to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
1 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15145.
Pantages Bays Project
6.0 CEQA Required Discussion Draft EIR
6-4
Construction of the project would result in a short-term increase in construction
related job opportunities in the East Contra Costa County area. However,
construction workers can be expected to be drawn from the existing construction
employment labor force, as construction of new residential development occurs
throughout the County and within surrounding cities. Therefore, opportunities
provided by construction of the project area would not likely result in the relocation
of construction workers to the project region. Therefore, the employment
opportunities provided by construction are not anticipated to induce indirect
growth in the region.
6.2.2 REMOVAL OBSTACLES TO GROWTH OR EXCEED
CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The project would include the provision of service capacity that would
accommodate population growth beyond current service levels. The Discovery Bay
Community Services District (TDBCSD) provides the existing Discovery Bay
community with water and wastewater treatment. As only a portion of the project
site is currently located within the TDBCSD, the project would require approval from
the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation of the
remainder of the site into the Discovery Bay Community Services District and
corresponding sphere of influence.
6.2.3 PRECEDENT-SETTING ACTION
Development of the project site would include both a general plan amendment and
rezoning. The project would include a general plan amendment to change the land
use designation on the project site from Agricultural Lands to Single-Family
Residential Medium Density, Single-Family Residential High Density, Water,
Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space.
The project would include the rezoning of the project area from Agricultural to
Planned Unit District to allow for up to 262 homes, 47 acres of open water, and 44
acres of open space areas including wetland and marsh. By its nature, the Planned
Unit District classification would be the plan for development on the project site, for
which the project would be consistent. Therefore, the project would be growth
inducing in respect to the changes in land use as development would be permitted,
thus, promoting urban growth in the area.
7-1
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Table 7-1 presents the organizations and individuals involved in the preparation of this draft EIR.
Table 7-1 List of Preparers of the Draft EIR
Preparer Topic/Role Contact
Contra Costa County,
Department of Conservation and
Development
Lead Agency
Geology and Soil
John Oborne, Senior Planner
Darwin Myers
Circlepoint General EIR Preparation
Mary Bean, AICP
Audrey Darnell
Jennifer Gallerani, LEED AP
Michelle Knudson
Elizabeth Antin
Jessie Shen
Rebecca Bustos
Andy Wong
Don Ballanti Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Don Ballanti
Monk & Associates, Inc. Biological Resources Sarah Lynch
Baseline Environmental Consulting Hazards and Hazardous Materials Todd Taylor
PWA Hydrology and Water Quality Nick Garrity
Bob Battaglio
Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz Noise and Vibration Alan Rosen
Fehr & Peers Transportation
Consultants Transportation and Circulation Katherine Tellez
Ryan McClain
Source: Circlepoint, 2011.
Pantages Bays Project
7.0 List of Preparers Draft EIR
7-2
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Pantages Bays
Residential Development Project
Volume I
SCH No. 2007-052130
Prepared for
Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
June 2012
County File Numbers:
GP99-0008
RZ04-3146
SD06-9010
DP04-3062
This page intentionally left blank.
To conserve resources this document was printed on 100% recycled paper. Please recycle!
i
VOLUME I: TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR ........................................................................................1-2
1.2 Level of Analysis .....................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Report Organization ...............................................................................................1-3
1.4 Scope of this EIR .....................................................................................................1-4
1.5 Environmental Review Process ..............................................................................1-4
1.6 Project Permits and Approvals ..............................................................................1-6
1.7 Incorporating By Reference ...................................................................................1-8
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Under Review ............................................................................................2-1
2.2 Summary of Impact and Mitigation Measures ......................................................2-1
2.3 Potential Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved ..........................................2-2
2.4 Significant Unavoidable impacts ............................................................................2-3
2.5 Alternatives to the Project .....................................................................................2-3
2.6 Summary Table ......................................................................................................2-4
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Project Location .....................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Project Setting........................................................................................................3-2
3.4 Project Components ..............................................................................................3-5
3.5 Project Construction ............................................................................................3-29
3.6 Project Objectives ................................................................................................3-30
4.0 SETTINGS, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................... 4-1
4.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................................. 4.1-1
4.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.3 Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.5 Energy ................................................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Global Climate Change ....................................................................................... 4.7-1
Pantages Bays Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
ii
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 4.8-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................ 4.9-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.12 Noise and Vibration ......................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Population and Housing ................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Public Services and Recreation ........................................................................ 4.14-1
4.15 Public Utilities .................................................................................................. 4.15-1
4.16 Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................ 4.16-1
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics ...................................................................... 4.17-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................5-2
5.3 Alternative 1 – No Build Alternative ......................................................................5-4
5.4 Alternative 2 – Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative ....................................5-5
5.5 Summary of Comparative Impacts ......................................................................5-11
5.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis .........................5-12
5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................5-14
6.0 CEQA−REQUIRED DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ....................................................6-1
6.2 Growth Inducement ...............................................................................................6-2
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................... 7-1
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional Location and Project Site ..................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................ 3-7
Figure 3-3 Land Use Designations ........................................................................................ 3-9
Figure 3-4 Proposed Zoning ............................................................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-5 Proposed Final Development Plan .................................................................... 3-13
Figure 3-6 Public Access and Open Fence Plan .................................................................. 3-21
Figure 3-7 Landscape Plan ................................................................................................. 3-23
Figure 3-8 Discovery Bay Community Service District Boundaries .................................... 3-25
Figure 4-1 Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................ 4-7
Figure 4.1-1 Soils on the Project Site ................................................................................... 4.1-3
Figure 4.3-1 Special Status Species within 5 miles of Project Site ..................................... 4.3-14
Figure 4.6-1 Location of Field Investigations ....................................................................... 4.6-3
Figure 4.9-1 Storm Water Treatment Systems .................................................................... 4.9-9
Figure 4.9-2 Example Turbidity Barrier .............................................................................. 4.9-30
Figure 4.12-1 Long-term Noise Measurement Results – Location A: CNEL = 52 dBA .......... 4.12-5
Figure 4.12-2 Long-term Noise Measurement Results: CNEL = 53 dBA .............................. 4.12-6
Figure 4.12-3 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ............................................. 4.12-10
Figure 4.14-1 Public Services in the Project Vicinity ............................................................ 4.14-3
Figure 4.14-2 Local Parks in the Project Vicinity .................................................................. 4.14-7
Figure 4.15-1 Locations of Improvements to Water and Wastewater Facilities ................. 4.15-5
Figure 4.15-2 Proposed Expansion of the Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant ... 4.15-24
Figure 4.16-1 Study Intersections and Project Location ...................................................... 4.16-2
Figure 4.16-2a Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... 4.16-12
Figure 4.16-2b Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... 4.16-13
Figure 4.16-3 Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................. 4.16-24
Figure 4.16-4a Existing Conditions Peak Hour Trip Assignments ........................................ 4.16-25
Figure 4.16-4b Existing Conditions Peak Hour Trip Assignments ........................................ 4.16-26
Figure 4.16-5a Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes ... 4.16-27
Figure 4.16-5b Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes ... 4.16-28
Figure 4.17-1 Viewpoint Locations .......................................................................................... 4.17-4
Figure 4.17-2 Viewpoint A, Kellogg Creek ................................................................................ 4.17-5
Figure 4.17-3 Viewpoint B, Future Trail View .......................................................................... 4.17-7
Figure 4.17-4 Viewpoint C, Point of Timber Road ................................................................... 4.17-8
Pantages Bays Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
iv
Figure 4.17-5 Viewpoint D, Discovery Bay ............................................................................... 4.17-9
Figure 4.17-6 Viewpoint E ...................................................................................................... 4.17-11
Figure 4.17-7 Viewpoint F ...................................................................................................... 4.17-12
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Project Permits and Approvals ........................................................................... 1-7
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................. 2-5
Table 3-1 Breakdown of Lots by Type ................................................................................. 3-6
Table 3-2 Breakdown of Acreage by Type of Use ............................................................. 3-15
Table 3-3 Base Flood Elevations for Project Development .............................................. 3-16
Table 3-4 Base Flood Elevations for Project Development .............................................. 3-17
Table 3-5 Proposed Tree Landscaping Palette ................................................................. 3-27
Table 4-1 Development Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site ................................... 4-4
Table 4.2-1 Major Criteria Pollutants ................................................................................. 4.2-4
Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................... 4.2-8
Table 4.2-3 Annual Number of Days Exceeding Ambient Air Quality Standards .............. 4.2-10
Table 4.2-4 Predicted Roadside Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. ............................... 4.2-19
Table 4.2-5 Average daily and Annual Operational Emissions ......................................... 4.2-22
Table 4.2-6 Daily Project ROG Emissions .......................................................................... 4.2-23
Table 4.2-7 Average Daily and Annual Construction Emissions ....................................... 4.2-24
Table 4.7-1 Annual CO2e Emissions Associated with Project Operation .......................... 4.7-12
Table 4.9-1 Sources of Pollutants and Proposed Control Measures ................................ 4.9-21
Table 4.12-1 Short-term Noise Measurement Results – April 2010 ................................... 4.12-4
Table 4.12-2 Existing CNEL for Roads Surrounding Project Area ........................................ 4.12-7
Table 4.12-3 Existing and Future CNEL for Roads Surrounding Project Area ................... 4.12-14
Table 4.12-4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ......................................................... 4.12-17
Table 4.12-5 Predicted CNEL Increases Due to Cumulative Traffic Noise ........................ 4.12-21
Table 4.13-1 County and Rural East County Population and Household Information ....... 4.13-2
Table 4.13-2 Share of Regional Housing Needs for 2007-2014 .......................................... 4.13-3
Table 4.13-3 Rural East County and Contra Costa County Employment Projections ......... 4.13-4
Table 4.14-1 Byron Unified School District ......................................................................... 4.14-5
Table 4.14-2 Liberty Union High School District ................................................................. 4.14-5
Table 4.14-3 Local Parks ..................................................................................................... 4.14-6
Table 4.14-4 Regional Parks ................................................................................................ 4.14-8
Table 4.15-1 Summary of TDBCSD Demand and Capacity................................................ 4.15-20
Table 4.16-1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ............................................................... 4.16-5
Table 4.16-2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria........................................................... 4.16-6
Table 4.16-3 Two-Lane Highway LOS Criteria ..................................................................... 4.16-7
Table 4.16-4 Existing Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service ......................................... 4.16-9
Table 4.16-5 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Delay Index Summary .................... 4.16-11
Pantages Bays Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
vi
Table 4.16-6 Pantages Bays Trip Generation Estimates ................................................... 4.16-23
Table 4.16-7 Existing Plus Project: Peak Hour Intersection HCM Levels of Service ......... 4.16-30
Table 4.16-8 Existing Plus Project: Peak Hour Intersection CCTA Levels of Service ......... 4.16-31
Table 4.16-9 Existing Plus Project Roadway Operation .................................................... 4.16-31
Table 4.16-10 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection LOS (HCM Method) ............................. 4.16-36
Table 4.16-11 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection LOS (CCTALOS Method) ...................... 4.16-37
Table 4.16-12 Cumulative Roadway Segment Analysis ...................................................... 4.16-37
Table 4.16-13 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
(HCM Method) ............................................................................................. 4.16-39
Table 4.16-14 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
(CCTALOS Method) ...................................................................................... 4.16-45
Table 4.16-15 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Fair Share Calculations ......................... 4.16-48
Table 5-1 Summary of Comparative Impacts ................................................................... 5-11
Table 7-1 List of Preparers of the Draft EIR ........................................................................ 7-1
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR Table of Contents
vii
VOLUME II: APPENDICES
Appendix A URBEMIS2007 Output
Appendix B Biological Resource Analysis Report
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Pantages at Discovery Bay
Development
Appendix D Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix E Environmental Noise Study for Pantages Bays
Appendix F Agreement between Byron Unified School District and Pantages Bays LLC
Appendix G NPDES Permit Order No. R5-2003-0067
Appendix H Discovery Bay Community Services District Waterwater Treatment Plan Master
Plan & Water Master Plan
Appendix I Traffic Impact Analysis
Pantages Bays Project
Table of Contents Draft EIR
viii
This page intentionally left blank.
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This draft Environmental Impact Report (draft EIR) evaluates the potential impacts
of the Pantages Bays project (project). The project applicant is seeking approval for
a General Plan Amendment to change the general plan designations of an
approximately 171-acre project site from Agricultural Lands (AL), and Delta
Recreation to the following:
Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM)
Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH)
Water (WA)
Public/Semi-Public (PS)
Open Space (OS)
Under the amended land use designations, the project would develop 292
residential homes with associated streets and infrastructure on approximately 80
acres of the project site. The remaining 91 acres would consist of open-water areas,
emergent marsh, wetlands, open space areas, and a marine patrol substation. Refer
to Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of the project
components.
As part of the project, the portion of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the project
site would be widened. Reclamation District No. 8001 (RD 800) is co-sponsoring the
proposed widening, which would reduce water velocities in that section of Kellogg
Creek, thereby improving boater safety. The widening would also reduce bank
erosion and sedimentation, and would limit the need for dredging.2 The project
would require approval from the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) for annexation to the RD 800 and to the Discovery Bay Community Services
District sphere of influence and corresponding service boundary.
1 RD 800 controls and is responsible for the waterways in Discovery Bay.
2 RD 800 is a co-applicant on the project in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit process and
related resource agencies applications, per personal communication with Jeff Conway, District
Manager.
Pantages Bays Project
1.0 Introduction Draft EIR
1-2
As part of the draft EIR, two alternatives to the project were evaluated including a
no build alternative and a reduced density (no project) alternative. The no build
alternative considers no future development on the project site, while the reduced
density (no project) alternative considers future development according to the
existing land use designations.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE DRAFT EIR
As Lead Agency, Contra Costa County (County) prepared this project-level draft EIR
to assess the potential significant environmental impacts of development of the
project. The draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended in March 2010 and the County CEQA
Guidelines. CEQA requires all state and local government agencies to consider the
environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary
authority.
This draft EIR is intended to inform County decision makers, responsible agencies,
and the public of the potential environmental consequences of implementing the
project. This draft EIR discloses the significant environmental impacts of the project
and identifies: 1) mitigation measures to reduce these effects; 2) significant impacts
that cannot be avoided; 3) growth-inducing impacts; 4) effects found not to be
significant; and, 5) cumulative impacts of the project in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. This draft EIR also addresses a
reasonable range of alternatives that may avoid or substantially lessen potential
environmental impacts, including the no project alternative.
The County is required to consider the information in the EIR, along with any other
relevant information, in making its decision on the proposed project. It is not the
purpose of an EIR to recommend approval or denial of a project. In accordance with
CEQA Section 15090, the decision makers must certify the final EIR prior to taking
action on the proposed project and requested entitlements. Pursuant to CEQA
statues and guidelines, other responsible agencies may also use the EIR in their
review and approval process.
1.2 LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15146, the degree of specificity in an EIR will
correspond to the degree of specificity in the underlying activity described in the
EIR. Detailed preliminary project plans and technical studies were included in the
evaluation of the potential environmental consequences of implementing the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction
1-3
project. It is anticipated that the level of analysis contained in this EIR will be
sufficient to proceed with project implementation without further environmental
review.
As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, further environmental review could
be required if subsequent development plans contain new information of
substantial importance or substantial changes to the project, or if the surrounding
circumstances change or other new information is available, which will result in a
new significant impact, a change in mitigation measures, or a change in the level of
significance of impacts identified in this EIR.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1.0, Introduction: provides an introduction and overview describing
the focus of the draft EIR and the environmental review process.
Chapter 2.0, Executive Summary: summarizes the project and environmental
consequences that would result from the project, provides a summary table of
significant environmental impacts, identifies mitigation measures, and indicates
the levels of significance of impacts after mitigation.
Chapter 3.0, Project Description: describes the project, the project location,
project objectives, and required project approvals.
Chapter 4.0, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures: describes the
environmental setting and provides an analysis of the environmental impacts of
the project, identifying mitigation measures for any significant environmental
impacts. An evaluation of a project’s contribution to cumulative environmental
impacts is provided for each environmental subsection. Each environmental
subsection also provides a list of the references, including the people and
agencies contacted for information, which were included in the analysis of
impacts.
Chapter 5.0, Alternatives: provides an evaluation of the alternatives to the
proposed project.
Chapter 6.0, CEQA-Required Conclusions: provides a discussion of impacts
found to be less than significant, and a summary of significant environmental
impacts, including unavoidable and growth-inducing impacts.
Chapter 7.0, List of Preparers: provides a list of organizations and individuals
involved in the preparation of the draft EIR.
Pantages Bays Project
1.0 Introduction Draft EIR
1-4
1.4 SCOPE OF THIS EIR
The focus of this draft EIR is to evaluate the environmental consequences of the
project. The following topics are addressed in Chapter 4.0, Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures:
Agricultural and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Global Climate Change
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Public Utilities
Transportation and Circulation
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
On May 24, 2007, the County filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. During the 30-day comment period
(ending June 25, 2007), written comments regarding the scope and content of the
draft EIR were received from regulatory agencies and the public. Additionally, a
scoping session on the draft EIR was held on June 18, 2007, at the County
Administration Building in Martinez, CA. All written and oral comments received
during the comment period and scoping session were considered in the preparation
of the draft EIR.
Following the scoping period, the preparation of the draft EIR was delayed due to
design modifications and internal preliminary review processes. No major changes
to the project design were made since the filing of the NOP. As such, the County
has not held additional scoping sessions beyond the first meeting in 2007. However,
the analysis of environmental impacts in Chapter 4.0, Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures, have been updated to include the current baseline conditions
of the project site and region.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction
1-5
CEQA requires a 45-day public review and comment period on the draft EIR.
Written comments on the draft EIR may be submitted to the following address:
Department of Conservation & Development
Community Development Division
ATTN: John Oborne
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
While reviewing the draft EIR, reviewers should focus on the document’s adequacy
in identifying and analyzing effects on the environment and on the ways in which
the significant effects might be avoided or mitigated. CEQA Guidelines Section
15204(c) states that reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and
should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on
facts, or expert opinion supported by facts.
Following the close of the public comment period, responses to public input will be
prepared and published as a separate document. The draft EIR text and appendices,
together with the response to comments document, will constitute the final EIR.
The final EIR will be available to the public before the County considers certifying
the document.
The County Planning Commission will consider the final EIR as well as approval of
the project during an open public hearing. The Commission will approve or deny
the major subdivision with proposed tree removal and make recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors whether to certify the final EIR, approve or deny the Final
Development Plan, the Rezoning, and the General Plan Amendment. If the project is
approved by both the Commission and Board of Supervisors, then the project
applicant may move forward and seek other necessary County approvals, such as
grading permits, building permits, encroachment permits, etc.
PLANNING ACTIONS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
The project applicant is seeking approval for a general plan amendment from
Agricultural Lands (AL) and Delta Recreation (DR) to the following designations:
Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM), Single-Family Residential-High
Density (SH), Water (WA), Public/Semi-Public (PS), and Open Space (OS). In addition,
the project applicant is seeking approval of a rezoning from General Agricultural
District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1).
Pantages Bays Project
1.0 Introduction Draft EIR
1-6
The project site is inside the County urban limit line (ULL) and would not therefore
require any adjustment to the ULL. See Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, for
more description of the assessor parcels and consistency with land use policy.
SERVICE DISTRICT ANNEXATION
The project would require approval from LAFCO for annexation to the RD 800
service boundary and the Discovery Bay Community Services District, including the
corresponding spheres of influence for these two districts.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUBDIVISION MAP
Construction of the project requires approval of a final development plan, and a
major subdivision approval is required to divide the site into individually-owned
residential lots.
On December 12, 2006, Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC and the East Contra Costa
Irrigation District (ECCID) entered into a Property Transfer Agreement whereby the
project applicant will acquire approximately 9 acres of land owned by the ECCID,
commonly known as Pantages Island. The project applicant is also working with the
RD 800 and ECCID to secure future conservation easements over RD 800 properties
in the vicinity of the project site. These properties include Parcel “C” and “D” near
the project’s northern boundary; and the west and east banks of Kellogg Creek
between Newport Drive and State Route 4 (SR4). The conveyance of this ECCID
property (i.e., Pantages Island) and the RD 800 conservation easements would take
place prior to final map approval of the project.
1.6 PROJECT PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The project would require several permits and approvals from the County and other
responsible agencies/service providers. A list of the required permits and approvals
is shown in Table 1-1.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 1.0 Introduction
1-7
Table 1-1 Project Permits and Approvals
Agency/Provider Permit/Approval
Contra Costa County Certification of EIR
General Plan Amendment
Rezoning
Vesting Tentative Map
Final Development Plan
Tree Removal
Development Agreement (optional)
Final Subdivision Maps
Final Pantages Bays Stormwater Control Plan per approved C.3
Report
Grading Plan, Improvement Plans
Building Permits, including Grading Permits
Participation in the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan /
Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) (Potentially)
Reclamation District No. 800 (RD 800) Annexation, Service Agreement, Prop. 218 Assessment
Contra Costa Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO)
Annexation to Discovery Bay Community Service District sphere of
influence and corresponding service district boundary for water and
sewer, Service Agreement, and Landscaping and Lighting District.
Annexation to RD 800 for control and responsibility of the new
waterways in Discovery Bay.
Town of Discovery Bay Community Services
District (TDBCSD)
Annexation, Service Agreement, Landscaping and Lighting District,
Prop 218 Assessment
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 10 Permit, Work in Navigable Waters
Section 14 Permit, Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 404 Permit, Clean Water Act
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG)
Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (CRWQCB)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Section 401 Water Quality Certificate
California State Reclamation Board Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Approval of utilities relocation, gas and electric infrastructure and
hook-ups
SBC Communications (SBC) Approval of communication line relocation, infrastructure and
hook-ups
Source: Circlepoint, 2011.
Pantages Bays Project
1.0 Introduction Draft EIR
1-8
1.7 INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE
This draft EIR references several technical studies, analysis, and reports. The CEQA
Guidelines set forth three methods that may be used to incorporate data from other
sources in the EIR:
Incorporation by reference (14 Cal Code Regs 15150)
Use of an EIR appendix (14 Cal Code Regs 15148)
Citation to technical information (14 Cal Code Regs 15148)
Information incorporated by reference has been summarized in the appropriate
sections(s) of this draft EIR, as permitted in Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines,
with a description of how the public may obtain and review these documents.
Information in an EIR appendix may include summarized technical data, maps, plot
plans, diagrams, and similar information in sufficient detail to permit the public and
reviewing agencies to make full assessment of the project’s significant
environmental effects. To achieve a balance between the highly technical analysis
referenced in an EIR and EIR’s public information function, the CEQA Guidelines
allow technical analysis as appendices to the main body of the EIR. The appendices
are presented on a CD-Rom as Volume II to this draft EIR.
Source documents that are not project-specific are cited in the draft EIR.
All documents referenced in this draft EIR are available for review at the Contra
Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, California.
2-1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
The Pantages Bays Project (project) consists of construction of 292 detached single-
family residential housing units, Sheriff Marine Patrol Substation, and associated
roadways, pedestrian facilities, and utilities infrastructure. One hundred and
sixteen of these units would be water-oriented and would include docks. In
addition to residential development, the project would widen the portion of Kellogg
Creek immediately east of the project site. The proposed widening of Kellogg Creek
is cosponsored by Reclamation District No. 800 to reduce water velocities and
improve public safety in that section of Kellogg Creek. In order to proceed as
planned, the project requires approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Subdivision/Tentative Map Approval, Final Development Plan and tree removal.
The project site is located in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County (County)
approximately 16 miles west of Stockton, CA; approximately 4.5 southeast of
Brentwood, CA; and 19 miles north of Livermore, CA. The approximately 171-acre
project site is undeveloped except for several dilapidated residential and
agricultural buildings. The site is located west of the original Discovery Bay
subdivisions, at the eastern terminus of Point of Timber Road.
2.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACT AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the summary to include a
discussion of: 1) potential areas of controversy; 2) significant impacts; 3) significant
unavoidable impacts; and 4) alternatives to the project. Under CEQA, a significant
impact on the environment is defined as, “a substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by a
project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects
of historic or aesthetic significance.”
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-2
Based on the analysis completed for this draft EIR, impacts in the following resource
areas would be considered significant without the implementation of mitigation
measures:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Global Climate Change
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Public Services and Recreation
Public Utilities
Transportation and Circulation
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
2.3 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES
TO BE RESOLVED
On May 24, 2007, the County filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. During the 30-day comment period
(ending June 25, 2007), written comments regarding the scope and content of the
draft EIR were received from regulatory agencies and the public. Additionally, a
scoping session on the draft EIR was held on June 18, 2007, at the County
Administration Building in Martinez, California. All written and oral comments
received during the comment period and scoping session were considered in the
preparation of the draft EIR. Potential areas of controversy identified during the
scoping period and evaluated in Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures, of this draft EIR include:
Adequate emergency vehicle access
Impacts to sensitive biological resources and habitat
Recreational access to the delta and public access to open space
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-3
Impacts to prime and other agricultural lands
Identify the County’s regional housing needs allocation
Identify if the project would require annexation into nearby service districts
Impacts to the hydrodynamics of Kellogg Creek and surrounding waterways
Boat traffic
Construction phasing and details on the creation of the bays and coves
Assess potential hazardous substances in project site soil and groundwater and
potential remediation activities
Identify impacts to State Route 4, local traffic impacts, cumulative traffic
impacts, and mitigation measures
2.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Impacts relating to the following topics would remain significant with the
implementation of mitigation:
Global Climate Change: The project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in excess of the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per service population per year.
Traffic: The project would increase traffic volumes and worsen level of service
(LOS) conditions along Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road.
2.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1 — NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain in its current state and there
would be no development of residential housing units, roadways, and utilities
infrastructure. The site would remain privately-owned and the open space wetland
mitigation area would remain unimproved. There would be no changes to parcels
on the site or any amendments to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-4
ALTERNATIVE 2 — REDUCED DENSITY (NO
PROJECT) ALTERNATIVE
Under Alternative 2, the project site would be developed with uses allowed under
the existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Ordinance designations. Project site
parcels are currently designated by the General Plan as Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta
Recreation (DR) and Water (WA) by the Contra Costa General Plan and zoned
General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) .
The Agricultural Lands (AL) land use designation allows for all land-dependent and
non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. The General Plan
permits residential uses at a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per 5
acres. Other uses related to processing of agricultural products, agricultural support
services and small-scale visitor uses are allowed with a land use permit.
The A-2 and A-3 zoning designations allow the site to be developed with agricultural
uses, such as general farming and sheds and warehouses, and with residential uses,
such as a single-family dwelling or a family care home. A detached single-family
dwelling is allowed on each parcel with the A-2 or A-3 zoning designation. Other
uses, such as commercial recreational facilities, medical offices, or churches, may be
allowed with a land use permit.
Alternative 2 assumes primarily rural residential land uses on approximately 171
acres as allowed under the existing general plan and zoning designations. For
purposes of this analysis, five of the parcels on the project site are considered
developable. This alternative assumes five single-family residential units would be
constructed on the project site in accordance with current zoning designations. This
alternative would not require a General Plan amendment.
2.6 SUMMARY TABLE
Table 2-1 summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project and
mitigations measures to reduce significant impacts. The table is arranged in four
columns: 1) significant impacts; 2) level of significance without mitigation; 3)
mitigation measures; and 4) level of significance after mitigation. Levels of
significance are categorized as follows: SU = Significant and Unavoidable; S =
Significant; LTS = Less Than Significant. For a complete description of potential
impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific
sections within Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-5
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Agricultural Resources
There are no significant impacts to agricultural resources.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: Project development that includes
wood burning stoves would result in a net increase of
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), a criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment in an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard.
S Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Wood burning fireplaces
or stoves shall not be permitted. Only natural gas
fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project plans
shall not include wood burning fireplaces or stoves
and shall clearly indicate the prohibition against such
use.
LTS
Impact AQ-2: The project would not expose sensitive
receptors to criteria air pollutants during project
construction but could expose sensitive receptors to
toxic air contaminants.
S Mitigation Measure AQ-2a: To reduce the air quality
impacts of PM associated with grading and new
construction, the project applicant shall incorporate
the following mitigation measures for all phases of
construction:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per
day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other
loose material off-site shall be covered.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-6
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Air Quality (continued)
Impact AQ-2, continued. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent
public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be
limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be
paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required
by the California airborne toxics control measure
Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be
provided for construction workers at all access
points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained
and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-7
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Air Quality (continued)
Impact AQ-2, continued. 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.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b: To reduce health risks
from TACs during project construction, the project
applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation
measures into the project:
Minimize the idling time of diesel powered
construction equipment to two minutes;
Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road
equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be
used in the construction of the project (i.e.,
owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles)
would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20
percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM
reduction compacted to the most recent ARB
fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-8
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Air Quality (continued)
Impact AQ-2, continued. emissions include the use of late model engines,
low-emission diesel projects, alternative fuels,
engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
projects, add-on devices such as particulate
filters, and /or other options as such become
available;
Require that all construction equipment, diesel
trucks, and generators be equipped with best
available technology for emission reductions of
NOx and PM; and
Require all contractors use equipment that
meets CARB’s more recent certification standard
for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.
Impact CUM AQ-1: Development of the project in
conjunction with other development in the region
would result in a net increase of reactive organic
gases (ROG).
S Mitigation Measure CUM AQ-1: Implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which prohibits the uses of
wood burning fireplaces or stoves within the project
and permits only natural gas fireplaces or stoves,
would reduce ROG emissions associated with project
development to 36 pounds per day, which is below
the BAAQMD significant threshold (see Table 4.2-6).
Therefore, the project’s contribution to this impact
would not be cumulatively considerable.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-9
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Development of the project would
have a significant impact on trees.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Landscape trees.
To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80
trees on the project site, the project includes
landscaping with approximately 770 trees that would
be planted along the project roadways and at the
project site entry as part of the proposed landscaping.
This is an approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio.
Comply with the following landscape/irrigation
improvement and initial protection requirements
subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator:
A. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the
issuance of a grading permit a final
landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed
landscape architect shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department (CDD) for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The Final Plan shall be designed in general accord
with the preliminary landscape plan, Sheet 10 of
10 of the Project Plans dated October 2009.
B. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a
minimum of 15-gallon size; all shrubs shall be a
minimum 5-gallon size.
C. Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be
designed to minimize landscape maintenance
cost.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-10
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-1, continued. D. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight
Obstruction Ordinance Requirements: The
landscape plan shall contain sufficient information
to demonstrate compliance with the reporting
requirements and standards of the Water
Conservation Landscaping in New Developments
ordinance (Chapter 82-26) as amended, and the
Sight Obstruction at Intersections ordinance
(Chapter 82-18). The latter ordinance applies to
intersections with public roads. The landscape
architect shall certify that the plan complies with
the ordinance improvement standards and
reporting requirements.
E. To assure the long term viability of this
landscaping the applicant shall post a bond for
the value of the landscaping, installation plus
20%. The term of the bond shall extend 24
months beyond the installation of landscaping.
Prior to the acceptance of the bond by the County
a qualified landscape designer shall assess the
value of the landscape and provide a copy of that
assessment to the Community Development
Department. Prior to the release of the bond a
landscape designer shall submit a letter to the
Zoning Administrator that the landscaping is in
good health.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-11
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2. Development of the project would
have a significant impact on bank habitat.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Bank habitat.
a. Prior to removal of bank habitat along Kellogg
Creek or disturbing any creek/channel banks
within the project site and at Pantages Island, the
applicant shall contact the CDFG, the Corps, the
RWQCB, and the Reclamation Board and
determine if permits are warranted for the
activities pursuant to the regulations that are in
effect. Proof of permits (for example, a Section
404 permit, Section 401 permit, Section 1602
permit) or an absence of requirements for such
permits from these resource agencies shall be
provided to Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development.
b. All mitigation measures implemented to improve
bank habitat shall be approved by the Corps, the
RWQCB, CDFG, and the Reclamation Board (if
necessary) through issuance of necessary permits.
c. Mitigation for loss of bank habitat shall be
completed as prescribed by the CDFG, Corps,
RWQCB, and Reclamation Board. The applicant
has provided a report to Contra Costa County
describing how the applicant will mitigate impacts
to bank habitats, and these stated mitigations,
described below, shall become a condition of
project approval.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-12
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. d. Specifically, the applicant proposes to mitigate for
the loss of 5,380 lineal feet of excavated low and
moderate quality bank habitat by: (1) enhancement
of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and moderate low
quality bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high
quality bank habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat
and shallow water habitat) on Pantages Island,
ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID
Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg
Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route 4;
and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate
quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or level bench
to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip-rap with
willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated
portion of Pantages Island, the North Cove and the
end of Point of Timber Road in the North Bay. Bank
habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal
feet.
e. Enhance existing bank habitat or create new bank
habitat on-site, approximately 11,060 linear feet in
total, including shaded riverine aquatic habitat and
shallow water habitat (high quality bank habitat on
Pantages Island and the ECCID portion of the project
site; moderate quality bank habitat on the easterly
side of Pantages Island and the northerly side of the
north cove at the northeasterly end of the project
site; and low quality bank habitat at the back of
some waterfront lots).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-13
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. f. The revegetation design shall restore the bank to
moderate quality habitat following construction,
which includes the following:
i. Riprap with willow plantings shall be
established between mean low water (MLW)
and mean high water (MHW) to provide
additional stabilization and some shaded
riverine aquatic habitat.
ii. A shallow sloping or level bench shall be
established at approximately MHW to support
larger riparian trees such as Fremont
cottonwood.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 5:1 and also
planted with riparian trees and grasses.
iv. Riparian trees planted along the shallow
sloping or level bench shall be planted on 15-
foot centers to ensure adequate bank
coverage.
v. Native riparian trees such as valley oaks,
California buckeyes, and Fremont
cottonwoods and native grasses can be used
for revegetation.
vi. The planted riparian trees shall be monitored
by a biologist or arborist annually for a period
of 5 years to ensure that mortality does not
exceed 20 percent after 5 years. If there is
greater than 20 percent mortality of planted
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-14
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. trees after 5 years, the project proponent
shall be responsible for replanting and
monitoring the trees for an additional 3-year
period.
vii. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive
weed monitoring shall also be conducted. In
the event that an increase in the distribution
or density of invasive plants is documented
(for example, water hyacinth or Brazilian
waterweed), an invasive weed management
and eradication program shall be developed
and implemented.
viii. A performance bond, letter of credit, or
other financial instrument shall be
established to pay for any remedial work that
might need to occur.
ix. Once vegetation has become established, the
upper bank should provide overhanging
vegetation cover for fish during most tidal
elevations. However, the placement of riprap
without natural habitat features (e.g., large
woody debris) along most of the lower bank
would create minimal in-water habitat for
fish. Given incorporation of both high quality
and low quality habitat features, this design
is characterized as being overall of moderate
value.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-15
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. To improve the overall habitat value of the bank,
installation of tree species along the lower bank
may be possible by installing Sonatubes in the rip-
rap and planting the trees within these tubes. The
Sonatubes allow trees to grow along rip-rap banks
without harming the integrity of the bank.
g. Low and moderate quality habitat along the south
side of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel, the
section of Old Kellogg creek at the southwestern
end of the project site and the east and west sides
of Kellog Creek between Newport point and State
Route 4, shall be restored to high quality habitat
by creating a slope setback.
h. The setback shall be created by excavating
existing bank material from approximately MLW
to the top of the bank.
i. An intertidal berm with a 10:1 or 20:1 slope
shall be established to create shallow water
habitat and stabilize the bank.
ii. The berm shall be planted with tules to
provide in-water resting and hiding places for
fish.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 3:1 or 5:1
and planted with native riparian trees and
shrubs to create shaded riverine aquatic
habitat.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-16
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. iv. Trees and shrubs planted along upper bank
shall be monitored by a qualified biologist or
arborist for a minimum 5-year period. If there
is greater than 20 percent mortality of planted
trees and shrubs after 5 years, the applicant
shall be responsible for replanting and
monitoring the trees for an additional 3-year
period.
v. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive
weed monitoring shall also be conducted. In
the event that an increase in the distribution
or density of invasive plants is documented
(for example, water hyacinth or Brazilian
waterweed), an invasive weed management
and eradication program shall be developed
and implemented.
vi. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other
financial instrument shall be established to
pay for any remedial work that might need to
occur.
i. Existing low and moderate quality bank habitat
around the perimeter of Pantages Island shall be
restored to high-quality habitat by implementing
the setback design as described for the ECCID
Dredge Cut/Intake Channel. This design shall be
established around most of the island, except for
bank habitat adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Bank
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-17
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-2, continued. habitat along Kellogg Creek shall be stabilized
with riprap to prevent erosion due to wave action
from existing and future boater activity.
Therefore, this area of Pantages Island will be
designed to provide moderate-quality bank
habitat as prescribed above. Also to address
wave action, moderate quality habitat shall also
be created along the North Cove and in the North
Bay at the end of Point of Timber Road.
Impact BIO-3: Development of the project would
have a significant impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Vernal pool fairy shrimp.
a. In order to offset the project’s impact on vernal
pool fairy shrimp the applicant shall implement
one of the following measures:
i. Purchase credits in an existing fairy shrimp
mitigation bank at a ratio determined during
negotiations with USFWS during Section 7
Consultation between the Corps and the
USFWS;
ii. Acquire suitable mitigation property via fee
title at a ratio determined during negotiations
with USFWS during Section 7 Consultation
between the Corps and the USFWS; or
iii. With permission from state and federal
regulatory agencies and in agreement with the
Conservancy, the project proponent shall
make a financial contribution to the
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-18
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-3, continued. Conservancy, to offset the project’s impact to
the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The financial
contribution to the Conservancy or the
amount of mitigation land that shall be
purchased via fee title shall be determined
during negotiations with USFWS during
Section 7 consultation between the Corps and
the USFWS.
b. Prior to impacting the seasonal wetland where
the vernal pool fairy shrimp were found,
documentation of the mitigation transaction (e.g.,
financial contribution to the Conservancy), and/or
a copy of the Biological Opinion outlining the
mitigation requirements and incidental take
statement from USFWS, shall be provided to
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
and Development.
c. Prior to grading onsite, and as prescribed in a
Biological Opinion issued for the project, topsoils
from the wetland containing the fairy shrimp egg
bank shall be scalped by a qualified federal
10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist and redeposited
in appropriate seasonal mitigation wetlands that
shall be created within the wetland mitigation
preserve onsite.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-19
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-4: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on the California
red-legged frog.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-4: California red-legged frog.
a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to aquatic and
upland buffer habitat, that is, for each 1 acre of
aquatic or upland buffer habitat impacted, 1 acre
of compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite
or acquired offsite in a suitable location) or
mitigation may be as required by the USFWS
during consultation initiated by the Corps with
USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title
acquisition of land, contribution into an existing
mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement
with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a
financial contribution to the Conservancy.
c. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring
requirement stipulated in permits/ authorizations
issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this
project shall be completed as stated in the
permits/authorizations. Copies of all survey
reports and monitoring reports required by
USFWS in the conditions of the Biological Opinion
shall be submitted to Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development.
d. Contra Costa County shall receive copies of all
agency agreements/ authorizations related to this
species, and shall not issue a grading or building
permit until all agency agreements/ permits
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-20
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-4, continued. relating to the California red-legged frog have
been obtained for this project and mitigation has
been implemented.
Impact BIO-5: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on the giant
garter snake.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Giant garter snake.
a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to suitable
aquatic and upland habitat (that is, for each 1
acre of suitable aquatic and upland habitat
impacted, 1 acre of compensatory habitat shall be
preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a suitable
location) or mitigation may be as required by the
USFWS during consultation initiated by the Corps
with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title
acquisition of land, contribution into an existing
mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement
with the Conservancy, the project proponent may
make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring
requirement stipulated in permits/ authorizations
issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this
project shall be completed as stated in the
permits/authorizations.
c. Contra Costa County shall receive copies of all
agency agreements/authorizations related to this
species, and shall not issue a grading permit or
building permit until all agency
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-21
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-5, continued. agreements/permits relating to the giant garter
snake have been obtained and mitigation for this
species has been implemented.
Impact BIO-6: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on the western
pond turtle.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Western pond turtle.
The applicant shall install turbidity barriers around
construction areas in Kellogg Creek and the buffers
protecting the preserved emergent marsh to ensure
that western pond turtles do not enter the project
construction areas.
a. The western pond turtle is not a state listed
species; therefore, it is not protected pursuant to
the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the
resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS) do not have
specific mitigation guidelines that must be
followed to offset a project’s impact to the
western pond turtle. Mitigation for this special-
status species is determined on a project by
project basis. It is likely that any mitigation
implemented for the California red-legged frog
and the giant garter snake would also mitigate the
proposed project’s impact on the western pond
turtle. The mitigation measure for impacts to
these two listed species would be a 1:1 mitigation
ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of
mitigation land would be acquired offsite or
preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat
and a surrounding upland buffer area, or
mitigation would be as worked out by the
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-22
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-6, continued. applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time
applications for permits/authorizations from
these two agencies are submitted. Replacement
habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of
land, contribution into an existing mitigation bank,
or, with permission from state and federal
regulatory agencies and in agreement with the
Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy.
Impact BIO-7: Development of the project would
have potentially significant impact on federal and/or
state listed fish species and fish species designated by
the State of California as Species of Special Concern.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Federal and/or State listed
fish species and California species of special concern
fish.
a. To minimize potential impacts to federal and/or
state listed fish and California “species of special
concern” during construction and dredging of the
two interior bays, a levee shall be maintained
between the area to be excavated and the Kellogg
Creek channel.
b. A qualified fisheries biologist shall be onsite
during all pumping and siphoning activity to
ensure that these activities do not result in take of
federal and/or state listed fish and California
“species of special concern.”
c. Silt curtains or suction dredges shall be used
when conducting work in the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek. Use of this
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-23
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-7, continued. equipment will localize sediment movement and
protect fish from entrainment and the effects of
increased turbidity.
d. All in-water work shall be conducted between
August 1 and November 30 to minimize the
potential for take of threatened and endangered
fish species. By conducting work within this time
period, the project will avoid most critical
spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for
listed fish species.
e. Long-term impacts to fish are not expected
provided the proposed bank habitat mitigation to
re-create and replace impacted bank habitat is
implemented by the applicant.
Impact BIO-8: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on tree nesting
raptors.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Tree nesting raptors.
a. If possible, tree removal shall be completed
outside the nesting season (that is, between
September 2 and February 28). In an abundance
of caution, a preconstruction nesting survey of
the tree to be removed shall be conducted within
30 days of the scheduled removal to ensure no
birds are nesting.
b. If construction or tree removal would commence
between March 1 and September 1 during the
nesting season, nesting surveys shall be
conducted 30 days prior to grading/construction
of the project or any proposed tree removal work.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-24
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-8, continued. The raptor nesting surveys shall include
examination of all trees and shrubs within sphere
of influence of the proposed project, and not just
of those trees slated for removal.
c. If nesting raptors are identified during the
surveys, the dripline of the nest tree shall be
fenced with orange construction fencing
(provided the tree is on the project site), and a
300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be
staked with bright orange lath or other suitable
staking.
d. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the
buffer shall be demarcated per above where the
buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the
buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor
biologist conducts behavioral observations and
determines the nesting raptors are well
acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the
raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified buffer
that allows sufficient room to prevent undue
disturbance/ harassment to the nesting raptors.
This buffer may be reduced no smaller than 100
feet from the nest tree.
e. No construction or earth-moving activity shall
occur within the established buffer until it is
determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the
young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and
have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-25
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-8, continued. project construction zones. This typically occurs by
August 1. This date may be earlier than August 1 or
later, and would have to be determined by a qualified
raptor biologist.
Impact BIO-9: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on the
Swainson’s hawk.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Swainson’s hawk.
a. To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for
impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat the
applicant shall implement one of the following
scenarios:
i. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat1
(this is a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio), as
approved by CDFG, to a conservation
organization. An operating endowment shall
be provided to the conservation organization
to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity.
ii. With permission from state and federal
regulatory agencies and in agreement with the
Conservancy, the applicant may make a
financial contribution to the Conservancy,
commensurate with approximately 135 acres
of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging
habitat.
LTS
1 The mitigation requirement for 135 acres is the 171-acre project site minus the 36.43 acres of Corps jurisdictional waters of the U.S. onsite
which do not provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-26
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-9, continued. b. To ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting
Swainson’s hawks, preconstruction nesting surveys
shall be conducted no more than one month prior
to construction to establish whether Swainson’s
hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are
occupied.
c. If an active nest is found on or adjacent to the
project site “to avoid potential violation of Fish
and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed
species), project-related disturbance at active
Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced
or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting
cycle (March 1- September 15 annually)”(CDFG
1994).
d. If Swainson’s hawks are found nesting on the
project site, a qualified raptor biologist shall
establish a non-disturbance boundary around the
nesting site. The size of this non-disturbance
boundary shall be determined by the qualified
raptor biologist in the field and in coordination
with CDFG. The buffer shall be based on the
location of the nesting tree, the birds’ tolerance
of noise and other disturbance (e.g., ground
vibrations).
e. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined
by a qualified raptor biologist, and in coordination
with CDFG, any non-disturbance boundary/nest
buffer could be vacated.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-27
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-9, continued. f. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the
project, removal of this tree shall be mitigated in
accordance with the mitigation measure
prescribed for tree removal impacts in Mitigation
Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is proposed as
mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting:
removal). Replacement nest trees shall be native
species (such as oaks or cottonwoods).
Impact BIO-10: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
western burrowing owl.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Western burrowing owl.
Burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the
methodologies prescribed by CDFG in their 1995 Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the
Burrowing Owl Consortium in their 1993 Burrowing
Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines are
more likely to be accepted by CDFG. Below we
provide the survey methodology that shall be used to
conduct burrowing owl surveys. These surveys would
meet the standards of care required by CEQA for
conducting surveys for the western burrowing owl
and are accepted by CDFG.
a. A nesting survey shall be conducted for western
burrowing owl in the spring of the year prior to
construction of the project and again 30 days
prior to construction of the project.
b. If the site would be developed in the winter, then
the following surveys should be conducted in the
winter months. Since burrowing owls move
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-28
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. around (through dispersal and local movements)
readily in the winter months, and since there are
migrants that can temporarily occupy burrows in
the winter, surveys conducted in the winter
months are less reliable at detecting resident
burrowing owls. Regardless of whether
development commences in the winter months,
surveys must be completed as described below
for spring/summer surveys.
c. Surveys shall commence at least 90 days in
advance of projected site disturbance and again in
the 30 day period just prior to breaking ground. In
accordance with the Consortium’s guidelines, four
site visits are recommended for a complete
survey. Two surveys shall be conducted 90 days
before ground disturbance associated with the
project and two surveys shall be conducted in the
30 day period prior to ground disturbance
associated with the project. The CDFG Staff
Report states that preconstruction surveys need
to be completed within 30 days of grading prior to
CDFG accepting a survey conclusion that no
burrowing owls occur in a proposed study area
(i.e., negative findings). If no owls are found
during these surveys, no further regard for the
burrowing owl would be necessary.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-29
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. d. Western burrowing owl surveys shall be
conducted from two hours before sunset to one
hour after, or one hour before to two hours after
sunrise. All burrowing owl sightings, occupied
burrows, and burrows with owl sign (e.g., pellets,
excrement, and molt feathers) must be counted
and mapped.
e. Surveys shall be conducted by walking all suitable
habitat on the entire project site and (where
possible) in areas within 150 meters (approx. 500
feet) of the project impact zone. The 150-meter
buffer zone is surveyed to identify burrows and
owls outside of the project area which may be
impacted by factors such as noise and vibration
(heavy equipment) during project construction.
f. Pedestrian survey transects shall be
systematically spaced to allow 100 percent visual
coverage of the ground surface. The distance
between transect center lines shall be no more
than 30 meters (approx. 100 ft.) and shall be
reduced to account for differences in terrain,
vegetation density, and ground surface visibility.
To effectively survey large projects (100 acres or
larger), two or more surveyors shall be used to
walk adjacent, parallel transects.
g. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls
and/or occupied burrows should be avoided by a
minimum of 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) if in the
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-30
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. non-breeding months (October 1st through
February 1st) and 250 feet during the breeding
permanent impacts to burrowing owl habitat. To
months (February 1st through October
1st).Disturbance to occupied burrows and within
the established buffers should be avoided until no
burrowing owls occur on the site. Note that CDFG
can approve a passive western burrowing owl
eviction plan during the non-breeding season.
h. If burrowing owls are detected on the site during
the breeding season (peak of the breeding season
is April 15 through July 15), and appear to be
engaged in nesting behavior, a fenced 250-foot
buffer would be required between the nest site(s)
(i.e., the active burrow(s)) and any earth-moving
activity or other disturbance in the project area.
This 250-foot buffer could be decreased to 160
feet once it is determined by a qualified raptor
biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left
the nest). Typically, the young fledge by August
31. This date may be earlier than August 31, or
later, and would have to be determined by a
qualified burrowing owl biologist. If burrowing
owls were found on the project site, a qualified
biologist would also need to delineate the extent
of burrowing owl habitat on the site.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-31
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. i. To mitigate impacts to burrowing owls, CDFG
prescribes that six and a half acres (6.5 acres) of
replacement habitat be set aside (i.e., protected
in perpetuity) per pair of burrowing owls, or
unpaired resident bird. Such a set-aside will offset
illustrate the extent of mitigation land required by
California Department of Fish and Game, we
provide this example: If two pairs of burrowing
owls are identified on the project site, 13 acres of
mitigation land would be acquired. Or, if one pair
and one resident bird are identified, 13 acres of
mitigation land would be acquired. The protected
lands should be adjacent to occupied burrowing
owl habitat if possible, and at a location selected
in consultation with CDFG. Land identified to
offset impacts to burrowing owls must be
protected in perpetuity by a suitable property
instrument, e.g., a conservation easement or fee
title acquisition. Any mitigation lands set aside for
burrowing owl would also include preparation of
a Mitigation Plan for burrowing owl and their
habitat. A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and
submitted to CDFG for this agency’s review and
comment. Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development must approve the
Mitigation Plan prior to issuing a grading permit
for the proposed project.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-32
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-10, continued. j. The Mitigation Plan shall identify the mitigation
site and any activities proposed to enhance the
site, including the construction of artificial
burrows and maintenance of California ground
squirrel populations on the mitigation site. In
addition, for each pair of burrowing owls found in
the construction area, two artificial nesting
burrows will be created at the mitigation site. The
Plan should also include a description of
monitoring and management methods proposed
at the mitigation site. Monitoring and
management of any lands identified for mitigation
purposes would be the responsibility of the
applicant for at least five years. An annual report
must be prepared for submittal to CDFG and
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation
and Development by December 31 of each
monitoring year. Contingency measures for any
anticipated problems should be identified in the
plan.
k. With permission from state and federal regulatory
agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy,
the applicant may make a financial contribution
to the Conservancy to mitigate impacts to
burrowing owls and burrowing owl habitat.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-33
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-11: Development of the project would
have a potentially significant impact on other
protected nesting birds.
S Mitigation BIO-11: Impacts to other nesting birds.
a. A nesting survey shall be conducted prior to
commencing with construction work if this work
would commence between March 15 and August
31.
b. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike
or tricolored blackbird, are identified nesting
within the area of affect, a 100-foot non-
disturbance radius around the nest must be
fenced. No construction or earth-moving activity
shall occur within this 100-foot staked buffer until
it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that
the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and
have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid
project construction zones. This typically occurs
by August 1. This date may be earlier than August
1, or later, and would have to be determined by a
qualified ornithologist. Similarly, the qualified
ornithologist could modify the size of the buffer
based upon site conditions and the bird’s
apparent acclimation to human activities.
c. If common (that is, not special-status) passerine
birds (that is, perching birds such as northern
mockingbirds) are identified nesting in the trees
proposed for removal, tree removal would have to
be postponed until it is determined by a qualified
ornithologist that the young have fledged and have
attained sufficient flight skills to leave the project
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-34
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-11, continued. site. Typically, most passerine birds can be
expected to complete nesting by August 1, with
young attaining sufficient flight skills by this date
that are sufficient for young to avoid project
construction zones. Unless otherwise prescribed
for special-status bird species, upon completion
of nesting no further protection or mitigation
measures would be warranted for nesting birds.
Impact BIO-12. Impacts to Waters of the United
States and/or State.
S Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Impacts to waters of the
United States and/or State
Authorization from the Corps and the RWQCB (for
example, an Individual Permit and a Certification of
Water Quality) shall be obtained prior to filling any
waters of the U.S./State on the project site.
A Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh
Preservation and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays
was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated
November 15, 2006). According to this mitigation
plan, minimization of indirect impacts would be
accomplished by grading home pads to drain toward
streets and away from open space areas, landscaping
with native plants, construction on bioswales,
maintaining natural buffers between the
development and the preserved marsh habitat within
the open space areas, and using native plantings as
landscaping buffers between development and open
space preserve areas. An exception is at the
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) crossing of the marsh
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-35
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. where there is no buffer. The location of the EVA was
chosen so that the road crossed the marsh at its
narrowest point. In most other cases, there is a
minimum of 50 feet between the edge of the
residential development and the preserved marsh. At
some locations, grading would encroach into the 50
foot width; however, the graded area would be
planted with native vegetation and maintained
naturally (no irrigation) such that it functions as a
buffer. The open space preserve area shall be
separated from adjacent development or recreational
areas with permanent fencing that protects the open
space preserve from unauthorized use while
providing a visual connection to the open space.
Residential fences would be tubular steel or some
other form of permanent, visually open, fencing
where houses back up to the open space preserve.
Past mitigation efforts from other development
projects have shown that with open fencing,
protected areas are kept free from dumping of trash
by homeowners as the community has more
connection and feels more stewardship of the open
space. In addition, along the EVA/trail, kiosks with
educational signage will be developed to reduce
human-induced impacts.
Impacts to waters of the United States/State will also
be minimized by implementing the following
measures:
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-36
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. a. The project proponent shall implement best
management practices consistent with the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
prepared for the project to protect the emergent
marsh and wetland mitigation area, including
installing orange construction fencing, hay or
gravel waddles, and other protective measures.
b. During project construction, a biological monitor
shall be onsite to monitor the integrity of
preserved wetlands and other waters.
c. For those wetland areas that cannot be avoided,
compensation wetlands shall be
enhanced/created to replace those wetlands
permanently affected by project activities. If
possible, wetlands shall be created on-site and
shall resemble those wetlands affected by the
project (known as in-kind replacement).
d. All impacted wetlands shall be replaced at a
minimum 1:1 ratio (for each square foot of
impact, one square foot of wetland would be
enhanced/created) or as otherwise specified in
permitting conditions imposed by the Corps and
RWQCB.
e. The specific mitigation for the project consists of
the components listed here:
Creation of approximately 5.29 acres of
seasonal wetland on-site;
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-37
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. Creation of approximately 0.30 acre of marsh
habitat on-site;
Creation and enhancement of approximately
11,060 linear feet of bank habitat on-site,
including Shaded Riverine Aquatic habitat and
shallow water habitat;
Creation of approximately 46 acres of open
water habitat on-site;
Preservation of all avoided and created
aquatic areas; and
Implementation of a comprehensive long-
term storm water management plan designed
to protect water quality.
The compensatory mitigation envisioned for the
project will consist of two major efforts. First will be
the creation of seasonal wetland habitat in the
uplands adjacent to the preserved marsh, and second
will be the creation and enhancement of bank habitat
within the project area.
Creation (Compensatory Mitigation)
Seasonal Wetland/Emergent Marsh/Open Water
Habitat
a. A minimum of approximately 5.29 acres of
seasonal wetland and 0.30 acre of marsh shall be
created within the 44-acre preserve area.
Specifically, the creation of the seasonal wetland
will occur in the 12.58-acre upland area in the
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-38
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. northwest corner of the site. The expansion of the
marsh shall be accomplished either on the
eastern side of the existing marsh on the new
peninsula created by the opening of the northern
bay or along the western side of the existing
marsh. This represents a 1:1 mitigation ratio
(created wetlands to impacted wetlands).
b. Soil borings shall be taken prior to the
construction of the seasonal wetlands within the
open space preserve to verify the suitability of the
proposed wetland soils (e.g. cobbly soils or old
alluvium would not be suitable soils).
c. Ground water depths shall also be identified
within the open space preserve.
d. The locations of the created wetlands shall be
selected based on the existing topography within
the uplands, soil composition, and ground water
depths, and the created seasonal wetlands shall
be excavated to a depth necessary to accumulate
seasonal (winter) groundwater and/or to any clay
layer that will perch rainfall.
e. The upper 6 inches of top soil shall be scalped
from the seasonal wetlands to be impacted and
will be placed in the created wetlands for seed
source. These topsoils would contain a seed bank
of the impacted pool plant species which would
germinate with fall/winter hydration of the re-
created pools.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-39
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. f. The created wetlands shall be very slightly over
excavated to accommodate the addition of
topsoil.
g. This mitigation measure may be substituted by
implementing another wetland compensation
plan that is approved for the project by both the
Corps and the RWQCB.
Bank Habitat
Overall, the project will remove approximately 5,380
linear feet of the 10,120 linear feet of existing habitat
along the project site. The applicant proposes to
mitigate for the loss of 5,380 lineal feet of excavated
low and moderate quality bank habitat by: (1)
enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both onsite and
offsite, to high quality bank habitat (shaded riverine
aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on
Pantages Island, ECCID Property on the south side of
the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old Kellogg Creek,
and Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State
Route 4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of
moderate quality bank habitat (shallow sloping or
level bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses,
rip-rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the
excavated portion of Pantages Island, the North Cove
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-40
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. and the end of Point of Timber Road in the North Bay.
Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060
lineal feet.
Open Space Preservation
The preserved and created seasonal wetlands and
marsh habitat would be located within a 44-acre
permanently preserved area. In addition, the
approximately 11,060 linear feet of enhanced and
created bank habitat shall be preserved in perpetuity.
It is envisioned that ownership of the 44 acres of
open space preserve areas as well as the enhanced
bank habitat on ECCID property and Pantages Island
and the created banks within the bays and coves will
be transferred to RD 800, and that a conservation
easement would be conveyed to the Town of
Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD)
for preservation in perpetuity. The TDBCSD would
also function as the Preserve Manager and conduct
the long-term monitoring and maintenance of the
preserve areas in perpetuity. On the adjoining
Ravenswood project, a conservation easement has
been conveyed to the TDBCSD for the same purpose
pursuant to Corps Permit No. 199400928. TDBCSD will
therefore be able to ensure consistent and
coordinated management of the two conservation
areas. RD 800 will own and be responsible by
conservation covenants to monitor and maintain the
bank habitat within Pantages Bays in perpetuity.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-41
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. Funding will be provided through annual assessments
of homeowners in Pantages Bays that are secured
through a binding, permanent agreement. This
funding and monitoring is separate from the
compensatory mitigation monitoring for the created
wetlands is outlined in the Conceptual Wetland and
Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for
Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC
(dated November 15, 2006). Alternative long-term
mitigation monitoring acceptable to permitting
agencies may also be considered.
A 5-year monitoring program will be established to
monitor the progress of the wetland mitigation
toward an established goal. At the end of each
monitoring year, an annual report will be submitted
to the Corps, RWQCB and Contra Costa County. This
report will document the hydrological and vegetative
condition of the mitigation wetlands, and will
recommend remedial measures as necessary to
correct deficiencies.
Aside from the minimum replacement ratio and in
perpetuity protection, various regulatory agencies
may provide additional conditions and stipulations for
permits. Permits for impacts to waters of the U.S. will
be required by the Corps. Similarly, permits for
impacts to waters of the state will be required by
both the RWQCB and CDFG prior to the impacts
occurring. These agencies will likely impose their own
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-42
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Biological Resources (continued)
Impact BIO-12, continued. mitigation requirements. Any other conditions that
are stipulated for impacts to waters of the U.S. or
state by the Corps, RWQCB, and/or CDFG shall also
become conditions of project approval.
Impact CUM BIO-1: Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation
and Wildlife Resources
S The mitigation measures prescribed above would
offset cumulative impacts to special-status species,
wetlands, trees, and plant communities/wildlife
habitats to levels regarded as less than significant.
Mitigation that includes creation and enhancement of
impacted “waters of the U.S.,” stream channels, and
bank habitat would offset this cumulative impact to
levels regarded as less than significant.
LTS
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Construction of the project could
potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5.
S Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event that any
prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological
resources are discovered during ground-disturbing
activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources
shall be halted and the applicant shall consult with
the County and a qualified professional (historian,
archaeologist and/or paleontologist as determined
appropriate and approved by the County) to assess
the significance of the find.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-43
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Cultural Resources (continued)
Impact CUL-1, continued. If any find is determined to be significant,
representatives of the County and the consulting
professional shall determine the appropriate
avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by
the consulting professional to mitigate impacts to
cultural resources, the County shall determine
whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such
as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and
other considerations.
If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures,
such as data recovery, shall be instituted. Work may
proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All
significant cultural materials recovered shall, at the
discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional
standards.
At the County’s discretion, all work performed by the
consulting professional shall be paid for by the
applicant and at the County’s discretion, the
professional may work under contract with the
County.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-44
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Cultural Resources (continued)
Impact CUL-2: Construction of the project could
potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an unknown archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5.
S Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts
from changes in the significance of an archaeological
resource to a less-than-significant level.
LTS
Impact CUL-3: Construction of the project potentially
could directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource on site or unique geologic
feature.
S Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to
paleontological resources or a unique geologic
feature to a less-than-significant level.
LTS
Impact CUL-4: Construction of the project could
potentially disturb human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries.
S Mitigation Measure CUL-4: In the event of the
accidental discovery or recognition of any human
remains in any location other than a dedicated
cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human
remains until:
The coroner of the county in which the
remains are discovered must be contacted to
determine that no investigation of the cause
of death is required, and
If the coroner determines the remains to be
Native American:
The coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24
hours;
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-45
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Cultural Resources (continued)
Impact CUL-4, continued. The Native American Heritage Commission
shall identify the person or persons it
believes to be the most likely descended
from the deceased Native American;
The most likely descendent may make
recommendations to the landowner or the
person responsible for the excavation work
for means of treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains
and any associated grave goods as
provided in Public Resources Code Section
5097.98; or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the
landowner or his authorized representative shall
rebury the Native American human remains and
associated grave goods with appropriate dignity
on the property in a location not subject to
further subsurface disturbance:
The Native American Heritage Commission is
unable to identify a most likely descendent or
the most likely descendent failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being
notified by the Commission;
The identified descendant fails to make a
recommendation; or
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-46
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Cultural Resources (continued)
Impact CUL-4, continued. 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.
Energy
There are no significant impacts to energy.
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: Implementation of the project could
expose people and developments to adverse effects
from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic
related ground failure including liquefaction and
lateral spreading.
S Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: The project applicant
shall design structures and foundations to withstand
expected seismic sources in accordance with the
current version of the California Building Code, as
adopted by the County.
Mitigation GEO-1b: At least 60 days prior to recording
the Final Map the applicant shall submit updated
improvement plans for the project for review by the
County’s Peer Review Geologist and review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator. For the
purposes of geologic review, the plans shall provide
detailed information on the bank stabilization wall
system being proposed along the waterfront
residential lots.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-47
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Geology and Soils (continued)
Impact GEO-1, continued. Mitigation GEO-1c: Prior to the issuance of building
permits, the applicant shall submit an updated
geology, soils and foundation report meeting the
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section
944.420 for review by the Peer Review Geologist and
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The
report shall address the specific approach to grading
and development indicated by the Final Subdivision
Map and Improvement Plans, and shall provide
technical data and engineering analysis that
addresses the stability of the residential lots.
The project geotechnical engineer shall use the
following performance criteria:
Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static
conditions,
Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static
conditions, and which takes into account the
potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity
(Great Valley seismic zone) and
Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down.
Mitigation GEO-1d: During the construction of
subdivision improvements, the project geotechnical
engineer shall provide observation and testing
services and issue a grading/shoring wall completion
report. The report shall provide documentation on
the bank stabilization wall depths and appropriate
testing of fill compaction to determine the
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-48
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Geology and Soils (continued)
Impact GEO-1, continued. effectiveness of the bank stabilization measures in
preventing lateral spreading failures toward the
Kellogg Creek channel.
Impact GEO-2: Development of the project site could
result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
S Mitigation GEO-2: The applicant shall submit a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review
and approval by the Building Inspection Division of
the Department of Conservation and Development.
The SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the
State Construction Storm Water General Permit, the
manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the
County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP
resources available on its website:
http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
With regard to long-term control of sedimentation
and protection of water quality, a Storm Water
Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006)
was prepared for the project and submitted to the
County’s Public Works Department in order to comply
with County water quality requirements. Engineered
linear bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the
selected stormwater runoff treatment for this project,
which are area based storm water treatment
facilities.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-49
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Geology and Soils (continued)
Impact GEO-3: The project could expose structures
to substantial adverse effects related to expansive
and corrosive soils on the project site.
S Mitigation GEO-3: At least 30 days prior to
recordation of the final map, the project applicant
shall submit a plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads
and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate how the
results of the study will guide design of concrete and
ferrous materials that are in contact with the ground.
LTS
Global Climate Change
Impact CUM GCC-1: The project would generate GHG
emissions in excess of the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6
metric tons of CO2e per service population per year
and would have a considerable contribution on global
climate change.
S Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1a: The County shall
ensure that the project applicant(s) employs green
building techniques in the design of proposed
structures within the Pantages Bays project.
Specifically, structures shall conform at a minimum to
the California Green Building Code or equivalent
green building standards.
Mitigation Measure CUM-GCC-1b: The applicant has
agreed to incorporate the following measures within
the proposed project:
Project landscaping shall include water-efficient
native and adaptive plants in combination with
high-efficiency irrigation equipment;
Recycled content shall be included in project
building materials, including the use of pre-
consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project
walkways, driveways, roadways, and non-plant
landscape elements;
SU
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-50
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Global Climate Change (continued)
Impact CUM GCC-1, continued. To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior
paints, carpets, adhesives, sealants, and coatings
selected for the project shall have a low
concentration of volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs);
The heating, ventilation, and air conditions
(HVAC) systems within each single family home
shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants
(i.e. non CFC-based refrigerants);
Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall
include high-efficiency systems to provide
enhanced indoor air quality as potential
pollutants would be ventilated through the
building at a faster rate;
The project shall install high efficiency restroom
fixtures including low-flow or dual flush toilets to
reduce potable water use;
Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as
certified by the Forest Stewardship Council) shall
be used in wood materials for the single family
homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving,
doors, and countertops; and
The project shall install water and energy efficient
appliances and lighting fixtures, including
EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration
equipment.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-51
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The project could potentially cause the
release of hazardous materials into the environment
during demolition, grading, and construction
activities.
S Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of
grading permits, soil samples shall be collected from
the paint disposal area and analyzed for metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile organic
compounds. Soil samples shall be compared to the
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined
by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board San Francisco Bay Region. If soil samples
exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated and
remediated under the oversight of the Contra Costa
Environmental Health Division (CCEHD). Additionally,
the site shall be inspected by an environmental
professional, appointed by the County, during
demolition and preliminary grading activities.
In the event that previously unidentified
contaminants are discovered, the contamination shall
be reported to CCEHD and investigated and
remediated under the oversight of CCEHD in
accordance with existing regulatory programs.
LTS
Impact HAZ-2 The project could potentially release
hazardous materials during demolition of the existing
residence.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a: Prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof to
the County that all asbestos-containing materials
have been removed at the existing residence located
to the south of Point of Timber Road, in compliance
with state regulations.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-52
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (continued)
Impact HAZ-2, continued. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b: Prior to the issuance of
a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit proof
to the County that all lead-based paint (LBP) has been
removed at each of the existing former residences on
the project site, in compliance with state regulations.
Impact HAZ-3: Project demolition and construction
activities could expose individuals at the Timber Point
Elementary School to hazardous emissions or
materials.
S Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-
2a, and HAZ-2b would ensure that all potentially
hazardous materials, including lead-based paint,
asbestos containing materials, and soil contamination
from prior use of the site is properly removed and
disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste contractor
in accordance with state regulations.
LTS
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: Construction activities would alter the
existing drainage patterns resulting in erosion,
sedimentation, and contamination of storm water
runoff which could degrade water quality in adjacent
water bodies.
S Mitigation Measure HYD-1a: A qualified hydrologist
on the project team shall perform, at minimum,
weekly monitoring of the water quality in Kellogg
Creek adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine
whether adjustments to their position or depth are
required. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as
needed, to accurately assess water quality
degradation.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1b: The applicant shall
submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building
Inspection Division of the Department of
Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall be
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-53
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality (continued)
Impact HYD-1, continued. consistent with the terms of the State Construction
Storm Water General Permit, the manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Measures by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, policies and recommendations of the
County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP
resources available on its website:
http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
Mitigation Measure HYD -1c: To prevent pollution of
receiving waters due to equipment fueling, storage,
and maintenance, the contractor shall develop a
detailed set of guidelines to follow. Final plan notes,
and contractor bid documents shall include the
following specifications:
1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for
storage of maintenance materials, and refueling
purposes.
2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any
runoff so that any contaminants such as spilled
fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving
waters.
3. If heavy-duty construction machinery is left
overnight in an area that is not protected from
direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall
be placed beneath the engine block and hydraulic
systems.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-54
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality (continued)
Impact HYD-2: Abandoned groundwater wells on the
project site could act as direct conduits to
groundwater for hazardous waste.
S Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the project applicant shall coordinate
with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division
(CCEHD) to identify and survey the existing and
abandoned groundwater wells on the project site.
The identified groundwater wells shall be properly
decommissioned and/or retrofitted under permit
from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the
decommissioned wells for approval.
LTS
Impact HYD-3: The project site is located within areas
of projected tidal inundation due to sea level rise,
which would place people and structures within a
flood hazard associated with long-term sea level rise.
S Mitigation Measure HYD-3a: The final map and
improvement plans, including grading plans shall
include, at minimum, a finished floor elevation of
residential units at 14.1 feet.
Mitigation Measure HYD-3b: The final map and
improvement plans, including grading plans shall
include, at minimum, a finished street level elevation
of 12.1 feet.
LTS
Land Use and Planning
There are no significant impacts to land use and planning.
Mineral Resources
There are no significant impacts to mineral resources.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-55
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise
Impact NOI-1: Project construction would cause a
substantial temporary increase in ambient noise
levels.
S Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: All noise generating
construction activities shall be limited to the hours of
7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and
shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on
the calendar dates that these holidays are observed
by the state or federal government as listed below:
New Year’s Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and
Federal)
Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and
Federal)
Lincoln’s Birthday (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day (State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and
federal holidays occur, please visit the following
websites:
Federal Holidays:
http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-56
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise (continued)
Impact NOI-1, continued. California Holidays:
http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm
Signs shall be posted at the construction site that
include permitted construction days and hours, a day
and evening contact number for the job site, and a
day and evening contact number for the County in the
event of problems.
An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall
be available to respond to and track complaints. The
manager will be responsible for responding to any
complaints regarding construction noise and for
coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The
manager will determine the cause of any complaints
and coordinate with the construction team to
implement effective measures (considered technically
and economically feasible) warranted to correct the
problem. The telephone number of the coordinator
shall be posted at the construction site and provided
to neighbors in a notification letter. The manager will
be trained to use a sound level meter and should be
available during all construction hours to respond to
complaints.
At least one week prior to commencement of grading
or construction activities for each major phase of
construction the applicant shall prepare a notice that
grading or construction work will commence. The
notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-57
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise (continued)
Impact NOI-1, continued. owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of
the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on
the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall
include a list of contact persons with name, title,
phone number and area of responsibility. The person
responsible for maintaining the list shall be included.
The list shall be kept current at all times and shall
consist of persons with authority to indicate and
implement corrective action in their area of
responsibility. The names of individuals responsible
for noise and litter control, tree protection,
construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and
the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly
identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued
with each phase of the project and a copy shall be
mailed to the Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: The project applicant
shall prepare a detailed construction noise mitigation
plan for review and approval by the County. The goal
of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying
neighbors of the extent of the noise that can be
expected during particular phases of the project
grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to
call if there are noise-related complaints. Submission
of this construction noise mitigation plan shall be
required as part the building permit application.
The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-58
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise (continued)
Impact NOI-1, continued. California Model Community Noise Ordinance limits
of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60 dBA for
stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation
goals.
Information in the plan shall include but not be
limited to the following:
Construction schedule showing dates and location
of activities.
List of equipment to be used during each major
construction phase and sound level estimates for
each phase.
Height, length, and location of any recommended
noise barriers. The barriers can be constructed
out of wood or other materials as long as they
have a minimum surface weight of approximately
2.5 pounds per square foot. Possible materials
include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully
overlapping 1x redwood boards (1-1/2-inch-thick
total). The barriers would likely be 6 to 8 feet tall
but this would be refined as part of the
construction noise control plan. Issues to
consider when determining the ultimate height,
length, and location of the barriers are the actual
construction practices, including equipment to be
used and the location and duration of noisier
activities. The topography will also need to be
considered in the final determination of barrier
heights and effectiveness.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-59
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Noise (continued)
Impact NOI-1, continued. Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise
sensitive locations. The project applicant shall
limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week
set by Contra Costa County.
Location of stationary equipment as far from
residents as is practicable and/or enclose noise
sources.
The project applicant shall require the contractor
to use electric or hydraulically powered rather
than diesel or pneumatically powered equipment
and construction tools as feasible.
Provide intake silencers and “resident-type”
exhaust mufflers on vehicles and equipment
and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools
as feasible.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1c: The project applicant
shall construct temporary noise barriers along the
western property line neighboring the existing
residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay
West subdivisions. Noise barriers shall provide noise
reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA.
Population and Housing
There are no significant impacts to population and housing.
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-60
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Public Services and Recreation
Impact PS-1: The project would be required to provide
2.6 acres of parkland to meet the County’s parkland
dedication requirement.
S Mitigation Measure PS-1: The project applicant shall,
concurrent with the recording of the map, dedicate to
the County or other public agency approximately 2.6
acres of public trails and two passive recreation
locations with tables and seating next to the open
water, including the eight foot side walk leading from
Point of Timber Road to the public trails through the
preserved open space. The public trail through the
open space area also serves as an EVA and must
comply with Fire Department standards. In
combination with the dedication of the public trail the
project shall pay a park dedication fee of $1351 per
dwelling unit upon issuance of building permits. The
future residence of Pantages would pay for the
maintenance of the public trails and passive
recreation areas for their use and that of the public.
LTS
Public Utilities
Impact UTIL-1: Per the requirements of Title 22 of the
California Waterworks Standards, the Town of
Discovery Bay Community Services District does not
currently have sufficient legal water supply capacity to
serve the project.
S Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to final map
recordation, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the County (i.e., Can & Will Serve
letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator that the TDBCSD has identified
and secured sufficient financing for the construction
of any required improvements outlined in the Water
MP to ensure sufficient capacity exists to serve the
project.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-61
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Public Utilities (continued)
Impact UTIL-1, continued. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit,
the Applicant shall provide documentation to the
County Zoning Administrator that said improvements
needed to serve the project are constructed and
operational.
Impact UTIL-2: Town of Discovery Bay Community
Services District does not currently have sufficient
wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project.
S Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Prior to final map
recordation, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the County (i.e., Can & Will Serve
letter), demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
Zoning Administrator that the TDBCSD has identified
and secured sufficient funding for the construction of
any capacity or treatment improvements outlined in
the Wastewater MP and necessary so that serving the
project does not exceed the requirements of the
RWQCB.
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit,
the Applicant shall provide documentation to the
County Zoning Administrator that said improvements
needed to serve the project are constructed and
operational, and that any source control measures
are being implemented consistent with the
requirements of the RWQCB.
LTS
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with
other reasonably foreseeable projects, would have a
considerable contribution to long-term water supplies
within the project area.
S Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1: The project
applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-62
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Public Utilities (continued)
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with
other reasonably foreseeable projects, would have a
considerable contribution to long-term wastewater
treatment within the project area.
S Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2: The project
applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure UTIL-2.
LTS
Transportation and Circulation
Impact TRA-1: Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions at
the SR4/Byron Highway (south intersection) signalized
intersection.
S Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron
Highway (south) can be achieved by adding a second
northbound to westbound left-turn lane from Byron
Highway onto SR4 and its associated receiving lane.
This improvement is currently identified in the 2007
Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement &
Preservation Program, although funding has not been
identified. If this improvement is not included in a
County fee program or other funding program at the
time of project approvals, the project applicant shall
be responsible for their fair share of the improvement
prior to the issuance of building permits.
LTS
Impact TRA-2: Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions
on Vasco Road.
S Mitigation Measure TRA -2: The project applicant
shall pay regional roadway fees to the East Contra
Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA)
fee program to upgrade existing roadways.
SU
Impact TRA-3: Implementation of the project would
increase traffic volumes on nearby rural roads, and
create conflicts with the farm equipment that share
these roads during the peak summer months.
S Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would
require the project applicant to pay regional roadway
fees to upgrade existing roadways and/or construct
new facilities in the project area.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-63
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-1: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Byer
Road/Byron Highway (No. 6).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Byer
Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and a southbound left turn
lane. This improvement is not identified in any
funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the
project applicant would be required to contribute 12
percent of the total costs for this improvement.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-2: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersections of Holway
Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway (No. 23).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1): Mitigation
of the unacceptable traffic conditions at the Holway
Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway intersections can be achieved by installing a
traffic signal at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway and providing left-turn pockets on all
approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound
Camino Diablo Road to northbound Holway Drive and
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-64
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-2, continued. left again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway would
instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway intersection. This mitigation
would require modifications to the adjacent railroad
crossing west of the intersection to provide the
required left turn pocket on the eastbound approach.
This improvement is included in the Draft East County
Regional AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update
project list. The project applicant shall pay the
required AOB fee.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2): As an
alternative to Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option
1), mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at
the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by
installing traffic signals at both intersections, in
addition to adding a northbound left-turn lane pocket
at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection.
Traffic would not be shifted under this mitigation, and
a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing at the
Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection
would not be needed.
A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway
intersection is not identified in any funding program.
Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding
program.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-65
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-2, continued. If these improvements are not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building permits.
This trust fund shall fund improvements to intersections
identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative
conditions and not identified in a fee program. As
indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project applicant would
be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14
percent of the total costs for this improvement.
Impact CUM TRA-3: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at
all four intersection approaches.
This improvement is included in the Draft East County
AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list.
The project applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce
this impact to less-than-significant.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-4: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Timber Road/Byron Highway (No. 12).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in
the Draft East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee
Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the
required AOB fee.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-66
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-5: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Timber Road/Bixler Road (No. 13).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Point of Timber
Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at
all four intersection approaches. This improvement is
not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the
project applicant would be required to contribute
between 30 and 39 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-6: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek
Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal. This improvement is
included in the Draft East County AOB Transportation
Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project
applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-67
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-7: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of
Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road (No. 18).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Marsh Creek
Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not
identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the
project applicant would be required to contribute
between 10 and 11 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-8 Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the signalized intersection of SR4/Byron
Highway (south) (No. 19).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Byron
Highway (south) intersection can be achieved by
adding a second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway
approach and a second through lane on the
southeast-bound SR4 approach.
The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway
approach improvement is currently identified in the
2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement
& Preservation Program, although funding has not
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-68
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-8, continued. been identified. The second through lane on the
southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any
funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17, the
project applicant would be required to contribute
between 9 and 11 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
Impact CUM TRA-9: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the unsignalized intersection of
SR4/Newport Drive (No. 21).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the SR4/Newport
Drive intersection can be achieved by installing a
traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in
any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee
program at the time of project approvals, the project
applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost of
this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account
(Fund #8192) prior to the issuance of building
permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
LTS
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 2.0 Executive Summary
2-69
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation (continued)
Impact CUM TRA-9, continued. intersections identified as operating unacceptably
under cumulative conditions and not identified in a
fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the
project applicant would be required to contribute
between 4 and 6 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
Impact CUM TRA-10: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions at the signalized intersection of Camino
Diablo Road/Vasco Road (No. 22).
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10: Mitigation of the
unacceptable traffic conditions at the Camino Diablo
Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved by
adding a northbound right turn lane. This
improvement is included as one of several
improvements at this intersection in the Draft East
County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update
project list. The project applicant shall pay the
required AOB fee.
LTS
Impact CUM TRA-11: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions along Vasco Road.
S Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11: The project
applicant shall pay regional roadway fees to the East
Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority
(ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing roadways.
SU
Impact CUM TRA-12: Implementation of the project
would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS
conditions along Marsh Creek Road.
S Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would
require the project applicant to pay regional roadway
fees to upgrade existing roadways and/or construct
new facilities in the project area. However, as there
are no specific plans to provide additional capacity on
this segment of Marsh Creek Road, the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable.
SU
Pantages Bays Project
2.0 Executive Summary Draft EIR
2-70
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
Impact VIS-1: The project would create new sources of
light and glare which could adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
S Mitigation Measure VIS-1: The project applicant shall
prepare a lighting plan for the review and approval by
the Zoning Administrator. Exterior lighting shall be
low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall
utilize motion detection systems where applicable. In
general, the light footprint of individual units shall not
extend beyond the periphery of each property.
Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all
buildings shall also comply with the standard
California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy
Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading
of light to surrounding uses.
LTS
Notes: LTS = Less than significant
S = Significant
SU = Significant and unavoidable
Source: Circlepoint, 2012.
3-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Pantages Bays Project (project) is a proposed 292 single-family residential
development that would form part of the Discovery Bay community in eastern
Contra Costa County (County). The project applicant, Pantages at Discovery Bay,
LLC, is proposing the development of 116 waterfront lots with individual or shared
docks and deep water access, and 176 interior residential lots.
As part of the project, the portion of Kellogg Creek immediately east of the project
site would be widened. Reclamation District No. 8001 (RD 800) is co-sponsoring the
proposed widening, which would reduce water velocities in that section of Kellogg
Creek, thereby improving public safety. The widening would also reduce bank
erosion and sedimentation, and would limit the need for dredging.2
The project would preserve approximately 16 acres of existing emergent marsh in
the northern portion of the property, and also includes the creation of new seasonal
wetlands and enhanced creek bank aquatic habitat. These project components are
described in more detail in Section 3.4, Project Components, of this chapter.
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County, within
the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line (ULL) (see Figure 3-1). The closest
incorporated city is Brentwood, located approximately 4.5 miles to the northwest.
The site is surrounded by residential development, both existing and planned:
The existing town of Discovery Bay is located to the east and south, comprising
approximately 3,700 residences, a golf course, marina and harbor, commercial
uses, a church, and Discovery Bay Elementary School.
1 RD 800 controls and is responsible for the waterways in Discovery Bay.
2 RD 800 is a co-applicant in the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit process and related resource
agencies applications, per personal communication with Jeff Conway, District Manager and as
described in the Cost-Sharing Agreement dated September 2003.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-2
The existing Centex Development to the southwest at Bixler Road and State
Route 4 is comprised of approximately 378 residences.
The following recently developed subdivisions are located west and north of the
project site:
The Ravenswood development includes 181 single-family residential units
and 22 duplexes.
Discovery Bay West includes five “Villages” that will total 1,999 units when
fully constructed. Village I includes Timber Point Elementary School and
Regatta Park. Village II is commonly referred to as the Lakeshore
subdivision. Villages III, IV, and V make up the Lakes at Discovery Bay
community.
Other non-residential development in the vicinity of the project site includes:
The East Contra Costa County Irrigation District Dredge Cut/Intake Channel
(ECCID Dredge Cut) along the northern project boundary.
Agricultural production northeast of the project site, north of Kellogg Creek and
the Town of Discovery Bay.
3.3 PROJECT SETTING
Figure 3-2 depicts information related to the environmental setting. The
approximately 171-acre project site consists of 162 acres of land owned by the
project applicant, and 9.2 acres of land owned by the ECCID, including Pantages
Island and land along the ECCID Dredge Cut. The project site is comprised of 10
assessor parcels that are designated Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation (DR)
and Water (WA) by the Contra Costa General Plan and are zoned General
Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3).
The project site is vegetated with 80 trees and low-lying non-native annual
grasslands. The site contains three abandoned homesites, including one residence
and associated outbuildings near the center of the site, and one barn on the eastern
portion of the site.
The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 2 to 8 feet. The entire
project site falls within Special Flood Hazard Zone A on the Flood Insurance Map for
the County (FEMA 2009), which indicates that the area is subject to flooding during
a 100-year storm event in the Delta. Approximately 8 acres of the project site,
mainly along the site perimeter, is currently subject to tidal variations.
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-1FigureRegional Location and Project Site
.25
MILES
.1250 .5
C
ONTRA COSTA COU
N
T
Y
S
AN JOAQUIN COUN
T
Y
4
4
4
Balfour Road
Bixler RoadDiscovery Bay Boulevard Kellogg CreekOld Kellogg CreekIndian Slough
Point of Timber Road
VILLAGE
IV
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL CORE
VILLAGE
III
PROJECT
SITE
VILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
VILLAGE
I
VILLAGE
V
RAVENSWOODDISCOVERY BAY
PANTAGES
ISLAND
ECCID Dredg e C u tLegend
Project Site (171 Acres)
Discovery Bay West
The Lakes at Discovery Bay
(Villages III, IV and V)
Ravenwood
Urban Limit Line (Unincorporated)
County Line
ALAMEDA COUNTY
SAN
FRANCISCO
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PROJECTSITE
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-4
Figure 3-1 Regional Location and Project Site (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-5
A large emergent marsh and three seasonal wetlands are located throughout the
site. The site was used for grazing until approximately 1981. Between 1981 and
1992, the site—excluding the emergent marsh—was planted with oats, wheat, and
rye grass. Several shallow irrigation ditches associated with this prior use still exist.
Since 1992, the site has been disked annually and seeded with a grass mixture, and
a small herd of cattle (approximately 10) currently graze the site.
Over the past decade RD 800 has used the site as part of its dredging program to
improve navigation functions along Kellogg Creek. RD 800 created six siltation
ponds in the central portion of the site to decant and store dredge spoils (See Figure
3-2). The siltation ponds, created in 2003, consisted of large earthen berms
approximately 20 feet tall. Dredged material from Kellogg Creek was pumped in
and allowed to settle. Once the sediments had precipitated, the remaining water
was pumped back into Kellogg Creek.
3.4 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project applicant is concurrently seeking approval from the County of the
following four applications:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE NO.
GP99-0008)
The project applicant is seeking a general plan amendment to change the general
plan designations of the project site from Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation
(DR) and Water (WA) to the following designations (see Figure 3-3):
Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM)
Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH)
Water (WA)
Public/Semi-Public (PS)
Open Space (OS)
Under the amended land use designations, approximately 80 acres of the project
site would be developed with 292 residential homes, and associated streets and
infrastructure. The remaining 91 acres would contain the open-water areas,
emergent marsh, wetlands, open space areas, and a marine patrol substation.
These components are discussed in detail below. Project construction activities and
sequencing are described in Section 3.5, Project Construction, of this chapter.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-6
REZONING (COUNTY FILE NO. RZ04-3146)
The project applicant is seeking a rezoning of the project site from General
Agricultural (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) (see
Figure 3-4).
SUBDIVISION/TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL (COUNTY
FILE NO. SD06-9010)
A subdivision/tentative map approval has been requested by the project applicant
to subdivide the approximately 171-acre project site into 292 single-family
residential lots, private streets, bays and coves, open space and a marine patrol
substation.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (COUNTY FILE NO. DP04-
3062)
Figure 3-5 depicts the Proposed Final Development Plan, which includes 292 single-
family one and two-story residential units with associated streets and infrastructure.
Of the 292 units, 116 units would have direct deep water access. Table 3-1 provides
a breakdown of the lots by type.
Table 3-1 Breakdown of Lots by Type
Type of Residential Lot No. of Units Lot Sizes (feet)
Deep water access via private dock 100 90x140, 80x140
Deep water access via shared dock 16 80x140
Interior Lots (no water access) 176 60x100, 100x110
Notes:
Lot sizes range from 6,000 to 21,320 square feet.
Source: dk Consulting, Project Plans, October, 2009.
The development plan also includes a description of the landscaping, bays and
coves, the widening of Kellogg Creek, open space with a public trail and emergency
vehicle access (EVA), marine patrol substation with 2 docks, wetland preservation
area, and wetland mitigation area. Table 3-2 illustrates the breakdown of acreage
by type of use.
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-2FigureEnvironmental Setting
250FEET1250 500
Ol
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
ECCID Dredge CutRAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
SUBD. 8428
VILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)
60’ x 100’ MIN. LOTS
Ind
ian
S
lough
Legend
Project Site Boundary*
Emergent Marsh (14.14 AC)
Seasonal Wetlands (5.63 AC)
Former Siltation Ponds
Home Sites/Outbuildings
Delineation Data Points
Areas Containing Existing Trees
EM1
SW1—SW6
1 — 5
*Special Flood/Hazard Flow Zone A
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-8
Figure 3-2 Environmental Setting (back)
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-3Figure Proposed Land Use Designations
500FEET2500 1000ECCID Dredge CutPoint of Timber RoadVILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
RAVENSWOOD
VILLAGE I
DISCOVERY BAYIndian Slough Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
O
l
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Project Site Boundary
Legend
Description
NOTE:
1. EAST CONTRA COSTA IRRIGATION
DISTRICT (ECCID) SHALL RETAIN FEE
SIMPLE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PARCEL AND
CONVEY AN EASEMENT TO PANTAGES AT
DISCOVERY BAY, LLC OR ASSIGNEE FOR
COMPLETION OF CREEK BANK CHANGES
AND THEIR MAINTENANCEWETLANDPRESERVATIONAREA
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-10
Figure 3-3 Land Use Designations (back)
PANTAGES BAYS
3-4Figure
CirclePoint
Proposed Zoning
Source: CirclePoint, 2011.
Point of Timber Road
VILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
RAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
Indian Slough
Kellogg CreekOld Kellogg CreekEC
C
I
D
D
r
e
d
g
e
C
u
t
Legend
Project Boundary
P-1 Planned Unit
1000FEET500
0 2000
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-12
This page intentionally left blank.
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-5FigureProposed Final Development Plan
NORTH COVEBOTTOM ELEV. -103.16 ACRES
NORTH BAYBOTTOM ELEV. -1011.97 ACRES
SOUTH BAYBOTTOM ELEV. -109.54 ACRES
SOUTH COVEBOTTOM ELEV. -105.01 ACRES
Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
Ol
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
kECCID Dredge CutVILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)RAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
EMERGENCY VEHICLE & FOOTAND BICYCLE ACCESS ONLYPUBLIC TURNAROUND &ENTRANCE TO PUBLIC TRAIL
250FEET1250 500
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-14
Figure 3-5 Proposed Final Development Plan (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-15
Table 3-2 Breakdown of Acreage by Type of Use
Type of Use Acreage
Residential Lots (includes Public Utilities Easement) 63
Streets (includes linear bioretention facilities) 17
Open-water (includes bays and coves) 47
Open Space Areas (includes wetland and marsh) 44
Landscaping (common area at end of Point of Timber Road) <1
Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation 0.51
TOTAL 171
Source: dk Consulting, Project Plans, October, 2009.
Base Flood Elevations for Project Development
The project as currently designed greatly exceeds the County requirements for
protection from the 100-year flood. As described below the County imposes two
standards for flood protection: interior lots are subject to one standard, while a
higher standard is imposed upon areas subject to tidal variation (such as the land
along Kellogg Creek).
The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the 100-year storm event, as defined by FEMA
and the County,3 is the elevation that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded by floodwaters in any one year. The 100-year BFE for the project site is
7.5 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)4 . In locations subject to tidal
variations, the County’s flood design standard requires a minimum of 2 feet of
freeboard5 between the finished floor elevation of a home and the BFE of the 100-
year flood event. Lots along Kellogg Creek would therefore require a finished floor
elevation of at least 9.5 feet NGVD.6
As shown in Table 3-3, the finish floor elevation of all lots would exceed the
County’s standard by more than 3 feet. The following section provides information
on the additional design standards related to predictions for sea level rise.
3 As defined in the Contra Costa County Code, Section 82-28.486 – One Hundred –year flood.
4 NGVD is a vertical (elevation) unit of measurement similar to mean sea level (msl) that takes into
account the local gravitational forces due to astronomical phenomenon, as well as local wind patterns,
river stages, and storms. NGVD addresses the fact that local msl is not always equal to zero in all
places.
5 Freeboard is a factor of safety expressed in feet above a known flood level
6 Contra Costa County Code Section 82-28.1002, 3A.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-16
Table 3-3 Base Flood Elevations for Project Development
Lot Type County’s Design
Standard
Proposed Finished
Floor Elevations
Additional Feet of Freeboard
Above County’s Design
Standard
Interior Lots 7.5 10.9 3.4*
Waterfront Lots 9.5 12.7 3.2
Lots Exposed to Tidal
Variation
9.5 12.7 3.2
*Interior lots are not subject to tidal variations and therefore are not required to have 2 feet of freeboard between
the finished floor elevation and the 100-year BFE.
Note: All measurements in approximate feet NGVD. The proposed finished floor elevations demonstrate the
lowest residential lots on the current project site plans.
Source: dk Consulting, Project Plans, October, 2009.
Project Design — Sea Level Rise Elevations
CEQA documents now include analysis of potential impacts related to the predicted
rise in sea level.
The California State Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08 (signed November, 14,
2008), directs state agencies planning development projects in areas vulnerable to
future sea-level rise to assess risk and, where feasible, reduce that risk. The Order
calls for the development of planning guidelines by the state over the next several
years to address the complex issue of sea level rise.
Executive Order S-13-08 notes that if a project has filed a Notice of Preparation
(NOP) prior to the date the Executive Order was issued (November 2008), the
project proponents may, but are not required to, account for these planning
guidelines. The project applicant filed a NOP prior to November 2008 and thus
would be exempt from these planning guidelines. However, due to the location of
the project and the adjoining Delta tidal waterways, the project applicant has
proactively designed the project to comply with predicted future elevations related
to sea level rise.
There have been a number of recent projections on the future magnitude of sea
level rise in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The State of California Resources
Agency recommends the consideration of the following sea level rise scenarios for
planning purposes in the Delta region and California as a whole:
Year 2050 – 16-inch rise (equivalent to 1.3 feet or 0.4 meters)
Year 2100 – 55-inch rise (equivalent to 4.6 feet or 1.4 meters)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-17
These scenarios have been adopted as policy by the California State Coastal
Conservancy and are used by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) and other state agencies for planning purposes. As such, the
project applicant used these scenarios to address sea level rise on the project site.
As shown in Table 3-4, the current design of the project meets the design standards
for the Year 2050 scenario for sea level rise, but does not meet the design standard
for the Year 2100 scenario.
In order to satisfy the 2100 sea-level rise scenario, the minimum finished floor
elevation with a concrete slab foundation would have to be 14.1 feet. The project
applicant is proposing to account for the Year 2100 scenario for sea level rise by
redistributing the finished grades as part of the final grading plans. Mitigation is
included in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality to ensure that these
proposed changes to the grading plan are implemented.
Table 3-4 Base Flood Elevations for Project Development
BFE
(County Design
Standard for
Project Site)
Currently Proposed
Finished Floor
Elevation
Finished Floor
Elevations Proposed
for Final Map
Interior Lots
100 year BFE 7.5 10.9 14.1
100 year BFE in 2050 8.8 10.9 14.1
100 year BFE in 2100 12.1 10.9 14.1
Water front Lots (must be designed with an additional 2 feet of free board)
100 year BFE 9.5 12.7 14.1
100 year BFE in 2050 10.8 12.7 14.1
100 year BFE in 2100 14.1 12.7 14.1
Source: Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC, 2010.
OPEN-WATER AREAS
As shown in Figure 3-5, the open-water areas created by the project would include
the widening of Kellogg Creek (17.05 acres), the North Cove (3.16 acres), North Bay
(11.97 acres), South Cove (5.01 acres), and South Bay (9.54 acres).7 Consistent with
7 17.05 + 3.16 + 5.01 +11.97 + 9.54 = 46.73 acres, personal communication with Catherine Ginn at dk
Consulting Inc., December 4, 2009
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-18
RD 800 standards, constructed bays and coves would be excavated to a depth of at
least 10 feet below msl to allow for safe boat passage at low tide.8 The project
would require approval from the Contra Costa LAFCO for annexation to the RD 800
sphere of influence and corresponding service boundary.
As required by RD 800 standards, Kellogg Creek would be widened to 300 feet at the
elevation of 3 feet above msl to provide adequate access for docks on both sides of
the channel.9 At the northern end of the project site, the widening would require
the removal of the northeastern tip of Pantages Island. At the southern end of the
project site, Old Kellogg Creek would be widened from its current width of 60 feet to
a maximum of 200 feet to provide adequate access, per RD 800 requirements, to
areas with docks on one side. Old Kellogg creek would also be excavated to a depth
of 5 to 10 feet below msl.10
ACQUISITION OF PANTAGES ISLAND AND LANDS
OWNED BY ECCID
On December 12, 2006, Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC and the ECCID entered into a
Property Transfer Agreement whereby the project applicant will acquire
approximately 9 acres of land owned by the ECCID, commonly known as Pantages
Island. This land would be used for creek bank restoration and as open space.
The project applicant is also working with the RD 800 and ECCID to secure
conservation easements over RD 800 properties in the vicinity of the project site.
These properties include Parcel “C” and “D” near the project’s northern boundary,
and the west and east banks of Kellogg Creek between Newport Drive and State
Route 4 (SR4). The conveyance of this ECCID property (i.e., Pantages Island) and the
RD 800 conservation easements would take place prior to final map approval.
The project would preserve the majority of Pantages Island, with the exception of a
small portion of the northeasterly tip that would be removed as part of the
widening of Kellogg Creek. As part of the mitigation included in Section 4.3,
Biological Resources, the project applicant would be required to enhance 11,060
linear feet of creek bank habitat on Pantages Island and along the ECCID dredge cut
to provide high and moderate quality shaded riverine aquatic habitat. The west and
east banks of Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route 4 would also
be enhanced to establish high quality bank restoration.
8 Personal communication with Jeff Conway, RD 800 District Manager.
9 RD 800 minimum standards per Jeff Conway.
10 Old Kellogg Creek would be widened to 200 feet at the opening to the main Kellogg Creek, and
would be widened to 60 feet at the westernmost portion.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-19
SITE ACCESS
Roadways, Parking, and Water Access
Access to the site would be via Point of Timber Road. A public turnaround and
gated entry would be constructed at the Point of Timber Road entrance, and
vehicular access would be limited to residents and guests. Wilde Drive would be
designated as an emergency vehicle access and would be used for emergency
evacuation only, although a gate would be provided for day-to-day use by bicyclists
and pedestrians. The project streets and cul-de-sacs would be privately owned and
maintained by a homeowners association. Internal circulation is depicted in Figure
3-5.
All deep waterways would be owned by RD 800 and would be open to the public as
navigable water. Use of any individual docks within the project site would be
limited to the homeowners and their guests.
The project would create approximately 1,995 parking spaces, including 1,420 off-
street spaces (garage and driveway spaces) and up to 575 on-street parking
spaces.11 Streets would be designed in compliance with County private road
standards and requirements of emergency service providers. With two exceptions,
streets would include a 56-foot right-of-way (36 feet measured from each edge of
pavement), with room for parking on both sides and 10 feet on each side of the
street for separated sidewalks and a landscaped linear bioretention facility (swale).12
Exception #1: The extension of Point of Timber Road from its current terminus
to the site’s internal circulation roadway would be 40-feet wide within a 70-foot
right-of-way.
Exception #2: ‘C’ Court is a short cul-de-sac with homes fronting on one side
only. Therefore, it is designed within a 43-foot right-of-way and has a 28-foot
road measured from each edge of pavement, a 5-foot swale on both sides, and
parking and a 5-foot sidewalk on only one side. As such, it meets County private
road standards and East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD)
requirements. Cul-de-sac bulbs would be designed to meet ECCFPD turning-
radius requirements.
11 The estimate for off-street parking spaces is based on a mix of lots with two and three-car garages. It
assumes that approximately half the lots will have a three car garage (i.e., six off-street spaces), while
the remaining lots will have two car garages (i.e., four off-street spaces).
12 Linear bioretention facilities (swales) are landscaped elements designed to remove silt and pollution
from surface runoff water.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-20
Open Space and Emergency Vehicle Access
Public pedestrian and bicycle access would be provided to the open space areas via
a public trail/emergency vehicle access (EVA) road to be constructed through the
emergent marsh and proposed wetland mitigation/open space area. In compliance
with ECCFPD standards, the public trail/EVA would be constructed as an all-weather,
permeable surface that would provide access to the edge of Kellogg Creek, as
illustrated in Figure 3-6.
The public trail/EVA road would be 3,840-feet-long and 20-feet wide, with an 8-foot
paved trail in the middle and a 6-foot compacted aggregate shoulder on each side.
The applicant also proposes a 16-foot-wide bridge across the emergent marsh.
Pedestrian and bicycle public access to the trail would be provided at the Point of
Timber Road entrance to the project site as shown in Figure 3-7.
The public trail/EVA road would include interpretive signage, kiosks, and a seating
area at the end of the trail to enhance the public’s use and enjoyment. The cost of
maintaining the public trail/EVA road would be borne by the homeowners as part of
a landscaping and lighting district. The public trail/EVA land would be dedicated to
the County as part of the Final Map.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The project would require approval from the Contra Costa LAFCO for annexation to
the Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD) sphere of influence and
corresponding service area for water and wastewater service. As shown in Figure
3-8, a portion of the site is located within the service district boundary; the project
includes annexation of the rest of the site into the TDBCSD service area.
The existing electrical, gas, and utilities that serve Discovery Bay are located within a
joint trench in a public utility easement that crosses the site under the private
extension of Point of Timber Road and continues under Kellogg Creek and into the
Discovery Bay community. The utility lines would be relocated as part of the project
to run under ‘C’ Street and ‘D’ Street, where they would reconnect to the existing
lines at Kellogg Creek.
Stormwater Facilities
A Storm Water Control Plan C.3 Report, dated July 14, 2006, was determined to be
preliminarily complete by the Public Works Department. It should be noted that a
Final Storm Water Control Plan, modified to match any changes made during the
preparation of improvement plans will be required to be submitted and approved
prior to recordation of the Final Map.
BRIDGE
Source: DK Consulting, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-6FigurePublic Access and Open Fence Plan
250FEET1250 500
Ol
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
ECCID Dredge CutRAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
SUBD. 8428
VILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)
60’ x 100’ MIN. LOTS
Ind
ian
S
lough
Legend
Description Proposed Existing
Project Site Boundary
Retaining Wall
Emergent Marsh
Wetland Mitigation Area
Pedestrian Trail & EVA*
8’ Sidewalk
Open-Type Fencing
(i.e. wrought iron)
NA
20FEET100 40
Open fencing for waterfront lots.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-22
Figure 3-6 Public Access and Open Fence Plan (back)
O
L
D
ECCID DREDGE CUTPLANT MATERIAL KEY
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE
Source: Rose Associates, 2006.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
3-7FigureLandscaping Plan
FEET
0 300
150
FEET
0 60
30
FEET
0 60
30
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-24
Figure 3-7 Landscape Plan (back)
PANTAGES BAYS
3-8Figure
CirclePoint
Discovery Bay Community Services District Service Area Boundary
Source: CirclePoint, 2011.
Point of Timber Road
VILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
RAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
Indian Slough
Kellogg CreekOld Kellogg CreekEC
C
I
D
D
r
e
d
g
e
C
u
t
Legend
Project Boundary
Within DBCSD Service Area
1000FEET5000 2000
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-26
No storm water runoff would be discharged into the emergent marsh or wetland
mitigation areas or over the creek bank enhancement areas. These open areas of
the project site would remain in their natural state and would be self-retaining and
self-treating.
To accommodate runoff from the roofs, driveways, roadways, and sidewalks of the
project, linear bioretention facilities (swales) would be provided along each side of
internal streets in order to comply with County C.3 water quality requirements. The
approximately 5-foot-wide swales would provide soil filtration for storm water
runoff prior to its release into the bays and coves. As designed, the swales would
accommodate all calculated runoff from these proposed impervious surface areas.13
The TDBCSD would maintain the swales through the creation of a landscaping and
lighting district.
The storm drain outlets would be protected with flap gates to prevent water from
back-flowing into the streets during very large storm events. During large storm
events, water would flow overland into the bays. All overland flow outlets into the
bays are 2 feet above the 100-year BFE and 1.5 feet above the 300-year BFE at high
tide. The overland releases would be set at elevations below the adjacent finished
floor elevations. The effects of this project design element are more fully discussed
in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR.
LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, AND FENCING
Landscaping
The project would provide landscaping, including approximately 770 trees to be
planted along project roadways and at the project entrance. Figure 3-7 illustrates
the proposed landscaping plan. As a preliminary design, the project landscape
architects have proposed the species types and approximate counts, as listed in
Table 3-5. Additional trees would be planted along enhanced and created creek
banks to provide shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) habitat14 consistent with the
recommendations of Stillwater Sciences, the applicant’s fisheries biologist. Eighty
trees were surveyed on the existing project site including Modesto ash, Fremont
cottonwood, and manna gum. All 80 trees are proposed for removal during project
construction.
13 See Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
14 SRA habitat is defined by the US Fish and Wildlife Services as the near-shore aquatic area occurring
at the interface between a river and adjacent woody riparian habitat. Attributes of SRA habitat include
providing temperature-reducing shade and nutrient cycling for aquatic life.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-27
Table 3-5 Proposed Tree Landscaping Palette
Quantity Botanical Name Common Name
Street Trees
302 Fraxinus o. 'Raywood' Raywood ash
351 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen ash
Accent Trees
58 Prunus 'Krauter Vesuvius' Flowering plum
Entry Trees
4 Aesculus californica California buckeye
12 Chamerops humilis Mediterranean fan palm
4 Cornus sericea Creek dogwood
11 Phoenix dactylifera Date palm
10 Platanus racemosa California sycamore
6 Populus fremontii Cottonwood
6 Salix babylonica Weeping willow
12 Schinus molle California pepper tree
Notes:
For street trees, there would be an estimated two trees per lot (typical), and five trees at corner lots.
Source: Rose Associates, 2006.
Lighting
The project includes installation of low-glare neighborhood street lights on all
streets and courts and at the main entry. Street lights would be approximately 115
feet apart on 16 foot poles, and would be designed to minimize sky glow and to
prevent light from penetrating adjacent open space and water areas.15 Similar
restrictions on residential outside lighting are also proposed.
Fencing
The project would include 6-foot-high fencing, typically associated with single-family
development. The backyard fencing for lots along the emergent marsh would be
open, consistent with the recommendation of the applicant’s wetland consultant.
15 Street light fixture submittal information by the landscape architect, dated June 21, 2007.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-28
On the waterfront lots, side-yard fencing facing the street would be open-type
fencing (i.e. wrought iron) and one side yard of each waterfront house would be
conditioned to minimize obstructions along the entire length of the side yard in
order to provide pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers with views of the water. (Side
yard fences running from the street to the back of the lots do not need to be open).
See the Public Access and Open Fence Plan on Figure 3-6.
Marine Patrol Substation
The proposed Sheriff’s marine patrol substation would be located on the northeast
portion of the project site adjacent to an area of high boat traffic (see Figure 3-5).
The substation would be a primary point of deployment for the Sheriff’s marine
patrol, and would enhance marine patrol enforcement in the Discovery Bay area by
allowing the sheriff to more efficiently respond to calls. Currently, the Sheriff’s
marine patrol is dispatched either from a mobile location or the substation located
near the Antioch Bridge in Oakley. The Sheriff’s Department currently keeps two
patrol vessels in the marina at Discovery Bay to patrol the area and respond to calls.
The project applicant has consulted with the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner on the
design of the substation, which would include an approximately 1,450 square-foot
permanent modular building with 2 boat docks.16 The building would have
electricity, a restroom and a small office. There is no holding facility planned for the
structure.
The approximately 0.5 acre site would be accessible via a 20-foot EVA and would
contain a 100-foot x 100-foot Medivac helicopter landing area to provide emergency
air-lift services on the rare occasion when boating accident victims need to be
airlifted to a hospital. Landing a Medivac helicopter at this location is within federal
aviation regulations17 and is preferred by responders over landing on the nearby
levees. Based on discussions with the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner, the project
applicant proposes that property owners would fund the cost of one deputy who
would perform either marine patrol or limited land services within the Pantages
development and surrounding area, depending on the need.
In keeping with the management of existing waterways within Discovery Bay, boat
traffic would be controlled through designation of a no wake zone (5 miles per
hour). The speed requirements would be clearly specified in the homeowner
association’s covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs).
16 Letter from Mark Armstrong to Lt. Will Duke, dated March 25, 2008, and response letter from
Sheriff Warren Rupf, dated May 21, 2008.
17 Personal communication with Capt. Will Duke on October 15, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-29
A separate parcel comprised of the substation and associated facilities would be
dedicated to the County or their designee at the time of recordation of the final
map. The access road to the substation will also serve as a public trail.
3.5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The project would be developed in overlapping phases, including project clearing,
mass grading, excavation of soils, wetland creation, habitat enhancement,
installation of underground and surface improvements, and construction of the
marine patrol station and homes.
The project applicant expects to complete the construction of all finished lots and
homes within a seven or eight year period. To accommodate this schedule, the
project applicant would undertake some of the grading construction work between
October 15 and April 15 during the rainy season. For the purposes of this EIR, it is
assumed that earthmoving activities (i.e., grading and utility installation) would start
in 2013 and end in 2015. The construction of homes would begin immediately
following completion of earthmoving activities, and the project is assumed to be
fully developed by 2020. Ultimately, market conditions would shorten or increase
this anticipated schedule.
Soils would be balanced on the site, meaning the soil excavated to create the open-
water area and waterfront lots would be used as fill for elevated roads and lots. No
import or export of soils is anticipated.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
The sequence of construction is described below:
Removal of trees, demolish existing abandoned homes and associated
structures, and clear the project site
Partially grade streets “C” and “D” to allow for relocation of the subsurface joint
trench/utilities transmission lines and installation of new utility lines serving the
Town of Discovery Bay
Excavate soil material from the site and construct a 50-foot-wide pad on
engineered fill behind water front lots for use by the operators of shoring
equipment that would install and form the permanent shoring wall
Install permanent shoring wall at the rear of the proposed waterfront lots
through the use of a technique referred to as “cement deep soil mixing”. The
cement deep soil mixing wall would be installed through drilling linear holes and
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-30
back filling with a mix of cement and soil. The holes would also be reinforced
with steel I-beams that would be placed within the cement and soil mixture. No
pile driving or deep compaction would be necessary to construct the walls
Install turbidity barriers along Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek banks that
will be excavated in sections of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 linear feet and
install turbidity barriers (work to be completed only between August 1 and
November 30 to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered species of fish)
Excavate the proposed South Bay, North Bay, and North Cove (leaving a plug of
soil to separate work zone from Kellogg Creek)
Create building pads, roadways, and EVA with excavated material
Allow water levels to stabilize in South Bay, North Bay and North Cove
Install turbidity barriers in Kellogg Creek, and excavate the South Bay and North
Bay soil plugs to protect Kellogg Creek (work to be completed only between
August 1 and November 30 to avoid impacts to threatened and endangered
species of fish)
Construct bridge over emergent marsh for EVA. Create new seasonal
wetlands/emergent marsh expansion and enhance existing creek bank habitat
along ECCID Dredge Cut and Pantages Island. The new creek bank would be
enhanced as it is constructed (e.g., new bank habitat created in Old Kellogg
Creek and to widen Kellogg Creek channel)
Complete marine patrol substation facilities and construction of homes
3.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project has the following two main objectives:
Build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and a
proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-water
access and individual docks; and
Widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site to
reduce water velocities and improve public safety in that section of Kellogg
Creek.18
18 The existing channel is narrower than is the width generally required by RD 800.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 3.0 Project Description
3-31
Other key project objectives include:
Construct market-rate housing to meet the needs of present and future
residents of eastern Contra Costa County;
Develop a project consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods (i.e.,
6,000- to 21,320-square-foot lots) to the east and west of the project site and
that creates an improved link between the original Discovery Bay and Discovery
Bay West;
Provide for flood protection in a conservative manner that exceeds current
County minimum standards for finished floor elevations above the 100-year
storm BFE;
Reduce the need for dredging by RD 800 and improve water quality in Kellogg
Creek and Indian Slough through appropriate bank stabilization and habitat
restoration along the project shoreline, further reducing the amount of scour
and associated sedimentation;
Create new high- and moderate-quality bank habitat in and near the project site
and enhance existing banks from low-quality to high-quality SRA habitat to
benefit native fish species;
Preserve the majority of the emergent marsh in the northwestern portion of the
site and all of the emergent marsh on Pantages Island;
Provide public pedestrian/bicycle access to and through the preserved open
space areas on the north side of the project site, with open views of the Delta
water, and provide seating areas and kiosks with educational signage; and
Provide improved safety for project residents and within Discovery Bay by
constructing a marine patrol substation with a two-boat dock at the
northeasterly point on the project site, and provide funding by future property
owners through a police service district tax for an extra deputy sheriff who
could operate out of the substation on an as-needed basis.
Pantages Bays Project
3.0 Project Description Draft EIR
3-32
This page intentionally left blank.
4-1
4.0 SETTINGS, IMPACTS, AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
This chapter describes the existing conditions and evaluates the potential
environmental impacts that would occur with development of the Pantages Bays
project (project). Sections 4.1, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, through 4.17,
Visual Resources and Aesthetics, of this chapter analyze each resource topic that
could be affected by the project. Each subsection describes the environmental
setting as it relates to the specific resource topic; the impacts that could result from
implementation of the project; and mitigation measures that would avoid, reduce,
or compensate for any significant impacts of the project.
ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT EIR
The following topics are addressed in this chapter:
Agricultural and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Global Climate Change
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Public Utilities
Transportation and Circulation
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
FORMAT OF ISSUE SECTIONS
In general, the analysis of each environmental issue consists of five subsections:
Existing Conditions, Regulatory Setting, Analysis of Potential Impacts, Cumulative
Impacts, and References. An overview of the information included in these sections
is provided below.
Pantages Bays Project
4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Draft EIR
4-2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
According to Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, existing conditions are the
physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project at the time the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The NOP for the project was published in
2007. While the baseline condition for the project is the condition of the site at the
time the NOP was issued (e.g., existing land uses, existing soil conditions, existing
traffic conditions), given the amount of time that has passed since the publication of
the NOP some of these descriptions have been updated where recent site visits
identified altered conditions and where new relevant information was available.
REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting section provides a description of the relevant regulations and
guidelines that pertain to the issue area. This setting section may contain
information from a variety of sources, such as the Contra Costa County General
Plan, or other local, regional, state, or federal agency guidelines or regulations. A
policy consistency analysis is also provided for each regulation. This analysis
provides a brief evaluation of the project’s conformity with the applicable policies
and regulations.
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The analysis of potential impacts begins with a listing of the applicable significance
criteria, followed by an evaluation of impacts that would result from
implementation of the project.
Significance Criteria
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Section 21068), a significant
effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the
environment. The CEQA guidelines direct that this determination be based on
scientific and factual data. The significance criteria have been developed using
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (March 2010) as a foundation, with some
refining of the criteria based on local regulations and other applicable federal, state,
and local agencies’ guidelines and regulations.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4-3
Evaluation of Impacts
The evaluation of impacts considers the significance criteria, the level of
environmental impact, and makes a determination as to whether there is: “no
impact,” a “less-than-significant impact,” or a “significant impact.” Therefore, this
subsection is divided into three categories: Discussion of No Impacts, Discussion of
Less-than-Significant Impacts, and Discussion of Significant Impacts.
A “no impact” designation is used for an issue that would not be affected by project
implementation. For example, since the project site is not located on an area
designated to have mineral resources, the project would not result in the loss of any
known mineral resources. “Less-than-significant” impacts are those project related
effects that would not reach a level of significance. For example, for a sensitive
biological species, project impacts would be significant if there was a potential to
harm members of the species, or to reduce their habitat. Conversely, impacts
would usually be considered less than significant if the habitats and species affected
were common and widespread in the region and in the state, and ample habitat
remained. A “significant” designation is used under circumstances where the
environmental impacts would meet or exceed one of the significance criteria
identified in Appendix G.
Any identified impacts are numbered and shown in bold type. For significant
impacts, mitigation measures are provided that would reduce the effects of these
impacts. Following the discussion of mitigation measures, there is an evaluation of
the “Significance after Mitigation.”
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an evaluation of a
project’s contribution to cumulative environmental impacts. According to Section
15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are defined as “two or more
individual effects which, when taken together, are considerable, or which can
compound or increase other environmental impacts.” As stated in the Guidelines,
an individual project may not have significant impacts; however, in combination
with other related projects, these cumulative effects may be considerable. When
evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA recommends one of two methods:
1. Projects to consider in the cumulative analysis include any past, present, and
probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including
projects outside the control of the lead agency, or
Pantages Bays Project
4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Draft EIR
4-4
2. The cumulative analysis would consider projections contained in an adopted
local, regional, or statewide plan, or would use a prior environmental document
which has been adopted or certified for such a plan.
For the majority of this analysis the second method was used, based on the County
General Plan and associated EIR. Where indicated, the cumulative analysis is
enhanced through the consideration of specific individual projects identified from a
list compiled from both the City of Brentwood and Contra Costa County. The list of
projects is provided in Table 4-1. The location of each project is shown in
Figure 4-1. The cumulative projects list incorporates reasonably foreseeable,
relevant projects and focuses on those that, when combined with the Pantages Bays
project, could contribute to cumulative impacts.
Table 4-1 Development Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Project
No. Name/Owner Project Scale Status General Plan
Amendment
Discovery Bay/Unincorporated Contra Costa County
N/A Discovery Bay
West/Hoffman Company 700 residential units
1,999 residential units
approved in the early 2000s,
approximately 65%
constructed and occupied.
700 lots remain to be
developed.
No
SD10-9282 The Villages at Discovery
Bay/Hoffman Company
80 Townhomes /
Commercial/Community
Center
Application being
processed. Yes
LP07-2025 Orwood Resort and RV
Park/John Caprio
Addition to existing
restaurant and adding RV &
camping sites
Application being processed No
SD09-9278 Newport Pointe/ Disco
Bay Partners, LLC 67 lots, residential units Application being processed Yes
City of Brentwood1
8627 Garin Corners/Signature
Properties 168 residential units Under Construction No
9154 Mission Grove/Discovery
Builders 132 residential units Application being processed No
8548,9095
to 9098
Barrington/Standard
Pacific 494 residential units Approved No
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4-5
Project
No. Name/Owner Project Scale Status General Plan
Amendment
City of Brentwood, continued.
8534
8825
The Parc at
Cedarwood/Signature
Properties
177 residential units Under Construction No
DR 06-14 Delta Fence/Frank
Martin
25,916 square feet –
industrial Permit Issued No
DR 08-11 Neighborhood
Church/Neal Doty 27,017 square feet – other Approved Yes
DR 07-08 The Plaza at Balfour
II/Pacific/Bowie Martin 20,000 square feet – office Approved No
DR 03-10 Garin Commercial/The
Festival Companies
44,300 square feet – retail
55,500 square feet – office Permit Issued No
DR 05-30 Brentwood Plaza
II/Nazanin Parvizi
7,430 square feet – retail
1,301 square feet –
industrial
Approved No
TSM 9152 Sciortino Ranch/New
Urban Com. Ptns. N/A Approved Yes
DR 07-16 Civic Center/City of
Brentwood 94,200 square feet – office Permit Issued Yes
DR 08-01
Kendall
Plaza/Brentwood 2010
LLC
4,400 square feet – retail
7,110 square feet- office
17,592 square feet –
industrial
Permit Issued No
DR 03-09 Best Western Motel 28,260 square feet – hotel Permit Issued No
Notes:
1 Projects east of Brentwood Boulevard and south of Lone Tree Way.
Source: Contra Costa County and the City of Brentwood February 12, 2010 Project Status Report.
The closest active projects to the project site include Discovery Bay West, located
immediately west of the project site, the Villages at Discovery Bay, the Orwood
Resort, and Newport Pointe. Other projects considered in this cumulative analysis
are at least ¼-mile or more from the project site.
The spatial boundary for the study of a project’s cumulative impacts varies
depending on the resource of concern. For example, impacts related to geology and
archeological resources are generally site specific, while air and noise impacts can
encompass larger areas. Most of the project's impacts are site-specific and limited
Pantages Bays Project
4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Draft EIR
4-6
in terms of geography, and do not have the ability to compound impacts from past,
existing or future projects beyond the project area. In these circumstances, CEQA
directs that it is not necessary to address in detail the impacts from other projects:
“[w]here a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect
that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not consider that
effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the
incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable” (CEQA Guidelines, §§
15130, subd. (a); and
“[a]n EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the
project evaluated in the EIR”. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130, subd. (a)(1).
REFERENCES
This subsection list the references used to prepare the environmental setting and
impact analysis for each section of the EIR.
Source: Contra Costa County City of Brentwood, 2010.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4-1FigureCumulative Projects
BRENTWOOD PROJECTS
Garin Corners (R)
Mission Grove (R)
Barrington (R)
The Parc at Cedarwood (R)
Delta Fence (C)
Neighborhood Church (R)
The Plaza at Balfour II (C)
Garin Commercial (C)
Brentwood Plaza II (C)
Sciortino Ranch (C)
Civic Center (C)
Kendall Plaza (C)
Best Western Motel (C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
1
2
3
10
11
6
8
7
13
4
5
12
9
24
3
Project Area
General Plan Amendments
Residential
Commercial
NOT TO SCALE
KEY
(R)
(C)
DISCOVERY BAY PROJECTS
Discovery Bay West (R)
Villages at Discovery Bay (R)
Orwood Resort and RV Park (C)(Approved in August 2001)
Newport Pointe (R)
1
2
3
4
Pantages Bays Project
4.0 Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Draft EIR
4-8
Figure 4-1 Cumulative Projects (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-1
4.1 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This section describes the existing agricultural and forest resources on and in the
vicinity of the project site. Applicable legislation relating to these resources is
summarized in Subsection 4.1.2, Regulatory Setting. The analysis in this section is
based on project site plans, the Contra Costa County General Plan, the Contra Costa
County Important Farmlands Map, and agricultural soil classifications, as reported
by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
The project would require approval from the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) for annexation to the Discovery Bay Community Services
District sphere of influence and corresponding service area for water and
wastewater service.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR, LAFCO submitted a
comment letter requesting that the impacts to agricultural land be addressed
pursuant to Section 56064 of the California Government Code. This scoping
comment is addressed below in Subsection 4.1.2.
4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Agricultural Uses
The project site is located in unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County (County)
in the community of Discovery Bay, within the Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line
(ULL). The closest incorporated city is Brentwood, which lies approximately 4.5
miles to the northwest of the project site. The unincorporated land that lies
between the project site and the City of Brentwood is designated as the Agricultural
Core of the County (see Figure 3-1). Much of the land in this designation is under
active cultivation of row crops, primarily orchards. Lands within this designation
contain soils that are considered the most favorable for farming a wide variety of
crops. Agricultural land uses within the Agricultural Core are protected by the
County, in accordance with Measure C. Although Contra Costa has been one of the
fastest-growing counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, in 2007 approximately 72
percent of the County was dedicated to non-urban uses (Roche 2008).
Local Agricultural Resources
Although the project site has been used for agriculture production in the past, this
use was discontinued in 1992, and the site has remained vacant since that time.
The current owner leases the property to a tenant that runs a small herd of 10 cattle
as a hobby.
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-2
In 2003, the site was used by Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) for detention of
dredge spoils as part of a channel dredging program in Discovery Bay. Preliminary
geotechnical exploration correlates with this recent activity, indicating that near-
surface soils consist of irregularly dispersed artificial fill that includes poorly-
consolidated deposits of clay, silt, and sand.
Subsurface soils at the project site include fine-grained alluvium deposits consisting
of Marcuse Clay, Pescadero Clay Loam, Sacramento Clay, and Brentwood Clay Loam,
all of which are typically used for irrigated and dryland pasture and the cultivation of
fruit, vegetables, and grains (see Figure 4.1-1) (Monk and Associates 2010). These
types of soils are included in the NRCS Land Capability Class IV, and are not
considered significant agricultural resources (NCRS 2009).
Forest Land Resources
In accordance with the definition under California Public Resources Code Section
12220(g), "Forest land" is land that can support, under natural conditions, 10
percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, and that allows for
management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and
wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
The project site is vegetated with 80 trees dispersed throughout the site,
constituting less than 10 percent native tree cover. Furthermore, none of the lands
within the project site—or the County at large—are used for timber harvesting
(Contra Costa County General Plan, Land Use Element 2005).
4.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was
adopted in 1965 to encourage the preservation of the state’s agricultural lands and
to prevent their premature conversion to urban uses. The Williamson Act
established an agricultural preserve contract procedure by which any county or city
within the state may tax a landowner at a lower rate, using a scale based on the
actual use of the land for agricultural purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted
market value. In return for a reduced tax rate, the owner guarantees that the
property remains under agricultural production for a 10-year period. The contract is
automatically renewed on an annual basis until the property owner indicates a
desire to terminate the contract.
The project site is not covered by a Williamson Act contract (Luzano 2007).
PANTAGES BAYS
4.1-1Figure
CirclePoint
Soils on the Project Site
Source: Monk & Associates, 2009.
800FEET4000 1600
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-4
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
In 1982 the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established by
the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection.
The FMMP provides a consistent and impartial analysis of agricultural land use and
land use changes throughout California, and produces Important Farmland Maps by
county every two years.
The 2010 Important Farmland Map for Contra Costa County designates the northern
half of the project site as “Urban and Built-up Land,” the southern half of the site as
“Farmland of Local Importance.” Two small areas in the northwest and northeast
corners of the site as “Other Land.” The FMMP defines these lands as follows:
Urban and Built-up Land - Land that is occupied by structures with a building
density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre
parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial,
institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills,
sewage treatment, and water control structures.
Farmland of Local Importance - Land of importance to the local economy, as
defined by each county's local advisory committee and adopted by its Board of
Supervisors. Contra Costa County defines Farmlands of Local Importance as
lands typically used for livestock grazing. These lands are also defined as
capable of producing dryland grain on a two-year summer fallow or longer
rotation with volunteer hay and pasture. The farmlands in this category are
included in the NCRS Land Capability Classes I, II, III, and IV, and lack some
irrigation water.
Other Land - Land not included in any other mapping category. Common
examples include low-density rural developments, brush, timber, wetland and
riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing, confined livestock, poultry, or
aquaculture facilities, strip mines, borrow pits, and water bodies smaller than 40
acres.
California Government Code Section 56064
LAFCO uses Government Code Section 56064 of the California Government Code to
evaluate potential impacts to farmland resulting from proposed requests for
annexation. Section 56064 considers "prime agricultural land" as an area of land,
whether it is a single parcel or a contiguous parcel, that has not been developed for
a use other than an agricultural use. These lands must meet any of the following
qualifications:
Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not
land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-5
Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating.
Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that
has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre
as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National
Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands, July, 1967, developed pursuant
to Public Law 46, December 1935.
Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a
nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the
commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of
unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars
($400) per acre.
Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant
products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per
acre for three of the previous five calendar years.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project does not meet the definition of prime agricultural land as set forth by
Government Code section 56064.
According to the NRCS online Web Soil Survey, the soils identified on the project site
are classified as Class IV soils, and are rated as grade 2 through 5, scoring less than
80 in the Storie Index. Therefore, the soils at the project site would not be
considered “prime agricultural land” under Section 56064(a) or (b).
The land is not currently used to support live stock for the production of food and
fiber. The current tenant runs a small herd of cattle (10 units) and does not meet
the livestock support criteria under Section 56064(c).
The land is not planted with fruit or nut bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops; and
would not therefore meet the minimum return requirements for unprocessed
agricultural plant products under Section 56064(d).
The land has not been cultivated during the past five years (and hasn’t been since
1992) and therefore does not meet the minimum annual gross value of $400 per
acre for three of the past five years under Section 56064(e).
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-6
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Land Use and Conservation Elements of the General Plan contain the following
relevant policies related to agricultural land uses.
Land Use Element
3-11: Urban uses shall be expanded only inside the Urban Limit Line where
conflicts with the agricultural economy will be minimal.
3-12: Preservation and buffering of agricultural land should be encouraged as it is
critical to maintaining a healthy and competitive agricultural economy and
assuring a balance of land uses. Preservation and conservation of open
space, wetlands, parks, hillsides, and ridgelines should be encouraged as it is
crucial to preserve the continued availability of unique habitats for wildlife
and plants, to protect unique scenery, and provide a wide range of
recreational opportunities for County residents.
3-14: Protect prime productive agricultural land from inappropriate subdivisions.
Conservation Element
8-29: Large continuous areas of the County should be encouraged to remain in
agricultural production, as long as economically viable.
8-30: In order to reduce adverse impacts on agricultural and environmental
values, and to reduce urban costs to taxpayers, the County shall not
designate land located outside of the ULL [Urban Limit Line] for an urban
land use.
8-31: Urban development in the future shall take place within the Urban Limit
Line and areas designated by this plan for urban growth.
8-32: Agriculture shall be protected to assure a balance in land use. The policies
of Measure C-1990 shall be enforced.
8-33: The County shall encourage agriculture to continue operating adjacent to
developing urban areas.
8-38: Agricultural operations shall be protected and enhanced through
encouragement of Williamson Act contracts to retain designated areas in
agricultural use.
In addition to the above-mentioned policies, the County enacted the 65/35 Land
Preservation Standard as part of Measure C-1990, which calls for the preservation of
at least 65 percent of the land in the County for agriculture, open space, wetlands,
parks, and other non-urban uses. Measure C-1990 also established the Urban Limit
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-7
Line (ULL), which was extended to 2026 by the passage of Measure L in 2006. Inside
the ULL there are approximately 15,930 acres, including the Pantages property,
designated as agricultural land (Contra Costa County 2010).
Contra Costa County General Plan and Zoning
Designations
The Contra Costa General Plan designates the 10 parcels that comprise the project
site as Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation (DR) and Water (WA). The current
zoning of the site is General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District
(A-3).
The project is seeking approval of a general plan amendment that changes the land
use designations to the following; Single Family Residential High Density (SH) which
has a density range of 5.0 to 7.2 units per net acre, Single Family Medium Density
(SM), which has a density range of 3.0 to 4.9 units per net acre, Open Space (OS),
Public Semi-Public (PS), and Water (WA). The project is also requesting to rezone
the project site to Planned Unit Development (P-1)
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be consistent with the General Plan policies related to
agricultural resources. The project area is within the County ULL and therefore in
compliance with policies 3-11, 8-30 and 8-31. The project lands are not held in
Williamson Act contract, and are not considered prime farmland, and so the project
would not conflict with policy 3-14 or 8-38. In reference to policies 8-29, 8-32, and
8-33, the project site is surrounded by existing or planned residential development,
and is not part of a larger agricultural production area that would be subdivided by
the project. Analysis of the consistency of the project with the land use planning
and policies is included in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
4.1.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have a significant effect on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
impact on agricultural resources if it would:
a) 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;
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-8
b) 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));
c) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use;
d) 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; or
e) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be no impacts related to
prime farmland or forest resources. The following discussion presents the evidence
in support of this conclusion.
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?
The project site does not contain farmland designated “Prime,” “Unique,” or of
“Statewide Importance.” Furthermore, the project site does not contain “prime
agricultural land” as defined in Section 56064 of the California Government Code.
Construction of the project would therefore not result in any impacts related to the
conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance to a non-agricultural use.
b) 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))?
and
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-9
c) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
While the project site is vegetated with 80 trees, these trees are dispersed
throughout the site, and are not considered forest land as defined by California
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Furthermore, none of the land within the
County is used for timber harvesting. Construction of the project would therefore
not result in the conversion or loss of forest resources.
d) 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 project site is not currently used for agricultural production and does not
contain any forest resources. Development of the project would not therefore
involve changes to the existing environment, which due to their location or nature,
would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Furthermore, the
project site is generally surrounded by development, including the Ravenswood,
Discovery Bay West, and Discovery Bay communities; and development of the
project would not contribute indirectly to the conversion of adjacent lands.
e) Would the project conflict with a Williamson Act contract?
The site is not under Williamson Act contract and so the project would not result in
any conflicts with this Act.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
less-than-significant impact for one of the five significance criteria. The following
discussion presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
e) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use?
The project site is currently zoned General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy
Agricultural District (A-3) and the project would conflict with this zoning. As noted
above, the ULL includes the project site and surrounding area within the urban limit,
and the surrounding properties have already been approved for residential
development and are actively being developed.
The project site is no longer used for agricultural production, and the project
includes a request for rezoning to Planned Unit District (P-1). The requested zoning
designation would reflect the intent of the ULL and would be consistent with the
residential developments on surrounding properties.
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-10
4.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for agricultural and forest resources is Contra Costa County.
Forest Resources
None of the land within the County is used for timber harvesting; therefore, the
project in combination with the other development within the County would not
result in cumulative impacts to forest resources (Contra Costa County General Plan,
Land Use Element 2005).
Agricultural Resources
The 2005 General Plan update identified a cumulatively significant trend of
conversion of agricultural land uses to urban development. The EIR noted that build-
out of the General Plan would result in the loss in East Contra Costa County of 3,895
acres of prime agricultural land (Class I and II) and 4,904 acres of non-prime
agricultural land. The General Plan update concluded that the conversion of these
agricultural lands to urban uses is a significant cumulative impact. The County
adopted overriding considerations as part of the adoption of the General Plan, and
the General Plan EIR notes the following two reasons as a basis for this
consideration:
1. the County is required by State Law to provide for its fair share of the regional
housing need, as determined by ABAG, and to do so, the County must designate
a certain amount of land for residential uses; and
2. the economic welfare of the County, and its continued ability to provide for the
employment needs of its residents, would allow this conversion to occur.
As discussed in this section, the project site is currently designated for agricultural
uses (AL), and the project would therefore result in the conversion of approximately
171 acres from an agricultural designation to non-agricultural uses.
Because the site was not formally reclassified in 1990 for residential use, it was not
included in the General Plan EIR analysis of the conversion of 4,904 acres of non-
prime agricultural land noted above. The conversion of the site from agricultural
use to non-agricultural use represents a considerable contribution towards this
cumulative impact that is unavoidable.
4.1.5 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County General Plan, Conservation Element, Table 8-3. January 2005.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Land Use Element. 2005.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.1 Agricultural Resources
4.1-11
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Land Use Element, Table 3-3.
Updated 2010.
Contra Costa County (2000). Methods and results for the 65/35 land preservation
standard inventory. Available at: http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/cd/current/advance/6535_staffreport.htm; Last
accessed: July 7, 2010.
Luzano, Al, Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office. Personal Communication, April
25, 2007.
Monk and Associates, Biological Resources Analysis. 2010.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Web Soil Survey. Available online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
Last accessed December 3, 2009.
Roche, Patrick, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development.
Personal Communication, February 4, 2008.
Pantages Bays Project
4.1 Agricultural Resources Draft EIR
4.1-12
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-1
4.2 AIR QUALITY
This section describes and evaluates the effects the project would have on local and
regional air quality. The analysis includes a discussion of existing air quality,
construction-related impacts, and emissions associated with the project operation,
and identifies mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate any potentially
significant impacts.
The methodologies and assumptions used in the preparation of this section follow
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), as adopted in June 2010. Information on
existing conditions, federal and state ambient air quality standards, and pollutants
of concern was obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
California Air Resources Board (ARB), and BAAQMD. Quantitative analysis was
conducted by Don Ballanti (2010) using URBEMIS2007. The URBEMIS2007 output
can be found in Appendix A of this draft EIR and is available for review at Contra
Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California.
There were no public or agency comments related to air quality received in
response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR. However, please
note that the NOP was distributed prior to the recently adopted 2010 BAAQMD
guidelines.
4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Physical Setting
The project site is located south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), at the
eastern boundary of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) Air Basin.
San Joaquin County, located approximately 2 miles east, is part of the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin.
The potential for high pollutant concentrations developing at a given location
depends on the quantity of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere in the
surrounding area or upwind, and the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the
contaminated air. The atmospheric pollution potential, as the term is used here, is
independent of the location of emission sources and is instead a function of factors
such as topography and meteorology.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-2
The climate of the Bay Area, including Discovery Bay, is a Mediterranean-type
climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The climate is
determined largely by a high-pressure system that is often present over the eastern
Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of North America. In winter, the Pacific high-
pressure system shifts southward, allowing storms to pass through the region.
During the fall and winter months, the high pressure condition over the interior
regions of the United States (known as the Great Basin High) can produce extended
periods of light winds and low-level temperature inversions. This condition is
frequently characterized by poor atmospheric mixing resulting in degraded regional
air quality. Ozone (O3) pollution typically occurs when this condition occurs during
the warmer months of the year.
The air pollution potential is lowest in regions closest to the bay, due largely to good
ventilation and less influx of pollutants from upwind sources. Light winds in the
evenings and early mornings occasionally results in elevated pollutant levels. Wind
flow patterns are controlled by air circulation in the atmosphere, which is affected
by air pressure and the variable topography of the coastal areas adjacent to the
Carquinez Strait, which is the only sea-level gap between San Francisco Bay and the
Central Valley. During the summer and fall months, high pressure offshore coupled
with low pressure in the Central Valley causes marine air to flow eastward through
the Carquinez Strait.
The air flowing from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins
developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early
afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in
velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part
upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong,
and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited and stagnant
conditions are likely to result. Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air
pollution. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (i.e., fall and
winter, and early morning) and at night.
The Delta has a relatively low potential for air pollution given the persistent and
strong winds typical of the area. Wind records from the closest wind-measuring
sites show a strong predominance of westerly winds. Average wind speed is
relatively high and the frequency of calm winds is quite low. These winds dilute
pollutants and transport them away from the area, so that emissions released in the
project area have more influence on air quality in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
valleys than they do locally. There are, however, several major stationary sources in
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-3
upwind cities that can influence local air quality, and the project's location
downwind of the greater Bay Area also means that pollutants from other areas are
transported to the area.
Criteria Air Pollutants and Effects
Air quality studies generally focus on five pollutants that are most commonly
measured and regulated: carbon monoxide (CO), ground level O3, nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter, specifically, PM10 and
PM2.5, as listed in Table 4.2-1. In Contra Costa County (County), O3 and particulate
matter are the pollutants of greatest concern, as measured air pollution levels show
high concentrations of these pollutants at times.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause
morbidity or mortality, usually because they cause cancer. TACs include, but are not
limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed in Table 4.2-1. TACs are found in ambient
air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel
combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically
found in low concentrations, even near their source, but because chronic exposure
can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and
federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air, and is estimated to represent
about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs based on the statewide average.
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles, which
makes the evaluation of its health effects a complex scientific issue. The ARB
previously identified some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust (e.g., benzene,
formaldehyde) as TACs; they are listed as carcinogens either under Proposition 65 or
under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. To reduce diesel particulates,
California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk-reduction program. In 2006, the
U.S. EPA also enacted low-sulfur diesel fuel standards for delivery and transport
trucks that will reduce diesel particulate matter substantially.
Smoke from residential wood combustion can also be a source of TACs. Wood
smoke is an irritant and is implicated in worsening asthma and other chronic lung
problems. It is typically emitted during the winter months when dispersion
conditions are poor, and localized concentrations can result when cold stagnant air
traps smoke near the ground and there is no wind. The pollution can persist for
many hours, especially in sheltered valleys during winter. Wood smoke also
contains a significant amount of PM10 and PM2.5.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-4
Table 4.2-1 Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is an
odorless, colorless gas
that is highly toxic; it is
formed by the
incomplete combustion
of fuels.
Impairment of oxygen
transport in the
bloodstream
Aggravation of
cardiovascular disease
Fatigue, headache,
confusion, dizziness
Can be fatal in the case
of very high
concentrations
Automobile exhaust,
combustion of fuels,
combustion of wood in
woodstoves and
fireplaces.
Ozone (O3) A highly reactive
photochemical pollutant
created by the action of
sunshine on ozone
precursors (primarily
reactive hydrocarbons
and oxides of nitrogen);
often called
photochemical smog.
Eye Irritation
Respiratory function
impairment
The major sources
ozone precursors are
combustion sources
such as factories and
automobiles, and
evaporation of
solvents and fuels.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Reddish-brown gas that
discolors the air; formed
during combustion.
Increased risk of acute
and chronic respiratory
disease
Automobile and diesel
truck exhaust,
industrial processes,
fossil-fueled power
plants.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Sulfur dioxide is a
colorless gas with a
pungent, irritating odor.
Aggravation of chronic
obstructive lung disease
Increased risk of acute
and chronic respiratory
disease
Diesel vehicle exhaust,
oil- and coal-burning
power plants,
industrial processes.
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5 / PM10)
Solid and liquid particles
of dust, soot, aerosols
and other matter which
are small enough to
remain suspended in the
air for a long period of
time.
Aggravation of chronic
disease and heart/lung
disease symptoms
Combustion, factories,
construction, grading,
demolition agricultural
activities, woodstoves
and fireplaces, and
automobiles.
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-5
Carbon Monoxide
CO is a non-reactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion and is
mostly associated with motor vehicle traffic. High CO concentrations develop
primarily during winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of
ground-level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early
morning). These conditions result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor
vehicles also exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures. When
inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and
reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood, resulting in reduced levels of
oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially
critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease or anemia.
Ozone
Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to
respiratory infections, and can also cause substantial damage to vegetation and
other materials. Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is a
secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of
photochemical reactions involving reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx. ROG and
NOx are known as precursor compounds for ozone. Significant ozone production
generally requires ozone precursors to be present in a stable atmosphere with
strong sunlight for approximately three hours.
Ozone is a regional air pollutant because it is not emitted directly by sources, but is
formed downwind of sources of ROG and NOx under the influence of wind and
sunlight. Ozone concentrations tend to be higher in the late spring, summer, and
fall, when long sunny days combine with regional subsidence inversions to create
conditions conducive to the formation and accumulation of secondary
photochemical compounds.
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a lung irritant and high concentrations can make breathing difficult. Levels of
NO2 are relatively low in the Bay Area.
NO2 is formed through a reaction between nitrogen oxide (NO) and atmospheric
oxygen. NO is generally emitted from vehicle exhaust, industrial processes, and
fossil-fuel power plants. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as NOx and are
major contributors to the formation of ozone. NO2 also contributes to the
formation of PM10.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-6
Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a combustion product of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels such as coal, which
are restricted in the Bay Area. SO2 is also a precursor to the formation of
atmospheric sulfate and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and contributes to the
formation of atmospheric sulfuric acid that could precipitate downwind as acid rain.
The maximum SO2 concentrations recorded in the project area were well below
federal and state standards.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter consists of airborne particulates that are 10 microns or less in
diameter (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). PM10 and PM2.5
represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages
and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects.
Particulate matter in the atmosphere results from many kinds of dust- and fume-
producing industrial and agricultural operations, fuel combustion, and atmospheric
photochemical reactions. Some sources of particulate matter, such as demolition
and construction activities, are more local in nature, while others, such as vehicular
traffic, have a more regional effect. Very small particles of certain substances (e.g.,
sulfates and nitrates) can cause lung damage directly, or can contain adsorbed gases
(e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Particulates also can
damage materials and reduce visibility.
Lead
Lead has a range of adverse neurotoxin health effects. Prior to 1996, lead was
released into the atmosphere via leaded gasoline. The phase-out of leaded gasoline
in California resulted in decreasing levels of atmospheric lead. As the project would
not introduce any new sources of lead emissions, lead emissions are not required by
the BAAQMD to be quantified and are not further evaluated in this analysis.
Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is found in nature around some hot springs, geothermal
sources, and oil fields (sour gas). It is also produced by anaerobic decomposition,
and is sometimes called swamp gas. The human nose can detect H2S at
concentrations well below toxic levels. Heavier than air, this gas is considered
obnoxious and unpleasant. At higher levels it desensitizes the nose, and can be fatal
because it blocks oxygen uptake by the blood. Mainly a health threat to industrial
workers, H2S is usually regulated to eliminate nuisance for nearby residents or
property owners.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-7
National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air quality is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the
atmosphere. The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of
pollutants emitted within the area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding
areas, local and regional meteorological conditions, and the topography of the air
basin. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).
As required by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS or federal standards) have been established for seven major air
pollutants: CO, NOx, O3, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and lead. California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS or state standards) are generally more stringent than the
corresponding federal standards.
Both state and federal standards are summarized in Table 4.2-2. The “primary”
standards have been established to protect the public health. The “secondary”
standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare and account for adverse air
pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of
the general welfare.
Air Monitoring Data
The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the national and state
standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. BAAQMD is also responsible
for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources,
issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources
of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality
and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions,
conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities. BAAQMD
has jurisdiction over much of the nine-county Bay Area counties.
The BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than 30 locations throughout
the Bay Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is in Bethel Island,
approximately 7 miles north of the project site.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-8
Table 4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
Federal Standards
California Standards Primary1 Secondary2
Ozone 1-hour -- Same as Primary 0.09 ppm
8-hour 0.075 ppm 0.07 ppm
Carbon
Monoxide
1-hour 35.0 ppm
None
20.0 ppm
8-hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Annual 0.053 ppm Same as Primary 0.03 ppm
1-hour 0.100 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual 0.03 ppm -- --
24-hour 0.14 ppm -- 0.04 ppm
3-hour -- 0.5 ppm --
1-hour -- -- 0.25 ppm
PM10
Annual --
Same as Primary
20 μg/m3
24-hour 150 μg/m3 50 μg/m3
PM2.5
Annual 15 μg/m3
Same as Primary
12 μg/m3
24-hour 35 μg/m3 --
Lead
30-Day Average n/a -- 1.5 μg/m3
Calendar Quarter 1.5 μg/m3
Same as Primary
--
Rolling 3-month
average 0.15 μg/m3 --
Sulfates 24-hour n/a n/a 25 μg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-hour n/a n/a 0.03 ppm
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene) 24-hour n/a n/a 0.01 ppm
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8-hour n/a n/a
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer – visibility of 10 miles or
more due to particles when relative
humidity is less than 70 percent
Notes:
Notes regarding terms and definitions used in this table are available at the link below and incorporated herein by
reference.
1 Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public
health.
2 Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant
ppm = parts per million
μg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter
n/a = not applicable
Source: Air Resources Board, 2010. (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-9
Attainment Status
Areas that violate standards are considered to be in “nonattainment.” Areas that do
not violate standards are considered to be in “attainment.” Federal regulations also
include a designation known as “unclassified,” which identifies areas where data are
incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or non-attainment.
Ozone (O3): The Bay Area as a whole is in nonattainment for ground level O3,
according to state and federal standards. The Bay Area also is classified as
marginally nonattainment according to the federal 1997 8-hour O3 standard.
U.S. EPA is considering new 8-hour ozone standard that would become effective in
2011. The range of standards under consideration would be a significant change,
which would undoubtedly result in a nonattainment designation for the Bay Area
and much of California.
Carbon Monoxide (CO): The Bay Area has met the CO standards for over a decade
and is classified as being in attainment by the U.S. EPA.
PM10 and PM2.5: The Bay Area is classified as nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5
according to state standards, which are more stringent. The U.S. EPA grades the
region unclassified PM10 and PM2.5; however, the U.S. EPA has recently proposed
designating the region as nonattainment for the new 2006 PM2.5 standard due to
recent monitoring data in Vallejo and San Jose that indicate levels slightly above the
standard. The EPA designation will be effective 90 days after publication of the
regulation in the Federal Register. President Obama has ordered a freeze on all
pending federal rules; therefore, the effective date of the designation is unknown at
this time.
The U.S. EPA and the state grade the region “in attainment” or “unclassified” for all
other air pollutants.
The BAAQMD has for many years operated a multi-pollutant monitoring site
approximately 7 miles north of the project site in Bethel Island. Table 4.2-3 shows
the number of days per year that air pollutant levels exceeded state or nation
standards from 2006 to 2008. As discussed above, Table 4.2-3 shows that all federal
ambient air quality standards were met in the project area with the exception of the
8-hour ozone standard. The state ambient standards of ozone and PM10 were
exceeded in 2006 and 2008, with nine exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard in
2006 and four exceedances in 2008.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-10
Table 4.2-3 Annual Number of Days Exceeding Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Standard
Days Standard Exceeded During:
2006 2007 2008
Ozone
1-Hour State
1-Hour Federal
8-Hour Federal
9
0
13
0
0
1
4
0
4
Carbon Monoxide
8-Hour Federal
8-Hour State
1-Hour State
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour State 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide 1-Hour State
24-Hour State
0
0
0
0
0
0
PM10 24-Hour State
24-Hour Federal
1
0
0
0
3
0
Source: Air Resources Board, 2010. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/php_files/aqdphp/topfour1.php.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses with population
concentrations that would be particularly susceptible to disturbance from dust,
noise, vibration, air pollutant concentrations, or other disruptions associated with
project construction and/or operation. Residences, schools, childcare centers,
hospitals, residential care facilities, retirement homes, convalescent homes,
libraries, parks, and churches are generally considered sensitive receptors.
The closest sensitive land uses to the project site are the residents of Discovery Bay,
located across Kellogg Creek, and the residents of the Ravenswood and Lakeshore
subdivision, located west.
Odors
Offensive odors can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the
public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the
BAAQMD. Offensive odors are typically associated with wastewater treatment
plants, sanitary landfills, feedlots and dairies, and industrial facilities. The
occurrence and severity of odor problems depends on numerous factors, including
the nature, frequency and intensity of the source, wind speed and direction, and the
sensitivity of the receptor(s). BAAQMD Regulation 7 places general limitations on
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-11
odorous substances, and specific emission limitations on certain odorous
compounds. The regulation applies when and if the BAAQMD receives validated
odor complaints from 10 or more complainants in a 90-day period.
4.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing the Federal CAA. The U.S. EPA is also
responsible for establishing the NAAQS. The U.S. EPA regulates emission sources
that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft,
ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency establishes various emission
standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California.
Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission standards
established by ARB.
Policy Consistency
The project would be required to comply with federal regulations and standards set
by the U.S. EPA.
California Air Resources Board (ARB)
ARB, part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for
meeting the state requirements of the Federal CAA, administering the California
CAA, and establishing the CAAQS. The California CAA requires all air districts in the
state to endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS. ARB regulates mobile air
pollution sources, such as motor vehicles, and is responsible for setting emission
standards for vehicles sold in California for other emission sources, such as
consumer products, and for certain off-road equipment. ARB has established
passenger vehicle fuel specifications and oversees the functions of local air pollution
control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn prepare air
quality attainment plans at the regional level. ARB also conducts or supports
research into the effects of air pollution on the public and develops innovative
approaches to reduce air pollutant emissions.
ARB Regulations of Construction Vehicles
On July 26, 2007, ARB adopted new regulations intended to reduce emissions of
PM10 and PM2.5 and NOx from certain diesel-powered vehicles by requiring
businesses to retrofit or "turnover" their fleets over time (13 CCR SEC. 2449). The
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-12
regulations apply to any person, business or government agency that owns or
operates any diesel-powered off-road vehicle in California with 25 or greater
horsepower, including vehicles used in construction (i.e., backhoes, tractors).
The emission requirements are intended to require fleets to apply exhaust retrofits
that capture pollutants before they are emitted, and to accelerate turnover of fleets
to newer, less-polluting engines. "Turnover" means retrofitting an engine to
capture pollutants, replacing a dirty engine with a clean engine, retiring a dirty
vehicle, replacing a vehicle with a new or used piece, or re-designating a vehicle as
"low-use." "Low-use" vehicles (which operate for less than 100 hours per year) are
exempt from emission requirements, but still must be properly labeled and reported
to ARB.
The requirements and deadlines for compliance vary depending on fleet size. For
small fleets, which include small businesses or municipalities with a combined
horsepower of 2,500 or less, implementation does not begin until 2015. Medium
fleets, with 2,501 to 5,000 horsepower, have until 2013, while large fleets, with over
5,000 horsepower, must begin complying in 2010. State and federally owned fleets
are considered "large fleets" without regard to total horsepower. Affected vehicles
include bulldozers, loaders, backhoes and forklifts, as well as many other self-
propelled off-road diesel vehicles. The regulations also include standards regarding
the use of gasoline-powered vehicles to replace diesel vehicles.
ARB expects the new regulations will result in a 92 percent reduction of diesel PM
and a 32 percent reduction of NOx from 2000 emissions by 2020.
Project Consistency
The project would be required to comply with state regulations pertaining to
emissions of air pollutant during construction and operation of the project.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the national and state
ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area.
BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations
concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air
pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen
complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding
grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns,
as well as many other activities. BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine-
county Bay Area counties, including Contra Costa County, in which the project is
located.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-13
Clean Air Plans
To achieve the CAAQS, the BAAQMD develops air quality plans addressing the
California CAA and updates them approximately every three years. On September
15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP). The
2010 CAP became effective immediately and includes 55 measures for reducing
pollution. In general the 2010 CAP furthers the goals of the Bay Area 2005 Ozone
Strategy and serves to:
Update the current Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the
requirements of the California CAA to implement “all feasible measures” to
reduce ozone;
Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and
greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan;
Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and
Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented between
the 2010 to 2012 timeframe.
BAAQMD adopts and enforces rules to reduce particulate matter emissions and
develops public outreach programs to educate the public to reduce PM10 and PM2.5
emissions (e.g., Spare the Night Program). BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3 restricts
operation of any indoor or outdoor fireplace, fire pit, wood or pellet stove, masonry
heater or fireplace insert on specific days during the winter when air quality
conditions are forecasted to exceed the NAAQS for PM2.5. Rule 3 also limits excess
visible emissions from wood burning devices and requires clean burning technology
for wood burning devices sold (or resold) or installed in the Bay Area.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
In April 1996, the BAAQMD prepared its BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as a guidance
document to provide government agencies, consultants, and project proponents
with uniform procedures for assessing air quality impacts and preparing the air
quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to CEQA.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were revised by the BAAQMD in December 2009,
and adopted on June 2, 2010. This document describes the criteria that the
BAAQMD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental
documents, such as this draft EIR. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend
thresholds for use in determining whether projects would have significant adverse
environmental impacts, identify methodologies for predicting project emissions and
impacts, and identify measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality
impacts.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-14
Project Consistency
The project would be required to comply with BAAQMD standards and regulations
regarding air pollutant emissions during project construction and operation. This
draft EIR section was prepared following BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. A discussion of
project consistency with the BAAQMD Air Quality Plans and regulations is provided
in Subsection 4.2.3, Analysis of Potential Impacts under Impact AQ-1.
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County has no direct responsibility or authority to regulate air quality.
However, as the CEQA Lead Agency, the County is responsible for assessing the air
quality impacts of proposed developments, and when necessary, adopting measures
to mitigate those impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Conservation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan contains the
following relevant policies related air quality.
Conservation Element
8-99: The free flow of vehicular traffic shall be facilitated on major arterials.
8-100: Vehicular emissions shall be reduced throughout the County.
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.
8-102: A safe and convenient pedestrian system shall be created and maintained in
order to encourage walking as an alternative to driving.
8-103: When there is a finding that a proposed project might significantly affect air
quality, appropriate mitigation measures shall be imposed.
8-104: Proposed projects shall be reviewed for their potential to generate
hazardous air pollutants.
8-105: Land uses which are sensitive to air pollution shall be separated from
sources of air pollution.
8-106: Air quality planning efforts shall be coordinated with other local, regional,
and State agencies.
8-107: New housing in infill and peripheral areas which are adjacent to existing
residential development shall be encouraged.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-15
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
As part of the environmental review period, and in compliance with policies 8-103,
8-104, and 8-106, the project would be required to comply with state and federal air
quality plans, incorporating mitigation measures where applicable. Although the
project would result in an increase in local roadways, the project would not impede
or congest the roadways to the extent that it would substantially increase vehicular
traffic, in compliance with policies 8-99 and 8-100. Refer to Section 4.16,
Transportation and Circulation, for a discussion of project generated-traffic.
In response to policies 8-101 and 8-102, roadways and sidewalks would be
constructed to provide public and private pedestrian and trail access. In addition,
the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) would serve as a pedestrian/bike trail,
equipped with signage, seating areas, and kiosks.
The project site is surrounded by residential development. In particular, the
Ravenswood development to the west, including 181 single-family units and 22
duplexes, was constructed over the past few years. As such, the project is in
compliance with policy 8-107 as it is an infill site that is adjacent to existing
residential development, and is also in compliance with policy 8-105 as it is not
located near a land use identified as a significant source of air pollution.
4.2.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant air
quality impact if it would:
a) Result in a community risk due to an increased cancer risk of greater than 10
people in a million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard
Index, or increased PM2.5 of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3) if the project is within 1,000 feet from a TAC source.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
d) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-16
federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
f) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, adopted June 2, 2010, were used to evaluate the
environmental air quality impacts of the project as follows (see Table 4.2-5):
The operational thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx are 54 pounds per
day and 10 tons per year.
The PM10 operational threshold is 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year,
considering only exhaust emissions.
The PM2.5 operational threshold is 54 pounds per day or 10 tons per year
(exhaust emissions).
The construction thresholds of significance are equivalent to the operational
thresholds and are based on averaged daily emissions.
Construction dust impacts would be determined by whether the following Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are to be utilized:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-17
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.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that no impacts would result for one of the
criterion. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
a) Would the project result in a community risk due to an
increased cancer risk of greater than 10 people in a million, an
increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index, or
increased PM2.5 of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3) if the project is within 1,000 feet from a source?
The most recent BAAQMD guidance requires local community risk and hazards
associated with TACs and PM2.5 emissions to be identified because emissions of
these pollutants can have significant health impacts. The discussion below refers to
community risk related to project operation. Refer to discussion of significant
impacts below for a description of construction TAC impacts.
Operational
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines describe the potential for significant
community risk impacts to occur when sensitive receptors are located near sources
of TAC and/or PM2.5 emissions. Common sources include high-volume roadways
such as freeways, stationary combustions sources permitted by BAAQMD, and
gasoline stations. BAAQMD recommends that these types of sources within 1,000
feet of a project with sensitive receptors be assessed to evaluate potential impacts.
These types of TAC or PM2.5 emission sources have not been identified within 1,000
feet of the site. The closest TAC or PM2.5 emission source is State Route 4 (SR4) and
is located approximately 1 mile from the project site. Therefore, this issue is not
discussed further in this draft EIR.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-18
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that less-than-significant impacts would
result for three of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to
cause high localized concentrations of CO, and CO emitted from project traffic is the
only localized air pollutant of concern associated with the project. Emissions of
other air pollutants, such as PM, are spread out over a large enough area so that
they are not a concern locally.
Measured CO levels have been at healthy levels (i.e., below state and federal
standards) in the Bay Area since the early 1990s. As a result, the region has been
designated as attainment for the standard. Highest measured 8-hour CO levels over
the last 3 years are 1 part per million (ppm) in Bethel Island,1 which are well below
ambient air quality standards of 9.0 ppm (see Table 4.2-3).
The contribution of project-generated traffic to levels of CO emissions was predicted
following the screening criteria recommended by BAAQMD. A review of
intersection traffic volumes and level of service was conducted to identify
intersections with the potential for the highest CO levels based on project-
generated traffic. Two intersections—the Marsh Creek Road/Walnut Boulevard
intersection and the Byron Highway/ SR4 intersection—were considered the worst
intersections in terms of potentially elevated CO levels from project-generated
traffic.
Predicted CO concentrations associated with the project are shown in Table 4.2-4.
Screening calculations are also provided in Appendix A of this draft EIR.
1 Bethel Island is the air quality monitoring station closest to the project site.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-19
Table 4.2-4 Predicted Roadside Carbon Monoxide Concentrations.
Intersection Existing
(2010)
Existing Plus
Project (2010)
Cumulative
Plus Project
(2030)
BAAQMD
Threshold
Exceed
Threshold?
Concentrations (ppm)
Marsh Creek Rd./
Walnut Avenue 3.0 3.0 2.1 9.0 NO
SR 4/Byron Hwy 3.5 3.6 2.6 9.0 NO
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
The highest 8-hour concentration with project implementation (2010) is predicted
to be 3.6 ppm over an 8-hour period. In 2030, localized CO levels would be even
lower. The results of this screening analysis indicate that project levels would be
below the California ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. Therefore, the project
would have a less-than-significant impact to air quality standards.
c) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
The project would result in the construction of 292 residential units. Activities
associated with a residential housing development do not typically result in the
creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Facilities
such as wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, petroleum refineries, and
chemical manufacturing plants are the typical types of land uses that emit
objectionable odors. The offensiveness and degree of odor ultimately depends on
the sensitivity of the receptors exposed to the odor. The only potential source of
odor associated with the project would be the garbage or waste associated with
land uses proposed onsite. Any garbage or waste generated by the residential uses
would be collected and disposed of according to policies found in the Contra Costa
County Code Chapter 418: Refuse. Proper collection and disposal of generated
waste would avoid the creation of objectionable odors affecting residents of the
proposed project or surrounding neighborhoods.
Odors could potentially be generated during short-term architectural coating
activities. Architectural coatings contain Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) that
may include odiferous compounds. However, any architectural coatings used for
the project must comply with the low-VOC requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 8,
Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings), which limits the quantity of VOCs contained in
architectural coatings sold, used, or manufactured within the BAAQMD. Compliance
with Regulation 8, Rule 3, would minimize any odor impacts from architectural
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-20
coating operations. Additionally, any odors associated with architectural coatings
would cease following completion of construction, except for minor periodic
maintenance painting. Because the impact would be intermittent and temporary,
the project’s impact with respect to odors would be considered less than significant.
The land uses surrounding the project area are residential and farmlands, and would
not constitute a significant odor source. Therefore, residents of the proposed
project would not be exposed to objectionable odors from adjacent land uses and
the impact with respect to this criterion would be less than significant.
d) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan.
A key element in air quality planning is to make reasonably accurate projections of
future human activities, particularly vehicle activities that are related to air pollutant
emissions. BAAQMD uses population projections made by the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) and vehicle use trends made by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission to formulate future air pollutant emission inventories.
The 2010 CAP was adopted by BAAQMD in 2010. This 2010 CAP is based on regional
population, housing, and employment projections through 2020 compiled by ABAG.
As such, a project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a regional air
quality plan if it is inconsistent with the regional growth assumptions for population
and/or employment.
Section 4.13 Population and Housing, of this draft EIR, found that for the years
2010 to 2020, the 2009 ABAG projections report an anticipated population increase
Countywide of 87,100 and an increase in population in Rural East County of
approximately 1,300. The ABAG projections reflect a trend of continued
development in Rural East County, and the project is included in the population
projections for the next 10 years. Population generated by the project represents
approximately 67 percent of the projected growth in Rural East County and 1
percent of the projected growth estimated for the County as a whole for the same
period.
The project and surrounding properties were included within the Urban Limit Line
(ULL) to indicate an intention for future conversion to urban uses. The timing for
development of these areas is speculative and regional population projections have
attempted to project a reasonable rate of growth based on market conditions.
Section 4.13 Population and Housing concludes that direct and indirect population
increase associated with the project would be within the ABAG population
forecasts.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-21
Additionally, the 2010 CAP includes 17 TCMs. TCMs that would apply to this project
would reduce motor vehicle travel by encouraging use of alternative transportation
modes, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of transportation. The
project addresses the following TCMs by providing pedestrian and bicycle access
through the emergent marsh area:
TCM D-1: Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities
TCM D-2: Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities
TCM D-3: Support Local Land Use Strategies
For the reasons stated above, the project is consistent with the regional growth
predications and would result in a less-than-significant impact with implementation
of the 2010 CAP.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that some degree of impact would result for
two of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
e) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Impact AQ-1: Project development that includes wood burning stoves would
result in a net increase of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), a criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment in an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard. (Significant)
Wood burning stoves and other area sources such as emissions associated with
project traffic would result in new air pollutant emissions within the air basin.
Regional emissions generated by the project have been calculated using the
URBEMIS2007 emission model. The program was used to estimate the vehicular
and area source emissions from the development of 292 single-family residences.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-22
As a worst-case scenario for the purposes of this analysis, the project was assumed
to be built out by the year 2013.2 The URBEMIS2007 output is included in Appendix
A.
The incremental daily emission increase associated with project build out is
identified in Table 4.2-5 for ROG, NOx (two precursors of ozone), PM10 and PM2.5.
Daily emissions are from either summer or winter months, depending on which
season results in the greatest emission. Also shown are BAAQMD daily and annual
thresholds of significance.
Project emissions shown in Table 4.2-5 would exceed the BAAQMD daily threshold
of significance for ROG. This is considered a significant impact on regional air
quality.
Table 4.2-5 Average daily and Annual Operational Emissions
Pollutant
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Daily
Emission
(Lbs/day)
Annual
Emission
(Tons)
Daily
Emission
(Lbs/day)
Annual
Emission
(Tons)
Daily
Emission
(Lbs/day)
Annual
Emission
(Tons)
Daily
Emission
(Lbs/day)
Annual
Emission
(Tons)
Project Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
78 8 38 5 65 8 31 2
BAAQMD Quantitative Threshold of Significance
54 10 54 10 82 15 54 10
Impact
Yes No No No No No No No
Source: Don Ballanti ,2010.
2 Earthmoving construction activities, which generate the highest amount of air pollutants during
construction, are expected to be completed by 2013. Framing of the residential homes is expected to
continue between 2013 through 2018; however, for the purposes of this air quality analysis, and as a
worst-case scenario, air pollutants associated with the construction of the homes is considered to be
complete in 2013.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-23
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Wood burning fireplaces or stoves shall not be
permitted. Only natural gas fireplaces or stoves shall be permitted. Project
plans shall not include wood burning fireplaces or stoves and shall clearly
indicate the prohibition against such use.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.2-6, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce ROG
emissions associated with project development to 36 pounds per day, which is
below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 54 pounds per day. Therefore, the
impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Table 4.2-6 Daily Project ROG Emissions
Scenario ROG (lbs/day)
Total Project Emissions 78
Total Project Emissions after Mitigation Measure AQ-1 36
Percent Reduction 53%
BAAGMD Significance Thresholds 54
Impact No
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
f) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Impact AQ-2: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to criteria air
pollutants during project construction but could expose sensitive receptors to
toxic air contaminants. (Significant)
Construction Emissions
Project emissions of air pollutants would be highest during project construction.
Project construction would result in temporary emissions of dust and diesel exhaust
that could adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors.
During project construction, the operation of equipment and combustion of vehicle
fuel would emit regional pollutants such as ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Clearing,
excavation, grading, foundation, and other ground-disturbing construction activity
would affect air quality. Sources would include on- and off-site equipment and
vehicles, worker trips, and the evaporation of paints and solvents. Construction
emissions would be at a maximum during the roughly 1.5-year period for earthwork
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-24
and grading of the site, which involves the creation of two bays, two coves, shoring
walls, creek bank restoration and the widening of Kellogg Creek. After completion
of this period of relatively intense activity, construction of production and custom
homes is expected to occur over a 5-year period.
Worst case emissions from construction were estimated using the URBEMIS2007
program and assumed that project grading and site improvements would be
completed within a 12-month period (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013). Equipment
usage was estimated by the project applicant for site preparation works. The
URBEMIS2007 program output is included in Appendix A.
Table 4.2-7 shows worst-case average daily construction emissions, in pounds per
day, and maximum annual emissions in tons per year. As shown in the table,
average daily and annual maximum construction emissions do not approach the
proposed BAAQMD significance thresholds, so this impact would be less than
significant.
Table 4.2-7 Average Daily and Annual Construction Emissions
Pollutant
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Daily
Average
(Lbs/day)
Annual
(Tons)
Daily
Average
(Lbs/day)
Annual
(Tons)
Daily
Average
(Lbs/day)
Annual
(Tons)
Daily
Average
(Lbs/day)
Annual
(Tons)
Project Construction Emissions
5.9 1.1 50.3 9.2 2.1 0.4 2.0 0.4
BAAQMD Quantitative Threshold of Significance for Construction
54 10 54 10 82 15 54 10
Impact
No No No No No No No No
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-25
Cancer risk from Toxic Air Contaminants
Diesel-powered vehicles and equipment result in temporary emissions of dust and
diesel particulates that could adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors.
In 1998 ARB identified PM from diesel fueled engines as a TAC. ARB has completed
a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of
activities using diesel-fueled engines. High volume freeways, stationary diesel
engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (i.e.,
distribution centers or truck stops) were identified as having the highest associated
risk.
Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of
exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are
temporary and transient in nature, affecting an area for a period of days to years.
The BAAQMD has not developed quantitative thresholds or guidelines for
identifying impacts related to temporary construction activities where emissions are
mobile and transient in nature. However, BAAQMD has recommended the
measures listed under Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b to help reduce the
impacts of diesel exhaust emissions associated with grading and new construction:
Mitigation Measure AQ-2a: To reduce the air quality impacts of PM associated
with grading and new construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the
following mitigation measures for all phases of construction:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall
be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of
dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour
(mph).
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as
soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-26
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in
use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of
California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked 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.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b: To reduce health risks from TACs during project
construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation
measures into the project:
Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two
minutes;
Develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50
horsepower) to be used in the construction of the project (i.e., owned,
leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-
average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compacted
to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable option for reducing
emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel
projects, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
projects, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and /or other options as
such become available;
Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be
equipped with best available technology for emission reductions of NOx and
PM; and
Require all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s more recent
certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.
Significant after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.2 Air Quality
4.2-27
Because of its short duration and the excellent ventilation characteristics of the
site during daylight hours when construction activity occurs, as well as
implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b would reduce health
risks from construction emissions of TAC diesel PM to a less-than-significant
level.
4.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for air quality includes any proposed development within the
jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. The General Plan EIR noted that build-out would
contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air quality. The
County adopted overriding considerations, citing, in part, the need to balance
competing goals such as the need to provide opportunities for jobs and housing,
with the goal of preserving open space and agriculture. In balancing the competing
goals, the County found that the benefits of the General Plan outweigh the
unavoidable environmental impacts.
The recently adopted BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that any project that would
individually have a significant air quality impact would also have a significant
cumulative air quality impact. As described above under discussion of significant
impacts, the project would result in a project-level significant impact related to daily
emissions of ROG and consistency with the local clean air plan.
Cumulative impacts related to ROG emissions are discussed under Impact CUM
AQ-1.
Impact CUM AQ-1: Development of the project in conjunction with other
development in the region would result in a net increase of reactive organic gases
(ROG). (Significant)
As discussed previously, the Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for
ground-level O3 under both the federal CAA and the California CAA. The area is also
considered non-attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. As part of an effort to attain and
maintain ambient air quality standards for O3 and PM10, and PM2.5, BAAQMD has
established thresholds of significance for O3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx)
and PM10 and PM2.5.
As described in Impact AQ-1, the project, without mitigation, would exceed the
BAAQMD-recommended operational threshold of significance for ROG (54 pounds
per day), resulting in a significant impact. According to the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, any project that would individually have a significant air quality impact
would also have a significant cumulative air quality impact.
Pantages Bays Project
4.2 Air Quality Draft EIR
4.2-28
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which prohibits the uses of wood
burning fireplaces or stoves within the project and permits only natural gas
fireplaces or stoves, would reduce ROG emissions associated with project
development to 36 pounds per day, which is below the BAAQMD significant
threshold (see Table 4.2-6). Therefore, the project’s contribution to this impact
would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.2.5 REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Bay Area 2005 Ozone
Strategy. Available at:
<http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20
Research/Plans/2005%20Ozone%20Strategy/adoptedfinal_vol1.ashx>.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. Aerometric Data Analysis and
Management (ADAM).
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/php_files/aqdphp/topfour1.php
California Air Resources Board (ARB). California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS). Available at: < http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf>.
Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. (2005). Conservation Element.
U.S. EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at:
<http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html>.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-1
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Monk & Associates, Inc. has prepared a Biological Resource Analysis report that is
appended in its entirety as Appendix B of this EIR. The purpose of this section is to
provide a description of existing biological resources on the project site and to
identify potentially significant impacts related to the project. The biological
resources reports that have been incorporated into this analysis are available for
review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development,
Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California.
Potential impacts are addressed below in Subsection 4.3.4, Analysis of Potential
Impacts. This biological resources analysis includes mitigation measures that, when
implemented, would reduce impacts to levels considered less than significant
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
submitted a comment letter. Responses to the NMFS letter are included as an
appendix to Monk & Associates’ Biological Resource Analysis report, which is
included in its entirety as Appendix B of this EIR.
4.3.1 METHODOLOGY
Background Research
Background research for the project was initiated by Monk & Associates in 2006 and
updated in 2009 and 2010, and included the following research and consultations:
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Database,
RareFind 3.1 application (CNDDB 2010) identifies historic and recent records of
special-status plant and animal species (that is, threatened, endangered, rare)
known to occur in the region of the project site.
California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) 2010 electronic version of their
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (herein referred to as the
Inventory) (CNPS 2001) lists special-status plant species known from the nine
U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles around the project site.
Sacramento Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provides a
list of special-status species known from the Woodward Island 7.5 minute
quadrangle (the project site quadrangle). All special-status species records were
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-2
compiled into tables by USFWS. Monk & Associates examined all known record
locations for special-status species to determine if these species had the
potential to occur on the project site.
Monk & Associates reviewed several documents prepared for this project site,
including the following:
Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods Wet Season Survey, Pantages Property.
Prepared for Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC. Prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC.
May 2003.
EcoAnalysts, Inc. letter-report on analysis of soil samples at Pantages for fairy
shrimp cysts. August 4, 2003 letter-report to Mr. Jim Gibson of Gibson &
Skordal, LLC.
Results of 2004 Biological Surveys and Habitat Assessment for the California
Tiger Salamander, Pantages at Discovery Bay. Prepared for Pantages at
Discovery Bay, LLC by Miriam Green Associates. November 10, 2004.
Jurisdictional Delineation, Pantages Property. Prepared for Pantages at
Discovery Bay, LLC. Prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC. December 2002.
Delineation Map, Pantages Property. Prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC.
November 2002.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination for the Pantages Bays
Property, January 7, 2009.
Results of Special-Status Species Surveys on the Pantages Property, Contra
Costa, California. Prepared for Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC. Prepared by
Miriam Green Associates. November 1, 2003.
Preliminary Grading & Utility Plan: Pantages at Discovery Bay. Prepared by dk
Associates, Inc. May 2005.
Tree Report, Pantages at Discovery Bay, Contra Costa County, California.
Prepared by HortScience, Inc. August 2006.
Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, dated
October 2006.
Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, dated
May 2007.
Project Development Plans
Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for
Pantages Bays. Prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC. November 15, 2006.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-3
Summary of Biological Resource Issues, Impacts, Mitigation and Findings, March
2007, provided to Monk & Associates by CirclePoint.
Mooring Area Plan for Pantages Bays prepared by dk Consulting August 2010.
Evaluation of Potential California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii)
Habitat on the Pantages Bays Property, Contra Costa County, California. April 1,
2010. Prepared by Mr. Hansen in association with Miriam Green Associates.
Evaluation of Potential California Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat
on the Pantages Bay Property, Contra Costa County, California. April 1, 2010.
Prepared by Mr. Hansen in association with Miriam Green Associates.
Response to Comments from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
dated July 19, 2007 regarding the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental
Impact Report (NOP/EIR) for the Pantages Bays Residential Development
Project. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences. August 5, 2010 (Appendix C).
Response to NMFS July 19, 2007 comment letter on Pantages Bays Notice of
Preparation. Prepared by Pantages at Discovery Bay, LLC. August 5, 2010.
Field Reconnaissance
Monk & Associates biologists, Ms. Sarah Lynch and Ms. Hope Kingma, conducted
general surveys of the project site on September 15 and October 26, 2005 to record
biological resources and to assess the likelihood of agency regulated areas on the
project site. The surveys involved searching all habitats on the site and recording all
plant and wildlife species observed.
On September 20, 2006, Monk & Associates biologist Ms. Lynch returned to the site
to note current site conditions and record any wildlife and plants observed. Tables
of plants and wildlife observed during these surveys were compiled and are
included in Appendix B of this EIR.
Monk & Associates’ site evaluation included an examination of the areas within the
project site that would be regulated as waters of the United States and/or State (as
determined during a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) confirmation visit
conducted on June 4, 2003 on the project site with the applicant’s wetland
consultants, Gibson & Skordal LLC). Monk & Associates also noted potential habitats
on or adjacent to the project site that could support special-status species. The
results of Monk & Associates’ literature research and field reconnaissance are
provided in the sections below.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-4
Wetland Delineation Conducted by Gibson & Skordal,
LLC
Two separate wetland delineations were conducted by the applicant’s wetland
consultants, Gibson & Skordal, LLC. The field studies for the first delineation, which
covered the main project site, were conducted on August 7, 2002. This wetland
delineation was conducted according to the Corps’ 1987 Wetlands Delineation
Manual.
The delineation map (dated November 2002) was prepared by dk Associates, Inc. in
coordination with Gibson & Skordal, LLC. On June 4, 2003 the Corps verified that
19.53 acres of waters of the United States are present on approximately 162 acres
of the 171-acre project site.
In 2008, the applicant’s wetland consultants, Gibson & Skordal, LLC, submitted a
supplemental delineation request to expand the project area (approximately 171
acres) to include Pantages Island, Mean High Water around Pantages Island, and
along the Pantages Property, and requested a re-verification of the entire project
site. On January 7, 2009, the Corps submitted a jurisdictional determination to the
project applicant verifying Gibson & Skordal’s May 2008 Jurisdictional Delineation
map that 36.43 acres of waters of the United States, including Indian Slough, Kellogg
Creek and adjacent wetlands, are present within the survey area (see Appendix A of
the Biological Resources Analysis report).
Special-Status Species Surveys and General Wildlife
Surveys Conducted by Others
Special-Status Plant Surveys
Miriam Green Associates conducted special-status plant surveys on the project site
on April 17, June 28, and September 22, 2003. Surveys were conducted by Ms.
Ramona Robison with the assistance of Ms. Tina Costella. According to the Miriam
Green Associates’ 2003 report, plant surveys were designed to coincide with the
blooming periods of the target special-status plants. Surveys were conducted on
foot, and focused on the areas that still supported some native vegetation.
Tree Survey
On February 7, 2006, HortScience, Inc. surveyed all trees growing on the project
site. The survey consisted of identifying tree species, measuring the trunk diameters
at 54 inches above grade (that is, diameter at breast height (DBH)), evaluating the
health and structural condition of the trees, and rating the suitability of each tree
for preservation. In August 2006 HortScience prepared a Tree Report as a result of
their February 7, 2006 survey. On August 23, 2007 HortScience prepared an
addendum to their 2006 tree report to include Pantages Island since the widening of
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-5
Kellogg Creek by Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) would impact trees on this
island. This addendum to their tree report tallies all trees on the project site
including those on Pantages Island.
Vernal Pool Crustacean Survey
In 2003, one season of wet season surveys and one season of dry season surveys
were completed on the project site. Gibson & Skordal, LLC completed the USFWS-
authorized wet season surveys (December 27, 2002 through April 15, 2003).
Christopher Rogers of EcoAnalysts, Inc. completed the USFWS-authorized dry
season sampling (June 2003). The results are presented under the fairy shrimp
species discussion below.
Aquatic Resources Studies
A reconnaissance site visit was conducted on March 8, 2004 by Stillwater Sciences,
the applicant’s fisheries biologists, to make a preliminary examination of aquatic
habitats in and adjacent to the project area. A more detailed habitat
characterization was conducted on March 26, 2004. The latter effort was conducted
by driving a boat along the banks, noting dominant and subdominant habitats, and
delineating the boundary of habitat types on an aerial photo of the project area.
Stillwater Sciences surveyed bank habitat along Kellogg Creek, the East Contra Costa
County Irrigation District (ECCID) Dredge Cut/Intake Channel, Hofmann Mitigation
Spit, the perimeter of the trapezoidal island located at the juncture of the project
site, the Indian Slough Islands, and the ECCID Peninsula, the banks of the two islands
located north of the Discovery Bay development, and the north and south sides of
the ECCID Peninsula. Bank habitat was characterized by the type of vegetation or
lack of vegetation covering the banks. These habitat types were then categorized as
low, moderate, or high quality based on the extent of cover they provide fish
(Stillwater Sciences 2006).
On July 19, 2007, the NMFS prepared comments on the NOP for the Pantages Bays
EIR. In response to the NMFS comments, in 2010, Stillwater Sciences surveyed the
east and west banks of Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route 4
(3,688 ft.) and identified it as low quality habitat that could be restored to high
quality habitat as part of the project. It replaced as superior mitigation previously
proposed low quality habitat located behind some of the shoring walls in the North
Bay, South Bay, and along the North Cove and Kellogg Creek. See revised Table 8
dated June 2010 by Stillwater Sciences and its Footnotes 6 and 7. This table is part
of the response letter Stillwater Sciences prepared to address NMFS’ comments.
Stillwater Sciences’ response letter is included as an appendix to Monk & Associates’
Biological Resource Analysis report which is included in its entirety as Appendix B of
this EIR.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-6
California Black Rail Surveys
In 2003, Miriam Green Associates played taped calls of California black rails
(Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) at the emergent marsh during the early
mornings of June 9 and June 19, 2003 to elicit a vocal response from individuals that
may be present. No California black rails responded to the taped calls and the
habitat was determined to be unsuitable for the species. Hence, this species is not
discussed further in this report.
Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis Gigas) Habitat Assessment
Mr. Hansen conducted a giant garter snake habitat assessment on the project site in
2003. Mr. Hansen is a federal 10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist authorized by the
USFWS to work with the giant garter snake. During Mr. Hansen’s site assessment,
the project site was traversed on foot, by air, by roadway, and the waterways were
traversed by boat in reference to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
topographic maps. A follow-up site visit was conducted by Mr. Hansen on March 2,
2010. During the 2003 site assessment and the 2010 follow-up site investigation, all
aquatic habitats were investigated for the characteristics that constitute the
preferred habitat of this species. Areas of interest included all wetland and bank
side habitat on the project site, as well as upland within 200 feet of such habitat.
Bank side habitat includes segments of Kellogg Creek on the southern and eastern
property boundaries and Indian Slough on the north. Habitat evaluation criteria are
based on recognized minimum characteristics necessary to support giant garter
snakes, scored cumulatively, and represented categorically using geographic
information systems (GIS). All results were then confirmed with a visual assessment
of habitat. The results are presented below in the species discussion under the
heading “Special-Status Species.”
California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment
Miriam Green Associates completed a habitat assessment for California tiger
salamander (Ambystoma californiense) on the project site in 2004. Surveys were
conducted to evaluate habitat suitability of the project site and surrounding area for
California tiger salamander on April 16, April 28, and November 2, 2004. Previous
evaluations of the project site were conducted on February 13 and October 1, 2003,
the results are presented below in the species discussion under the heading
“Special-Status Species.”
California Red-Legged Frog Habitat Assessment
In 2006, Miriam Green Associates prepared a habitat assessment for the California
red-legged (Rana draytonii) frog and submitted it to the USFWS’ Sacramento Field
Office. On March 2, 2010, Mr. Hansen and Ms. Green conducted a follow-up site
assessment. Miriam Green Associates’ biologists also completed a number of site
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-7
surveys in 2003 and 2004 to assess the presence of special-status reptiles and
amphibians on the project site. Diurnal (day time) field surveys for special-status
reptiles and amphibians were conducted February 13 and October 1, 2003 and on
April 16, 28, and November 2, 2004. In addition to conducting field surveys, Miriam
Green Associates reviewed CNDDB records for California red-legged frog within a
6.2 mile (10-kilometer) radius of the project site. The results are presented below in
the species discussion under the heading “Special-Status Species.”
General Wildlife Surveys on the Project Site
Miriam Green Associates conducted general wildlife surveys on the project site on
February 13, April 17, May 9, June 9, June 19, July 25, September 22, and October 1,
2003. Surveyors include Miriam Green, Waldo Holt, and/or Tina Costella. Follow up
surveys were made in 2004 on March 8, April 8, 16, 28, May 13, and November 2,
2004. The March 8, 2004 site visit also included a boat survey of the surrounding
waterways between Discovery Bay and the project site, including Indian Slough and
Kellogg Creek. The March and early April 2004 surveys provided useful information
on shorebird use of the project site since the seasonal wetlands and marsh-
contained water throughout this period. Site visits later in April 2004 concentrated
on the California tiger salamander. The May 13, 2004 survey focused on nesting
birds. The purpose of the November 2004 survey was to ground truth habitat maps
prepared for the California tiger salamander. All wildlife observed during each site
visit was recorded.
4.3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Project Site Topography and Hydrology
The project site is on the USGS Woodward Island 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, Sections 23 and 26 of Township 1 North, Range 3 East (see Figure 2 in
Appendix B of this draft EIR).
Indian Slough forms the northern boundary of the project site and Kellogg Creek
forms the eastern and southern boundaries. These large waterways are subject to
tidal action; however, it is believed that the emergent marsh onsite does not receive
any tidal action from Indian Slough. If there were historical culverts connected to
Indian Slough they are old and buried and no longer functional. The project
applicant’s wetland biologists (Gibson & Skordal) and fisheries biologists (Stillwater
Sciences) could not locate such culverts onsite during their site reconnaissance.
The project site is relatively flat. Recently imported fill material from an adjacent
development project has been stored and distributed throughout the site, primarily
in the western corner on the site. Currently these piles of dirt are higher in elevation
than the surrounding topography. Much of the site was historically leveled and
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-8
drained to accommodate flood irrigation and other farming practices. Several
shallow ditches bisect the site, providing further evidence of past land use
manipulation. In addition, there are several large topographic low areas, or
depressions, present on the project site. These low areas remain saturated or
inundated for prolonged periods of time.
Project Site Soils
Soils on the project site as mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (USDA
1997) are shown in Figure 4.1-1 in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources. There are
four soil units mapped on the project site including Marcuse clay (Mb), Brentwood
clay loam (wet)(Bc), Pescadero clay loam (Pb), and Sacramento clay, alkali (Sb). The
soils map also indicates that Water (W) was mapped over the area of emergent
marsh on the project site, illustrating the long-term inundation of this portion of the
site.
Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats
A large portion of the project site has been disturbed by road grading, berm
construction, disking, and soil dumping. The entire project site north of Point of
Timber Road except for the emergent marsh area had been graded, and the entire
southern portion of the project site south of Point of Timber Road had been disked.
Most of the plant communities and wildlife habitats that were once present onsite
have been substantially altered, and barren soils or areas supporting ruderal
(weedy) conditions currently exist on the project site. It was not therefore possible
to determine the original ground cover/ vegetation communities and/or site
conditions prior to these activities or the wildlife that would use the site prior to
these disturbances.
Plant communities and habitat types identified within the project site are:
non-native annual grassland
emergent marsh
iodine bush scrub
seasonal wetland
ornamental vegetation/landscaping
creek bank habitat
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-9
Three of the four plant communities— emergent marsh, seasonal wetland, and
iodine bush scrub—would be considered significant by the resource agencies and
native plant organizations (CDFG, USFWS, Corps, CNPS), and would warrant
protection. All plant communities/habitat types/landscape types are discussed
below.
Non-Native Annual Grassland
Non-native annual grassland covers the majority of the project site. This plant
community is composed of fox tail barley (Hordeum murinum leporinum), Italian
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), wild oats (Avena fatua),
rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), Italian thistle
(Carduus pycnocephala), fescue (Vulpia myuros), and filaree (Erodium spp.). In the
late-summer months the yellow flowers of tar plant (Centromadia pungens
pungens); formerly known as Hemizonia pungens pungens) cover the grasslands.
Non-native annual grassland provides habitat for graniverous (seed-eating) birds
such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus),
and lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and insectivorous birds such as western
kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), western meadow lark (Sturnella neglecta), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), western
scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica) and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), all of
which have been observed on the project site. Other animals observed in the
grassland included rabbits and rodents such as black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus)
and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beechyi), and raptors such as American
kestrels (Falco sparverius) and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), which prey on
the smaller rodents, birds, and lagomorphs (hares and rabbits). Fox scat, likely red
fox (Vulpes vulpes), was also observed in the grassland. Another larger canid, the
coyote (Canis latrans), was also observed on the project site.
Emergent Marsh
A large emergent marsh habitat is located in the northern portion of the project
site. This marsh was delineated by Gibson & Skordal as 16.08 acres, and stays
inundated through August of most years, with the majority of the marsh drying
down completely by October. During the October 26, 2005 site visit conducted by
Monk & Associates’ the majority of the marsh only supported saturated soils;
however, the southeastern portion of the marsh was still inundated with several
inches of water.
Dominant plants in this community are tule (Schoenoplectus acutus var.
occidentalis; formerly called Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis), brass buttons (Cotula
cornopifolia), spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya); rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon
monspilensis), yellow water primrose (Ludwigia peploides), floating penny wort
(Hydrocotyle sp.), swamp grass (Crypsis schoenoides), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-10
dactylon). In addition, a small area of freshwater emergent marsh occurs along the
southern edge of the project area where the Hofmann Mitigation Spit meets the
project site and is dominated by tule with some areas of yellow iris and non-native
grasses along the water’s edge.
Emergent marshes provide habitat for a variety of animal species. The aquatic
habitat provides wading birds and waterfowl with foraging habitat. During site
surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004, Miriam Green and Associates identified a large
variety of wading birds and waterfowl in the marsh including great blue heron
(Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), snowy egret (Egretta thula), black-
crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos), American coot (Fulica americana), black-necked stilt (Himantopus
mexicanus), and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps).
Monk & Associates biologists observed tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus), and black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus) in the mud
surrounding the water. Raccoons forage for crayfish and frog larvae in the marsh,
while the muskrats and rabbits will eat the green vegetation that the marsh
provides year round. Reptiles expected at this large emergent marsh include
western aquatic garter snake (Thamnophis couchii), which would feed on amphibian
larvae and invertebrates in the water, and the western pond turtle (Emys
marmorata), a special-status species, which has been observed in the emergent
marsh on site. Finally, the non-native amphibian, bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), has
been observed on numerous occasions both by Miriam Green Associates and Monk
& Associates’ biologists.
Iodine Bush Scrub
Two patches of iodine bush scrub occurs onsite. This plant community is an
uncommon native plant community in Contra Costa County (CNPS East Bay Chapter
1997). Iodine bush scrub is dominated by iodine bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis), a
succulent member of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) that tolerates salty
soils by taking up salt into plant tissues. This plant community has been identified in
two areas of the project site: one large patch was located in the southwest corner of
the project site; another patch was located in the northwest portion of the site, just
west of the emergent marsh. Both patches have been disturbed by past land use
activities including disking and grading. Iodine bush scrub grows in monotypic
stands with little other vegetation growing in between the bushes except for non-
native grasses.
The two patches of iodine bush scrub on the project site are not large enough to
create any significant wildlife habitats onsite or to attract those animal species that
are typically found using chaparral and coastal scrub habitats. While the iodine
bushes do provide some shrub cover on the project site, the patches are not
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-11
extensive enough for chaparral/coastal scrub animal species to establish nesting
habitats or territories. The bushes most likely provide temporary cover and a seed
source. Animals expected to visit or use the iodine bush scrub habitats either on a
seasonal basis or full time basis include western fence lizard (Sceloporus
occidentalis), northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea), western rattlesnake
(Crotalus viridis), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), golden crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), and white-crowned
sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), all of which have been observed onsite. Rabbits
such as the black-tailed hare and the Audubon’s cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
may also take refuge in these bushes.
Seasonal Wetland
Seasonal wetland habitats have been identified on the project site. These seasonal
wetlands total 5.63 acres (Gibson & Skordal 2008).. All seasonal wetlands onsite
typically sustain seasonal ponding and saturated soil conditions that persist during
the winter rainy season before drying up in the spring. The shallower wetland areas
are dominated by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum
marinum gussoneanum). The deeper areas support Baltic rush (Juncus balticus),
bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), annual rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon
monspilensis), Bermuda grass, and common frog fruit (Phyla nodiflora) (Gibson &
Skordal 2002).
In 2003, vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), a federal listed threatened
species, was identified in one seasonal wetland onsite (Gibson & Skordal 2002).
Fairy shrimp were not found in any of the other wetland habitats onsite after
conducting one season of wet season sampling and one season of dry season
sampling (EcoAnalysts, Inc. 2003).
Ornamental Vegetation/Landscaping
Ornamental trees grow along Point of Timber Road and near the now-abandoned
houses, barns, and sheds on the project site, including Modesto ash (Fraxinus
velutina), California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii), Siberian elm
(Ulmus pumila), and salt cedar (Tamarix sp.). The highest density of trees occurs in
the northeastern corner of the project site, particularly along the channel banks.
Trees growing along channel banks include California black walnut, Manna gum
(Eucalyptus viminalis), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Siberian elm,
California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), silver maple (Acer saccharinum),
weeping willow (Salix babylonica), pomegranate (Punica granatum), plum (Prunus
sp.), silk oak (Grevillea robusta), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), silver dollar gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos), Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Hollywood juniper
(Juniperus chinensis), Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis), Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis), Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), European olive (Olea
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-12
europaea), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and willow (Salix sp.) (HortScience
2006). The trees onsite provide nesting habitat for a variety of bird species including
passerine birds (perching birds) such as sparrows, mourning doves (Zenaida
macroura), western scrub jays (Aphelocoma californica), and northern mockingbirds
(Mimus polyglottos). A pair of white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus) was observed
perched in the Modesto ash trees surrounding the old home site. While these trees
provide nesting opportunities for the kites, no old nests were observed. These trees
also provide roosting habitat for great egrets (Ardea alba) and great blue herons
(Ardea herodias), both of which have been observed by Monk & Associates onsite.
There are not enough trees grouped together or large enough trees for egrets or
herons to colonially nest onsite.
Bank Habitats
Approximately 2 miles of bank habitat associated with Kellogg Creek and the ECCID
Dredge Cut/Intake Channel that occurs within the project site was evaluated and
characterized by Stillwater Sciences (Stillwater Sciences 2006). Stillwater Sciences
also evaluated an additional 4 miles of bank habitat that occurs outside the project
site boundaries. Finally, in 2010 Stillwater Sciences surveyed Kellogg Creek between
Newport Pointe and State Route 4 (Stillwater Sciences 2010).
Habitat quality is classified as high, moderate or low as discussed below. Aquatic
habitat in the project area is primarily of low quality, consisting of eroding cut bank
with adjacent open water. In lesser quantities, there is shaded riverine aquatic
(SRA) habitat, freshwater emergent marsh, and submerged vegetation associated
with the Indian Slough Islands that provides high quality habitat for fish.
High Quality Habitat
Banks with habitat dominated by vegetation that provides in-water shelter or
closely overhanging shelter for fish were classified as high quality. These high quality
habitat types historically dominated the floodplains and banks of the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta and native fish have subsequently evolved to use them during all
phases of their lifecycle (Moyle 2002). High quality habitat includes bulrush
(Schoenoplectus spp., formerly Scirpus spp.), cattails (Typha sp.), large woody debris
(LWD), and shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) habitat. Overhanging vegetation, such as
trees and shrubs that make up SRA or riparian habitat, provides cover from
predators, shading that can aid in camouflaging fish, and provides suitable
conditions for food organisms that support larger fish species. In addition, riparian
habitat provides stability along channel banks, protecting them from the erosive
force of waves and tidal changes (Gordon et al. 1993). Large woody debris from
fallen trees and shrubs, bulrush, and cattails also provide important in-water hiding
places to escape from predators, as well as spawning substrate, rearing habitat, and
feeding areas (Stillwater Sciences 2006).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-13
Moderate Quality Habitat
Banks with vegetation that provides only overhanging cover for fish, mostly during
high tide, was classified by Stillwater Sciences as moderate quality. The moderate
quality habitat onsite includes non-native Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor),
grasses and forbs, non-native yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), and non-native pampas
grass (Cortaderia jubata).
Low Quality Habitat
Banks with no vegetation and/or those that were eroding provide no shelter or only
small hiding places in between rubble and were therefore categorized as low quality
habitat. Low quality habitat includes concrete rubble/drain pipe, eroding cut banks,
riprap, and tarps/tires/other debris (Stillwater Sciences 2006).
Lack of aquatic vegetation or cover, and high levels of boating activity may limit fish
abundance. Spawning and rearing habitat for these species may be present, but is
likely to be of low quality due to the developed and disturbed nature of the project
area in general. Adjacent habitat associated with Discovery Bay is comprised of
artificial channels used to harbor boats, and is generally considered to be low
quality habitat for fish.
Potential Special-Status Plants on the Project Site
Figure 4.3-1 provides a graphical representation of the CNDDB records of special-
status species recorded within 5 miles of the project site. Only one special-status
plant—Delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum)—is known to have occurred in
the past on the project site, and none are known to occur there now.
The CNDDB has a 1988 record on the project site for Delta button celery (Eryngium
racemosum), a state listed endangered species, and this is the only known record
for Delta button celery in Contra Costa County. According to the CNDDB record, in
1998 approximately 1,500 individual Delta button celery plants were identified
south of Point of Timber Road in an alkali wetland adjacent to Kellogg Creek. These
plants were growing in association with iodine bush, alkali heath, hyssop loosestrife
(Lythrum hyssopifolium), salt grass, alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis), and
Mediterranean barley. Monk & Associates contacted the observer of this
population, Ms. Leslie Zander of Zander Associates, and confirmed that the sighting
was made on the project site. Ms. Zander vouchered a specimen of the plant at the
University and Jepson Herbarium in Berkeley. The site is therefore presumed to be
suitable habitat for this species.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.3-1Figure
CirclePoint
Known CNDDB Records of Special-Status
Species Within 5 Miles of the Project Site
Source: Environmental Vision, 2010.
1MILES.50 2
Legend
Green Sturgeon critical habitat
5-mile radius around the project site
5 miles
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-15
Monk & Associates conducted a search of the project site in September 2006 for
Delta button celery and was unable to find it. However, at the time of Monk &
Associates’ 2005 and 2006 surveys the project site had been disked, making plant
identification difficult.
Potential Special-Status Animals on the Project Site
Figure 4.3-1 provides a graphical representation of the CNDDB records of special-
status species recorded within 5 miles of the project site. According to the CNDDB
and the USFWS’ list, a total of 33 special-status animal species are known to occur in
the region of the project site. Of these 33 species, 2 have been identified on the
project site: vernal pool fairy shrimp and western pond turtle.
All 33 species are discussed in Table 4 of the Biological Resources Analysis report.
The vernal pool fairy shrimp and western pond turtle are discussed below along
with six threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish species and ten other special-
status animal species that have potential to occur onsite. All other special-status
fish and animal species considered for this project site were dismissed due to an
absence of habitat.
Invertebrates
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
The vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is a federally-listed threatened
species. It has no state status. This fairy shrimp is found in vernal pool habitats of
the Central Valley, central coast mountains, and south coast mountains (Eng et al.
1990). It is typically found in pools and swales with clear to tea-colored water that
have a grassy substrate. In 2003 USFWS-approved protocol surveys for vernal pool
crustaceans were conducted on the project site. The vernal pool fairy shrimp was
identified in an isolated wetland on the project site, labeled SW2 (Appendix A of the
Biological Resources Analysis report; Appendix B of this EIR). Due to the presence of
this listed fairy shrimp on the project site, mitigation will be required. See
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of the
mitigation required to mitigate project impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp.
Reptiles
Western Pond Turtle
The western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) is a state “species of special concern.”
This designation does not provide direct legal protection pursuant to CESA.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-16
The western pond turtle is a habitat generalist, inhabiting a wide range of fresh and
brackish, permanent and intermittent water bodies from sea level to about 4,500
feet above sea level (USFWS 1992). Typically, this species is found in ponds, marshes,
ditches, streams, and rivers that have rocky or muddy bottoms.
The pond turtle also requires upland areas for burrowing habitat where it digs nests
and buries its eggs. These nests can extend from 52 feet to 1,219 feet from
watercourses (Jennings and Hayes 1992); however most pond turtles nest in
uplands within 250 meters of water (Bury, unpublished). Upland nest sites are
usually found in areas with sparse vegetation. Sunny, barren, and undisturbed (not
disked) land provides optimal habitat, while shady riparian habitat and planted
agricultural fields do not provide suitable habitat (op. cit.). Eggs are typically laid
from March to August (Zeiner et. al. 1988), with most eggs being laid in May and
June. Hatchlings will stay in the nest until the following April (Bury, unpublished).
Predators of juvenile pond turtles include the non-native bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana) and Centrarchid fish (sunfish). This turtle is most visible between April
and July when it can be observed basking in the sun. In areas where the water is
very warm during these months, however, it will bask in the warm water and will be
more difficult to observe. It eats plants, insects, worms, fish and carrion (Stebbins
2003).
Basking western pond turtles have been identified on the project site on multiple
occasions in the emergent marsh habitat and along Kellogg Creek. In addition to the
project site providing basking and aquatic habitat for turtles, the surrounding
upland habitat may provide suitable nesting habitat. Based on the known presence
of the western pond turtle on the project site, potential impacts to this species are
regarded as potentially significant. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce
potentially significant impacts to this species and its habitat to levels regarded as
less than significant. See Impact BIO-6 and Mitigation Measure BIO-6 under
Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts to the western pond
turtle, and the mitigation measure required to reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Giant Garter Snake
The giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) was federally listed as threatened in its
entire range on October 20, 1993. Critical habitat has not been designated for this
species. It is also a state listed threatened species.
The giant garter snake is one of the largest garter snakes, reaching a total length of
at least 63 inches. Dorsal background coloration varies from brownish to olive with a
checkered pattern of black spots, separated by a yellow dorsal stripe and two light
colored lateral stripes. Giant garter snakes feed primarily on small fishes, tadpoles,
and frogs. Habitat requirements consist of the following:
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-17
adequate water during the snake's active season (early-spring through mid-fall)
to provide food and cover;
emergent, herbaceous wetland vegetation, such as cattails and bulrushes, for
escape cover and foraging habitat during the active season; grassy banks and
openings in waterside vegetation for basking; and
higher elevation uplands for cover and refuge from flood waters during the
snake's dormant season in the winter.
In 2003, Mr. Hansen conducted a Habitat Assessment for the giant garter snake on
the project site. Mr. Hansen is a federal 10(a)(1)(A) permittee authorized by the
USFWS to survey for and handle the giant garter snake. Mr. Hansen visually
surveyed all aquatic habitats on the project site for the characteristics that
constitute the preferred habitat of this species. His 2003 habitat assessment
concluded that the site contains potential habitat for the giant garter snake,
especially along the west bank of Kellogg Creek and adjacent uplands. The
assessment also notes that the high level of human disturbance, persistent cattle
grazing, historical agricultural practices, and absence of either historical or recent
sightings of this species within a 9-mile radius make the occurrence of giant garter
snakes here unlikely. An update to this assessment conducted in 2010 reached the
same conclusion, quantifying 16.04 acres of perennial emergent marsh and the
vegetated edges of Kellogg Creek and ECCID Dredge Cut as suitable habitat.
On February 15, 2006, the USFWS stated that the site is assumed to be habitat for
both the red-legged frog and giant garter snake and that formal protocol level
surveys would not be required. Based on the USFWS direction, this EIR assumes that
the site contains suitable habitat for the giant garter snake. Hence, impacts to this
species must be regarded as potentially significant. Mitigation could be
implemented to reduce such impacts to levels regarded as less than significant
pursuant to CEQA. See Impact BIO-5 and Mitigation Measure BIO-5 under
Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts to the giant garter
snake, and the mitigation measures required to reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Fish
Anadromous fish species such as Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (federally listed
at threatened), Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) (federally and state listed as threatened), Central Valley fall/late fall
run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (California species of special
concern), and Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) (federally and state listed endangered species) migrate through the
Delta and the Bay as part of their life cycle.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-18
Spawning for these species does not occur in the project vicinity, therefore impacts
to eggs or fry are not expected (Stillwater Sciences 2007). Adult migration through
the Delta is generally restricted to larger rivers; therefore, adults are not expected
to occur in the project area or vicinity where they may be affected; however, a small
number of juveniles may occur in the project area, and construction-related
turbidity and noise could temporarily affect foraging and predator avoidance
behaviors for a small number of juveniles. Thus, mitigation will be required to
reduce potentially significant impacts to these species to levels regarded as less
than significant. See Impact BIO-7 and Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under Subsection
4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
For anadromous fish species such as Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate), and
River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi), it is also unlikely that adult migration or spawning
of this species would occur within the project area, since the area is not along a
primary migration corridor. However, juveniles may be present during emigration
because they rear in the soft, muddy or sandy bottoms of the Delta channels, and
larvae may be widely dispersed by tidal action and other hydrodynamic forces in the
Delta. Construction-related turbidity may impact foraging and predator avoidance
behaviors for a small number of lamprey juveniles. Such impacts would be regarded
as potentially significant. Accordingly, mitigation will be required to reduce impacts
to levels regarded as less than significant. See Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under
Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of the mitigation measures.
For Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), it is also unlikely that adult migration or
spawning of this species would occur within the project area, since the area is not
along a primary migration corridor. However, larvae may be present during
emigration because they may be widely dispersed by tidal action and other
hydrodynamic forces in the Delta. Short-term, construction-related impacts may
occur from in-water work that increases turbidity and suspends pollutants in the
water column which could smother longfin smelt eggs and disrupt larval
development and dispersal (Stillwater Sciences 2007). Such impacts would be
regarded as potentially significant. Mitigation will be required to reduce such
impacts to levels regarded as less than significant pursuant to CEQA. See Impact
BIO-7 and Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed
description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
Delta Smelt
Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) is listed as threatened under both the state
and federal Endangered Species Acts. Delta smelt are endemic to the Sacramento-
San Joaquin estuary and are found seasonally in Suisun Bay and Suisun Marsh. The
project site is within the region designated as critical habitat for this species. Critical
habitat for Delta smelt consists of all water and all submerged lands below ordinary
high water and the entire water column bounded by and contained in Suisun Bay
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-19
(including the contiguous Grizzly and Honker Bays); the length of Goodyear, Suisun,
Cutoff, First Mallard (Spring Branch), and Montezuma Sloughs; and the existing
contiguous waters in the Delta (59 FR 65256). Critical habitat for delta smelt is
designated in: Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo.
The project area contains suitable spawning and rearing habitat for Delta smelt.
Short-term, construction-related impacts may occur from in-water work that
increases turbidity and suspends pollutants in the water column which could
smother eggs and disrupt larval development and dispersal. Turbidity may also
disrupt juvenile and adult feeding, predator avoidance behavior, and migration
patterns.
Green Sturgeon
The southern population of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) was listed as
threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act on April 7, 2006 and is
designated as a California “species of special concern.”
Critical Habitat for this species was designated and became effective on November
9, 2009. The project site lies within designated Critical Habitat (73 FR No. 174,
52110). The Sacramento River supports the southernmost spawning population of
green sturgeon (Moyle 2002). The green sturgeon is anadromous, but it is the most
marine-oriented of the sturgeon species and has been found in near shore marine
waters from Mexico to the Bering Sea (70 FR 17386).
Spawning does not occur in the project vicinity, therefore impacts to eggs or fry are
not expected (Stillwater Sciences 2007). Adult migration through the Delta is
generally restricted to larger rivers; therefore, adults are not expected to occur in
the project area or vicinity where they may be affected; however, a small number of
green sturgeon juveniles may occur in the project area. Construction-related
turbidity may impact foraging and predator avoidance behaviors for a small number
of green sturgeon juveniles, and such impacts would be regarded as potentially
significant pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation will be required to reduce these impacts to
levels regarded as less than significant pursuant to CEQA. See Impact BIO-7 and
Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of
project impacts and mitigation measures.
Sacramento Splittail
Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) is designated as a California
“species of special concern.” This title affords no legally mandated protection for
this species; however, pursuant to CEQA (14 CCR §15380), any project-related
impacts to this species would be regarded as significant. This native freshwater fish
is found as far south as the lower reaches of all tributaries of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta (Wang 1986). Spawning occurs from late January to July in tidal
freshwater and flooded rivers where submerged aquatic vegetation is present. Eggs
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-20
are adhesive and attach to aquatic vegetation. Larvae are able to tolerate brackish
water and remain near shore before moving to deeper water as they grow.
Potentially suitable shallow water habitat for spawning splittail and juveniles occurs
in the project area in the western portion of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel.
However, the habitat is of low quality, with little submerged aquatic vegetation. It is
unlikely that spawning would occur in the project area (Stillwater Sciences 2007)..
Construction-related turbidity may impact foraging and predator avoidance
behaviors for a small number of Sacramento splittail juveniles. Such impacts would
be regarded as potentially significant. Accordingly, mitigation will be required to
reduce impacts to levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-7 and
Mitigation Measure BIO-7 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of
project impacts and mitigation measures.
Amphibians
California Tiger Salamander
The project site falls into the range of the Central California Distinct Population
Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense).
The Central California DPS of the CTS was federally listed as threatened on August 4,
2004. The USFWS designated critical habitat for the Central California DPS in the
summer of 2004. The project site is located outside of the closest mapped critical
habitat unit for the Central California DPS. Critical Habitat Units 14-17 (Contra Costa
County) were excluded because they are part of the East Contra Costa Habitat
Conservation Plan. On March 4, 2010, the CTS was also state listed as a threatened
species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Finally, under Title 14,
CCR 41 (1996), CTS is also a protected amphibian that may only be “taken or
possessed” under a special permit issued by the CDFG pursuant to sections 650 and
670.7 of these regulations, or Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code.
CTS occur in grasslands and open oak woodlands that provide suitable aestivation
(over summering) and/or breeding habitats. They typically only emerge from their
subterranean refugia (typically, in Contra Costa County, California ground squirrel
burrows) for a few nights each year during the rainy season to migrate to breeding
ponds. Stock ponds, seasonal wetlands, and deep vernal pools typically provide
most of the breeding habitat used by CTS. Occasionally CTS are found breeding in
slow moving streams or ditches. Aquatic habitats that support predators of CTS such
as fish, bullfrogs, red swamp crayfish, or signal crayfish, almost never constitute
suitable breeding habitat. In most of the northern range of the CTS, seasonal
wetlands that are used for breeding typically must hold water into the month of
May to allow enough time for larvae to fully metamorphose.
Miriam Green Associates evaluated the project site for CTS in April and November
2004. Miriam Green Associates concluded that the project site does not provide
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-21
habitat for this listed species based on an absence of CTS records within 3.1 miles of
the project site, the presence of CTS predators in the emergent marsh onsite, the
site’s isolation from known CTS populations and the high level of local urbanization
and landscape disturbance. Thus, development of the project site should not impact
CTS.
California Red-Legged Frog
The California red-legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii) was federally listed as
threatened on May 23, 1996 and as such is protected pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act. This frog is also a California “species of special concern.”
On March 16, 2010, the USFWS issued the final rule on CRLF critical habitat (USFWS
2010). The project site is located outside designated critical habitat. The CRLF is
typically found in slow-flowing portions of perennial streams, and in ephemeral
streams, and hillside seeps that maintain pool environments or saturated soils
throughout the summer months. Riparian vegetation such as willows (Salix sp.) and
emergent vegetation such as cattails are preferred red-legged frog habitats, though
not necessary for this species to be present, as this frog is also found in open water
ponds. Adult California red-legged frogs are primarily nocturnal (USFWS 2010).
Populations of California red-legged frog will be reduced in size or eliminated from
ponds supporting non-native species such as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana),
Centrarchid fish species (such as sunfish, blue gill, or large mouth bass), and signal
and red swamp crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii,
respectively), all known California red-legged frog predators. However, M&A
biologists have observed California red-legged frogs of all age classes in ponds
supporting bass and in streams supporting sunfish.
According to the CNDDB, the closest known record for CRLF to the project site is
located 4.6 miles to the southwest (Occurrence Number 541).
The applicant’s biological consultant, Eric Hansen, in association with Miriam Green
Associates, completed an assessment of the project site as to its suitability for the
CRLF. The assessment, entitled Evaluation of Potential California Red-Legged Frog
(Rana aurora draytonii) Habitat on the Pantages Bays Property, Contra Costa
County, California (April 1, 2010), concluded that the project site contains habitats
suitable for California red-legged frogs in the form of a 14.24-acre perennial
emergent marsh. However, the high level of human disturbance, persistent cattle
grazing, historical agricultural practices, presence of bullfrogs, lack of larvae and
adults during both dip-netting and visual amphibian survey in 2003, isolation by
surrounding residential development, broad tidal rivers and channels, intensive row-
crop agriculture, and lack of either historical or recent sightings of this species
within a 5-kilometer radius combine to make the occurrence of red-legged frogs
here unlikely, either now or in the future due to the site’s distinct isolation from
suitable or occupied habitats.” The USFWS, in a communication dated February 15,
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-22
2006, stated that the site is considered suitable habitat for red-legged frog and giant
garter snake and that protocol-level surveys would not be authorized. Further, this
agency would be requiring compensation for impacts to these species. The USFWS
also stated that compensation could probably be handled by contributing to the
ECCHCP.
Thus, based on this email communication from USFWS, it has been determined that
impacts to the CRLF from future site development are potentially significant.
Mitigation for the project’s potential impact to CRLF will be required to reduce such
impacts to a level regarded as less than significant pursuant to CEQA. See Impact
BIO-4 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed
description of project impacts and mitigation measures to the CRFL.
Birds
Swainson’s Hawk
The Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsonii) is a state listed threatened species
pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act, Title 14, California Code of
Regulations. While it has no special federal status, it is protected from direct take
under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). Swainson’s
hawks, their nests, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and
Game Code (§3503, §3503.5, §3513, and §3800). Swainson’s hawks are known to
nest within one-tenth (0.1-mile) of a mile (northeast) of the project site along Indian
Slough (CNDDB Occurrence Number 1211). While Swainson’s hawks have not been
observed nesting on the project site by Miriam Green Associates or Monk &
Associates, the eucalyptus trees and pine trees along the project site’s northern
boundary provide suitable nesting habitat for this raptor. Monk & Associates
observed one Swainson’s hawk exhibiting defensive behavior at our presence during
our September 20, 2006 survey. This hawk flew out of an ash tree onsite towards
Monk & Associates, circled overhead screaming for a minute before flying off to the
east (towards Kellogg Creek). This behavior indicates that this hawk’s nesting
territory likely encompasses the project site.
CDFG has prepared a Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s
Hawks in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994) (hereinafter the Mitigation
Guidelines) that prescribe avoidance and mitigation guidelines for impacts to
Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitats. This document emphatically
presents a case that impacts within 10 miles of any active nesting territory that are
not mitigated, would be contrary to protections afforded Swainson’s hawks through
CEQA (14 CCR §15380). The Mitigation Guidelines further state that acceptable
mitigation to offset impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat can be met by Fee
Title acquisition of Swainson’s hawk habitat, or by acquisition of conservation
easements over lands that can be managed for this hawk species (hereinafter
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-23
Habitat Management Lands). Any land acquired through Fee Title would have to be
donated to a suitable conservation organization for management. In addition to
providing Habitat Management Lands, applicants would be assessed a management
fee for the long-term management of the Habitat Management Lands by a suitable
conservation organization.
Any disturbance within 0.5-mile of a Swainson’s hawk nest that is not characteristic
of the normal activities around the nest site, would likely be regarded by CDFG as a
violation of CESA (unless the activities were well tolerated by the Swainson’s hawks
as determined by a qualified raptor biologist). Typically, CDFG requires that any
impact to a Swainson’s hawk nest be permitted through a Fish and Game Section
2081 management authorization. The management authorization would include
provisions to off-set the loss of any nesting tree. If an active nest occurs on the
project site, “to avoid potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of
listed species), project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites
should be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1-
September 15 annually)” (CDFG 1994). Since there are no known Swainson’s hawk
nests on the Project site, a 2081 management agreement with CDFG would not be
required for the project. However, because there are nest sites within 5 miles of the
project site, CDFG would regard the proposed project as having impacts to
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. CDFG requires that applicants/project
proponents mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat within 10 miles of
active nest sites. See Impact BIO-9 and Mitigation Measure BIO-9 under Subsection
4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures for
Swainson’s hawk.
Pursuant to CEQA, any impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting and/or foraging habitat
would normally be considered a significant impact. However, impacts to foraging
habitat may be mitigatable to a level considered less than significant. Also, since the
eucalyptus and pine trees onsite may provide future nesting habitat for the
Swainson’s hawk, nesting season surveys should be conducted on the project site
prior to any earth-moving or tree removal activity.
White-Tailed Kite
The white-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus) is fully protected under the California Fish
and Game Code. Fully protected birds may not be “taken” or possessed (i.e., kept in
captivity) at any time (§3511). It is also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). The white-tailed kite is typically found foraging in
grassland, marsh, or cultivated fields where there are dense-topped trees or shrubs
for nesting and perching. They nest in a wide variety of trees of moderate height
and sometimes in tall bushes, such as coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis). Native trees
used are live and deciduous oaks (Quercus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), cottonwoods
(Populus spp.), sycamores (Platanus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), toyon (Heteromeles
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-24
arbutifolia), and Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa). Although the
surrounding terrain may be semiarid, kites often reside near water sources, where
prey is more abundant. The particular characteristics of the nesting site do not
appear to be as important as its proximity to a suitable food source. Kites primarily
hunt small mammals, with California meadow voles (Microtus californicus)
accounting from between 50 to100 percent of their diet.
Monk & Associates observed a pair of white-tailed kites perched in an ash tree on
the project site in September 2006. Monk & Associates also observed white-tailed
kites foraging over the project site in September 2005. Miriam Green Associates also
observed white-tailed kites foraging over the project site during the course of their
2003 surveys. Some of the landscape trees on the project site provide suitable
nesting habitat for white-tailed kites. As such, the proposed project could result in
potentially significant impacts to nesting white-tailed kites. Mitigation could be
implemented to reduce such impacts to levels regarded as less than significant. See
Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed
description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
Northern Harrier
The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) is a state species of special concern. This
raptor is also protected under California Fish and Game Code §3503.5 that protects
nesting raptors and their eggs/young. The northern harrier is also protected from
direct take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). Northern harriers build
grass-lined nests on the ground within dense, low-lying vegetation in a variety of
habitats, though they are typically found nesting in grassland or marsh habitats. They
usually nest on level to near level ground. This species is particularly vulnerable to
ground predators such as coyotes (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and various
snake species. Ground nesting birds in general are also subject to disturbance by
agricultural practices.
Northern harriers likely forage over the project site and may nest in or around the
open grasslands that provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. Hence,
development of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts
to nesting northern harriers. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce such
impacts to levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation
Measure BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts
and mitigation measures.
Western Burrowing Owl
The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) is a California “species of
special concern.” Its nest, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and
Game Code (§3503, §3503.5, and §3800). The burrowing owl is also protected from
direct take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-25
Burrowing owl habitat is usually found in annual and perennial grasslands,
characterized by low-growing vegetation. Often, the burrowing owl utilizes rodent
burrows, typically ground squirrel burrows, for nesting and cover. They may also on
occasion dig their own burrows, or use man-made objects such as concrete culverts or
rip-rap piles for cover. They exhibit high site fidelity, reusing burrows year after year.
Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat can be verified at a site by observation
of these owls during the spring and summer months or, alternatively, its molted
feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement (white wash) at
or near a burrow. Burrowing owls typically are not observed in grasslands with tall
vegetation or wooded areas because the vegetation obscures their ability to detect
avian and terrestrial predators. Since burrowing owls spend the majority of their time
sitting at the entrances of their burrows, grazed grasslands seem to be their preferred
habitat because it allows them to view the world at 360 degrees without obstructions.
The burrowing owl has been recorded within one mile of the project site at the
Discovery Bay West (Villages III, IV, and V) project site. Burrowing owls were not
observed on the project site during Miriam Green Associates’ site surveys or during
Monk & Associates’ three project site surveys; however, no protocol-level surveys
have been conducted to confirm presence/absence. The site does contain enough
burrows such that the owl could be found on the project site, and accordingly, CDFG
would regard the project site as suitable habitat for this owl species. Until formal
surveys are conducted that demonstrate the absence of this owl on the Project site,
impacts must be regarded as potentially significant. Mitigation could be
implemented to reduce such impacts to levels regarded as less than significant. See
Impact BIO-10 and Mitigation Measure BIO-10 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a
detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
Red Shouldered Hawk
Red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) and under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503,
3503.5, 3800, and 3513 which protect nesting raptors and their eggs/young. This
medium-sized raptor prefers the largest trees in a particular area for nest
construction. Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) trees have become favorite
nesting trees for this species in California. A stick nest is constructed and usually two
to four eggs are laid in the spring. Incubation lasts about 27 days. Usually two or three
nests are built over a several year period by a nesting pair and then are reused year
after year. Prey consists of reptiles and small rodents.
Monk & Associates observed red shouldered hawks foraging over the project site.
The project site provides suitable habitat for red shouldered hawks to nest. Hence,
until nesting surveys are conducted that confirms or negates this species’ presence,
impacts to the red shouldered hawk from the proposed project are considered
potentially significant. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce such impacts to
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-26
levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure
BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and
mitigation measures.
Red-Tailed Hawk
The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (50 CFR 10.13) and under California Fish and Game Code §3503.5, 3800, and
3513 which protect nesting raptors and their eggs/young. This raptor species has an
extremely wide tolerance for habitat variation, which can be attributed to its very
broad spectrum of prey.
Monk & Associates and Miriam Green Associates have observed red-tailed hawks
nesting in a variety of tree species including eucalyptus, coast live oak, and valley
oak trees.
The project site’s eucalyptus trees provide suitable nesting habitat for red-tailed
hawks, and the grasslands provide suitable foraging habitat. Preconstruction surveys
should be conducted prior to any proposed earth-moving activity on the project site
to ensure that direct take of this species would not occur. Until such surveys are
conducted proving absence of nesting red-tailed hawks, impacts are regarded as
potentially significant. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce such impact to
levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure
BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and
mitigation measures.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is a California “species of special concern.”
It is also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and
Game Code (§3503 and 3800) that protects birds, their nests, eggs, and young. This
small, predaceous bird of open and often arid habitats prefers areas with scattered
shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, and other acceptable perching locations. This
shrike preys mostly upon large insects, but also takes small birds, mammals,
amphibians, reptiles, fish, carrion, and various invertebrates.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-27
Loggerhead shrikes have been observed hunting over the project site on several
occasions by both Miriam Green Associates and Monk & Associates. The open
grassland community on the project site provides suitable hunting ground for
loggerhead shrikes, and the landscape trees provide suitable nesting habitat. A survey
should be conducted during the nesting season (between April and July) to determine
the shrike’s presence or absence on the project site. Until such a survey is conducted
demonstrating the absence of nesting shrikes, impacts are regarded as potentially
significant. Mitigation would reduce such impacts to levels regarded as less than
significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4
for a detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures.
Tricolored Blackbird
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a state “species of special concern.” A
gregarious species, the tricolored blackbird is typically found near freshwater,
particularly near marsh habitat. Loss of wetland habitats is regarded as the principal
factor responsible for this species population decline (Beedy 1992).. Nesting colonies
are typically found in stands of cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.), although
they are also known to utilize blackberry patches (Rubus sp.) and thistle clumps
(Cirsium spp. and Cynara spp.) adjacent to water. Flooded lands, margins of ponds, and
grassy fields in summer and winter provide typical foraging habitat for this species.
While no tricolored blackbirds were observed on the project site during Miriam Green
Associates’ extensive surveys, the emergent marsh provides suitable habitat for this
special-status bird species. Hence, prior to grading the site or conducting any
disturbance within 250 feet of this marsh, focused surveys for nesting tricolored
blackbirds should be conducted. Until such surveys are conducted during the nesting
season that demonstrate an absence of nesting, impacts to this species are regarded as
potentially significant. Mitigation could be implemented to reduce such impacts to
levels regarded as less than significant. See Impact BIO-8 and Mitigation Measure
BIO-8 under Subsection 4.3.4 for a detailed description of project impacts and
mitigation measures.
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors are linear and/or regional habitats that provide connectivity to
other natural vegetation communities within a landscape fractured by urbanization
and other development. Wildlife corridors have several functions: 1) they provide
avenues along which wide-ranging animals can travel, migrate, and breed, allowing
genetic interchange to occur; 2) populations can move in response to environmental
changes and natural disasters; and 3) individuals can recolonize habitats from which
populations have been locally extirpated. All three of these functions can be met if
both regional and local wildlife corridors are accessible to wildlife. Regional wildlife
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-28
corridors provide foraging, breeding, and retreat areas for migrating, dispersing,
immigrating, and emigrating wildlife populations. Local wildlife corridors also
provide access routes to food, cover, and water resources within restricted habitats.
A wildlife corridor would connect two regionally important or significant areas. No
such corridors exist on the project site. The project site is isolated from regional
wildlife corridor functions, other than as a migratory bird resting/feeding temporary
use site. It does not provide any known migratory species habitat to special-status
species. Regarding the use of the site as a corridor for mammals, because there is a
creek and/or irrigation channel on two sides of the project site, housing and
agricultural lands on remaining sides of the project site, no significant or major
wildlife corridors are known to occur on the project site. No mammalian corridors
were identified during surveys of the project site.
Finally, there are no known wildlife nursery sites on the project site or other
habitats that provide unique or special use opportunities for wildlife. Similarly, there
are no compelling reasons for any group of animals to translocate to the site either
seasonally or indiscriminately. While the project site does provide breeding/nesting
habitats for common birds, and otherwise protected species such as raptors, it does
not provide unique features that are critical to the survival of such species. Impacts
to such species are also discussed elsewhere in this impacts analysis. There are no
known significant local or regional wildlife corridors and/or wildlife nursery sites of
consequence on the project site. Accordingly, there would be no impacts to these
resources.
4.3.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Endangered Species Act
The primary focus of the FESA of 1973 is that all federal agencies must seek to
conserve threatened and endangered species. FESA contains four main elements,
they are as follows:
Section 4: Species listing, Critical Habitat Designation, and Recovery Planning:
outlines the procedure for listing endangered plants and wildlife.
Section 7: Federal Consultation Requirement: imposes limits on the actions of
federal agencies that might impact listed species.
Section 9: Prohibition on Take: prohibits the "taking" of a listed species by anyone,
including private individuals, and State and local agencies.
Section 10: Exceptions to the Take Prohibition: non-federal agencies can obtain an
incidental take permit through approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-29
In the case of salt water fish and some marine organisms, the requirements of FESA
are enforced by NOAA Fisheries Service (formerly known as National Marine
Fisheries Service or NMFS). The USFWS has jurisdiction and permitting authority
over terrestrial wildlife, fresh water fish, and some marine species.
Project Consistency Analysis
Section 7 consultation with NOAA Fisheries Service will be initiated by the Corps for
the project’s potential impacts to habitat that may support green sturgeon,
steelhead, Central Valley spring run Chinook salmon, and Sacramento River winter
run Chinook salmon. It would also likely include a discussion on the project’s
potential impacts to steelhead critical habitat, green sturgeon critical habitat, and
essential fish habitat for Central Valley fall and late/fall Chinook salmon.
Section 7 consultation with USFWS will likely be initiated by the Corps for potential
impacts to Delta smelt and Delta smelt critical habitat prior to authorizing impacts
to waters of the United States. The Section 7 consultation would also include a
biological opinion on impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp.
While the California red-legged frog and the giant garter snake have not been
observed on the project site, the USFWS believes they reside onsite and this agency
is requiring mitigation for impacts to these species and their habitats (February 15,
2006 email from R. Olah, Chief of Coast/Bay/Delta Branch, Sacramento Field Office
of USFWS, to M. Green, Miriam Green Associates). Mitigation requirements for both
the giant garter snake and the California red-legged frog varies but typically is at a
3:1 ratio (habitat preservation acreage to impacted acreage). The mitigation ratio
for this project would be set by USFWS at the time Section 7 consultation is initiated
by the Corps for authorization to impact waters of the United States onsite. It is also
possible that impacts to federal listed species could be satisfied by making a
financial contribution to the East Contra Costa Conservancy for species covered by
the HCP/NCCP (see the Corps Permitting Section and the Impacts and Mitigations
Section below for further details).
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as
amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) makes it unlawful to
“take” (kill, harm, harass, shoot, etc.) any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 10.13, including their nests, eggs, or young.
Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, wading birds,
seabirds, and passerine birds (such as warblers, flycatchers, swallows, etc.).
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-30
Project Consistency Analysis
White-tailed kite, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, western burrowing owl, red
shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, tricolored blackbird, and loggerhead shrike could
nest on the project site in addition to other common, passerine bird species. These
raptors (birds of prey) and special-status passerine birds would be protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Also, the common songbirds and wading birds that could
occur on the site would be protected pursuant to this Act. To comply with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all active nest sites would have to be avoided while such
birds were nesting and protection buffers would have to be established and typically
fenced with orange construction fencing. Upon completion of all nesting activities,
the project could commence as otherwise planned. More specifics on the size of
buffers are provided in the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.3.4
California Endangered Species Act
Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act
In 1984, the state legislated the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and
Game Code §2050). The basic policy of CESA is to conserve and enhance
endangered species and their habitats. State agencies will not approve private or
public projects under their jurisdiction that would jeopardize threatened or
endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available.
CESA requires that all state lead agencies (as defined under CEQA) conduct an
endangered species consultation with CDFG if their actions could affect a state listed
species. The state lead agency and/or project applicants must provide information
to CDFG on the project and its likely impacts. CDFG must then prepare written
findings on whether the proposed action would jeopardize a listed species would
result in the direct take of a listed species. Because CESA does not have a provision
for "harm" (see discussion of FESA, above), CDFG considerations pursuant to CESA
are limited to those actions that would result in the direct take of a listed species.
State and federal incidental take permits are issued on a discretionary basis, and are
typically only authorized if applicants are able to demonstrate that impacts to the
listed species in question are unavoidable, and can be mitigated to an extent that
the reviewing agency can conclude that the proposed impacts would not jeopardize
the continued existence of the listed species under review. Typically, if there would
be impacts to a listed species, mitigation that includes habitat avoidance,
preservation, and creation of endangered species habitat is necessary to
demonstrate that projects would not threaten the continued existence of a species.
In addition, management endowment fees are usually collected as part of the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-31
agreement for the incidental take permit(s). The endowment is used to manage any
lands set-aside to protect listed species, and for biological mitigation monitoring of
these lands over (typically) a five-year period.
Project Consistency Analysis
One state listed species was positively identified on the project site in the last 12
years: Delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum). The state listed species, which
have the potential to occur on the project site, include the Central Valley spring run
Chinook salmon, Sacramento River winter run Chinook salmon, and Delta smelt.
Two other state listed species have potential to occur on the project site:
Swainson’s hawk and the giant garter snake. Both animals are listed as threatened
under CESA.
The Swainson’s hawk is known to nest within 0.1-mile of the project site and,
according to CDFG’s mitigation guidelines, mitigation for loss of foraging habitat on
the project site would be required.
In addition to being a state listed species, the giant garter snake is also a federal
listed species; hence, protection of this reptile also falls under the authority of
USFWS. In an email dated February 15, 2006, the USFWS stated that the project site
provides suitable habitat for the giant garter snake and that mitigation to offset the
project’s impacts to this species would be required. Implementation of measures
required pursuant to CESA is incorporated into the mitigation measures listed in
Section 4.3.4
California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, 3503.5,
3511, and 3511
California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the “take,
possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.” Disturbance that causes
nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of
eggs or young) is considered a “take.” Such a take would also violate federal law
protecting migratory birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act).
All raptors (that is, hawks, eagles, owls) their nests, eggs, and young are protected
under California Fish and Game Code (§3503.5). Additionally, “fully protected” birds,
such as the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos),
are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). “Fully protected” birds
may not be taken or possessed (that is, kept in captivity) at any time.
Project Consistency Analysis
Raptors that could be impacted by the project include Swainson’s hawk, western
burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, red-tailed hawk, red shouldered hawk, and
northern harrier. Preconstruction surveys must be conducted for these species to
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-32
ensure that there is no direct take of these birds including their eggs, or young. Any
active nests that were found during preconstruction surveys must be avoided by the
project. Suitable non-disturbance buffers must be established around nest sites until
the nesting cycle is complete. More specifics on the size of buffers are provided in
the mitigation measures by species. Implementation of measures required pursuant
to California Fish and Game Code is incorporated into the mitigation measures listed
in Section 4.3.4
Protected Amphibians
Under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1,
Chapter 5, §41. Protected Amphibians), protected amphibians, such as the California
tiger salamander may only be taken under special permit from CDFG issued pursuant
to Sections 650 and 670.7 of these regulations.
Project Consistency Analysis
The California red-legged frog is a “protected amphibian” listed under Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations. Hence, the California red-legged frog is protected
pursuant to these regulations.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 published in January 2005 has
several goals and policies that pertain to the protection of biological resources.
According to the General Plan, the most significant ecological resource areas in
Contra Costa County are defined by three separate categories: (1) areas containing
rare, threatened, and endangered species; (2) unique natural areas; and (3)
wetlands and marshes. The following goals and policies were adopted to protect
these resources:
Vegetation and Wildlife Goals
8-D To protect ecologically significant lands, wetlands, plant, and wildlife
habitats.
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, the California
Endangered Species Act, the California Native Plant Protection Act, and the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-33
Vegetation and Wildlife Policies
8-6 Significant trees, natural vegetation, and wildlife populations generally shall
be preserved.
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.
8-8 Significant ecological resource areas in the County shall be identified and
designated for compatible low-intensity land uses. Setback zones shall be
established around the resource areas to assist in their protection.
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.
8-10 Any development located or proposed within significant ecological resource
areas shall ensure that the resource is protected.
8-11 The County shall utilize performance criteria and standards which seek to
regulate uses in and adjacent to significant ecological resource areas.
8-12 Natural woodlands shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible in
the course of land development.
8-13 The critical ecological and scenic characteristics of rangelands, woodlands,
and wildlands shall be recognized and protected.
8-14 Development on hillsides shall be limited to maintain valuable natural
vegetation, especially forests and open grasslands, and to control erosion.
Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the
County shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or
greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and
other appropriate actions.
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.
8-16 Native and/or sport fisheries shall be preserved and re-established in the
streams within the County wherever possible.
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.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-34
8-18 The filling and dredging of lagoons, estuaries, and bays which eliminate
marshes and mud flats shall be allowed only for water-oriented projects
which will provide substantial public benefits and for which there are not
reasonable alternatives, consistent with State and Federal laws.
8-19 The County shall actively oppose any and all efforts to construct a peripheral
canal or any other water diversion system that reduces Delta water flows
unless and until it can be conclusively demonstrated that such a system
would, in fact, protect, preserve and enhance water quality and fisheries of
the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary system.
8-20 Fish, shellfish, and waterfowl management shall be considered the
appropriate land use for marshes and tidelands, with recreation being
allowed as a secondary use in limited locations, consistent with the
marshland and tideland preservation policies of the General Plan.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8-25 The County shall protect marshes, wetlands, and riparian corridors from the
effects of potential industrial spills.
8-26 The environmental impacts of using poisons to control ground squirrel
populations in grasslands shall be thoroughly evaluated by the County.
8-27 Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall be identified and
protected.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-35
8-28 Efforts shall be made to identify and protect the County’s mature native
oak, bay, and buckeye trees.
Project Consistency Analysis
Many of the policies presented in the General Plan are relevant to the project site
and the project site’s plant communities, wildlife habitats, and wetlands. Under the
current development plan, it will not be possible to adhere to all of these policies
that are in place to protect natural resources. For example, Policy 8-10 that states,
“any development located or proposed within significant ecological resource areas
shall ensure that the resource is protected” will not be adhered to under the current
development plan since the proposed plan calls for filling protected wetland
habitats onsite that support the federally listed vernal pool fairy shrimp. In addition,
Policy 8-27 which states: “seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall
be identified and protected” also cannot be adhered to under the current
development plan since some of the seasonal wetlands on the project site shall be
filled to allow for development. Mitigation measures will be necessary to offset the
project’s impact to these County protected (and agency protected) resources.
County Tree Ordinance
According to the Contra Costa County tree ordinance, a “protected tree” is any one
of the following:
1. On all properties within the unincorporated area of the county:
Where the tree to be cut down, destroyed or trimmed by topping is
adjacent to or part of a riparian, foothill woodland or oak savanna area, or
part of a stand of four or more trees, measures twenty inches or larger in
circumference (approximately 6.5 inches in diameter) as measured four and
one-half feet from ground level, and is included in the following list of
indigenous trees: Acer macrophyllum (Big-leaf Maple), Acer negundo (Box
Elder), Aesculus californica (California Buckeye), Alnus Rhombifolia (White
Alder), Arbutus menziesii (Madrone), Heteromeles arbutifolia (Toyon),
Juglans Hindsii (California Black Walnut), Juniperus californica (California
Juniper), Lithocarpus densiflora (Tanoak or Tanbark Oak), Pinus attenuata
(Knobcone Pine), Pinus sabiniana (Digger Pine), Platanus Racemosa
(California Sycamore), Populus fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood), Populus
trichocarpa (Black Cottonwood), Quercus agrifolia (California or Coast Live
Oak), Quercus chrysolepis (Canyon Live Oak), Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak),
Quercus kelloggii (California Black Oak), Quercus lobata (Valley Oak),
Quercus wislizenii (Interior Live Oak), Salix lasiandra (Yellow Willow), Salix
laevigata (Red Willow), Salix lasiolepis (Arroyo Willow), Sambucus callicarpa
(Coast Red Elderberry), Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood),
Umbellularia californica (California Bay or Laurel);
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-36
Any tree shown to be preserved on an approved tentative map,
development or site plan or required to be retained as a condition of
approval;
Any tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed
tree.
2. On any of the properties specified in subsection (3) of this section:
Any tree measuring twenty inches or larger in circumference (approximately
six and one-half inches diameter), measured four and one-half feet from
ground level including the oak trees listed above;
Any multi-stemmed tree with the sum of the circumferences measuring
forty inches or larger, measured four and one-half feet from ground level;
And any significant grouping of trees, including groves of four or more trees.
3. Specified properties referred to in subsection (2) of this section includes:
Any developed property within any commercial, professional office or
industrial district;
Any undeveloped property within any district;
Any area designated on the general plan for recreational purposes or open
space;
Any area designated in the county general plan open space element as
visually significant riparian or ridge line vegetation and where the tree is
adjacent to or part of a riparian, foothill woodland or oak savanna area.
(Ords. 94-59, 94-22).
Project Consistency Analysis
Most, if not all, of the trees on the project site would be protected under Contra
Costa County’s tree ordinance since the trees are on “any undeveloped property
within any district” (subsection 3A) and most, if not all, of the trees are “twenty
inches or larger in circumference (approximately six and one-half inches diameter),
measured four and one-half feet from ground level…” and several trees on the
project site are “indigenous” trees as listed in subsection 1(A). Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 requires conformance with this ordinance by ensuring protection of trees
during construction.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-37
The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation
Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
(HCP/NCCP)
The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community
Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or Plan) is intended to provide an effective
framework to protect natural resources in eastern Contra Costa County, while
improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on
endangered species. The Plan allows Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the East Bay Regional Park District,
the Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, and the Implementing
Entity (known as the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy), (collectively,
the Permittees) to control endangered species permitting for activities and projects
in the region while providing comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem
conservation and contributing to the recovery of endangered species. In October of
2007, Contra Costa County adopted Ordinance NO. 2007-53 adopting the “East
Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation
Plan Fees and Implementation Procedures.”
The project site is located immediately east and outside of the permit area of the
adopted HCP/NCCP, therefore excluding the project area from participation in the
Plan. However, as an option to mitigate for impacts to special status species and
critical habitat the applicant may, with permission from state and federal regulatory
agencies and agreement from the Conservancy, make a financial contribution to the
Conservancy, such contribution shall be used to acquire and manage habitat lands
for covered species.
A financial contribution to the Conservancy would serve to mitigate impacts to
special-status species and critical habitats for California red-legged frog, giant garter
snake, Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, and possibly for vernal pool fairy
shrimp. It should be noted that a financial contribution to the HCP/NCCP will not
provide incidental take coverage and the applicant will need to acquire incidental
take permits from USFWS and CDFG, as required by these agencies. While other
avoidance and minimization measures may be required for impacts to special-status
species, a financial contribution to the Conservancy would likely be all the mitigation
compensation required by USFWS and/or CDFG for impacts to HCP/NCCP covered
species.
Project Consistency Analysis
A federal incidental take permit is required for any activity that could result in take
of a federally-listed species, such as California red-legged frog, the giant garter
snake, and the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Since the applicant is not eligible to receive
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-38
incidental take coverage by participation in the HCP/NCCP, a Section 7 consultation
will be needed in order to provide for take of federally-listed species.
While the Swainson’s hawk is a state-listed species, and its foraging habitat could be
impacted by the project, incidental taking authority (a Section 2081 permit) from
CDFG is not warranted as no nest site would be removed by the project (unless a
nest site is found during preconstruction surveys). Regardless, CDFG has a formal
Swainson’s hawk impact and mitigation policy in effect for impacts to foraging
habitat that would be enforceable pursuant to CEQA (please see Swainson’s hawk
section above). Contribution of funds to the Conservancy, as approved by CDFG,
would mitigate impacts not only to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, but also
impacts to most other special-status animal species that could be affected by the
project including the California red-legged frog, giant garter snake, vernal pool fairy
shrimp, and western burrowing owl (if this owl is later found to be on the project
site). The HCP does not cover impacts to listed fish species.
The HCP requires payment of approximately $10,558.091 per project site acre in the
Zone I (Discovery Bay) area. However, it must be noted that the project site is
located just outside of (east of) the HCP Inventory Area, so the set fee for projects
located within Zone I must be negotiated with the resource agencies (CDFG and
USFWS), and it may be slightly higher or less than the Zone I fee (J. Kopchik, East
Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, pers. comm. with S. Lynch of M&A,
December 11, 2006). The fee would be determined at the time incidental take
permits are under review by CDFG and USFWS for this project. Both CDFG and
USFWS have stated that they would allow use of the HCP to mitigate the Pantages
Project’s impacts to federal and state listed species (J. Gan, CDFG, pers. comm. with
S. Lynch of M&A, November 28, 2006; and, S. Larsen, USFWS, pers. comm. with S.
Lynch of M&A, November 28, 2006).
Please note that mitigation funds paid to the Conservancy would also mitigate many
other special-status species impacts under consideration for the proposed project.
Thus, for example, if western burrowing owls were to move onto the project site,
avoidance measures would have to be implemented while the owls nested. Upon
completion of nesting, the owls could be passively removed from the project site (as
allowed by CDFG). Contribution of funds to the Conservancy would alleviate any
further requirements by CDFG to purchase and preserve burrowing owl mitigation
lands. Use of the HCP would also mitigate impacts to California red-legged frog,
giant garter snake, and vernal pool fairy shrimp as approved by CDFG and USFWS
1 2010 fees are valid from March 15, 2010 until March 14, 2011.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-39
(which approval they have indicated they will grant). Thus, the applicant would not
have to find and seek agency approval for separate preservation lands or methods
for the affected special-status species.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and
General Permitting
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). This requires project
applicants to obtain authorization from the Corps prior to discharging dredged or fill
materials into any water of the United States. "Waters of the United States" are
defined as, “...all interstate waters including interstate wetlands...intrastate lakes,
rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), wetlands, [and] natural ponds, the
use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign
commerce...” (33 CFR Section 328.3).
Section 404 jurisdiction in "other waters" such as lakes, ponds, and streams, extends
to the upward limit of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or the upward extent
of any adjacent wetland. The OHWM on a non-tidal water is the "line on shore
established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics
such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the
character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or
debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the
surrounding areas" (33 CFR Section 328.3[e]). Wetlands are defined as “...those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration to support a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions” (33 CFR Section 328.8 [b]). Wetlands usually must possess hydrophytic
vegetation (i.e., plants adapted to inundated or saturated conditions), wetland
hydrology (e.g., topographic low areas, exposed water tables, stream channels), and
hydric soils (i.e., soils that are periodically or permanently saturated, inundated or
flooded) to be regulated by the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Project Consistency Analysis
On January 7, 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed their jurisdiction
over 36.43 acres of waters of the United States on the project site. This jurisdictional
acreage includes Indian Slough, Kellogg Creek and adjacent wetlands, (see the Corps
determination letter in the Biological Resources Analysis Report in Appendix B of
this EIR). This jurisdictional determination was based on wetland delineations
completed on the project site by Gibson & Skordal, LLC.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-40
A Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan for
Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated November 15, 2006).
Minimization of indirect impacts will be accomplished by grading home pads to
drain toward streets and away from open space areas, landscaping with native
plants, constructing bioswales, maintaining natural buffers between the
development and the preserved marsh habitat within the open space areas, and
using native plantings as landscaping buffers between development and open space
preserve areas. An exception is at the EVA crossing of the marsh, where there is no
buffer. The location of the EVA was chosen so that the road crossed the marsh at its
narrowest point. In most other cases, there is a minimum of 50 feet between the
edge of the residential development and the preserved marsh. At some locations,
grading will encroach into the 50 foot width; however, the graded area will be
planted with native vegetation and maintained naturally (no irrigation) such that it
functions as a buffer. The open space preserve area will be separated from adjacent
development or recreational areas with fencing that protects the open space
preserve from unauthorized use while providing a visual connection to the open
space. Where houses back up to the open space preserve, residential fences will be
tubular steel or some other form of permanent, visually open, fencing. Past
mitigation efforts have shown that with open fencing, protected areas are kept
relatively free from trash accumulation and homeowners accept greater
stewardship of preserved open spaces. In addition, along the EVA/trail, kiosks with
educational signage will be developed to reduce human-induced impacts.
Because full avoidance of waters of the United States/State is not possible, potential
impacts will be minimized to the extent feasible through changes in project design.
Impacts will also be minimized by the use of Best Management Practices to protect
preserved wetlands/marsh and ensure water quality in preserved wetlands and
other waters within the project area. These practices can include installing orange
construction fencing, hay or gravel waddles, and other protective measures during
construction. During project construction, the applicant states that a biological
monitor will be on-site to monitor the integrity of preserved wetlands and other
waters. Mitigation is included in Section 4.3.4 to ensure compliance with these
requirements.
Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act as approved on March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C.
408), makes it unlawful for any person to take possession of or make use of for any
purpose, or build upon, alter, destroy, or in any manner whatever impair the
usefulness of any sea wall, bulkhead, jetty, dike, levee, wharf, pier, or other work
built by the United States, or under the control of the United States, in whole or in
part, for the preservation and improvement of any of its navigable waters or to
prevent floods. The Secretary of the Army, on the recommendation of the Chief of
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-41
Engineers, may grant permission for the alteration or permanent occupation or use
of any of the aforementioned public works when in his judgment such occupation or
use will not be injurious to the public interest. This permission will be granted by an
appropriate real estate instrument in accordance with existing real estate
regulations.
Project Consistency Analysis
The removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek must be authorized by the
Secretary of the Army, on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. This
permission will be granted by an appropriate real estate instrument in accordance
with existing real estate regulations. In order to obtain this authorization from the
Corps, the project applicant must submit a request to the Secretary of the Army and
the Chief of Engineers, describing the proposed project and any correspondence
with the local Reclamation District/ Reclamation Board authorizing this work.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) regulate activities in "waters of the State" (which includes
wetlands) through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. While the Corps administers
permitting programs that authorize impacts to waters of the United States, including
wetlands, and other waters, any Corps permit authorized for a proposed project
would be invalid unless it is a NWP that has been certified for use in California by the
SWRCB, or if the RWQCB has issued a project specific certification or waiver of water
quality. Certification of NWPs requires a finding by the SWRCB that the activities
permitted by the NWP will not violate water quality standards individually or
cumulatively over the term of the issued NWP (the term is typically for five years).
Certification must be consistent with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act,
the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and
the SWRCB’s mandate to protect beneficial uses of waters of the State. Any denied
(i.e., not certified) NWPs, and all Individual Corps permits, would require a project
specific RWQCB certification or waiver of water quality.
Additionally, if a proposed project would impact waters of the State, including
wetlands, and the project applicant cannot demonstrate that the project is unable
to avoid these adverse impacts, water quality certification will most likely be denied.
Section 401 Certification may also be denied based on significant adverse impacts to
waters of the United States, including wetlands. The RWQCB has also adopted the
Corps’ policy that there shall be “no net loss” of wetlands. Thus, prior to certifying
water quality, the RWQCB will impose avoidance mitigation requirements on project
proponents that impact waters of the State.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-42
Project Consistency Analysis
Any Section 404 permit authorized by the Corps for the project would be
inoperative without also obtaining authorization from the RWQCB pursuant to
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (i.e., without obtaining a certification of water
quality). Since the RWQCB does not have a formal method for technically defining
what constitutes waters of the state, Monk & Associates expects that the RWQCB
should remain consistent with the Corps’ determination of waters of the United
States. The Corps determined there are 36.43 acres of waters of the United States
on the 171-acre project site. It is likely that the RWQCB will concur with the Corps
findings. Please note that any isolated wetlands or other waters that are
determined to be on the project site that are not regulated by the Corps pursuant to
the SWANCC decision, would still be regulated by the RWQCB pursuant to the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (see next section).
Any impacts to waters of the State would have to be mitigated to the satisfaction of
the RWQCB prior to the time this resource agency would issue a permit for impacts
to such features. The RWQCB requirements for issuance of a “401 Permit” can
parallel the Corps requirements for permitting impacts to Corps regulated areas
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Please refer to the Corps
Applicability Section above for likely mitigation requirements for impacts to RWQCB
regulated wetlands. Also, please refer to the applicability section of the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act below for other applicable actions that may be
imposed on the project by the RWQCB prior to the time any certification of water
quality is authorized for the project. Please note that any isolated wetlands or other
waters that are determined to be on the project site that are not regulated by the
Corps pursuant to the SWANCC decision, would still be regulated by the RWQCB
pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (see below).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Water Code § 13260, requires that
“any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, that could affect
the waters of the State to file a report of discharge” with the RWQCB through an
application for waste discharge (Water Code Section 13260(a)(1). The term “waters
of the State” is defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline
waters, within the boundaries of the State (Water Code § 13050(e)). It should be
noted that pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB
also regulates “isolated wetlands,” or those wetlands considered to be outside of the
Corps’ jurisdiction pursuant to the SWANCC decision (see Corps Section above).
The RWQCB generally considers filling in waters of the State to constitute
“pollution.” Pollution is defined as an alteration of the quality of the waters of the
state by waste that unreasonably affects its beneficial uses (Water Code §13050(1)).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-43
The RWQCB litmus test for determining if a project should be regulated pursuant to
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is if the action could result in any
“threat” to water quality.
The RWQCB requires complete pre- and post-development Best Management
Practices Plan (BMPs) of any portion of the project site that is developed. This
means that a water quality treatment plan for the pre- and post-developed project
site must be prepared and implemented. Preconstruction requirements must be
consistent with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). That is, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be
developed prior to the time that a site is graded (see NPDES section below). In
addition, a post construction BMPs plan, or a Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP) must be developed and incorporated into any site development plan.
Project Consistency Analysis
The Corps determined there are 36.43 acres of waters of the United States were
present on the 171-acre project site. The RWQCB will also exert its jurisdiction over
these areas pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Since any
“threat” to water quality could conceivably be regulated pursuant to the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act, care will required when constructing the
proposed project to be sure that adequate pre and post construction Best
Management Practices Plan (BMPs) are incorporated into the project
implementation plans.
The project site currently does not have a stormwater drainage system, and no
municipal provision for stormwater management exists on the site. As discussed in
Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, treatment of stormwater and extensive
erosion control measures have been proposed to ensure that the project will meet
RWQCB standards.
California Department of Fish and Game Protections
Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG regulates
activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed,
channel, or bank of a stream, which CDFG typically considers to include riparian
vegetation. Any proposed activity in a natural stream channel that would substantially
adversely affect an existing fish and/or wildlife resource, would require entering into a
Streambed Alteration Agreement (SBAA) with CDFG prior to commencing work in the
stream. However, prior to authorizing such permits, CDFG typically reviews an analysis
of the expected biological impacts, any proposed mitigation plans that would be
implemented to offset biological impacts and engineering and erosion control plans.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-44
Project Consistency Analysis
The proposed removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek will require a SBAA.
Impacts from project development include loss of low, moderate, and high quality
bank habitat. The project will remove approximately 5,380 linear feet of the 10,120
linear feet of existing bank habitat along the project site. Mitigation measures will
be necessary to offset the project’s impact to bank habitat subject to CDFG
jurisdiction as detailed in Subsection 4.3.4, below.
Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit
Approval by the Reclamation Board (Board) is required for projects or uses which
encroach into rivers, waterways, and floodways within and adjacent to federal and
State authorized flood control projects and within designated floodways adopted by
the Board. Any proposed project within these areas requires Board approval. The
Board exercises jurisdiction over the levee section, the waterward area between
project levees, a 10-foot-wide strip adjacent to the landward levee toe, within 30
feet of the top of banks of unleveed project channels, and within designated
floodways adopted by the Board. In addition, activities outside of these limits which
could adversely affect the flood control project are also under Board jurisdiction. A
copy of the Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit will be sent to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for review and comment. Applications which must be considered
by the Board are placed on the agenda of the next regular Board meeting. The
Department of Water Resources must be notified ten days before construction
begins. The Department of Water Resources Flood Inspection Section conducts
inspection services on behalf of the Board.
Project Consistency Analysis
This project will require a Reclamation Board Encroachment Permit and all activities
associated with the removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek; this activity must
be coordinated and approved by the Board. Proof of acquisition of such a permit
shall be a requirement of Contra Costa County and incorporated into conditions of
project approval.
4.3.4 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Plants, Wildlife, Waters
In accordance with Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA
Guidelines, implementing the project would have a significant biological impact if it
would:
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-45
a) 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;
b) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan;
c) 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;
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
e) 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service;
or
f) 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.
Waters of the United States and State
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the Corps regulates
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, which
includes wetlands, as discussed in the bulleted item above, and also includes “other
waters” (stream channels, rivers) (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). Substantial
impacts to Corps regulated areas on a project site would be considered a significant
adverse impact. Similarly, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and to
the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB regulates impacts to
waters of the state. Thus, impacts to RWQCB regulated areas on a project site would
also be considered a significant impact.
Stream Channels
Finally, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG
regulates activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify
the bed, channel, or bank of a stream which CDFG typically considers to include
riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity that would result in modifications to a
natural stream channel would be considered a significant impact.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-46
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be no impact for two of
the five criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
a) Would the project 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?
The project site does not constitute a wildlife movement corridor, but rather serves
wildlife in their local movement patterns. While local wildlife (deer, skunks,
raccoons, rats, etc.) will likely use the site to move to and from the adjacent housing
developments where they are able to scavenge for food, the loss of this area for
local movements is not a significant impact as these species are capable of moving
through developed areas. Thus, loss of this habitat would not be a considered
significant impact under CEQA. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, impacts to
“corridors” and “interfer[ing] substantially” with these corridors would constitute a
significant impact. In order for there to be a significant impact, first there has to be a
corridor, not just a resident wildlife use pattern established onsite; second,
“substantially” would indicate that the wildlife corridor in question would be
important to special-status species or essential to a population. These criteria are
not met by the project site. Hence, development of the proposed project would not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established corridors. Finally, the project site does not
constitute a native wildlife nursery site. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
The project site is located adjacent to but outside of the HCP/NCCP Inventory Area
and as a result the project is not eligible for take coverage through the HCP/NCCP.
Although the project is located outside the inventory area of the HCP/NCCP, it is
expected that the project may be allowed to make a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy) as mitigation for
impacts to federal- and state-listed special status species. The mitigation funding
would be determined by state and federal regulatory agencies and agreement from
the Conservancy. Further discussion of mitigation funding to the Conservancy is
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-47
included in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. The project would not conflict with
any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and no
impact would occur.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be a less-than-significant
impact for one of the five criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
c) Would the project 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?
Although a specimen of Delta button celery that was identified onsite was
vouchered at the University and Jepson Herbarium, CEQA requires an analysis of the
existing site conditions only and not historic conditions or findings. Thus, as Delta
button celery no longer occurs on the project site, impacts to this species from the
currently proposed development are not expected to result in significant adverse
impacts to this species. As such, pursuant to CEQA, no mitigation requirements for
Delta button celery are warranted.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be a significant impact for
four of the five criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of
this conclusion.
d) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
Impact BIO-1: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
trees. (Significant)
Eighty trees were surveyed on the project site, most of which are greater than 6.5
inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). All of the trees would be removed in
order to widen Kellogg Creek and create the project bays and coves, infrastructure
and residential lots. Indigenous trees, as specified in subsection 1(A) of the Contra
Costa County Tree Ordinance, on the project site include California black walnut,
Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and willows.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-48
Under the Contra Costa County Tree Ordinance, any tree measuring 6.5 inches or
greater DBH on any undeveloped property in any district, and/or any indigenous
tree, is protected. Hence, the trees on the project site are protected. Removal of
protected trees would be a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 as described below would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Landscape Trees.
To offset impacts resulting from the removal of 80 trees on the project site, the
project includes landscaping with approximately 770 trees that would be
planted along the project roadways and at the project site entry as part of the
proposed landscaping. This is an approximately 9.5:1 mitigation ratio. Comply
with the following landscape/irrigation improvement and initial
protection requirements subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator:
A. Final Landscape Plan: At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading
permit a final landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed
landscape architect shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department (CDD) for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The Final Plan shall be designed in general accord with the preliminary
landscape plan, Sheet 10 of 10 of the Project Plans dated October 2009.
B. Minimum Size Plants: All proposed trees shall be a minimum of 15-
gallon size; all shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon size.
C. Maintenance Cost: Landscaping shall generally be designed to minimize
landscape maintenance cost.
D. Compliance with Water Conservation and Sight Obstruction Ordinance
Requirements: The landscape plan shall contain sufficient information
to demonstrate compliance with the reporting requirements and
standards of the Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments
ordinance (Chapter 82-26) as amended, and the Sight Obstruction at
Intersections ordinance (Chapter 82-18). The latter ordinance applies to
intersections with public roads. The landscape architect shall certify that
the plan complies with the ordinance improvement standards and
reporting requirements.
E. To assure the long term viability of this landscaping the applicant shall
post a bond for the value of the landscaping, installation plus 20%. The
term of the bond shall extend 24 months beyond the installation of
landscaping. Prior to the acceptance of the bond by the County a
qualified landscape designer shall assess the value of the landscape and
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-49
provide a copy of that assessment to the Community Development
Department. Prior to the release of the bond a landscape designer shall
submit a letter to the Zoning Administrator that the landscaping is in
good health.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Planting native trees at a 9.5:1 (mitigation to impacts) ratio in accordance with
an approved tree management and monitoring plan would reduce the project’s
impact to protected trees to a less than significant level because trees that are
being removed will be replaced with a greater number of trees.
e) Would the project 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact BIO-2: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
bank habitat. (Significant)
Impacts from the proposed project would include the loss of low, moderate, and
high quality bank habitat. Overall, the project will remove approximately 5,380
linear feet of the 10,120 linear feet of existing habitat along the project site (Kellogg
Creek, the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel (Old Kellogg Creek), and Pantages
Island.
Specifically, existing low and moderate quality habitat along the east bank of the
project site will be removed to allow for the widening of Kellogg Creek, the creation
of new bays, and the development of waterfront homes. Some high quality bank
habitat along the southern end of the site will be preserved, although other areas of
high quality habitat will be removed.
In order to widen Kellogg Creek, moderate and high quality bank habitat along the
eastern edge of the channel will be removed. Additionally, in order to widen Kellogg
Creek the southeastern corner of Pantages Island will be removed, requiring the
removal of some high quality habitat.
Loss of moderate and high quality bank habitat which provides shelter and habitat
for special-status fish is considered a significant impact. Additionally, impacts to the
creek/channel banks without prior authorization from CDFG pursuant to Section
1602 of California Fish and Game Code, and without prior authorization from the
Bureau of Reclamation, and without prior authorization from the Corps pursuant to
Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act would be a significant adverse impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 described below would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-50
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Bank Habitat
a. Prior to removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek or disturbing any
creek/channel banks within the project site and at Pantages Island, the
applicant shall contact the CDFG, the Corps, the RWQCB, and the
Reclamation Board and determine if permits are warranted for the activities
pursuant to the regulations that are in effect. Proof of permits (for example,
a Section 404 permit, Section 401 permit, Section 1602 permit) or an
absence of requirements for such permits from these resource agencies
shall be provided to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and
Development.
b. All mitigation measures implemented to improve bank habitat shall be
approved by the Corps, the RWQCB, CDFG, and the Reclamation Board (if
necessary) through issuance of necessary permits.
c. Mitigation for loss of bank habitat shall be completed as prescribed by the
CDFG, Corps, RWQCB, and Reclamation Board. The applicant has provided a
report to Contra Costa County describing how the applicant will mitigate
impacts to bank habitats, and these stated mitigations, described below,
shall become a condition of project approval.
d. Specifically, the applicant proposes to mitigate for the loss of 5,380 lineal
feet of excavated low and moderate quality bank habitat by: (1)
enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and moderate low quality
bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high quality bank habitat (shaded
riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on Pantages Island,
ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old
Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route
4; and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality bank habitat
(shallow sloping or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip-
rap with willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated portion of
Pantages Island, the North Cove and the end of Point of Timber Road in the
North Bay. Bank habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet.
e. Enhance existing bank habitat or create new bank habitat on-site,
approximately 11,060 linear feet in total, including shaded riverine aquatic
habitat and shallow water habitat (high quality bank habitat on Pantages
Island and the ECCID portion of the project site; moderate quality bank
habitat on the easterly side of Pantages Island and the northerly side of the
north cove at the northeasterly end of the project site; and low quality bank
habitat at the back of some waterfront lots).
f. The revegetation design shall restore the bank to moderate quality habitat
following construction, which includes the following:
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-51
i. Riprap with willow plantings shall be established between mean low
water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) to provide additional
stabilization and some shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
ii. A shallow sloping or level bench shall be established at approximately
MHW to support larger riparian trees such as Fremont cottonwood.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 5:1 and also planted with riparian
trees and grasses.
iv. Riparian trees planted along the shallow sloping or level bench shall be
planted on 15-foot centers to ensure adequate bank coverage.
v. Native riparian trees such as valley oaks, California buckeyes, and
Fremont cottonwoods and native grasses can be used for revegetation.
vi. The planted riparian trees shall be monitored by a biologist or arborist
annually for a period of 5 years to ensure that mortality does not
exceed 20 percent after 5 years. If there is greater than 20 percent
mortality of planted trees after 5 years, the project proponent shall be
responsible for replanting and monitoring the trees for an additional 3-
year period.
vii. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall also
be conducted. In the event that an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and eradication
program shall be developed and implemented.
viii. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
ix. Once vegetation has become established, the upper bank should
provide overhanging vegetation cover for fish during most tidal
elevations. However, the placement of riprap without natural habitat
features (e.g., large woody debris) along most of the lower bank would
create minimal in-water habitat for fish. Given incorporation of both
high quality and low quality habitat features, this design is characterized
as being overall of moderate value.
To improve the overall habitat value of the bank, installation of tree
species along the lower bank may be possible by installing Sonatubes in
the rip-rap and planting the trees within these tubes. The Sonatubes
allow trees to grow along rip-rap banks without harming the integrity of
the bank.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-52
g. Low and moderate quality habitat along the south side of the ECCID Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel, the section of Old Kellogg Creek at the southwestern
end of the project site and the east and west sides of Kellogg Creek between
Newport Point and State Route 4, shall be restored to high quality habitat
by creating a slope setback.
h. The setback shall be created by excavating existing bank material from
approximately MLW to the top of the bank.
i. An intertidal berm with a 10:1 or 20:1 slope shall be established to
create shallow water habitat and stabilize the bank.
ii. The berm shall be planted with tules to provide in-water resting and
hiding places for fish.
iii. The upper bank shall be sloped at 3:1 or 5:1 and planted with native
riparian trees and shrubs to create shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
iv. Trees and shrubs planted along upper bank shall be monitored by a
qualified biologist or arborist for a minimum 5-year period. If there is
greater than 20 percent mortality of planted trees and shrubs after 5
years, the applicant shall be responsible for replanting and monitoring
the trees for an additional 3-year period.
v. During the 5-year monitoring period invasive weed monitoring shall also
be conducted. In the event that an increase in the distribution or
density of invasive plants is documented (for example, water hyacinth
or Brazilian waterweed), an invasive weed management and eradication
program shall be developed and implemented.
vi. A performance bond, letter of credit, or other financial instrument shall
be established to pay for any remedial work that might need to occur.
i. Existing low and moderate quality bank habitat around the perimeter of
Pantages Island shall be restored to high-quality habitat by implementing
the setback design as described for the ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel.
This design shall be established around most of the island, except for bank
habitat adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Bank habitat along Kellogg Creek shall be
stabilized with riprap to prevent erosion due to wave action from existing
and future boater activity. Therefore, this area of Pantages Island will be
designed to provide moderate-quality bank habitat as prescribed above.
Also to address wave action, moderate quality habitat shall also be created
along the North Cove and in the North Bay at the end of Point of Timber
Road.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-53
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level because the creek
bank would be restored to pre-project conditions in accordance with current
regulations and permit requirements. Subsequent to the creek bank restoration,
a 5-year monitoring program would also be carried out to ensure that any tree
and shrub mortality is documented and the dead trees/shrubs are replaced as
necessary to revegetate the impacted bank.
c) Would the project 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?
Impact BIO-3: Development of the project would have a significant impact on
vernal pool fairy shrimp. (Significant)
The vernal pool fairy shrimp, a federal listed threatened species, has been identified
in a seasonal wetland on the project site. The wetland (349 square feet) where this
species was found is slated for removal to allow for the proposed project. Hence,
impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp from the proposed project are potentially
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 described below would
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Vernal pool fairy shrimp.
a. In order to offset the project’s impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp the
applicant shall implement one of the following measures:
i. Purchase credits in an existing fairy shrimp mitigation bank at a ratio
determined during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7
Consultation between the Corps and the USFWS;
ii. Acquire suitable mitigation property via fee title at a ratio determined
during negotiations with USFWS during Section 7 Consultation between
the Corps and the USFWS; or
iii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the project proponent shall make a
financial contribution to the Conservancy, to offset the project’s impact
to the vernal pool fairy shrimp. The financial contribution to the
Conservancy or the amount of mitigation land that shall be purchased
via fee title shall be determined during negotiations with USFWS during
Section 7 consultation between the Corps and the USFWS.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-54
b. Prior to impacting the seasonal wetland where the vernal pool fairy shrimp
were found, documentation of the mitigation transaction (e.g., financial
contribution to the Conservancy), and/or a copy of the Biological Opinion
outlining the mitigation requirements and incidental take statement from
USFWS, shall be provided to Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development.
c. Prior to grading onsite, and as prescribed in a Biological Opinion issued for
the project, topsoils from the wetland containing the fairy shrimp egg bank
shall be scalped by a qualified federal 10(a)(1)(A) permitted biologist and
redeposited in appropriate seasonal mitigation wetlands that shall be
created within the wetland mitigation preserve onsite.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and purchasing
credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable mitigation property
via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat
Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
because the vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat would be preserved at a suitable
location.
Impact BIO-4: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the California red-legged frog. (Significant)
The California red-legged frog is a federal listed threatened species and a California
species of special concern. It has not been identified on the project site; however,
protocol level surveys following USFWS’ survey protocol have not been conducted
or authorized by this agency.
In an email communication with the applicant’s biologist, the USFWS stated that the
project site provides suitable habitat for this listed frog species and that
compensation for the project’s impact on this species “could probably be handled
by contributing to the [East Contra Costa County] HCP.” The details of which would
be worked out at the time the Corps initiates Section 7 consultation with the
Service.
The 14.14-acre perennial emergent marsh on the project site, and a surrounding
200-foot radius of upland buffer area provides suitable aquatic and upland habitat
for the California red-legged frog (the words “suitable habitat” do not imply that this
frog species is present onsite, only that the habitat conditions onsite are “suitable”
for this species’ presence). Hence, impacts to the California red-legged frog from the
proposed project are regarded as potentially significant. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-4 as described below would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-55
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: California red-legged frog.
a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to aquatic and upland buffer habitat, that
is, for each 1 acre of aquatic or upland buffer habitat impacted, 1 acre of
compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
c. Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in
permits/ authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project
shall be completed as stated in the permits/authorizations. Copies of all
survey reports and monitoring reports required by USFWS in the conditions of
the Biological Opinion shall be submitted to Contra Costa County Department
of Conservation and Development.
d. Contra Costa County shall receive copies of all agency agreements/
authorizations related to this species, and shall not issue a grading or building
permit until all agency agreements/ permits relating to the California red-
legged frog have been obtained for this project and mitigation has been
implemented.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and purchasing
credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable mitigation property
via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat
Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level
because the California red-legged frog habitat would be preserved at a suitable
location.
Impact BIO-5: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the giant garter snake. (Significant)
The giant garter snake is a federal and state listed threatened species. It has not
been identified on the project site; however, a trapping study following USFWS’
survey protocol has not been conducted or authorized by this agency.
In an email communication with the applicant’s biologist, the USFWS stated that the
project site provides suitable habitat for this listed snake species and that
compensation for the project’s impact on this species “could probably be handled
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-56
by contributing to the [East Contra Costa County] HCP.” The details of which would
be worked out at the time the Corps initiates Section 7 consultation with the
USFWS.
According to the applicant’s herpetologist, the project site’s perennial emergent
marsh, the vegetated edges of Kellogg Creek, and the ECCID Dredge Cut provides
16.04 acres of suitable aquatic and upland habitat for the giant garter snake. (The
words “suitable habitat” does not imply that this snake species is present onsite,
only that the habitat conditions onsite are “suitable” for this species’ presence.)
Hence, impacts to the giant garter snake from the proposed project are regarded as
potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-5 described below would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Giant garter snake.
a. Mitigation shall be 1:1 for impacts to suitable aquatic and upland habitat (that
is, for each 1 acre of suitable aquatic and upland habitat impacted, 1 acre of
compensatory habitat shall be preserved onsite or acquired offsite in a
suitable location) or mitigation may be as required by the USFWS during
consultation initiated by the Corps with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA.
b. Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy, the
project proponent may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
Any mitigation and subsequent monitoring requirement stipulated in
permits/ authorizations issued by the USFWS and the Corps for this project
shall be completed as stated in the permits/authorizations.
c. Contra Costa County shall receive copies of all agency
agreements/authorizations related to this species, and shall not issue a
grading permit or building permit until all agency agreements/permits relating
to the giant garter snake have been obtained and mitigation for this species
has been implemented.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By obtaining “incidental take” authorization from the USFWS and purchasing
credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or acquiring suitable mitigation property
via fee title, or making a financial contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat
Conservancy, this impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level
because giant garter snake habitat would be preserved at a suitable location.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-57
Impact BIO-6: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the western pond turtle. (Significant)
The western pond turtle is a California species of special concern that is known to
occur on the project site. Pond turtles have been observed basking in the emergent
marsh onsite and along Kellogg Creek/Indian Slough. It is unknown whether or not
the western pond turtle nests in the uplands onsite. However, due to the amount of
disturbance that has occurred onsite to date due to historic farming practices,
routine disking practices, and soil deposition and grading related to the Bureau of
Reclamation Kellogg Creek dredging project, it seems unlikely that the western pond
turtle nests onsite or has nested onsite in recent years. Regardless, impacts to
individual western pond turtles or their basking/aquatic habitats would be regarded
as a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 as described below would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Western Pond Turtle.
The applicant shall install turbidity barriers around construction areas in Kellogg
Creek and the buffers protecting the preserved emergent marsh to ensure that
western pond turtles do not enter the project construction areas.
a. The western pond turtle is not a state listed species; therefore, it is not
protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. Thus, the
resource agencies (CDFG and USFWS) do not have specific mitigation
guidelines that must be followed to offset a project’s impact to the western
pond turtle. Mitigation for this special-status species is determined on a
project by project basis. It is likely that any mitigation implemented for the
California red-legged frog and the giant garter snake would also mitigate the
proposed project’s impact on the western pond turtle. The mitigation
measure for impacts to these two listed species would be a 1:1 mitigation
ratio (that is, for each 1 acre of impact, 1 acre of mitigation land would be
acquired offsite or preserved onsite) for impacts to aquatic habitat and a
surrounding upland buffer area, or mitigation would be as worked out by
the applicant, the USFWS, and the Corps at the time applications for
permits/authorizations from these two agencies are submitted.
Replacement habitat can be acquired via fee title acquisition of land,
contribution into an existing mitigation bank, or, with permission from state
and federal regulatory agencies and in agreement with the Conservancy,
the applicant may make a financial contribution to the Conservancy.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-58
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Since the western pond turtle is not a state or federal listed species, there is not
an agency specific mitigation ratio that is required to mitigate impacts to this
species. However, by purchasing credits in a suitable mitigation bank, or
acquiring suitable mitigation property via fee title, or making a financial
contribution to the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, project impacts
would be mitigated to a less than significant level because western pond turtle
habitat would be preserved at a suitable location. Also, installation of turbidity
barriers would protect individual turtles by keeping them out of project
construction zones.
Impact BIO-7: Development of the project would have potentially significant
impact on federal and/or state listed fish species and fish species designated by
the State of California as Species of Special Concern. (Significant)
Several federal and/or state listed fish species and/or state designated species of
special concern could be impacted by project construction:
Chinook salmon (some ESUs are federally listed, some ESUs are federal
candidates for listing; all are State species of concern)
steelhead (Federal listed threatened species)
green sturgeon (Federal listed threatened species and State species of special
concern)
Delta smelt (Federal listed threatened species, State candidate species)
longfin smelt (State species of special concern)
Pacific lamprey (State species of special concern)
river lamprey (State species of special concern)
Sacramento splittail (State species of special concern)
Short-term, construction-related impacts to listed and other special status fish
species could include direct take of eggs, larvae, juveniles and adult fish due to use
of dredges, pumps, and other in-water construction equipment. Special-status fish
may also be impacted by construction activities that increase turbidity and re-
suspend polluted bottom sediment. These activities can smother eggs, impair gas
exchange, and affect larval development (USFWS 1997). Turbidity may also disrupt
juvenile and adult fish feeding, predator avoidance behavior, and migration
patterns. Construction activities will also temporarily remove habitat available for
spawning, feeding, and resting activities. These impacts have the potential to occur
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-59
where channel widening and excavation of uplands is proposed. The project will
result in impacts to designated Critical Habitat for Delta smelt and the green
sturgeon.
Impacts to longfin smelt, Pacific lamprey, and river lamprey are most likely to occur
during the spring and summer. In addition, construction-related impacts to
Sacramento splittail may occur from in-water work that increases turbidity in the
water column and re-suspends polluted sediment. Turbidity may also disrupt
Sacramento splittail juvenile and adult feeding, predator avoidance behavior, and
migration patterns. Impacts are most likely to occur between early winter and mid-
summer when Sacramento splittail spawning and rearing activities are occurring.
Long-term impacts to fish have the potential to occur due to permanent loss of bank
habitat.
Hence, impacts to Chinook salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, Delta smelt, longfin
smelt, Pacific lamprey, river lamprey and Sacramento splittail from the proposed
project are considered to be potentially significant impacts. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-7 as described below would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Federal and/or State Listed Fish Species and
California Species of Special Concern fish
a. To minimize potential impacts to federal and/or state listed fish and
California “species of special concern” during construction and dredging of
the two interior bays, a levee shall be maintained between the area to be
excavated and the Kellogg Creek channel.
b. A qualified fisheries biologist shall be onsite during all pumping and
siphoning activity to ensure that these activities do not result in take of
federal and/or state listed fish and California “species of special concern.”
c. Silt curtains or suction dredges shall be used when conducting work in the
ECCID Dredge Cut/Intake Channel and Kellogg Creek. Use of this equipment
will localize sediment movement and protect fish from entrainment and the
effects of increased turbidity.
d. All in-water work shall be conducted between August 1 and November 30 to
minimize the potential for take of threatened and endangered fish species.
By conducting work within this time period, the project will avoid most
critical spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods for listed fish species.
e. Long-term impacts to fish are not expected provided the proposed bank
habitat mitigation to re-create and replace impacted bank habitat is
implemented by the applicant.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-60
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By maintaining the levee between the area to be excavated and the Kellogg
Creek channel, having a fisheries biologist onsite during all in-water work, and
conducting work outside the critical spawning, migratory, and dispersal periods
for listed fish species, and implementing bank habitat mitigation as described in
Mitigation Measure BIO-2, above, project impacts would be mitigated to a less
than significant level because listed and special-status fish species would not be
likely to be in the area at the time work is conducted and impacts to fish habitat
would be minimized and restored.
Impact BIO-8: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on tree nesting raptors. (Significant)
Suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kite, red-tailed hawk, red shouldered hawk,
Swainson’s hawk, western burrowing owl, and northern harrier occurs on the project
site. Since the Swainson’s hawk is a state listed species which typically requires
greater mitigation then non-listed raptors, the Swainson’s hawk is discussed in a
separate mitigation measure below. Similarly, since the western burrowing owl is a
California species of special concern that has formal CDFG mitigation requirements,
mitigation for the western burrowing owl is also discussed in a separate mitigation
measure below.
The white-tailed kite is fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code
(3511). The northern harrier is a state species of special concern. The white-tailed
kite, the red-tailed hawk, the red shouldered hawk, and the northern harrier are
also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) and their nest,
eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503,
3503.5. Any project-related impacts to these species, their active nests, eggs, or
young would be considered significant. Potential impacts to these species from the
proposed project include loss of nesting habitat, disturbance to nesting birds, and
possibly death of adults and/or young. No nesting raptors (birds of prey) have been
identified on the project site. In the absence of survey results indicating otherwise, the
project may result in impacts to nesting raptors that would be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 as described below would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impacts to unoccupied nesting habitats for these species would not be considered
significant as there are other local and regional nesting habitats available for use by
these species that could be used in subsequent nesting seasons. Consequently no
mitigation is warranted for impacts to unoccupied nesting habitats.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-61
Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Tree Nesting Raptors
a. If possible, tree removal shall be completed outside the nesting season (that
is, between September 2 and February 28). In an abundance of caution, a
preconstruction nesting survey of the tree to be removed shall be
conducted within 30 days of the scheduled removal to ensure no birds are
nesting.
b. If construction or tree removal would commence between March 1 and
September 1 during the nesting season, nesting surveys shall be conducted
30 days prior to grading/construction of the project or any proposed tree
removal work. The raptor nesting surveys shall include examination of all
trees and shrubs within sphere of influence of the proposed project, and not
just of those trees slated for removal.
c. If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest
tree shall be fenced with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is
on the project site), and a 300-foot radius around the nest tree shall be
staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking.
d. If the tree is adjacent to the project site then the buffer shall be demarcated
per above where the buffer occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer
may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral
observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to
disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor biologist shall prescribe a modified
buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/
harassment to the nesting raptors. This buffer may be reduced no smaller
than 100 feet from the nest tree.
e. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established
buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young
have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills
to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This
date may be earlier than August 1 or later, and would have to be
determined by a qualified raptor biologist.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By conducting tree removal outside the nesting season and/or erecting a
protective buffer around any tree supporting nesting raptors, project impacts
would be mitigated to a less than significant level because there would be no
loss of raptor eggs or nestlings which are protected under California Fish and
Game Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-62
Impact BIO-9: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on the Swainson’s hawk. (Significant)
The Swainson’s hawk is a state-listed threatened species. While the Swainson’s
hawk has no special federal status it is protected from direct take under the Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). Swainson’s hawks, their nests,
eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503,
§3503.5, §3513, and §3800). Swainson’s hawks are known to nest within 0.1-mile
northeast of the project site along Indian Slough (CNDDB Occurrence Number 1211).
While Swainson’s hawks have not been observed nesting on the project site (they
have not been observed nesting onsite by the applicant’s biologists or Monk &
Associates), the eucalyptus trees and pine trees along the project site’s northern
boundary provide suitable nesting habitat for this raptor. Additionally, Monk &
Associates observed one Swainson’s hawk on the project site exhibiting defensive
behavior during the September 20, 2006 site visit.
Based on the proximity of known nesting Swainson’s hawks and the suitability of
nesting and foraging habitat on the project site, implementation of the proposed
project would be viewed by CDFG as a loss of Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging
habitat. Pursuant to CEQA, any impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting and/or foraging
habitat would be considered a potentially significant adverse impact (PS).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 as described below would reduce this
impact to less than significant.
CDFG has prepared a Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s
Hawks in the Central Valley of California(CDFG 1994) (hereinafter the Mitigation
Guidelines) that prescribes avoidance and mitigation guidelines for impacts to
Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging habitats. The Mitigation Guidelines state that
acceptable mitigation to offset impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat can be
met by Fee Title acquisition of Swainson’s hawk habitat, or by acquisition of
conservation easements over lands that can be managed for this hawk species
(hereinafter Habitat Management Lands). Any land acquired through Fee Title
would have to be donated to a suitable conservation organization for management.
In addition to providing Habitat Management Lands, the applicant would be
assessed a management fee for the long-term management of the Habitat
Management Lands by a suitable conservation organization.
In CDFG’s Mitigation Guidelines, to replace impacted Swainson’s hawk foraging
habitat, the acreage requirements for Habitat Management Lands is based upon
how far the proposed development is from an active Swainson’s hawk nest site. The
Mitigation Guidelines require applicants to replace any impacted Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat within 1 mile of a nest site with 1 acre of suitable Habitat
Management Land (1:1 impact to replacement ratio). Impacts that occur to
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat greater than 1 mile from a nest site, but less than
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-63
5 miles require that each impacted acre be replaced with three-quarters of an acre
of Habitat Management Land (1:¾ impacts to replacement ratio). Finally, impacts
that occur to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat greater than 5 miles, but less than
10 miles from an active Swainson’s hawk nest require that each impacted acre be
replaced with 1-half acre of Habitat Management Land (1:½ impact to replacement
ratio). Because the known nest site is located within 1 mile of the project site, CDFG
can be expected to request that the applicant mitigate loss of foraging habitat at a
1:1 impact to replacement ratio.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Swainson’s Hawk.
a. To meet the CDFG’s mitigation requirements for impacts to Swainson’s
hawk foraging habitat the applicant shall implement one of the following
scenarios:
i. Dedicate and preserve 135 acres of habitat2 (this is a 1:1 impact to
mitigation ratio), as approved by CDFG, to a conservation organization.
An operating endowment shall be provided to the conservation
organization to manage any preserved lands in perpetuity.
ii. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy, commensurate with approximately
135 acres of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.
b. To ensure that no impacts occur to any nesting Swainson’s hawks,
preconstruction nesting surveys shall be conducted no more then one month
prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within
1,000 feet of the project site are occupied.
c. If an active nest is found on or adjacent to the project site “to avoid potential
violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species), project-
related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced
or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1- September
15 annually)”(CDFG 1994).
d. If Swainson’s hawks are found nesting on the project site, a qualified raptor
biologist shall establish a non-disturbance boundary around the nesting site.
The size of this non-disturbance boundary shall be determined by the
2 The mitigation requirement for 135 acres is the 171-acre project site minus the 36.43 acres
of Corps jurisdictional waters of the U.S. onsite which do not provide foraging habitat for
Swainson’s hawk.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-64
qualified raptor biologist in the field and in coordination with CDFG. The
buffer shall be based on the location of the nesting tree, the birds’ tolerance
of noise and other disturbance (e.g., ground vibrations).
e. Upon completion of nesting cycle, as determined by a qualified raptor
biologist, and in coordination with CDFG, any non-disturbance
boundary/nest buffer could be vacated.
f. If the nest tree must be removed as part of the project, removal of this tree
shall be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation measure prescribed for
tree removal impacts in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Tree planting is
proposed as mitigation at a 9.5:1 ratio (that is, planting: removal).
Replacement nest trees shall be native species (such as oaks or
cottonwoods).
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By implementing all of the above mitigation requirements project impacts to
Swainson’s hawk would be reduced to a less than significant level because loss
of foraging habitat and nesting habitat would be adequately compensated
(mitigated) and nesting Swainson’s hawks would not be disturbed during the
nesting season which would prevent the loss of eggs and/or nestling birds.
Impact BIO-10: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
adverse effect on the western burrowing owl. (Significant)
The western burrowing owl is a state species of special concern. This owl is also
protected under California Fish and Game Code §3503, §3503.5, §3513, and §3800,
and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Burrowing owls have not been observed
on the project site; however, they are known to nest in the immediate Discovery
Bay West area and their presence onsite cannot be ruled out. Burrowing owls are
mobile species and could nest on any upland portion of the project site in
subsequent years. Impacts to burrowing owl from the proposed project would be
regarded as a significant impact. Such an impact could be mitigated to a level
considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA with implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-10 described below.
Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Western Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl surveys conducted according to the methodologies prescribed by
CDFG in their 1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the Burrowing
Owl Consortium in their 1993 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines are more likely to be accepted by CDFG. Below we provide the survey
methodology that shall be used to conduct burrowing owl surveys. These
surveys would meet the standards of care required by CEQA for conducting
surveys for the western burrowing owl and are accepted by CDFG.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-65
a. A nesting survey shall be conducted for western burrowing owl in the spring
of the year prior to construction of the project and again 30 days prior to
construction of the project.
b. If the site would be developed in the winter, then the following surveys
should be conducted in the winter months. Since burrowing owls move
around (through dispersal and local movements) readily in the winter
months, and since there are migrants that can temporarily occupy burrows
in the winter, surveys conducted in the winter months are less reliable at
detecting resident burrowing owls. Regardless of whether development
commences in the winter months, surveys must be completed as described
below for spring/summer surveys.
c. Surveys shall commence at least 90 days in advance of projected site
disturbance and again in the 30 day period just prior to breaking ground. In
accordance with the Consortium’s guidelines, four site visits are
recommended for a complete survey. Two surveys shall be conducted 90
days before ground disturbance associated with the project and two surveys
shall be conducted in the 30 day period prior to ground disturbance
associated with the project. The CDFG Staff Report states that
preconstruction surveys need to be completed within 30 days of grading
prior to CDFG accepting a survey conclusion that no burrowing owls occur in
a proposed study area (i.e., negative findings). If no owls are found during
these surveys, no further regard for the burrowing owl would be necessary.
d. Western burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted from two hours before
sunset to one hour after, or one hour before to two hours after sunrise. All
burrowing owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign (e.g.,
pellets, excrement, and molt feathers) must be counted and mapped.
e. Surveys shall be conducted by walking all suitable habitat on the entire
project site and (where possible) in areas within 150 meters (approx. 500
feet) of the project impact zone. The 150-meter buffer zone is surveyed to
identify burrows and owls outside of the project area which may be
impacted by factors such as noise and vibration (heavy equipment) during
project construction.
f. Pedestrian survey transects shall be systematically spaced to allow 100
percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between
transect center lines shall be no more than 30 meters (approx. 100 ft.) and
shall be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density,
and ground surface visibility. To effectively survey large projects (100 acres
or larger), two or more surveyors shall be used to walk adjacent, parallel
transects.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-66
g. To avoid impacts to owls from surveyors, owls and/or occupied burrows
should be avoided by a minimum of 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) if in the
non-breeding months (October 1st through February 1st) and 250 feet during
the breeding months (February 1st through October 1st). Disturbance to
occupied burrows and within the established buffers should be avoided
until no burrowing owls occur on the site. Note that CDFG can approve a
passive western burrowing owl eviction plan during the non-breeding
season.
h. If burrowing owls are detected on the site during the breeding season (peak
of the breeding season is April 15 through July 15), and appear to be
engaged in nesting behavior, a fenced 250-foot buffer would be required
between the nest site(s) (i.e., the active burrow(s)) and any earth-moving
activity or other disturbance in the project area. This 250-foot buffer could
be decreased to 160 feet once it is determined by a qualified raptor
biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest). Typically, the
young fledge by August 31. This date may be earlier than August 31, or later,
and would have to be determined by a qualified burrowing owl biologist. If
burrowing owls were found on the project site, a qualified biologist would
also need to delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site.
i. To mitigate impacts to burrowing owls, CDFG prescribes that six and a half
acres (6.5 acres) of replacement habitat be set aside (i.e., protected in
perpetuity) per pair of burrowing owls, or unpaired resident bird. Such a
set-aside will offset permanent impacts to burrowing owl habitat. To
illustrate the extent of mitigation land required by California Department of
Fish and Game, we provide this example: If two pairs of burrowing owls are
identified on the project site, 13 acres of mitigation land would be acquired.
Or, if one pair and one resident bird are identified, 13 acres of mitigation
land would be acquired. The protected lands should be adjacent to occupied
burrowing owl habitat if possible, and at a location selected in consultation
with CDFG. Land identified to offset impacts to burrowing owls must be
protected in perpetuity by a suitable property instrument, e.g., a
conservation easement or fee title acquisition. Any mitigation lands set
aside for burrowing owl would also include preparation of a Mitigation Plan
for burrowing owl and their habitat. A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and
submitted to CDFG for this agency’s review and comment. Contra Costa
County Department of Conservation and Development must approve the
Mitigation Plan prior to issuing a grading permit for the proposed project.
j. The Mitigation Plan shall identify the mitigation site and any activities
proposed to enhance the site, including the construction of artificial
burrows and maintenance of California ground squirrel populations on the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-67
mitigation site. In addition, for each pair of burrowing owls found in the
construction area, two artificial nesting burrows will be created at the
mitigation site. The Plan should also include a description of monitoring and
management methods proposed at the mitigation site. Monitoring and
management of any lands identified for mitigation purposes would be the
responsibility of the applicant for at least five years. An annual report must
be prepared for submittal to CDFG and Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development by December 31 of each monitoring year.
Contingency measures for any anticipated problems should be identified in
the plan.
k. With permission from state and federal regulatory agencies and in
agreement with the Conservancy, the applicant may make a financial
contribution to the Conservancy to mitigate impacts to burrowing owls and
burrowing owl habitat.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By implementing all of the above mitigation requirements project impacts to
western burrowing owls would be reduced to a less than significant level
because loss of foraging habitat and nesting habitat would be adequately
compensated (mitigated) and nesting burrowing owls would not be disturbed
during the nesting season which would prevent the loss of eggs and/or nestling
birds.
Impact BIO-11: Development of the project would have a potentially significant
impact on other protected nesting birds. (Significant)
Birds protected pursuant to the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CDFG Code
§3503 and §3800 could nest on the project site and may be disturbed to an extent
that eggs and/or young would be lost. Additionally, the loggerhead shrike and the
tricolored blackbird, both California species of special concern, could nest onsite.
Impacts to protected bird species during the nesting season would be regarded as a
significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11 as described below
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Impacts to Other Nesting Birds.
a. A nesting survey shall be conducted prior to commencing with construction
work if this work would commence between March 15 and August 31.
b. If special-status birds, such as loggerhead shrike or tricolored blackbird, are
identified nesting within the area of affect, a 100-foot non-disturbance
radius around the nest must be fenced. No construction or earth-moving
activity shall occur within this 100-foot staked buffer until it is determined
by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-68
nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction
zones. This typically occurs by August 1. This date may be earlier than
August 1, or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified
ornithologist. Similarly, the qualified ornithologist could modify the size of
the buffer based upon site conditions and the bird’s apparent acclimation to
human activities.
c. If common (that is, not special-status) passerine birds (that is, perching birds
such as northern mockingbirds) are identified nesting in the trees proposed
for removal, tree removal would have to be postponed until it is determined
by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and have attained
sufficient flight skills to leave the project site. Typically, most passerine birds
can be expected to complete nesting by August 1, with young attaining
sufficient flight skills by this date that are sufficient for young to avoid project
construction zones. Unless otherwise prescribed for special-status bird
species, upon completion of nesting no further protection or mitigation
measures would be warranted for nesting birds.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By conducting preconstruction nesting surveys and implementing protective
nesting buffers as described above project impacts to passerine birds would be
reduced to a less than significant level because the nest site and nesting
attempt would be protected during the nesting season which would prevent the
loss of eggs and/or nestling birds.
f) Would the project 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?
Impact BIO-12: Impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State. (Significant)
The Corps and the RWQCB have jurisdiction over waters of the United States and
State pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, respectively. The
proposed project would result in impacts to 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland habitat
and 0.30 acre of marsh habitat, as confirmed by the Corps. Development of the
proposed project will also result in impacts to approximately 5,800 linear feet of
existing bank along Kellogg Creek. These areas would also meet the RWQCB criteria
as “waters of the State.”
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 published in January 2005 has several
goals and policies that pertain to the protection of biological resources. One goal
detailed in the General Plan states that “The County shall strive to identify and
conserve remaining upland habitat areas which are adjacent to wetlands and are
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-69
critical to the survival and nesting of wetland species.” Another goal states that
“Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County shall be identified and
protected.”
Because full avoidance of waters of the United States/State is not possible, any
impacts to seasonal wetlands and the adjacent uplands would be regarded as
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 would reduce this impact to
a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Impacts to Waters of the United States and/or
State.
Authorization from the Corps and the RWQCB (for example, an Individual Permit
and a Certification of Water Quality) shall be obtained prior to filling any waters
of the U.S./State on the project site.
A Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh Preservation and Mitigation Plan
for Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson & Skordal, LLC (dated November 15,
2006). According to this mitigation plan, minimization of indirect impacts would
be accomplished by grading home pads to drain toward streets and away from
open space areas, landscaping with native plants, construction on bioswales,
maintaining natural buffers between the development and the preserved marsh
habitat within the open space areas, and using native plantings as landscaping
buffers between development and open space preserve areas. An exception is
at the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) crossing of the marsh where there is no
buffer. The location of the EVA was chosen so that the road crossed the marsh
at its narrowest point. In most other cases, there is a minimum of 50 feet
between the edge of the residential development and the preserved marsh. At
some locations, grading would encroach into the 50 foot width; however, the
graded area would be planted with native vegetation and maintained naturally
(no irrigation) such that it functions as a buffer. The open space preserve area
shall be separated from adjacent development or recreational areas with
permanent fencing that protects the open space preserve from unauthorized
use while providing a visual connection to the open space. Residential fences
would be tubular steel or some other form of permanent, visually open, fencing
where houses back up to the open space preserve. Past mitigation efforts from
other development projects have shown that with open fencing, protected
areas are kept free from dumping of trash by homeowners as the community
has more connection and feels more stewardship of the open space. In addition,
along the EVA/trail, kiosks with educational signage will be developed to reduce
human-induced impacts.
Impacts to waters of the United States/State will also be minimized by
implementing the following measures:
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-70
a. The project proponent shall implement best management practices
consistent with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
prepared for the project to protect the emergent marsh and wetland
mitigation area, including installing orange construction fencing, hay or
gravel waddles, and other protective measures.
b. During project construction, a biological monitor shall be onsite to monitor
the integrity of preserved wetlands and other waters.
c. For those wetland areas that cannot be avoided, compensation wetlands
shall be enhanced/created to replace those wetlands permanently affected
by project activities. If possible, wetlands shall be created on-site and shall
resemble those wetlands affected by the project (known as in-kind
replacement).
d. All impacted wetlands shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio (for each
square foot of impact, one square foot of wetland would be
enhanced/created) or as otherwise specified in permitting conditions
imposed by the Corps and RWQCB.
e. The specific mitigation for the project consists of the components listed
here:
Creation of approximately 5.36 acres of seasonal wetland on-site;
Creation of approximately 0.30 acre of marsh habitat on-site;
Creation and enhancement of approximately 11,060 linear feet of bank
habitat on-site, including Shaded Riverine Aquatic habitat and shallow
water habitat;
Creation of approximately 46 acres of open water habitat on-site;
Preservation of all avoided and created aquatic areas; and
Implementation of a comprehensive long-term storm water
management plan designed to protect water quality.
The compensatory mitigation envisioned for the project will consist of two
major efforts. First will be the creation of seasonal wetland habitat in the
uplands adjacent to the preserved marsh, and second will be the creation and
enhancement of bank habitat within the project area.
Creation (Compensatory Mitigation)
Seasonal Wetland/Emergent Marsh/Open Water Habitat
a. A minimum of approximately 5.29 acres of seasonal wetland and 0.30 acre
of marsh shall be created within the 44-acre preserve area. Specifically, the
creation of the seasonal wetland will occur in the 12.58-acre upland area in
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-71
the northwest corner of the site. The expansion of the marsh shall be
accomplished either on the eastern side of the existing marsh on the new
peninsula created by the opening of the northern bay or along the western
side of the existing marsh. This represents a 1:1 mitigation ratio (created
wetlands to impacted wetlands).
b. Soil borings shall be taken prior to the construction of the seasonal wetlands
within the open space preserve to verify the suitability of the proposed
wetland soils (e.g. cobbly soils or old alluvium would not be suitable soils).
c. Ground water depths shall also be identified within the open space
preserve.
d. The locations of the created wetlands shall be selected based on the
existing topography within the uplands, soil composition, and ground water
depths, and the created seasonal wetlands shall be excavated to a depth
necessary to accumulate seasonal (winter) groundwater and/or to any clay
layer that will perch rainfall.
e. The upper 6 inches of top soil shall be scalped from the seasonal wetlands
to be impacted and will be placed in the created wetlands for seed source.
These topsoils would contain a seed bank of the impacted pool plant species
which would germinate with fall/winter hydration of the re-created pools.
f. The created wetlands shall be very slightly over excavated to accommodate
the addition of topsoil.
g. This mitigation measure may be substituted by implementing another
wetland compensation plan that is approved for the project by both the
Corps and the RWQCB.
Bank Habitat
Overall, the project will remove approximately 5,380 linear feet of the 10,120
linear feet of existing habitat along the project site. The applicant proposes to
mitigate for the loss of 5,380 lineal feet of excavated low and moderate quality
bank habitat by: (1) enhancement of 9,157 lineal feet of existing low and
moderate low quality bank habitat, both onsite and offsite, to high quality bank
habitat (shaded riverine aquatic habitat and shallow water habitat) on Pantages
Island, ECCID Property on the south side of the ECCID Dredge Cut/Channel, Old
Kellogg Creek, and Kellogg Creek between Newport Pointe and State Route 4;
and (2) creation of 1,903 lineal feet of moderate quality bank habitat (shallow
sloping or level bench to MHW with riparian trees and grasses, rip-rap with
willows between MHW and MLW) on the excavated portion of Pantages Island,
the North Cove and the end of Point of Timber Road in the North Bay. Bank
habitat mitigation totals approximately 11,060 lineal feet.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-72
Open Space Preservation
The preserved and created seasonal wetlands and marsh habitat would be
located within a 44-acre permanently preserved area. In addition, the
approximately 11,060 linear feet of enhanced and created bank habitat shall be
preserved in perpetuity. It is envisioned that ownership of the 44 acres of open
space preserve areas as well as the enhanced bank habitat on ECCID property
and Pantages Island and the created banks within the bays and coves will be
transferred to RD 800, and that a conservation easement would be conveyed to
the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District (TDBCSD) for
preservation in perpetuity. The TDBCSD would also function as the Preserve
Manager and conduct the long-term monitoring and maintenance of the
preserve areas in perpetuity. On the adjoining Ravenswood project, a
conservation easement has been conveyed to the TDBCSD for the same purpose
pursuant to Corps Permit No. 199400928. TDBCSD will therefore be able to
ensure consistent and coordinated management of the two conservation areas.
RD 800 will own and be responsible by conservation covenants to monitor and
maintain the bank habitat within Pantages Bays in perpetuity. Funding will be
provided through annual assessments of homeowners in Pantages Bays that are
secured through a binding, permanent agreement. This funding and monitoring
is separate from the compensatory mitigation monitoring for the created
wetlands is outlined in the Conceptual Wetland and Emergent Marsh
Preservation and Mitigation Plan for Pantages Bays was prepared by Gibson &
Skordal, LLC (dated November 15, 2006). Alternative long-term mitigation
monitoring acceptable to permitting agencies may also be considered.
A 5-year monitoring program will be established to monitor the progress of the
wetland mitigation toward an established goal. At the end of each monitoring
year, an annual report will be submitted to the Corps, RWQCB and Contra Costa
County. This report will document the hydrological and vegetative condition of
the mitigation wetlands, and will recommend remedial measures as necessary
to correct deficiencies.
Aside from the minimum replacement ratio and in perpetuity protection,
various regulatory agencies may provide additional conditions and stipulations
for permits. Permits for impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required by the
Corps. Similarly, permits for impacts to waters of the state will be required by
both the RWQCB and CDFG prior to the impacts occurring. These agencies will
likely impose their own mitigation requirements. Any other conditions that are
stipulated for impacts to waters of the U.S. or state by the Corps, RWQCB,
and/or CDFG shall also become conditions of project approval.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-73
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
By obtaining prior authorization from the Corps and the RWQCB to impact
waters of the U.S./State on the project site and creating mitigation wetlands as
stipulated in the approvals/authorizations provided by these agencies, project
impacts to waters of the U.S./State would be mitigated to a less than significant
level because there would be no net loss of wetlands (waters of the U.S./State).
4.3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
c) Would the project 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?
e) Would the project 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
f) Would the project 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?
Impact CUM BIO-1: Cumulative Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources.
(Significant)
Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to a cumulative loss of
seasonal wetlands, non-native annual grassland, iodine bush scrub, and creek bank
habitat in the region. Implementation of the project would also result in cumulative
impacts to common plant and animal species. The seasonal wetlands are also known
to support a federal listed species: the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Impacts to the
seasonal wetlands onsite will result in the cumulative loss of this species in the
region. Additionally, the iodine bush scrub, ornamental trees, emergent marsh, and
non-native grassland communities of the project site may also be important for
several special-status animal species such as the Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl,
California red-legged frog, giant garter snake, the loggerhead shrike, and tricolored
blackbird (see Impacts and Mitigations Section above). There are other proposed
projects in Eastern Contra Costa County that would/are impacting similar resources
to those that would be impacted by the project. Project-related impacts would be
considered cumulative with other projects in the region. The mitigation measures
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-74
prescribed above would offset cumulative impacts to special-status species,
wetlands, trees, and plant communities/wildlife habitats to less-than-significant
levels.
Construction of the project would result in cumulative impacts to “waters of the
United States” and stream channels that are regulated by the Corps, RWQCB, the
CDFG, and the Reclamation Board. On a regional basis, these impacts would add to
other development related losses of “waters of the United States” and stream
channels. In addition, by altering drainage patterns and water flow, downstream
aquatic life could be affected as well. Several special-status fish species are known
to occur in waterways in the vicinity, and these fish species could also be adversely
impacted by the proposed project. Mitigation that includes creation and
enhancement of impacted “waters of the U.S.,” stream channels, and bank habitat
would offset this cumulative impact to less-than-significant levels.
4.3.6 REFERENCES
Adams, P.B., C.B. Grimes, S.T. Lindley, and M.L. Moser. 2002. Status review for
North American green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. NOAA, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz,
CA.
Beedy, E.C. 1992. Breeding status, distribution, and habitat associations of the
tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), 1850-1991. Paper presented at the
Western Section of the Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, February 1992.
San Diego, California.
BOC (The California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing owl survey
protocol and mitigation guidelines. April 1993.
Brode, J. M. 1988. Natural history of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi
gigas). In: Proceedings of the conference on California herpetology, H. F.
Delisle, P.R. Brown, B. Kaufman and B. M. McGurty (eds.). Southwestern
Herpetologists Society, Special Publication No. 4:25-28.
Bury, B. 2005. Unpublished presentation at the western pond turtle workshop.
Presented by the SF Bay Area chapter of the wildlife society. April 2005.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1994. Staff report regarding
mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the central
valley of California. June 26, 1994. 26 pps.
CDFG. 1998. A status review of the spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) in the Sacramento River drainage. Report to the Fish and
Game Commission, Candidate Species Status Report 98-01.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-75
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. Natural Diversity Data Base,
Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Electronic Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento, CA.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 1997. Annotated checklist of the East Bay
Flora. Native and naturalized vascular plants of Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, California. Compiled by Dr. Barbara Ertter. Special publication #3
of the California Native Plant Society East Bay Chapter in association with
the University and Jepson Herbaria. April 1997.
Cramer S.P. & Associates. 1995. Central Valley Project Improvement Act
anadromous fish restoration program doubling plan—recommended actions
for the Mokelumne River. Gresham, OR. August.
Cramer, S.P. and D.B. Demko. 1997. The status of late-fall and spring-run Chinook
salmon in the Sacramento River Basin regarding the Endangered Species
Act. Submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service on behalf of the
Association of California Water Agencies and California Urban Water
Agencies.
EcoAnalysts, Inc. 2003. Letter to Mr. Jim Gibson of Gibson & Skordal regarding dry
season sampling surveys conducted on the Pantages Project site in the
summer of 2003. 3 pps.
Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and
abundances of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Volume 2:
Species life histories summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 8. NOS/NOAA Strategic
Environmental Assessment Division, Rockville, MD, 329 pp.
Eng, L.L., D. Belk, and C.H. Eriksen. 1990. California anostraca: distribution, habitat,
and status. Journal of Crusatcean Biology, 10(2): 247-277.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual.
Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Gibson & Skordal. 2003. Listed vernal pool branchiopods wet season survey.
Pantages property. Contra Costa County, California. May 2003. 4 pps. plus
appendices.
Gibson & Skordal LLC. 2002. Jurisdictional delineation. Pantages property. Contra
Costa County, California. December 2002.
Gibson & Skordal LLC. 2008. Jurisdictional Delineation Map. Pantages Properties.
Contra Costa County, California. May 2008.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-76
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1993. Stream hydrology: An
introduction for ecologists. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester, West Sussex
P019 UD, England.
Hallock, R.J. 1987. Sacramento River system salmon and steelhead problems and
enhancement opportunities. Report to the California Advisory Committee
on Salmon and Steelhead Trout. Sacramento, California.
Hansen, E.C. and Miriam Green Associates. 2010. Evaluation of potential California
red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) habitat on the Pantages Bays
Property, Contra Costa County, California. April 1, 2010.
Hansen, E.C. and Miriam Green Associates. 2010. Evaluation of giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas) habitat on the Pantages Bays Property, Contra Costa
County, California. April 1, 2010.
Hickman, J. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley. 1400 pp.
Hill, K.A., and J.D. Webber. 1999. Butte Creek spring-run Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) juvenile outmigration and life history 1995–
1998 Sacramento Valley and Sierra Region. Inland Fisheries Administrative
Report No. 99-5. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,
California.
HortScience. 2006. Tree Report. Pantages at Discovery Bay. October 2006.
HortScience. 2007. Addendum to Tree Report. Pantages at Discovery Bay. August
23, 2007.
James, P.C. 1992. Urban-nesting of Swainson's hawks in Saskatchewan. Condor. 94:
773-774.
Jennings, M.R., M.P. Hayes, and D.C. Holland. 1992. A petition to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to place the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii) and the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) on the list of
endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 21 pp.
Jennings, M.R., M.P. Hayes, and Research Section, Animal Management Division,
Metro Washington Park Zoo. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special
Concern in California. Final Report Submitted to the California Department
of Fish & Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA. 255 pp.
November 1.
Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, & falcons of North America: biology and
natural history. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 403
pps.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-77
Jones & Stokes. 2006. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and
Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 2006.
Kochert, Michael N. 1986. Raptors. In: Cooperrider, Allan Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.;
Stuart, Hanson R., Eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver,
CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver
Service Center: 313-349.
McEwan, D.R. 2001. Central valley steelhead. Contributions to the biology of Central
Valley salmonids. Volume 1. (Ed. R. Brown) California Department of Fish
and Game. Fish Bulletin 179.
Mills, T.J., and F. Fisher. 1994. Central Valley anadromous sport fish annual run-size,
harvest, and population estimates, 1967 through 1991. Inland Fisheries
Technical Report. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
Miriam Green Associates. 2003. Results of special-status species surveys on the
Pantages Property, Contra Costa County, California. Prepared for Pantages
at Discovery Bay, LLC. November 1, 2003.
Monk & Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological constraints analysis, Pulte Southpark,
Dixon, California. June 25, 2002. 21 pps.
Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish
species of special concern of California. Second Edition. Department of
Wildlife Fisheries Biology. University of California, Davis. Davis, California
95616. Prepared for the State of California, Department of Fish and Game.
Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, California. Contract No. 2128IF.
June 1995. 72 pp.
Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Revised edition. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2001. Biological opinion for Sacramento
River Bank Protection Project, Contract 42E, proposed levee reconstruction
at River Mile 149.0, Colusa County, California, and five sites along the
mainstem Sacramento River. Sacramento, CA.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Response to notice of preparation
for an environmental impact report for the Pantages Bay Residential
Development Project. July 19, 2007.
NRCS 2004. Hydric Soils of Contra Costa County (02/03/2004). National Resource
Conservation Service.
Palmer, Ralph S., editor. 1988. Handbook of North American birds. Volume 5. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 463 p.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-78
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: California
(Region 0). National Ecology Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. 136 pps. May 1988.
Remsen, J.J., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California: An annotated list
of declining or vulnerable bird species. California Department of Fish and
Game, Wildlife Management Division. Administrative Report, 78 1.
Sacramento, CA, 54 pp.
Schlorff, Ronald W.; Bloom, Peter H. 1984. Importance of riparian systems to nesting
Swainson's hawks in the Central Valley of California. In: Warner, Richard E.;
Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology,
conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference;
1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press: 612-618.
Schmutz, Josef K.; Fyfe, Richard W.; Moore, David A.; Smith, Alan R. 1984. Artificial
nests for ferruginous and Swainson's hawks. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 48:1009-1013.
Shuford, W.D. 1993. The Marin County breeding bird atlas: A distributional and
natural history of coastal California birds. California Avifauna Series 1.
Bushtit Books, Bolinas, California.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition. Houghton
Mifflin Company, New York, NY. 533 pps.
Stillwater Sciences. 2006. Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report. October 2006.
Stillwater Sciences. 2007. Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report. May 2007.
Stillwater Sciences. 2010. Memorandum addressed to Mr. John Oborne, Contra
Costa County Conservation and Development Department. Response to
comments from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) dated July 19,
2007 regarding the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact
Report (NOP/EIR) for the Pantages Bays Residential Development Project.
August 5, 2010. Plus Tables 8 and 9.
USDA. 1977. Soil survey of Contra Costa County, California. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. In cooperation with
the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and University of
California Agricultural Experiment Station.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants; commencement of status review for a petition to list the
western pond turtle and California red-legged frog. Federal Register, Vol. 57,
No. 193, pp. 45761-45762.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.3 Biological Resources
4.3-79
USFWS. 1995. Draft Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan: a plan to increase natural
production of anadromous fish in the Central Valley of California. Prepared
for the Secretary of the Interior by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with
assistance from the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group
under authority of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
USFWS. 1996. Recovery plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta native fishes.
Prepared by Delta Native Fishes Recovery Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 1, Portland, OR.
USFWS. 1997. Formal programmatic consultation and conference on the
reauthorized Department of the Army’s Nationwide and Regional General
Permit Program within the “Legal Delta” (Regulatory Branch Number
199700173). Sacramento, CA. 6 October.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
Endangered Species Information.
INTERNET(http://sacramento.fws.gov/es/spp_info.htm
USFWS 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical
Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) 50 CFR
Part 17 Proposed Rule. Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180, pp.
53491-53540. September 16.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-
Legged Frog (Rana draytonii); Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17, Vol 75. No. 51. pps.
12816-12959. March 17, 2010.
Wang, J.C. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent
Waters, California: A Guide to the Early Life Stages. Technical Report 9.
Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Estuary. January. http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/kopec/tr9/html /home.html
Yoshiyama, R.M., F.W. Fisher, and P.B. Moyle. 1998. Historical abundance and
decline of Chinook salmon in the central valley region of California. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:487–521.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1988. California's
wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles. State of California, the
Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Pantages Bays Project
4.3 Biological Resources Draft EIR
4.3-80
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-1
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section discusses known paleontological, archaeological, and historical
resources that may be present on or near the project site, and evaluates the
potential for the project to impact known and unknown cultural resources.
Applicable legislation relating to cultural resources and archaeological sites is also
summarized. This discussion is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment of the
Proposed Pantages at Discovery Bay Development, prepared by Peak & Associates,
Inc. (2003, updated in 2007), which is attached as Appendix C to this draft EIR and is
available for review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and
Development, Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,
California. An online database maintained by the University of California Museum
of Paleontology was accessed and reviewed in 2010.
There were no public comments related to cultural resources received in response
to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR.
4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are traces of human occupation and activity that include
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, districts, and objects; standing historic
structures buildings, districts, and objects; and locations of important historic events
of sites of traditional and/or cultural importance to various groups. Historic cultural
materials may include finds from the late 19th through early 20th centuries that can
be attributed to Hispanic, Asian or other ethnic groups. Potentially significant
objects and features associated with the Historic Period (1769 – present) can
include the following: structural remains or portions of foundations (bricks,
cobbles/boulders, stacked field stone, postholes, etc.); trash pits, privies, wells and
associated artifacts; isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts
(e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood items, etc.); or human remains.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources consist of the fossilized remains of plants and animals,
including vertebrates (animals with backbones) and invertebrates (e.g., starfish,
clams, ammonites, and marine coral). The age and abundance of fossils depends on
the topography and geological formations of the region of interest. Geologic
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-2
mapping of surficial deposits in the Discovery Bay area of Contra Costa County
indicate that most of the higher elevations of the region are the crests of old sand
dunes of Pleistocene (10,000 to 1 million years ago) or early Holocene (present to
10,000 years ago) age, and are underlain by sandy eolian deposits that are generally
considered to have formed more than 7,000 years ago. In the immediate vicinity of
the project site, the lower-lying areas between the crest of dunes are underlain by
younger, fine-grained alluvial fan deposits of Kellogg Creek.
A record search was conducted on July 15, 2010 of the online database maintained
by the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) to identify any
known paleontological resources in the project vicinity. According to the UCMP, no
records of known fossil localities exist on the project site; the closest recorded
paleontological site is located approximately 9 miles south, within Alameda County.
Archeological and Historical Resources
Regional Prehistoric Condition
Human occupation in northern California began at least 9,000 to 11,500 years ago,
with Native American occupation and use of the Bay Area extending over the last
approximately 5,000 to 8,000 years. The following discussion includes a description
of the Native American tribes that are expected to have inhabited the project site
based on the ethnography of the project area as well as archeological discoveries in
the project area. Ethnography is the study of people and is used to characterize the
prehistoric setting of the project region. Ethnographic information and archaeology
are important because they provide the context for what types of artifacts may be
found on the project site.
Ethnographic History
The Yokut people occupied the San Joaquin Valley and neighboring foothills. They
were members of the Penutian language family, a distinct language group in
California, found in the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay, and along the Pacific Coast
from Marin County to Point Sur. Cultural traits were shaped by the environmental
influences of the area. For example, although they spoke different languages, the
Miwok people were culturally more similar to the nearby Yokuts than to the foothill
members of their own language group. Furthermore, the material culture of the
southern San Joaquin Yokut was more closely related to that of their non-Yokut
neighbors than to the Delta members of their own language group.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-3
The Yokuts of the interior valley, somewhat removed from the coastal incursions of
the Spanish, maintained a large degree of cultural cohesiveness until they were
overrun by miners and settlers in the 1850s. The Delta Yokuts, on the other hand,
were nearly all mission Indians by the early 1820s and there is little knowledge of
their aboriginal way of life.
Trade was well developed among the different groups, with mutually beneficial
interchange of needed or desired goods such as obsidian, shell beads, and acorns.
Settlements were oriented around water resources, with major villages situated
near waterways that provided reliable water supplies and substantial food sources.
Regional Archaeological Context
The earliest archaeological discovery within interior portions of Contra Costa County
(County) has a radiocarbon date of 2500-400 Before Christ (B.C.) This time period is
associated with flexed burials and artifacts that reflect the later culture of the Bay
Area (the Berkeley Pattern ). The Berkeley Pattern (lasting until about Anno Domini
(A.D.) 500) is characterized by the use of certain hunting and cooking tools. Around
A.D. 500, the social trends of the later Berkeley Pattern intensified and developed
into the Augustine Pattern. These trends include development of status distinctions
based on wealth emergence of group-oriented religions, greater complexity of
exchange systems to equalize access to resources, and regulation of trade
relationships between different populations. Archeologically, the Augustine Pattern
is marked by the introduction of the bow and arrow.
Regional Historical Conditions
Hispanic Period (1772−1848)
In 1772, Pedro Fages discovered the Carquinez Straits and explored the Contra
Costa County area (Peak & Associates 2003). Between 1769 and 1823, the
Franciscan order of missionary priests, serving as the principal agency of Spain’s
imperial expansion into Alta California, founded 21 missions establishing Hispanic
control over an area from San Diego to the Bay Area. The Franciscan missions were
organized to convert the native people to Roman Catholic Christianity and to a
frontier form of Hispano-European society.
The introduction of disease for which native populations has no natural immunity or
resistance slowly led to the decline of the native population and thus, the mission
system began to fall apart. After 1834, the missions were secularized and
Franciscan control was phased out. The largest part of the mission lands came into
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-4
the hands of opportunistic Spanish colonists. These colonists created a hacienda
system built around a frontier ranching economy, characteristic of Mexican
California in the late 1830s and 1840s (Peak & Associates 2003).
American Period (1848−Present)
After the Mexican War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) transferred
sovereignty of California to the United States. This coincided with the discovery of
gold in the Mother Lode region of the Sierra Nevada, accelerating population
growth in the area. The gold rush and the long-term success of mining encouraged
the development of ranching, farming, trade, and urban growth. These events
began a cycle of development causing California’s population to increase every
decade since the 1850s.
In the late 1800s, Point of Timber, a landing on Indian Slough located within the
project area, proved to be an important shipping point for lumber and grain. Point
of Timber generated enough traffic to create a trading center over a mile west of
the intersection between Point of Timber Road and Byron Highway. The site
included a general store, blacksmith shop, and a post office.
By the end of World War I, the Delta had been transformed from a large tidal marsh
into a series of improved channels and leveed islands that is still recognizable today.
Railroad construction by the Southern Pacific Railroad gave impetus to the
beginning of industrial development in the County.
4.4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
Records Search
Peak & Associates conducted a records search of the project vicinity in December
2002 and September 2007 at Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State
University (NWIS). An additional records search of the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) was conducted by the Northwest
Information Center in January 2010 to confirm the findings of the 2002 and 2007
records searches. The records searches revealed that approximately 1,070 acres
west of the existing Discovery Bay development was part of an earlier field study
conducted by Trent Mears in 1994. This study did not formally record any sites on
the project site but did note three residential/farming complexes that were
considered to be potentially significant historical resources. No prehistoric resources
were observed during that study (see Project Site Survey discussion, below).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-5
The NWIS record search also included a review of the Revised Preliminary Historic
Resources Inventory for Contra Costa County, California (1989), which is derived
from their listing in the California Inventory of Historic Resources. This review found
that Point of Timber shipping point (see Site PA-03-G05, below), on the eastern
edge of the project site, and the Point of Timber Trading Station, outside of the
project site near Byron, are listed on the Revised Preliminary Historic Resources
Inventory.
According to Peak & Associates, Inc., other surveys identified by NWIS were
completed for a project north of Indian Slough directly opposite the project site and
for the route of a Pacific, Gas & Electric (PG&E) gas pipeline to the west of the
project site. Neither of these surveys recorded historical sites near the project site.
Project Site Survey
A field survey of the project site was conducted on March 19, 2003 and September
2007, by Peak & Associates, Inc. to confirm the results of the previous field survey
(Mears 1994). Peak & Associates concluded that the existing soils on the project
site and historical use of the site (i.e., irrigated crop production) result in a low
likelihood of locating prehistoric resources or evidence of historic habitation on the
site.
Topographic maps of the project area (1916 and 1978 United States Geological
Survey (USGS)) were reviewed to determine historical land uses at the project site.
Based on a review of these resources, the historical uses on the site include
residential, agricultural, and grazing uses. According to the 1916 Byron 15’ USGS
quadrangle map, there was one structure at the eastern end of Point of Timber
Road (PA-03-G05) and one residence in the northeastern corner of the project site,
at the end of a minor road leading north from the end of Point of Timber. The 1978
Byron 15’ USGS quadrangle map includes both of these structures as well as two
additional residences: one residence is located at the end of Point of Timber Road
(PA-03-G03) and one residence is located farther west on the north side of Point of
Timber Road (PA-03-G04).
Peak & Associates confirmed that there is no longer a standing structure in the
northeast corner of the project site, although an ornate entry gate, introduced
vegetation, and a small artificial pond are still present. The building’s foundation is
no longer present. Furthermore, there are few artifacts in the area and no
indication of a privy or trash dump, suggesting that historical archaeology would be
unlikely to produce meaningful results.
The three major structures (identified by their field numbers) that were recorded
during the field survey are discussed in greater detail below.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-6
Site PA-03-G03
In 2002, this complex consisted of a residence, barn, and four sheds on the south
side of Point of Timber Road in the western portion of the project site. The house
was a two-story frame structure with stucco walls and a composite shingle roof.
The second-story was an addition to the original one-story house which had a
gabled roof. The second story extended from the rear (south) half of the original
house and had a shed roof sloping downward to the south. The house had a tall
brick chimney on the west side, which had been extended higher by an iron pipe.
The residence appeared to have been heavily modified with architectural features
that were not uniformly consistent. A large hole on the grounds of the complex may
have represented an old well.
To the south and east of the house were four standing sheds and the remains of a
fifth shed. One relatively new shed, located next to the fallen shed, had cinder
block walls and a tin roof. The other three sheds were in disrepair.
The barn had tin roofing and an unusual design. It had an open section facing north
and an enclosed section on the south that was elevated approximately 3 feet above
ground level (probably used for feed storage). The unique design and elevation are
likely related to the wet ground conditions common in the area.
The residence was the only structure on PA-03-G03 that appeared on the most
recent USGS edition (1978) for the project area. This indicates that most of the
complex was built after 1978 and is thus too young to be considered eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The structure bears little resemblance
to its original appearance and there is no known association of the complex with
historical persons or events. In the absence of a privy pit or other locus of older
artifacts, the site is not eligible for NHRP. The complex represents post World War II
farming activity and is of no greater importance at the state or local level than at the
national level. The site is not eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR).
Site PA-03-G04
In 2002, the building group north of Point of Timber Road in the western portion of
the project site, consisted of a residence, tankhouse, and garage. According to the
Peak & Associates report, the residence burned to the ground. A review of aerial
photographs of the site indicated that the site contains only building debris
associated with the complex. The tankhouse was a three-story square tower with a
pyramidal tin roof and a small one-story extension with a gabled roof to the north.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-7
There were numerous artifacts scattered around the site, but none that could be
accredited to anything other than recent occupation. PVC piping in the house
plumbing proved that the site was occupied until quite recently.
The 2007 site inspection revealed that the whole location had been leveled, aside
from a pile of construction debris. The Peak & Associates report found that,
although the tankhouse was a historically interesting type of structure, it was not
unusual enough or sufficiently intact to be considered significant. Thus, the site and
its remains are not eligible for listing in the NHRP. Because the remains of all of the
structures have been removed and/or leveled, there is even less reason to consider
the site significant. In its present condition, it is not eligible for the CRHR.
Site PA-03-G05
The PA-03-G05 complex consists of a residence, barn, and three sheds. The
structural complex is at the end of Point of Timber Road; however the road once
extended north to the far northeastern corner of the project site. This may have
been the location of the Point of Timber shipping point. Even though the 1916
USGS map does not show a waterway in this area, prior to 1916, there would not
have been any reason for the road to extend to unreclaimed swampland, except to
reach the former Point of Timber shipping point. Therefore, it is likely that the
northeast corner of the property is the site of the shipping point.
In 2002, the residence at the site had burned down and the barn appeared to be
relatively modern. The remains of the residence included a trace of a stairway,
indicating that the house was once a two-story structure. The residence was once
connected to a 10- by 20-foot building via a narrow enclosed hallway. The
residence was built without foundations and at one time had a full-length front
porch.
The barn was very large and appeared quite modern. It had characteristic features
of modern barns, including a hay loft with a roof extension at a lower pitch on both
long sides, a small roof extension at the peak on one side to protect hoisting gear,
and concrete wall foundations. The corrugated tin roofing was missing in places and
rusted elsewhere. The vertical plank siding was missing some planks.
To the south of the barn, there was a small shed. The shed was raised about 4 feet
from the ground on a concrete wall, indicating that it was a relatively new addition.
West of this (between the house and the barn) were two other sheds which had
partially fallen down. These sheds were originally frame structures with plank
siding.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-8
The reinspection in 2007 indicated that the residence was more deteriorated and
the sheds on the west side had almost completely collapsed.
The evidence appears to indicate that the northeast corner of the project site is the
former location of the Point of Timber shipping site. However, the surviving
features are not the sort that would be associated with a shipping point. Point of
Timber is the site of an historic event, but there is no longer any physical evidence
associated with the event. None of the surviving or partially surviving structures are
old enough to have been part of the Point of Timber operation. There is no known
association with historic persons or events, the only older structure is nearly
destroyed, and no archeologically interesting artifacts were found. Therefore, the
site is not eligible for listing in the NHRP or in the CRHR.
4.4.3 REGULATORY SETTING
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal
agencies to take into consideration the potential effects of proposed undertakings
on cultural resources listed on or determined eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and to allow the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation the opportunity to comment on the proposed undertaking. The
regulations implementing Section 106 are promulgated by the Secretary of the
Interior, as codified in Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. Section
106 requirements apply to properties not formally determined eligible, but which
are considered to meet eligibility requirements.
Archaeological resources are typically considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP
because of the information they have or may be likely to convey. Intensity of
impacts to archaeological resources relates to the importance of the information
they contain and the extent of the disturbance or degradation.
Determining the NRHP eligibility of a site or district is guided by the specific legal
context of the site’s significance as set out in 36 CFR Part 60.4. The NHPA authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to expand a National Register of districts, sites,
buildings, structures and objects of significance in American history, architecture,
archaeology, engineering and culture. A property may be listed in the NRHP if it
meets criteria for evaluation as defined in 36 CFR 60.4. Section 110(d)(6)(A) of the
NHPA allows properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a tribe to
be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-9
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects
that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling
and association and:
1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
2. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
3. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
4. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project area was surveyed for cultural and historically significant resources.
None of the project sites have been determined eligible for the NRHP.
California Register of Historic Resources
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) administers the California
Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), which was established in 1992 though
amendments to the Public Resources Code, to be used by state and local agencies,
private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to
indicate what properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change.
The CRHR includes resources that have been formally determined eligible for, or
listed in, the NRHP, State Historical Landmark Number 770 or higher, Points of
Historical Interest recommended for listing by the State Historical Resources
Commission (SHRC) for listing, resources nominated for listing and determined
eligible in accordance with criteria and procedures adopted by the SHRC, and
resources and districts designated as city or county landmarks when the designation
criteria are consistent with CRHR criteria.
PRC Section 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their
eligibility for listing on the CRHR. The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were
expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria
developed for listing in the NRHP, which is described above.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-10
As defined by Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, a resource shall be
considered historically significant if the resource meets the following criteria:
It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
It 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
It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history. (Criterion D is usually applied only to archaeological sites, rather than in
the evaluation of most historic architectural structures, see below.)
Automatic CRHR listings include NRHP listed and determined eligible historic
properties (either by the Keeper of the NRHP or through a consensus determination
on a project review); State Historical Landmarks from number 770 onward; Points of
Interest nominated from January 1998 onward. Landmarks prior to 770 and Points
of Historical Interest may be listed through an action of the SHRC (CAL/OHP ca.
1999b).
Project Consistency Analysis
The project area was surveyed for cultural and historically significant resources.
None of the sites within the project area have been determined eligible for the
CRHR.
Senate Bill 18
Signed into law on September of 2004, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires cities and
counties to notify and consult with California Native American Tribes about
proposed local land use planning decisions for the purpose of protecting tribal
cultural resources. SB 18 stipulates that, beginning on March 1, 2005, cities and
counties must send any proposals for revisions or amendments to general plans and
specific plans to those California Native American Tribes that are on the Native
American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) contact list and have traditional lands
located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. Cities and counties must also
conduct consultations with these tribes prior to adopting or amending their general
plans or specific plans.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-11
Project Consistency Analysis
The NAHC in Sacramento was contacted for a list of individuals who might be able to
contribute information regarding Native American resources in the project area.
Letters were sent to the recommended individuals in February 2003, but no replies
were received. It should be noted that based on the presence of the peat soils, it is
believed that regular flooding of this project area occurred prior to levee
construction. Therefore, it is unlikely that there was substantial prehistoric
habitation at or near the project site.
Other California Laws and Regulations
The disposition of Native American burials is governed by Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 and fall
within the jurisdiction of the NAHC.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project will follow the procedures required by the California Health and Safety
Code as outlined below in Impact CUL-4 and Mitigation Measure CUL-4 if any
Native American remains are uncovered during project construction. The project
would therefore be consistent with these requirements.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Open Space Element of the Contra Costa General Plan contains the following
relevant policies related to the protection of cultural resources:
Open Space Element
9-32: Areas which are identifiable and important archaeological or historic
significance shall be preserved for such uses, preferably in public ownership.
9-33: Buildings or structures that have visual merit and historic value shall be
protected.
9-34: 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.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be in compliance with General Plan policies related to cultural
resources. As previously stated, and in response to policy OS 9-33, existing
structures on site are not eligible for listing in the NRHP or in the CRHR.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-12
Furthermore, the project site is not in an area identified for archaeological or
historical significance and is therefore in compliance with policies OS 9-32 and
OS 9-34.
4.4.4 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
on cultural resources if it would:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5;
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature; or
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Site surveys and archival research confirmed that no known archeological or
paleontological resources exist on the site. Formal evaluation of the structures on
the site also confirmed that no structure or site is eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources.
However, there is always a possibility that an unknown resource may exist in the
project area and could be discovered during grading, excavation, or construction.
The following mitigation measures would ensure proper identification and
treatment of any resources uncovered during construction of the project.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-13
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Impact CUL-1: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5. (Significant)
As described previously in this section, none of the buildings on the project site
were identified as eligible for listing in the NRHP and therefore their removal would
not constitute a significant impact. However, there is always a possibility that an
unknown site may exist in the project area and could be discovered during grading,
excavation, or construction. Indicators of historic resources include glass, metal,
ceramics, brick, wood, and similar debris.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in
the event that any prehistoric, historic, archaeological or paleontological
resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100
feet of the resources shall be halted and the applicant shall consult with the
County and a qualified professional (historian, archaeologist and/or
paleontologist as determined appropriate and approved by the County) to
assess the significance of the find.
If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the County and the
consulting professional shall determine the appropriate avoidance measures or
other appropriate mitigation.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting professional
to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the County shall determine whether
avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project
design, costs, and other considerations.
If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures, such as data recovery,
shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while
mitigation for cultural resources is carried out. All significant cultural materials
recovered shall, at the discretion of the consulting professional, be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according
to current professional standards.
At the County’s discretion, all work performed by the consulting professional
shall be paid for by the applicant and at the County’s discretion, the professional
may work under contract with the County.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-14
This mitigation provides specific direction to protect unanticipated historical
resources discoveries during project construction. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Impact CUL-2: Construction of the project could potentially cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an unknown archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Significant)
As previously discussed, no archeological resources were observed or are known to
be present on the project site. However, there is a possibility that resources
meeting the definition of a unique archeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the
Public Resource Code or qualifying as historic resources could become visible once
vegetation is removed or during construction excavation. Indicators of prehistoric
site activity include artifacts, exotic rock, or unusual amounts of shell or bone.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would reduce impacts from changes in the significance of an archaeological
resource to a less-than-significant level.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This mitigation provides specific direction to provide protection of unanticipated
archaeological resources discoveries during project construction.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts
to a less-than-significant level.
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact CUL-3: Construction of the project potentially could directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature.
(Significant)
As previously discussed, no paleontological resources or unique geologic features
were observed or are known to be present on the project site. There is, however, a
possibility that paleonotological resources may become visible once vegetation is
removed or during construction activities such as grading and excavation. Examples
of paleonotological resources include body fossils (e.g., bones, any part of an
organism) and trace fossils (e.g., any evidence of past life such as tracks, trailways,
burrows).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-15
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would reduce impacts to paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature
to a less-than-significant level.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This mitigation provides specific direction to protect unanticipated
paleontological resources or unique geologic feature discoveries during project
construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce
potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact CUL-4: Construction of the project could potentially disturb human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Significant)
Although no signs of human remains or burial sites were observed during the survey
of the project site, or known to be present in the project area, there is always a
possibility that such remains may become visible once vegetation is removed or
during construction activities such as grading and excavation.
The project applicant shall comply with California law regarding the treatment of
Native American human remains as contained in California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and Section 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.
California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials,
skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism
and inadvertent destruction. The California Health and Safety Code requires that if
human remains are found in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, work is
to be halted in the immediate area, and the county coroner is to be notified to
determine the nature of the remains. The coroner is required to examine all
discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on
private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner
determines that the remains are those of a Native American interment, then the
Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to identify the most likely
descendants and the appropriate disposition of the remains.
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: In the event of the accidental discovery or
recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated
cemetery, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-16
The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be
contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is
required, and
If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours;
The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person
or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the
deceased Native American;
The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for
means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the
human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and
associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a
location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most
likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the
Commission;
The identified descendant fails to make a recommendation; or
The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the
recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native
American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to
the landowner.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would ensure compliance with
the requirements of Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15064.5, subd. (e)), which dictate the actions that shall be
taken in the event that human remains are discovered outside of a dedicated
cemetery. Compliance with the provisions of the guidelines would reduce the
significant impact to unknown archeological material and prehistoric human
remains in the project area to a less-than-significant level.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.4 Cultural Resources
4.4-17
4.4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes the planned developments
within the county that could potentially affect archaeological or historical resources.
As determined by the Contra Costa County General Plan EIR, development
associated with the General Plan buildout would result in potentially significant
impacts to known and unknown historical and archeological resources. As such,
development of the project site, in combination with the planned projects of the
General Plan EIR, would result in a significant cumulative impact to cultural
resources.
No known historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources were identified on
the project site, and therefore the project would not contribute to this cumulative
impact. To the extent that construction activities unearth previously undiscovered
resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would
ensure their proper identification and treatment. The project would therefore not
result in a considerable contribution to this cumulative impact.
4.4.6 REFERENCES
Peak & Associates, Inc. (2003, updated in 2007) Cultural Resources Assessment of
the Proposed Pantages at Discovery Bay Development.
University of California Museum of Paleontology. Locality Search. Available at
http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/loc.shtml. Accessed on July 15, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
4.4 Cultural Resources Draft EIR
4.4-18
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.5 Energy
4.5-1
4.5 ENERGY
This section describes the potential effects of the project on energy conservation.
The information in this section comes primarily from analysis of the project site
plans and communication with service providers.
There were no public comments related to energy demands received in response to
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR.
4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Electrical and Gas Services
In Contra Costa County, electrical and gas services in the project area are provided
by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E obtains its energy supplies from
power plants and natural gas fields in northern California, as well as from energy
purchased outside its service area and delivered through high voltage transmission
lines and pipelines. Power is generated from various sources, including fossil fuel,
hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and geothermal plants; and is fed into the electrical
grid system serving Northern California.
The project site is located within the southeastern portion of PG&E’s Delta
Distribution Planning Area (DPA), which covers the eastern portion of Contra Costa
County from Bay Point to Middle River. Electricity distribution facilities that serve
the project site are located in a subsection of the Delta DPA – the Brentwood DPA –
which has a current capacity of approximately 335 megawatts (MW) (Lau 2010).
Existing electrical utility lines that serve Discovery Bay are currently located within a
joint trench in a public utility easement that crosses the site under the private
extension of Point of Timber Road.
PG&E supplies natural gas to the project area through a distribution system in
eastern Contra Costa County. An existing 6-inch plastic gas main extends along the
south side of Point of Timber Road, terminating just east of the project site (Tedder
2005).
PG&E updates all load forecasts for gas and electricity services every year. Load
growth forecasts for this area are currently determined using load growth
projection tools that use a number of sources of data including past peak loading,
population, development plans, and temperature history information. If an update
for the distribution area indicates that the load growth is different than forecasted,
an expansion of the existing systems would be timed to match the faster or slower
Pantages Bays Project
4.5 Energy Draft EIR
4.5-2
growth. The distribution systems that would serve the project are designed to
adequately serve the energy demands from projected development within the
County’s Urban Limit Line, including the proposed project (Lau 2010; Nelson 2010).
4.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING
California's Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential Buildings, Title 24
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings were established in 1978 in
response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The
standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2008
Standards went into effect in January 2010. Typically, every three years, energy
efficiency standards are revised and performance requirements are more stringent.
It is expected at least one more update would occur prior to the development of the
project. Building permits submitted on or after this date must comply with the 2008
Standards. In addition, new minimum green building requirements are included in
the most recent California Building Code update, which takes effect in January 2011.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would incorporate ‘green building’ and energy saving measures
pursuant to the Energy Efficiency Standards of Title 24, and the new California
Green Building Code. The project would therefore not conflict with the provisions
of Title 24.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Conservation Element of the General Plan contains the following relevant goals
related to energy conservation:
Goal 8-L: Reduce energy use in the County to avoid risks of air pollution and
energy shortages which prevent orderly development.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would incorporate ‘green building’ and energy saving measures
pursuant to the Energy Efficiency Standards of Title 24, and the new California
Green Building Code. These same measures would reduce the potential energy use
of the project, thereby ensuring consistency with Goal 8-L of the General Plan.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.5 Energy
4.5-3
4.5.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Energy significance determinations utilized in this section are based on Appendix F
(Energy Conservation) of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact will occur if
implementation of the project would:
a) Result in a wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of energy; or
b) Result in a significant demand on regional energy supply or requirements of
substantial additional capacity.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the two
significance criteria stated above shows that less-than-significant impacts would
result for each of the criteria. The following discussions present the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
a) Would the project result in a wasteful, inefficient and
unnecessary use of energy?
b) Would the project result in a significant demand on regional
energy supply or requirements of substantial additional capacity?
Energy Demands/Usage
Based on energy averages provided by PG&E, the project would be expected to
increase peak load demands on gas and electricity services by 2,336 cubic feet per
hour (cfh) and 2 MW (Lau 2010; Nelson 2010).
Gas and electric services would require the extension of existing underground
electrical and gas utility lines from utility corridors in Point of Timber Road. PG&E
has indicated that it has sufficient capacity to serve the project contingent upon
submittal of the appropriate application by the developer. It is not anticipated that
off-site improvements of these service lines would be necessary. However,
realignment and extension of these existing service lines would be necessary on the
project site to accommodate the new building footprints and would be completed
as part of project development. PG&E does not anticipate that service interruption
to existing utility services in the project area would be required during the
realignment and extension of service lines on the project site. If a service
interruption in the surrounding community would be required in order to energize
Pantages Bays Project
4.5 Energy Draft EIR
4.5-4
the new service lines, the interruption would be planned in advance by PG&E and
notices to the community would be sent by PG&E prior to the service interruption
(Lau 2011).
As previously discussed, electrical and gas services would be provided by PG&E. No
deficiencies in electrical and gas service have been identified by PG&E in the vicinity
of the project, nor has PG&E identified any deficiencies that would be caused by the
project. Furthermore, compliance with the Energy Efficiency Standards of Title 24
would reduce the project’s potential to use energy in a wasteful manner. Therefore,
the project’s impact on energy would be less than significant.
4.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for energy impacts is the regional energy distribution
systems that serve the project site and the County. Development proposed as part
of the build out of the General Plan within the County could increase energy
demands on these systems. However, the General Plan EIR does not identify any
cumulative energy impact related to build out.
PG&E has indicated that the distribution systems serving the County are designed to
adequately serve the energy demands from projected development within the
County’s Urban Limit Line, including the proposed project (Lau 2010; Nelson 2010).
As such, the project in combination with the other development in the County
would not result in cumulative impacts to energy.
4.5.5 REFERENCES
Lau, Warren, Electrical Distribution Engineer, PG&E – Diablo Division. Personal
Communication August 20, 2010 and April 18, 2011.
Nelsen, Matt, PG&E, Entry Engineer – Gas Distribution Planning. Personal
Communication September 2, 2010.
Tedder, Gene, Senior Business Manager, PG&E – Antioch, CA Office. Personal
Communication January 4, 2005.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-1
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section describes the geology and soils of the project site and the potential risks
associated with known geologic hazards, including seismic activity (i.e.,
earthquakes). This section assesses the potential impacts to geology and soils as a
result of project implementation and includes mitigation measures to reduce
potentially significant impacts.
Information in this section is based on the following geotechnical reports prepared
for the project by ENGEO, Inc. (ENGEO) in 1999, 2004, and 2006:
ENGEO, 2006, Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California
(revised October 27, 2006).
ENGEO, 2004, Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California.
ENGEO, 1999, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Discovery Shores, Contra
Costa County, California.
The geotechnical reports that have been incorporated into this analysis are available
for review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development,
Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. Illustrated
in Figure 4.6-1 are the locations of the various geological investigations on the
project site.
No comments related to the geology and soils were received in response to the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report (EIR).
4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Geology
The project site is located in the Sacramento Delta, within the Great Valley
Geomorphic Province of California. In this region, wind-blown deposits (i.e., weakly
consolidated fluvial, deltaic and eolian) overlie bedrock. The nearest outcrop of
bedrock to the project site is approximately 4.5 miles to the southwest in the
foothills of the Diablo Range.
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-2
Most of the higher elevations of the region are the crests of old sand dunes of
Pleistocene or early Holocene age1, and are underlain by sandy eolian deposits that
are generally considered to have formed more than 7,000 years ago. In the
immediate vicinity of the project site, the lower-lying areas between the crest of
dunes are underlain by younger, fine-grained alluvial fan deposits of Kellogg Creek.
Site Geology
The near-surface sediments across the project site primarily consist of eolian, tidal
wetland, lacustrine (lake-deposited) and alluvial (water-deposited) deposits. These
sediments are typically irregularly stratified, poorly-consolidated deposits of clay,
silt and sand. The geology of the near-surface deposits on the site has been largely
influenced by changes in sea level during the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene
ages.2
Soils on the project site were mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and
presented in the Biological Resources Analysis report, included as Appendix B. The
four soil units mapped on the project site include Marcuse clay (Mb), Brentwood
clay loam (wet)(Bc), Pescadero clay loam (Pb), and Sacramento clay, alkali (Sb). All
of these soils are classified as hydric, meaning they are soils that form in wetlands.
The Marcuse clay, Brentwood Clay Loam (wet), and the Pescadero Clay Loam soils
form in alluvium from sedimentary rock. The Sacramento Clay alkali forms in mixed
alluvium.
Artificial Fill
In 2003, the project site was used by Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) for
detention of dredge spoils as part of a channel dredging program in Discovery Bay.
Artificial fill related to the dredging program was generally identified at the ground
surface along the northern and southeastern edges of the project site, as well as
within the areas of the former siltation ponds located in the central portion of the
project site. The fill primarily consists of up to 3 to 4 feet of stiff, silty and sandy
clay.
1 The Holocene age is a geological time period which began approximately 12,000 years ago. The Late
Pleistocene age is a geological time period that began approximately 10,000 years ago.
2 The Pleistocene Epoch occurred between 1.8 million and 10,000 years ago.
Source: ENGEO, Inc., 2007.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.6-1FigureGeotechnical Location Of Field Investigations
250
FEET
1250 500
Kellogg
C
r
e
e
k
ECCID ChannelDISCOVERY BAY
VILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)RAVENSWOODECCID Dredge Cut
O
l
d
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-4
Figure 4.6-1 Location of Field Investigations (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-5
Fine-Grained Alluvium
Fine-grained alluvium deposited from Kellogg Creek occurs at ground surface across
the majority of the project site. The alluvium deposits typically consist of silty to
sandy clay, clayey to sandy silt, and relatively thin layers of loose to medium dense
sand. These layers are considered relatively weak and potentially compressible.
The soft clayey soils were about 1.5 to 6 feet thick, and encountered at approximate
elevations of 0 to 15 feet below ground surface.
Dune Sand
Fine- to medium-grained silty dune sand occurs at the surface of the elevated areas
on the northern portion of the site. The dune sand deposits are 10 to 15 feet thick,
with base elevations approximately 5 to 15 feet below ground surface. Sands
characterized as having a fine- to medium-grain size and silty texture are relatively
consistent throughout the deposit, and are characteristic of eolian sand deposits
caused by wind transport.
Groundwater
Groundwater beneath the project site was encountered at depths between 3.5 to
13 feet below ground surface. However, groundwater levels on the site are not
static and may fluctuate due to seasonal variation in rainfall, tidal action, or other
factors not in evidence at the time of the subsurface investigation.
Seismic and Geological Hazards
The project site is located in an area of moderate seismic activity. No active or
inactive faults are known to come to the surface on or within the immediate vicinity
of the project site. The closest active fault with surface expression, as identified by
the California Geology Survey (formerly California Division of Mines and Geology), is
the Greenville fault, approximately 9 miles southwest of the project site (California
Geological Survey 2007). Other active faults in the project region include the
Calaveras fault, 22 miles to the southwest; the Hayward fault, 31 miles to the
southwest; and the San Andreas fault, 49 miles to the southwest. No portion of the
project site is mapped within an Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ), as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (California Geological
Survey 2010).
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-6
Although no active faults have been mapped through the project site, a seismically-
active blind thrust belt underlies the Coast Range - Great Valley geomorphic
boundary and passes through the eastern portion of Contra Costa County (County).
Its location is not well established, but it is predicted to lie within 5 miles of the
project site.
Potential seismic hazards at the project site resulting from a nearby moderate to
major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary
seismic hazard is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. Common secondary
seismic hazards include ground shaking, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and land
subsidence.
Surface Rupture
Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement
during an earthquake. The location of surface rupture generally can be assumed to
be along an active major fault trace. No known active or potentially active faults
cross the project site; therefore, the probability of experiencing surface rupture is
low.
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s
surface resulting from an earthquake, and is normally the major cause of damage in
seismic events. An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the
San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) could cause considerable ground shaking at the
project site.3 The degree of shaking would be dependent on the magnitude of the
event, the distance to the seismic source of rupture, and local geologic conditions.
According to the Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan) Safety Element,
the project site is in an area designated as “highest damage susceptibility.” These
areas are defined by the General Plan as weak, water saturated deposits that
possess many adverse engineering characteristics, and have poor earthquake
stability.
3 A probabilistic seismic hazard evaluation prepared for the project site forecasts a horizontal ground
surface acceleration (g) of 0.31 g with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year design
lifetime of the planned improvements.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-7
Slope Stability
Slope failure can occur as either rapid movement of large masses of soil (landslide)
or slow, continuous movement (creep). The primary factors influencing the stability
of a slope are: the nature of the underlying soil or bedrock; the geometry of the
slope (height and steepness); rainfall; and the presence of previous landslide
deposits. However, the project area is flat, and landslide hazards are not expected.
Soil Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated granular sediments
from a solid state to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking. In the
process, the soil undergoes temporary loss of strength, which commonly causes
ground displacement or ground failure to occur. Since saturated soils are a
necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the groundwater
table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the
water table is located at greater depths.
As previously discussed, the upper 10 to 15 feet of the dune sands appear to be
loose to medium dense in consistency across much of the central and northern
portion of the project site. Given that the water table is near the surface (as high as
3.5 feet below ground surface), these upper, loose dune sand layers are potentially
liquefiable. Because of their clay content, the layers of loose to medium dense
alluvial sands encountered in the southern portion of the project site are considered
non-liquefiable.
With regard to liquefaction potential, the Safety Element of the General Plan
presents a map that divides Contra Costa County into three categories: “generally
high,” “generally moderate to low,” and “generally low.” According to this map, the
project site is in the “generally high” category. However, this map is only used as
screening tool by the County during the processing of land development
applications. The classification “generally high” liquefaction does not imply the
presence of liquefiable sands on a parcel. Site specific investigations are needed to
determine if truly liquefiable sands are present on site and to provide stabilization
measures where liquefiable sands are confirmed. Because the site is in the
“generally high” category, quantitative evaluation of liquefaction potential is
required by the County.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a form of horizontal displacement of soil toward an open
channel or excavation boundary. Lateral spreading can result from either the slump
of low cohesion unconsolidated material or more commonly by liquefaction of
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-8
either the soil layer or a subsurface layer underlying soil material on a slope,
resulting in gravitationally driven movement. Earthquake shaking leading to
liquefaction of saturated soil can result in lateral spreading where the soil
undergoes a temporary loss of strength.
The potential for lateral spreading is rated high in the portions of the project site
that are adjacent to open bodies of water and underlain by liquefiable sands.
Additionally, the proposed landscaped slope near the central western entrance to
the site has potential to experience lateral spreading during an earthquake.
Expansive Soils
Expansion and contraction of volume can occur when expansive soils undergo
alternating cycles of wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking). During these cycles,
the volume of the soil changes markedly. As a consequence of such volume
changes, structural damage to buildings and infrastructure may occur if the
potentially expansive soils were not considered in project design and during
construction.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) classifies the expansivity of soils based on their
Plastic Index (PI), as determined by laboratory testing using prescribed test
procedures. The UBC states that PI’s between 91-130 are considered to have a
“High Expansion Potential” and any values in excess of 130 are to be termed “Very
High Expansion Potential”. The distinctions are contained in Table 18-I-B of the
UBC. The near-surface soils in the northern portion of the project site generally
consist of non-plastic (non-expansive) sandy material. By contrast, soils in the
southern portion of the project site consist primarily of clayey materials of medium
to high plasticity (tendency to swell or shrink due to changes in moisture content)
and a moderate to high expansion potential. Soils that rated as highly expansive
represent a significant risk of damage to buildings and infrastructure.
Ground Subsidence
Subsidence can occur in areas where the subsurface materials, such as limestone
rock or salt deposits, are dissolved by fluid flow, creating subsurface voids that can
collapse. Subsidence also occurs where natural resources are extracted, and soil
grains compact. Decomposition of highly organic soils and seasonal drying of
expansive clay soils can result in subsidence, which could damage buildings.
No areas of significant organic soils were encountered during the preliminary
geotechnical investigations on the project site. However, relatively weak and
potentially compressible layers of soft clay were encountered in the south central
portion of the site. Based on the proposed fill thickness, the total consolidation
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-9
settlement across the site is estimated to range from approximately 0.5 to 1 inch.
Approximately 90 percent of the estimated consolidation settlements would be
compacted within 4 months under the weight of the fill (ENGEO 2011).
Corrosivity of Soils
A corrosive substance is one that will destroy or irreversibly damage another surface
or substance with which it comes into contact. The soils at the project site contain a
moderate to severe degree of sulfate, and are severely corrosive to buried metals.
Concrete and metal structures that come into contact with these soils would be at
risk for corrosion, which could result structural damage to buildings and
infrastructure.
Soil Erosion
Soil erosion is a natural process that can be caused by wind or water. Sand mining
and loss of vegetation west of the project area has caused accelerated erosion along
the coast. The eolian soils located beneath the project area are susceptible to wind
erosion. Erosion of these soils could also be accelerated by loss of vegetation or an
increase in channelized water runoff.
Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program (established through the Federal Clean Water Act); the
NPDES program objective is to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface
water bodies. In California, the NPDES program is administered by the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Board), with local oversight provided by the
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards). Refer to Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, for detailed discussion of NPDES program.
4.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING
California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building
Standards Code, sets minimum requirements for building design and construction.
The 2010 version of the California Building Standards Code are effective as of
January 1, 2011. The California Building Standards Code is a compilation of three
types of building standards from three different origins:
Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change
from building standards contained in national model codes;
Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national
model code standards to meet California conditions; and
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-10
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.
In the context of earthquake hazards, the California Building Standards Code’s
design standards have a primary objective of assuring public safety and a secondary
goal of minimizing property damage and maintaining function during and following
seismic events. The 2010 code assigns a seismic design category (SDC) to each
structure. The SDC is assigned as a means of capturing both the seismic hazard, in
terms of mapped acceleration parameters (spectral values), site class (defining the
soil profile), and the occupancy category (based on its importance or hazardous
material contents). The SDC affects design and detailing requirements as well as the
structural system that may be used and its height.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project and its components would be required to be constructed in accordance
with the 2010 California Building Code (or later adopted codes). Additionally,
implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure protection of the
project development and the subsequent community to adverse effects from
seismic related ground failures.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The California Legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in
1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures. The act’s main
purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on
the surface trace of active faults. The act addresses only the hazard of surface fault
rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. Local agencies must
regulate most development in fault zones established by the state geologist.
Project Consistency Analysis
Since the project area does not lie in an Alquist-Priolo EFZ, and no evidence of active
faulting has been documented, the risk of surface fault rupture at the project area is
considered very low, and no actions need to be taken to conform with the Alquist-
Priolo Act.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was adopted in 1990 following the Loma Prieta
earthquake to reduce threats to public health and safety and to minimize property
damage caused by earthquakes. The Act directs the U.S. Department of
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-11
Conservation to identify and map areas prone to the earthquake hazards of
liquefaction, earthquake induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The act
requires site-specific geotechnical investigations to identify potential seismic
hazards and formulate mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments
designed for human occupancy within the Zones of Required Investigation.
Project Consistency Analysis
The California Geological Survey has not yet released Seismic Hazard Maps of the
County. However, the project would be constructed in accordance with the
California Building Code, as previously stated. Additionally, implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure protection of the project development
and the subsequent community to adverse effects from seismic related ground
failures.
Contra Costa County Code, Section 94-4.420
Section 94-4.420 of the Contra Costa County Code (County Code), “Soil Report”, was
adopted in 1978 to mitigate the hazards of unstable soils and geological formations
to structures. Pursuant to the County Code, two copies of the preliminary soil
investigation report prepared for a project must be submitted to the County’s
building inspection department. The report shall indicate the presence of critically
expansive soils, unstable geological formations, or any soil problems which may
present a hazard to structure, buildings, or other improvements. If soil instability
issues arise, a report including the recommended corrective actions taken to
prevent structural damage to buildings, structures, or improvements must also be
submitted. Upon review of the preliminary soil report, the County building
inspector will determine the completeness of the report and the effectiveness of
the recommended corrective actions. If approved, the County building Inspector
shall certify the final map or parcel map and the recommended actions in the report
shall become a condition of approval and incorporated into the development.
Project Consistency Analysis
As identified below under Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the project will require site-
specific geological assessments performed by state-licensed geologists and
specialists to identify potential seismic and geologic hazards and incorporate
recommended mitigation measures into the proposed development of the project
site. The project would be required to comply with all provisions of the County
Code.
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-12
Contra Costa County General Plan
The following policies from the Safety Element of the County General Plan are
relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity issues on the project site.
Safety Element
10-3: Because the region is seismically active, structures for human occupancy
shall be designed to perform satisfactorily under earthquake conditions.
10-6: Structures of human occupancy, and structures and facilities whose loss
would substantially affect the public safety or the provision of needed
services, shall not be erected in areas where there is a high risk of severe
damage in the event of an earthquake.
10-8: Ground conditions shall be a primary consideration in the selection of land
use and in the design of development projects.
10-10: Policies regarding liquefaction shall apply to other ground failures which
might result from groundshaking but which are not subject to such well-
defined field and laboratory analysis.
10-14: Preparation of a geologic report shall be required as a prerequisite before
authorization of public capital expenditures or private development projects
in areas of known or suspected faulting.
10-20: Any structures permitted in areas of high liquefaction danger shall be sited,
designed, and constructed to minimize the dangers from damage due to
earthquake-induced liquefaction.
10-21: Approvals to allow the construction of public and private development
projects in areas of high liquefaction potential shall be contingent on
geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially
hazardous geologic and/or soils conditions, recommend means of
mitigations these adverse conditions; and on proper implementation of the
mitigation measures.
10-27: Soil and geological reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the
County Planning Geologist.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-13
Policy Consistency Analysis
All development within the project site will be designed based on the most recent
state seismic requirements and building codes. These measures would ensure the
reduction of potential risks to people and property resulting from seismic and
geologic hazards. The project would therefore be consistent with the County’s
General Plan policies relevant to geology, soils, and seismicity.
4.6.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
impact on geology and soils if it would:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. 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 or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
ii. Landslides;
iii. Strong seismic ground shaking; or
iv. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;
b) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water;
c) 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;
d) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; or
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-14
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that no impact would
result for one of the five significance criteria. The following discussion presents the
evidence in support of this conclusion.
a) i. Would the project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated by the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map?
As discussed previously, the project site does not include any faults identified as
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Therefore, the project would not expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from these types of
earthquake fault zones.
a) ii. Would the project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving landslides?
The project site generally flat and there is no history of landslides in the vicinity of
Discovery Bay. As such, there is a negligible level of risk related to landslides.
b) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water?
The project site would be served by the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services
District (TDBCSD). Future development would not rely on septic tanks or other
alternative waste water disposal systems, as the urbanized nature of the proposed
development necessitates the use of municipal wastewater collection and
treatment systems (see Section 4.16, Utilities). Therefore no impact would occur.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
significant impact for four of the five significance criteria. The following discussion
presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-15
a) iii. Would the project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
a) iv. Would the project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving seismic-related ground failures, including
liquefaction?
c) 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;
Impact GEO-1: Implementation of the project could expose people and
developments to adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic
related ground failure including liquefaction and lateral spreading. (Significant)
Although the project site is not within an officially designated Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone, there is a seismic source in the region capable of generating
considerable ground shaking at the project site. This could lead to potentially
significant impacts resulting from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related
ground failure including liquefaction or lateral spreading.
With proper design and construction, the geological hazards confirmed on the
project site could be successfully mitigated. For example, waterfront bank
stabilization walls are proposed by the applicant to confine liquefiable soils and
thereby reduce the potential for lateral spreading. Additionally, preliminary
geotechnical reports prepared for the project recommend specific criteria and
standards for the following components of the project:
demolition and clearing
selection of earth materials
fill removal
excavation of bays and coves
the use of bank stabilization walls to control lateral spreading
treatment of wet soils
placement of engineered fill
observation and testing
shrinkage
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-16
dewatering
foundation design
performance criteria for wall systems
pavement design
landscape irrigation
backfilling of utility trenching.
The preliminary geotechnical reports prepared for the project site provided
sufficient data to make a preliminary assessment of geological hazards in this draft
EIR. However, final design of the project would require future geotechnical analysis
and plan review, which is required be performed in conjunction with the processing
of construction permits. The County Code make provision for requiring additional
geologic and geotechnical studies during the processing of final maps, grading
permits, and building permits, as discussed in the mitigation measures below.
The California Building Code (2010) has established guidelines for seismic structural
analysis for sites located near active seismic sources. As required by law, the project
would be designed in conformance with current applicable residential standards for
seismic stability as presented in the 2010 California Building Code, or the version in
effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1a: The project applicant shall design structures and
foundations to withstand expected seismic sources in accordance with the
current version of the California Building Code, as adopted by the County.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1b: At least 60 days prior to recording the Final Map
the applicant shall submit updated improvement plans for the project for review
by the County’s Peer Review Geologist and review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator. For the purposes of geologic review, the plans shall provide
detailed information on the bank stabilization wall system being proposed along
the waterfront residential lots.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1c: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall submit an updated geology, soils and foundation report meeting
the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 944.420 for review by
the Peer Review Geologist and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The report shall address the specific approach to grading and development
indicated by the Final Subdivision Map and Improvement Plans, and shall
provide technical data and engineering analysis that addresses the stability of
the residential lots.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-17
The project geotechnical engineer shall use the following performance criteria:
Factor of Safety of a minimum of 1.5 for static conditions,
Factor of Safety of 1.25 for pseudo-static conditions, and which takes into
account the potential for a seismic source in the site vicinity (Great Valley
seismic zone) and
Factor of Safety of 1.3 for rapid draw down.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1d: During the construction of subdivision
improvements, the project geotechnical engineer shall provide observation and
testing services and issue a grading/shoring wall completion report. The report
shall provide documentation on the bank stabilization wall depths and
appropriate testing of fill compaction to determine the effectiveness of the bank
stabilization measures in preventing lateral spreading failures toward the
Kellogg Creek channel.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building
codes and County Grading Ordinance. The California Building Code (2010)
requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering
analysis of structures to be based on soil profile types. Compliance with
building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally
accepted limits. Peer review of the final design plans and active supervision of
the installation of the project’s seismic components would ensure compliance
with all County approved building requirements.
d) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Impact GEO-2: Development of the project site could result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Significant)
The project site is approximately 171 acres, of which approximately 80 acres is
proposed for development. Construction and/or excavation of associated lots,
private streets, and waterways on the project site would temporarily increase the
amount of exposed (unvegetated) surfaces. Erosion of these surfaces could lead to
increased sedimentation in receiving water bodies (e.g., Kellogg Creek and Indian
Slough).
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building Inspection
Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The SWPPP shall
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-18
be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm Water General
Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and
recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP
resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
With regard to long-term control of sedimentation and protection of water
quality, a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006) was
prepared for the project and submitted to the County’s Public Works
Department in order to comply with County water quality requirements.
Engineered linear bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the selected
stormwater runoff treatment for this project, which are area based storm water
treatment facilities.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Effective implementation of the provisions within the SWPPP and SWCP would
keep construction period and long-term erosion and sedimentation to a
practical minimum.
e) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Impact GEO-3: The project could expose structures to substantial adverse effects
related to expansive and corrosive soils on the project site. (Significant)
The expansive characteristics of the soils on the project site may cause ground
subsidence and/or settlement that would damage the proposed building
foundations if not taken into consideration during final design of the project.
Additionally, the soils at the project site contain a moderate to severe degree of
sulfate. Sulfate soils are severely corrosive to buried metals. Concrete and metal
structures that come into contact with these soils would be at risk for corrosion,
which could result structural damage to buildings and infrastructure.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1b and GEO-1c would ensure that the
final development plans for the project were peer reviewed and that any issues to
the stability of the foundations, etc. were properly engineered given the conditions
of the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-3 would ensure
that the corrosivity of the soils was also taken into account.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-19
Mitigation Measure GEO-3: At least 30 days prior to recordation of the final
map, the project applicant shall submit a plan for monitoring corrosivity of pads
and road beds. The plan shall demonstrate how the results of the study will
guide design of concrete and ferrous materials that are in contact with the
ground.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Peer review of the final design plans would ensure compliance with all County
approved building requirements, including those related to expansive and
corrosive soils.
4.6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Geological hazards related to future development in the project vicinity are site
specific and relate to the type of building and building foundation proposed, as well
as the soil composition and slope on the site.
The General Plan EIR noted that build out would increase the potential for new
development in areas subject to seismic shaking, liquefaction, ground failure and
landsliding, thereby increasing the associated risks to persons and property.
As discussed in this section, the project site is not subject to landsliding, liquefaction
or ground failure and would not therefore contribute to this identified cumulative
impact.
Regarding potential seismic shaking, the site is not located in the vicinity of an active
fault line or fault trace and would not therefore be subject to ground rupture.
However, because of the seismically active nature of the region, the project is
required to conform to all general plan conditions requiring analysis and design to
ensure adequate performance during a seismic event. The incorporation of these
design requirements ensure that the project would not make a considerable
contribution to the increase in population exposed to posed injury, death, or
property damage from seismic events in the region.
4.6.5 REFERENCES
California Geological Survey, 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CGS
Special Publication 42.
California Geological Survey. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/. Last Accessed July 13, 2010
Pantages Bays Project
4.6 Geology and Soils Draft EIR
4.6-20
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)– San Francisco Bay
Region. Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, August 2002.
Dk Consulting (2006). Pantages Bays Stormwater Control Plan C.3 Report.
ENGEO, 2011, Summary of Potential Settlement, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California.
ENGEO, 2006, Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California (revised
October 27, 2006).
ENGEO, 2004, Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California.
Engeo, 1999, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, Discovery Shores, Contra Costa
County, California.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-1
4.7 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
This section describes the existing greenhouse gas (GHG) conditions and analyzes
the potential GHG emissions that would result from implementation of the project.
Emission sources considered include transportation, natural gas combustion,
indirect emissions from electrical usage, emissions associated with water
conveyance and wastewater treatment.
The impact analysis presented in this section was conducted using guidance
adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in June 2010.
Operational emissions of GHG were estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 model
(version9.2.4), using other BAAQMD emissions factors for area and indirect sources.
The quantitative analysis for greenhouse gas emissions can be found in its entirety
in Appendix A of this draft environmental impact report (EIR).
There were no public comments related to GHG emissions received in response to
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for draft EIR.
Methodology
The effect of a project on global climate change is calculated by quantifying project
emissions of GHG. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the “reference gas” for climate change,
meaning that emissions of GHGs are typically reported in carbon dioxide
equivalents: CO2e.
According to the BAAQMD, no single land use project could, by itself, generate
sufficient GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature
(BAAQMD 2010a). Therefore, GHG emissions are recognized exclusively as potential
cumulative impacts.
Emissions associated with project construction and operation were calculated in
accordance with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
guidance for calculating project emissions. As recommended by the CAPCOA
approach, mobile source (vehicle) emissions and area source emissions (e.g., natural
gas combustion), and indirect emissions (e.g., emissions associated with production
of electricity) were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model.
Emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were estimated separately
based on the URBEMIS2007 estimates of carbon dioxide from vehicles and natural
gas combustion. Because these gases are more powerful global warming gases, the
emissions were multiplied by a correction factor to estimate CO2e.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-2
The URBEMIS2007 model does not predict indirect emissions associated with water
conveyance, wastewater treatment, or electricity consumed by future users of the
project site that are generated off-site. The emissions associated with these
activities were calculated as follows:
GHG emissions related to electricity use were estimated using average annual
electrical consumption per residence recommended by the BAAQMD.
GHG emissions from water conveyance were estimated by multiplying annual
water usage by an estimated “embedded” electrical consumption for northern
California of 1,450 kilowatt hours per million gallons (kwh/MG), as
recommended by the BAAQMD.
GHG emissions from wastewater treatment were estimated by multiplying
annual wastewater generation by an estimated “embedded” electrical
consumption for northern California of 2,500 kilowatt hours per million gallons
(kwh/MG), as recommended by the BAAQMD.
A more detailed methodology and calculations can be found in Appendix A of this
EIR.
4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, preventing it from dissipating into
outer space. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere has been implicated as a
driving force for global climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between
regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described
as the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and
anthropogenic activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere.
Individual projects contribute to the cumulative effects of climate change by
emitting GHGs during demolition, construction and operational phases. The
principal GHGs are CO2, CH4, N2O, ozone (O3),1 and water vapor. While the primary
GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring; CO, CH4, and N2O are largely
emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds
occur within the earth’s atmosphere.
1 Ozone is not directly emitted, but is formed from other gases in the troposphere, the lowest level of
the earth’s atmosphere. Ozone also contributes to the retention of heat.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-3
Emissions of CO are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane
results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other
GHGs, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride have
much greater heat absorption potential than CO2, and are generated in certain
industrial processes.
There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs
have and will continue to contribute to global warming, although there is
uncertainty concerning the magnitude and rate of the warming. Potential global
warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack,
sea-level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large
forest fires, and more drought years (ARB 2006). Secondary effects are likely to
include global rise in sea-level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors,
and changes in habitat and biodiversity.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) estimated that in 2008 California produced
about 478 million gross metric tons (about 527 million U.S. tons) of CO2e GHG
emissions.2 The ARB found that transportation is the source of 36 percent of the
state’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-
state) at 24 percent and industrial sources at 19 percent. Commercial and
residential fuel use (primarily for heating) accounted for 9 percent of GHG emissions
(ARB 2010).
In the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area), fossil fuel consumption in the
transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and
aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately
36.41 percent of the Bay Area’s 95.8 million metric tons of GHG emissions in 2007.
Industrial and commercial sources (including office and retail uses) were the second
largest contributors of GHG emissions with about 36.40 percent of total emissions.
Electricity production accounts for almost 16 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG
emissions, followed by domestic sources (e.g., home water heaters, furnaces, etc.)
at approximately 7 percent. Off-road equipment and farming account for
approximately 4 percent of the total Bay Area GHG emissions (BAAQMD 2010b).
California has taken a leadership role in addressing the trend of increasing GHG
emissions, with the passage in 2006 of California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the
Global Warming Solutions Act. This legislation is discussed below, in Subsection
4.7.2, Regulatory Setting.
2 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently
measured in “carbon dioxide-equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat
absorption (or “global warming”) potential.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-4
4.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
In December 2009, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) made a finding under the federal Clean
Air Act (CAA) that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of the six
generally recognized GHGs (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) “threaten the public health and welfare
of current and future generations,” and that emissions of these gases from new cars
and trucks “contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public
health and welfare” (EPA n.d.). While not imposing any regulatory requirements,
this “endangerment finding” under the federal CAA is required before USEPA can
issue regulations, and will allow the agency to adopt GHG emissions standards that
it proposed in September 2009.
In conjunction with USEPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) anticipate that joint rulemaking for new
heavy-duty engines and vehicles will be proposed in Fall 2010, finalized by July 2011,
and would begin with model year 2014 (EPA 2010). DOT has proposed new fuel
economy standards that would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The
proposed DOT standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined
average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile in model year 2016, equivalent
to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automotive industry were to meet this CO2 level
entirely through fuel economy improvements (EPA 2009). To address light-duty
vehicles, USEPA and DOT will issue a Notice of Intent by September 30, 2010,
announcing plans for setting stringent light vehicle standards for model year 2017
and beyond, consistent with the respective statutory authorities (EPA 2010).
The DOT published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards; the comment period closed November 9,
2009 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2009). In a related action, in
June 2009, EPA granted California a waiver under the federal CAA, allowing the state
to impose its own, stricter GHG regulations for vehicles beginning in 2009 as
described in more detail below.
State
California has been at the vanguard of state efforts to regulate and reduce GHG
emissions and to plan for the effects on global climate change. The state recognizes
that “there appears to be a close relationship between the concentration of
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-5
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperatures” and that “the
“evidence for climate change is overwhelming.” The effects of climate change on
California remain uncertain. According to a 2009 California Climate Adaptation
Strategy final discussion report prepared by the California Climate Action Team
Report,3 the following climate change effects and conditions can be expected to
occur in California over the course of the next century:
A change in the timing of precipitation, with more falling as rain and less as
snow, resulting in a diminishing Sierra snowpack that would threaten the state’s
water supply;
Increased average temperatures of up to 4.0-9.0 degree Fahrenheit (°F);
A 25 to 35 percent increase in the number of days ozone pollution levels are
exceeded in most urban areas;
Increased vulnerability of forests due to pest infestation, increased
temperatures, and lighting storms without precipitation;
Increased challenges for the state’s important agricultural industry from water
shortages, increasing temperatures, and saltwater intrusion into the Delta;
Increased electricity demand, particularly in the hot summer months; and
Increased sea-level rise by 12 to18 inches by 2050 and by 21 to 55 inches by
2100 (Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more detail
related to sea level rise).
Current statewide emissions of GHG gases are estimated at 478 million metric tons
CO2e. Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in California, creating
about 36 percent of the emissions. Electricity generation is responsible for 24
percent of statewide GHG emissions and industrial activities account for another 19
percent. On a per-person basis, GHG emissions are lower in California than most
other states; however, California is a populous state, and the second largest emitter
of GHG in the U.S., making it one of the largest emitters in the world. Under a
“business as usual” scenario (i.e., with no new reduction plans), emissions of GHG in
California are estimated to increase to approximately 600 million metric tons of
CO2e by 2020, a 25 percent increase over current emissions.
3 The “Climate Action Team”, a group of state agencies, was set up to implement Executive Order S-3-
05. Under this order, the state plans to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-6
State of California Executive Order S-3-05
In June 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate
change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets
forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of GHGs would be
progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by
2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to
80 percent below 1990 levels (ARB 2008).
Assembly Bill 32 — The California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections
38500, et seq., or Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)), which requires the ARB to design and
implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and
cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020
(representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions).
AB 32 establishes a timetable for the ARB to adopt emission limits, rules, and
regulations designed to achieve the intent of the Act. In order to meet these goals,
California must reduce its GHG emissions by 30 percent below projected 2020
business as usual emissions levels or about 10 percent from today’s levels. On
December 11, 2008, ARB approved a Scoping Plan to meet the 2020 GHG reduction
limits outlined in AB 32. The Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of 174 million
metric tons (about 191 million U.S. tons) of CO2e.
Transportation Sector Reductions
Approximately 1/3 of the emissions reductions strategies fall within the
transportation sector and include the following: California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG
standards, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG emission
reductions and energy efficiency, and medium and heavy-duty vehicle hybridization,
high speed rail, and efficiency improvements in goods movement. These measures
are expected to reduce GHG emissions by 57.3 million metric tons (63 million U.S.
tons) of CO2e.
Electricity Sector Reductions
Emissions from the electricity sector are expected to reduce another 49.7 million
metric tons (55 million U.S. tons) of CO2e. Reductions from the electricity sector
include building and appliance energy efficiency and conservation, increased
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-7
combined heat and power, solar water heating (AB 1470), the renewable energy
portfolio standard (33 percent renewable energy by 2020), and the existing million
solar roofs program.
Other Reductions
Other reductions are expected from industrial sources, agriculture, forestry,
recycling and waste, water, and emissions reductions from cap-and-trade programs.
Regional GHG targets are also expected to yield a reduction of 5 million metric tons
(5.5 million U.S. tons) of CO2e (ARB 2008).
Applicability to the Project
Measures that could become effective during project implementation pertain to
construction-related equipment and building and appliance energy efficiency. Some
proposed measures will require new legislation to implement, some will require
subsidies, some have already been developed, and some will require additional
effort to evaluate and quantify. Additionally, some emissions reductions strategies
may require their own environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Some
applicable measures that are ultimately adopted will become effective during
construction and operation of the project and the project would be subject to these
requirements.
While ARB has identified a GHG reduction target of 15 percent from current levels
for actions by local governments themselves, it has not yet determined what
amount of GHG emissions reductions it recommends from local government land
use decisions. The Scoping Plan does state that successful implementation of the
plan relies on local governments’ land use planning and urban growth decisions
because local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and
permit land development to accommodate population growth and the changing
needs of their jurisdictions. ARB further acknowledges that decisions on how land is
used will have large effects on the GHG emissions that will result from the
transportation, housing, industry, forestry, water, agriculture, electricity, and
natural gas emission sectors. Many of the measures in the Scoping Plan, such as
implementation of increased fuel efficiency for vehicles (the “Pavley” standards),
increased efficiency in utility operations, and development of more renewable
energy sources, require statewide action by government, industry, or both. Some of
the measures are at least partially applicable to development projects, such as
increasing energy efficiency in new construction, installation of solar panels on
individual building roofs, and a “green building” strategy.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-8
California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts
(Senate Bill 375)
In addition to policy directly guided by AB 32, in 2008 the legislature passed Senate
Bill (SB) 375, which provides for regional coordination in land use and transportation
to incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” into regional transportation
plans that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by ARB. SB 375 also
includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects such as
transit-oriented development. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s
(MTC) 2013 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) will be its first plan subject to SB
375.
SB 375 requires ARB to establish regional GHG reduction targets for GHGs. ARB
appointed a 21-member Regional Targets Advisory Committee to recommend
factors to be considered and methodologies used in setting the regional goals; this
committee provided its recommendations to ARB in September 2009.
Modification to the Public Resources Code (Senate Bill 97)
Pursuant to State Senate Bill (SB) 97, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) was required to “prepare, develop, and transmit” the guidelines to the
Resources Agency on or before July 1, 2009. OPR transmitted draft guidelines to the
Resources Agency in June 2009. In September, 2009, the Resources Agency
released draft amendments to the CEQA Guidelines regarding GHG reductions.
These draft guidelines were adopted on December 30, 2009 and went into effect on
March 18, 2010. These CEQA Guidelines provide direction for determining the
significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment.
The BAAQMD adopted Air Quality Guidelines on June 2, 2010 that include a
significance threshold for GHG emissions within the Bay Area region (BAAQMD
2010a). Refer to Subsection 4.7.3, Analysis of Potential Impacts for further
discussion of the significance thresholds used in evaluating global climate change
and GHG emissions for this project.
California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings,
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations and
California Building Code (Cal Green)
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings were established in 1978 in
response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The
standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2008
Standards went into effect in January 2010. Typically every three years energy
efficiency standards are revised to include more stringent performance
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-9
requirements. It is expected the 2011 standards would be implemented prior to the
development of the project. In addition, new minimum green building
requirements are included in the most recent California Building Code update and
they will be in effect by January 2011.
Regional
BAAQMD Climate Protection Program
In June 2005, the BAAQMD established a Climate Protection Program to reduce
pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the Bay
Area. The climate protection program includes measures that promote energy
efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and develop alternative sources of energy
all of which assist in reducing emissions of GHG and in reducing air pollutants that
affect the health of residents. BAAQMD also seeks to support current climate
protection programs in the region and to stimulate additional efforts through public
education and outreach, technical assistance to local governments and other
interested parties, and promotion of collaborative efforts among stakeholders.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be required to comply with any federal and state regulations
pertaining to GHG emissions. It is the goal of the state (AB 32) to reduce GHG
emissions to previous levels (i.e., 1990 levels by 2020). As discussed in Chapter 3.0,
Project Description, the project would incorporate approximately 770 trees for
landscaping and 44 acres of open space. The project would also include a
pedestrian and bicycle path.
4.7.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
greenhouse gas impact if it would:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment; or
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-10
GHG impacts are evaluated in the context of the cumulative condition, since no
single land use (during construction or operation) can generate enough project-level
emissions to change the global average temperature (BAAQMD 2010a). No project-
level impacts are therefore identified.
The BAAQMD adopted the following CEQA thresholds of significance on June 2,
2010 to clarify the evaluation of GHG emissions in the cumulative context:
4.6 metric tons of CO2e /capita/yr;
1,100 metric tons of CO2e /yr; or
Compliance with a qualified Climate Action Plan.
The project’s operational and construction GHG emissions are quantified on a CO2e
basis and compared against the 4.6 metric tons of CO2e /capita/yr threshold noted
above.
In order to meet the definition of a less-than-significant impact, the total annual
rate of project emissions divided by the total project population (number of
residents) cannot exceed 4.6 metric tons.
The County does not have a Climate Action Plan or other local policies and
regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. Therefore,
the analysis is based upon whether the project by itself would impede or conflict
with the emissions reduction targets strategies prescribed in or developed to
implement AB 32.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
The project would not result in any potentially significant project-level impacts on
global climate change. It is generally understood that no single land use project can
generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average
temperature (BAAQMD 2010a). GHG emissions are therefore recognized exclusively
as cumulative impacts. Refer to Subsection 4.7.4, Cumulative Impacts for a
discussion of the project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions and their
impact on global climate change.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-11
4.7.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact CUM GCC-1: The project would generate GHG emissions in excess of the
BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year and
would have a considerable contribution on global climate change. (Significant)
The project's incremental increases in GHG emissions associated with traffic, and
with direct and indirect energy use, would contribute to regional and global
increases in GHG emissions and associated climate change effects. Table 4.7-1
shows estimated GHG emissions in metric tons per year, and also presents the
project’s annual generation of CO2 equivalents per capita. The methodology and
assumptions used in calculating GHG emissions are described previously in the
“Methodology” subsection and the calculations can be found in Appendix A.
The project would emit approximately 5,080 metric tons of CO2e annually when fully
developed. The project would generate 876 new residents, resulting in a per capita
CO2 emissions rate of 5.79 metric tons per person per year. This rate of emission is
greater than the adopted BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year.
The emissions in Table 4.7-1 do not reflect recently-adopted control measures, such
as the California Green Building Code, which became effective August 1, 2009, with
mandatory compliance becoming effective January 1, 2011. The Green Building
Code is a supplement to the California Building Code, and sets standards for energy
efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource
efficiency, and environmental quality in the planning, design and construction of
buildings. Pursuant to this new code, the project would be required to implement
many energy efficiency measures that would reduce the project’s CO2e emissions.
Implementation of the following measures would be expected to reduce project
GHG emissions by a maximum of 10 percent (i.e., to 5.21 metric tons of CO2e per
capita per year):
Water Usage and Quality: The water usage and quality standards are intended
to promote water use reduction by using low-flow toilets, water-saving kitchen
and lavatory faucets, use of drought-tolerant native plant material, etc.
Energy Performance: Energy performance standard include energy efficient
standards for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system and other
appliances that could be installed in residential units. These appliances include
centralized gas fired water heating, reversible ceiling fans to help distribute air
in summer and winter, central air conditioning utilizing same ducting system as
central heating, and meeting Title 24 requirements for insulation, air infiltration,
and natural lighting.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-12
Environmental Pollution Reduction: Environmental pollution reduction
standards would include storage and collection recyclables; use of low volatile
organic compounds (VOC) paint; etc.
Table 4.7-1 Annual CO2e Emissions Associated with Project Operation
Source Type
Proposed Project Annual
Emissions
(metrica tons CO2 per year)
CO2e per year
(per capitad)
Direct Mobile Sourcesb 3,708 4.23
Direct Area Sources 920 1.05
Indirect Electrical Usage 426 0.49
Indirect Water Conveyance 15 0.02
Indirect Wastewater Treatment 12 0,00
Totalc 5,080 5.79
Notes:
a Metric tons are equal to 0.9072 U.S. tons
b As a conservative approach, emissions from direct mobile sources were calculated using on-road vehicles only.
Also, boats and other water vehicles were not included in the direct mobile sources analysis.
c No Adjustments for project features or Scoping Plan measures. This is likely a conservative estimate as, prior to
project construction, AB 32 will require GHG emission reductions in all sectors. Transportation emission rates
will likely decrease due to increased fuel efficiency and lower carbon content in fuels, which is not adequately
reflected in the URBEMIS 2007 model used for this analysis. Additionally project green building and energy
efficiency measures are also conservatively not factored into the projection. Therefore, actual project CO2
emissions will likely be less.
d Service population (per capita) is 876, based on 292 households and 3 residents per household.
Source: Don Ballanti, 2010.
Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1a: The County shall ensure that the project
applicant(s) employs green building techniques in the design of proposed
structures within the Pantages Bays project. Specifically, structures shall
conform at a minimum to the County and or California Green Building Code or
equivalent green building standards.
Mitigation Measure CUM GCC-1b: The applicant has agreed to incorporate the
following measures within the proposed project:
Project landscaping shall include water-efficient native and adaptive plants
in combination with high-efficiency irrigation equipment;
Recycled content shall be included in project building materials, including
the use of pre-consumer fly-ash in the concrete for project walkways,
driveways, roadways, and non-plant landscape elements;
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.7 Global Climate Change
4.7-13
To protect regional and indoor air quality, interior paints, carpets,
adhesives, sealants, and coatings selected for the project shall have a low
concentration of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs);
The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) systems within each
single family home shall use environmentally responsible refrigerants (i.e.
non CFC-based refrigerants);
Indoor ventilation systems in each home shall include high-efficiency
systems to provide enhanced indoor air quality as potential pollutants
would be ventilated through the building at a faster rate;
The project shall install high efficiency restroom fixtures including low-flow
or dual flush toilets to reduce potable water use;
Wood from sustainably harvested forests (as certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council) shall be used in wood materials for the single family
homes, including flooring, cabinets, trim, shelving, doors, and countertops;
and
The project shall install water and energy efficient appliances and lighting
fixtures, including EnergyStar dishwashing and refrigeration equipment.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
The URBEMIS 2007 model was used to determine the amount of reduction in
area source emissions that would results from the above mitigation measures.
According to the URBEMIS 2007 model, implementation of Mitigation Measures
CUM GCC-1a and CUM GCC-1b would reduce total GHG emissions by 10
percent, for a post-mitigation total emission rate of 5.21 metric tons of CO2e per
capita per year, which remains above BAAQMD threshold of 4.60 metric tons of
CO2e per capita per year. The project contribution to global climate change
would remain cumulatively considerable.
4.7.5 REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010a. CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010b Source Inventory of
Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Updated: February 2010. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emis
sion%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx. Accessed March 24,
2010.
Pantages Bays Project
4.7 Global Climate Change Draft EIR
4.7-14
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2006. Public Workshop to Discuss Establishing
the 1990 Emissions Level and the California 2020 Limit and Developing
Regulations to Require Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at
http://
www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccei/meetings/120106workshop/intropres12106.pdf.
Accessed March 22, 2010.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A
Framework for Change.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2010. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for
2000-2008— by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingpla
n_00-08_2010-05-12.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2010.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2009. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement: Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks, Model Years 2012-2016. Available at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/MY2012-
2016_DEIS.pdf. Accessed on March 24, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
endangerment.html. Reviewed March 24, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. EPA and NHTSA Propose Historic
National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy
for Cars and Trucks. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/ 420f09047a.htm. Accessed
on March 24, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. EPA and NHTSA to Propose
Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucks; Begin
Process for Further Light-Duty Standards: Regulatory Announcement.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f10038.htm. Accessed
on August 10, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-1
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes hazardous materials existing within the project site and its
vicinity, potential impacts related to construction of the project, and mitigation
measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. A discussion of policies and
regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials is also provided.
The information in this section is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) prepared by ENGEO, Inc. in January 2005, and a subsequent third party review
conducted by Baseline Environmental Consulting in April 2007. The ENGEO ESA
included a review of historical land use information and previous studies conducted,
a site reconnaissance, and a review of federal, state, and local regulatory agency
files and databases. The ENGEO ESA is included as Appendix D of this draft EIR and
is available for review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and
Development, Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,
California.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR, one commenter
expressed concern regarding the presence of pesticides on the project site. This
comment is addressed in the impact analysis presented in Subsection 4.8.3,
Analysis of Potential Impacts of this section.
Methodology
An ESA was conducted as an initial screening in order to determine the potential for
hazardous materials to occur within the project site and its vicinity. The following
components listed below were included as part of the ESA.
Regulatory Database Review. A regulatory database review was conducted to
identify known historical releases of hazardous materials within the project site
and its vicinity. Reported release sites were evaluated with respect to the
extent and nature of a given release, the distance of the reported release to the
project site, and the location of the reported release site to known or expected
local and/or regional groundwater flow directions. Generally, reported release
sites located within a 0.25-mile upgradient, within a 0.13-mile cross-gradient, or
adjacent downgradient (with respect to groundwater flow direction) could
potentially have an effect through migration of contaminated groundwater.
The regulatory lists searched as part of the database review included: the
Federal National Priority List; the Federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Corrective
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-2
Action Report (CORRACTS); the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Hazardous Materials Generators; Emergency Response Notification
System (ERNS); State and Tribal Leaking Storage Tank Sites; and State and Tribal
Brownfield sites. Sites that were listed in the regulatory databases, but were
not identified as release sites (e.g., hazardous material handlers and/or
hazardous waste generators with no accidental or unauthorized releases) were
not considered as potential concerns to the project site.
Agency File Review. Nearby sites of concern were further assessed by
reviewing local and regional environmental regulatory files. Regulatory files
contain information on the migration of contamination from identified release
sites, as well as the status of existing remediation plans
Site Reconnaissance. A reconnaissance was conducted on January 12, 2005 to
determine whether there were any visible potential environmental hazards on
the project site
Historical Review. A review of historical records was conducted as part of the
ESA. Historical records included aerial photographs of the project area and
surrounding land, historical topographical maps, and County records (e.g.,
building permits and directories).
4.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Historical Conditions
Topographic maps of the project area (1916 and 1978 United States Geological
Survey (USGS)) were reviewed to determine historical land uses at the project site.
Based on a review of these resources, the historical uses on the site include
residential, agricultural, and grazing uses. According to the 1916 Byron 15’ USGS
quadrangle map, there was one structure at the eastern end of Point of Timber
Road (PA-03-G05) and one residence in the northeastern corner of the project site,
at the end of a minor road leading north from the end of Point of Timber. The 1978
Byron 15’ USGS quadrangle map includes both of these structures as well as two
additional residences: one residence is located at the end of Point of Timber Road
(PA-03-G03) and one residence is located farther west on the north side of Point of
Timber Road (PA-03-G04). Refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, for a discussion
of the residential structures on the project site.
The project site was used for irrigated crops (i.e., oats, wheat, and rye grass) and
cattle grazing until 1992. In 2003, the Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) also used
the site for detention and decanting of dredge spoils as part of a program to remove
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-3
sediment build up in Discovery Bay waterways. The dredged spoils were spread
over portions of the property outside of the delineated wetland areas, primarily in
the central portion of the site.
A 500-gallon underground storage tank (UST) was located along the channel bank
near the former residence located in the northeast portion of the project site. This
UST was removed by Marcor Remediation under permit with the Contra Costa
Environmental Health Division (CCEHD). Laboratory analysis of a soil sample
recovered from the UST excavation found no evidence of a fuel release. CCEHD has
since closed the site.
Current Conditions
As part of the ESA, the project site was viewed for indications of potential sources of
soil or groundwater contamination. Indications of contamination include evidence
of hazardous materials storage, surficial staining or discoloration, debris, and
stressed vegetation. The site was also inspected for fill/ventilation pipes, ground
subsidence, and other evidence of existing or preexisting USTs.
No fuel/chemical storage tanks, pools of potentially hazardous liquid, or odors
indicative of hazardous materials or petroleum material impacts were observed on
the property. Numerous empty drums and containers were observed around two of
the former residence sites. In addition, several drums with apparent solidified
material, or residual liquids, were also noted within the area of the eastern
residence site. No evidence of spillage, staining, or disposal of chemicals was noted
on the property.
Several utility vaults were observed along the existing portion of Point of Timber
Road. According to the ESA, the utilities appear to have been installed fairly recently
and it is unknown whether or not transformers are present. The ESA notes that if
transformers are present, they would not contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
based on their recent installation date.
Minor areas of stained soil were noted within several areas of the site; however, no
areas of stressed vegetation were observed at the time of the reconnaissance. No
disposal of solid waste was evident on the site; however, numerous areas of debris
accumulation were noted in the northern area of the site. The debris consisted of
car parts, wood, demolition debris, tires, sheet metal, plastic pipe, and concrete. No
wastewater conveyance was observed on the property, but at least two former
domestic water wells were noted. Improperly decommissioned and/or abandoned
groundwater wells can represent significant environmental concerns, as the wells
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-4
can act as direct conduits to groundwater for agricultural wastes or other pollutants
that are washed down with stormwater runoff. Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality, for additional discussion of wells.
A records search for well permit applications from 1900 to 2005 for the project site
was completed on December 28, 2009, by the Contra Costa Environmental Health
Division. Two records were found for soil boring. Soil boring is a process in which a
soil sample is extracted from the ground by an auger or mechanical drill to test the
soil for contamination. No other information was revealed during the records
search.
4.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING
National
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the main federal agency
responsible for enforcing regulations relating to hazardous materials and wastes,
including evaluation and remediation of contamination and hazardous wastes. The
U.S. EPA works collaboratively with other agencies to enforce materials handling
and storage regulations and site cleanup requirements. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) is authorized to regulate safe transport of hazardous
materials.
Primary federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials and wastes include the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
RCRA includes procedures and requirements for reporting releases of hazardous
materials, and for cleanup of such releases. RCRA also includes procedures and
requirements for handling hazardous wastes or soil or groundwater contaminated
with hazardous wastes. CERCLA delineates the liability for contamination between
current property owners and others. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act is
administered by the DOT via its performance of inspections and training, and its
issuance of transportation guidelines. The federal government delegates
enforcement authority to the states.
Project Consistency Analysis
Activities associated with construction and operations will be required to be in
accordance with applicable federal laws, as enforced by state and local agencies.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-5
State of California
State agencies that regulate hazardous materials and contamination include the
Department of Health Services (DHS), the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The DTSC
administers U.S. EPA’s standards regarding public health effects of soil
contamination, while the RWQCB administers state water quality standards for
surface and groundwater. Lead responsibility for remediation depends on the
proposed use of a parcel, the character of waste contaminants and the need for site
monitoring. Transport of hazardous materials is administered by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and enforced by the California Highway
Patrol (CHP).
Relevant state laws that address soil and water pollution, hazardous materials
storage, handling, transport and disposal include the State Water Code,
Underground Storage Tank Code, Cortese Act (listing of hazardous waste and
substances sites) and Proposition 65 (safe drinking water and toxics enforcement).
Project Consistency Analysis
Relevant federal and state regulatory requirements will be implemented for the
project at the time of preliminary development plans. Due to the fact that the
project does not propose land uses likely to utilize hazardous materials and/or
petroleum products, the state laws that regulate the storage, handling, transport
and disposal of hazardous materials are not anticipated to be applicable to project
operations.
Contra Costa County
The Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD) requires a permit for
destruction of any abandoned wells and septic tanks. If the existence of such
facilities are known in advance or are discovered during construction or other
activities, these should be clearly marked, kept secure, and destroyed or abandoned
pursuant to CCEHD requirements.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Safety and the Public Facilities/Services elements of the Contra Costa County
General Plan (General Plan) contain the following relevant policies associated with
hazards and hazardous materials.
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-6
Safety Element
10-61: Hazardous waste releases from both private companies and from public
agencies shall be identified and eliminated.
10-62: Storage of hazardous materials and wastes shall be strictly regulated.
10-63: Secondary containment and periodic examination shall be required for all
storage of toxic materials.
10-67: In order to provide for public safety, urban and suburban development
should not take place in areas where they would be subject to safety
hazards from oil and gas wells. Development near oil and gas wells should
meet recognized safety standards.
Public Facilities/Services Element
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.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be in compliance with the General Plan policies related to
hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed in this section, the previously existing
UST has been removed in accordance with CCEHD policies and General plan policy
10-61. In regard to policies 10-62 and 10-63, it is not anticipated that toxic
substances would be stored on site. There are no known oil or gas wells in the
project proximity that could cause a potential health threat as noted in policy 10-67,
and the project does not require the construction of any new fuel pipelines. The
project is also not located in an area typically associated with wildfires and would
reduce the potential for contamination by toxic pesticides and herbicides by
changing the land from agriculture to residential use and is therefore in compliance
with policy 7-80.
As part of the environmental review process and in accordance with policy 10-61, a
records search, soil investigations, and an ESA were conducted to identify any
hazardous materials or hazardous waste releases in the area, and none were
identified.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-7
4.8.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
a) 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 a result, would
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
b) 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 for people residing or working in the
project area;
c) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
d) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation system;
e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urban areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands;
f) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
g) 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; or
h) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the eight
significance criteria stated above shows that no impacts would result for five of the
criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-8
a) Would the project to 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 a result, would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
A review of regulatory databases maintained by County, state, and federal agencies
found that the project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. There is currently no
documentation of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the project site or
within 1 mile of the project site. However, the Pauline Pantages Trust at 4660 Point
of Timber Road, one of the former site addresses, was listed on the HAZNET
database of hazardous material generators and the Contra Costa County Site List as
a UST site. The site became inactive in July 1998 following closure of the site by
CCEHD. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the project being located
on a hazardous materials site list.
b) 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 for people residing or working in the project area?
The project is located approximately 8 miles north of the East County (Byron)
Airport. A review of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
indicates that the project site is not located within the airport sphere of influence
and is not located within the approach zone for either of the airport’s two runways.
Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a safety hazard for
construction workers or future residents.
c) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
The Funny Farm Airport, the nearest private airstrip, is located approximately 2.6
miles northwest of the project site in the Brentwood area. No impacts related to
safety are anticipated as the project would be an infill development surrounded by
similar residential uses to the east, west, and south. The project does not include
any towers or other vertical obstructions that could represent a unique hazard to
the flight path from this airstrip.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-9
d) Would the project impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation system?
The County has not adopted an emergency response plan for the Discovery Bay
area, and thus the project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with such a plan (S. Roseberry, personal communication, September 17,
2009). Additionally, the project is designed to comply with County and fire district
standards for roadways and emergency vehicle access and compliance would be
verified by both agencies prior to and after construction.
Similarly, the project could not impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an emergency evacuation system. The Emergency Alert System and Emergency
Digital Information Service are the primary systems used to inform the public of
emergencies and threats to health, safety, and welfare. These systems are
electronic and are operated by government agencies in conjunction with television
and radio stations. In the event of an emergency, these systems are used to
broadcast emergency information, such as evacuation alerts, across all radio and
television stations in the affected area. Due to the electronic nature of these
systems, there is no possibility that they could be impacted by the project.
e) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urban areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
The project site is bounded by waterways to the north, south, and east, and lands to
the west are developed with single-family residential subdivisions. The General Plan
does not identify this project site as a high-risk zone for wildland fires. Therefore,
the project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the eight
significance criteria stated above shows that less-than significant impacts would
result for one of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-10
f) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
No hazardous materials would be stored on the project site other than consumer-
related home and garden products (e.g., cleansers, paint removers, fertilizers).
These hazardous materials are labeled to inform users of potential risk and include
instructions for safe handling, storage, and disposal. Residential uses of these types
of materials are not considered a potentially significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Demolition activities could potentially result in the disposal of hazardous materials
as discussed under Impact HAZ-1.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the eight
significance criteria stated above shows that some degree of impact would result for
two of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
g) Would the project 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 HAZ-1: The project could potentially cause the release of hazardous
materials into the environment during demolition, grading, and construction
activities. (Significant)
RD 800 used the project site for detention and decanting of dredge spoils as part of
a program to remove sediment build up in Discovery Bay waterways. The dredged
spoils were spread over portions of the property outside of the delineated wetland
areas, primarily in the central portion of the site. As part of this process, soil
samples from Discovery Bay, Kellogg Creek, and Indian Slough were tested for
arsenic, an element commonly found in pesticides. The range of reported arsenic
values is below the Delta Dredging and Reuse Strategy’s threshold criteria. The soil
samples were also tested to determine the potential for arsenic to leach into surface
water and/or groundwater. The testing showed that leachable and/or soluble
arsenic is not an issue in Discovery Bay, Kellogg Creek, or Indian Slough. Because
the level of detectable arsenic in Discovery Bay soil is so low, and because the native
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-11
soil is submerged beneath dredge spoils, it can be assumed that there is no arsenic
or pesticide residue on the project site. Therefore, it is not likely that grading
activities would release pesticide residue into the environment.
The ESA identified several drums, pails, and paint cans onsite, including an area near
the channel bank with partially-buried drums and cans. In 2006, Integrated Waste
Management (now CalRecycle) was contracted to remove the drums and pails from
the project site, and transport them to a hazardous waste processing facility.
Although there was no obvious evidence of hazardous materials releases, there is a
potential that the discovery of additional drums and/or cans could occur,
particularly during construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, soil samples
shall be collected from the paint disposal area and analyzed for metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds. Soil samples shall be
compared to the Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) as determined by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. If
soil samples exceed ESLs, the soil shall be investigated and remediated under
the oversight of the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division (CCEHD).
Additionally, the site shall be inspected by an environmental professional,
appointed by the County, during demolition and preliminary grading activities.
In the event that previously unidentified contaminants are discovered, the
contamination shall be reported to CCEHD and investigated and remediated
under the oversight of CCEHD in accordance with existing regulatory programs.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This mitigation measure ensures all known and unknown potentially hazardous
materials will be removed from the project site prior to grading activities. If
contaminants are identified on the project site during the site inspection,
contamination will be remediated under the oversight of the CCEHD, reducing
the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact HAZ-2: The project could potentially release hazardous materials during
demolition of the existing residence. (Significant)
Prior to the 1980s, building materials often contained asbestos fibers that were
used to provide strength and fire resistance. Prior to 1978, lead compounds were
commonly used in interior and exterior paints.
According to the ESA, Marcor Remediation Inc. removed asbestos from three of the
four existing four residential clusters located on the project site, by demolishing and
removing the contaminated portions of each structure. The existing former
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-12
residence located to the south of Point of Timber Road in the center of the project
site was not included in the asbestos remediation, and demolition of this residence
could expose asbestos to onsite construction workers. Additionally, demolition of
any of the four existing structures on the project site could expose lead-based paints
(LBP) and/or other hazardous materials to construction workers during demolition
activities.
Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies
not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated
compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations
regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. The Bay Area Air Quality
District (BAAQMD) is vested with authority to regulate airborne pollutants through
both inspection and law enforcement, and must be notified 10 days in advance of
any proposed demolition or abatement work. The U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) require that asbestos be handled by properly certified
professionals.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the
applicant shall submit proof to the County that all asbestos-containing materials
have been removed at the existing residence located to the south of Point of
Timber Road, in compliance with state regulations.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the
applicant shall submit proof to the County that all lead-based paint (LBP) has
been removed at each of the existing former residences on the project site, in
compliance with state regulations.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b would reduce the
risk of exposing people to hazards associated with regulated building materials
by ensuring that materials are removed in accordance with state regulations
prior to start of demolition and construction. This would reduce potential
hazardous material risk to a less-than-significant level.
h) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school;
Impact HAZ-3: Project demolition and construction activities could expose
individuals at the Timber Point Elementary School to hazardous emissions or
materials. (Significant)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8-13
The project site is located a quarter-mile from Timber Point Elementary School.
(Other schools in the area, such as Discovery Bay Elementary School and Excelsior
Middle School are located more than a quarter-mile from the project site.) As
discussed previously, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, HAZ-2a, and
HAZ-2b would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials, including lead-based
paint, asbestos containing materials, and soil contamination from prior use of the
site is properly removed and disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste contractor
in accordance with state regulations.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2a, and HAZ-2b would
ensure that any hazardous material identified on the project site is properly
removed and disposed of, reducing the impact of potential exposure of students
and school faculty to hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.
4.8.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The general plan EIR for Contra Costa County identifies a significant impact related
to risk of accidental release of hazardous materials associated with heavy industry
and other land uses requiring the use, transport, and storage of hazardous
materials. The EIR also notes that new residential and commercial development
would increase the number of people in proximity to these uses thereby increasing
their risk of exposure. The EIR identifies petroleum and other chemical industries
along the San Joaquin River as hazardous lands uses and also identifies the East
County (Byron) airport as a hazardous land use.
Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state and federal laws specifically
to ensure that they do not result in a gradual increase to toxins in the environment.
The County general plan includes policies that reinforce these regulations by
requiring construction and operation pursuant to applicable standards and
regulations, submittal of hazardous materials business plans, risk management and
prevention program information, secondary containment, and creation of buffer
zones for adjacent development. Implementation of these policies occurs as part of
the development review and construction permitting process and was found to
reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to a less-than-significant
level.
The majority of the projects listed in Table 4-1 of Section 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures, of this EIR are consistent with the land use designations
identified in the general plan of Contra Costa County and the City of Brentwood and
were therefore assumed as part of the analysis contained in those documents. The
Pantages Bays Project
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Draft EIR
4.8-14
following 6 projects, including the Pantages Bays project require general plan
amendments and were not therefore assumed in the analysis: The Villages at
Discovery Bay, Commercial Business Park, Newport Pointe, Neighborhood Church,
Sciortino Ranch, and Civic Center.
Although not specifically assumed in the general plan EIR analysis, these projects are
residential or office/retail projects that do not routinely involve the use of
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, and would not represent a new
significant hazard to the public or the environment that was not already analyzed in
the general plan EIR.
The Pantages Bays residential project is not located in proximity to the identified
hazardous land uses along the San Joaquin River or Byron Airport and would not
therefore contribute to the cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan EIR
associated with proximity to such uses and potential health risk during accidental
release of hazardous materials.
4.8.5 REFERENCES
ENGEO, Inc. 2005. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment: Pantages at Discovery
Bay, Contra Costa County, California.
Roseberry, S. Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services. Personal
Communication. September 17, 2009.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-1
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section describes surface water, groundwater resources, and flooding
characteristics on the project site and its vicinity, and evaluates the potential
impacts of the project on these elements. Additionally, the regulatory agencies and
permits associated with surface hydrology and water quality are also described.
The impact analysis is based on information gathered from the following reports for
the project:
Numerical Modeling. Evaluation of Pantages Bays Project (RMA 2006)
Geotechnical Exploration (Engeo 2006)
Storm Water Control Plan C.3 (dk Consulting 2006)
Additional Hydrology Impacts Memorandum (PWA 2010)
These reports have been incorporated into this analysis and are available for review
at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development, Community
Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report
(EIR), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) submitted a comment letter recommending the
inclusion of information related to a number of potential impacts on the water
quality of Discovery Bay. In response to the concerns raised by NMFS, the following
items are addressed throughout this section:
Storm water treatment systems:
design criteria
discharge
maintenance
Construction techniques for the creation of bays and coves
Impacts from increased boating traffic (i.e., erosion from wake wash)
Detailed hydrodynamic analysis for the circulation patterns of the Discovery Bay
waterways
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-2
4.9.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Characteristics
The project site is located in Contra Costa County (County) within the southwest
edge of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). Water that falls in the Great
Central Valley of California and in most of the Sierra Nevada Mountains ultimately
flows to the Pacific Ocean via the Delta and along the shorelines of the County.
More than half of California’s water needs (and a large portion of the County’s) are
met with water pumped from the Delta. The project site and its vicinity are
considered part of the East County Drainages watershed.
Naturally occurring, rich soils in the area have attracted the agricultural industry to
this region. Flood control infrastructure was constructed to protect farmland, and
irrigation canals crisscross the land to channel water through the region. Delta
islands are generally kept dry by peripheral levees, while major levee breaks have
created new water bodies such as Franks Tract and Big Break (Contra Costa County
2003).
Water quality in the Delta is affected by numerous factors including upstream
reservoir releases, tidal changes, the discharge of agricultural diverters, and the
uptake rates of the California State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley
Project (CVP). Today the CVP, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is one of
the world’s largest water storage and transport systems. Its 22 reservoirs have a
combined storage of 11 million acre-feet of water, of which approximately 7 million
acre-feet is delivered per year. In comparison, the SWP’s 20 major reservoirs can
hold 5.8 million acre-feet, with annual deliveries averaging up to 3 million acre-feet
per year. The CVP water irrigates more than 3 million acres of farmland and
provides drinking water to nearly 2 million consumers.
Local Hydrology
The project site is bordered by waterways that include the ECCID Dredge Cut to the
north, Indian Slough to the northeast, Kellogg Creek to the east, and Old Kellogg
Creek to the south (see Figure 3-3). Indian Slough is divided into north and south
channels by narrow, linear islands (Indian Slough Islands), and is connected at its
eastern end to Old River, which then joins the complex of waterways in the
southwest Delta. Kellogg Creek and the ECCID Dredge Cut are hydrologically
connected to the channels of the wider Delta via Indian Slough. The eastern branch
of Discovery Bay has a separate connection to Indian Slough, approximately 1 mile
to the east of the Kellogg Creek connection.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-3
A series of 14 pumping stations (siphons) maintain circulation in Discovery Bay
waterways. The siphons move water from the individual bays to other parts of the
system (e.g., to water the local golf course and agricultural land further to the east
of Discovery Bay West communities) and then back into the Delta.
Tidal Hydrodynamics
Indian Slough and Kellogg Creek are subject to the Delta tide cycle. Tidal cycles are
the rise and fall of sea levels caused by the combined effects of the rotation of the
Earth and the gravitational forces exerted by the moon and the sun. Approximately
8 acres of the project site, mainly along the perimeter of the site, is currently subject
to tidal variations.
NOAA publishes tidal data for mean lower low water (MLLW) (i.e., average low
tides) and mean higher high water (MHHW) (i.e., average high tides) for various
portions of the Delta. NOAA’s tidal station at Borden Highway Bridge, Middle River
(Station ID 9414835) is the closest station to the project site, and is located
approximately 7 miles east-southeast. NOAA reports the current MHHW at the
project site is approximately 3 feet (ft) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).1
The County uses this MHHW level in determining the appropriate elevations of a
proposed development, such that risks related to flooding can be reduced.
Tidal cycles also influence the residence times of water flow, which is amount of
time a body of water is held in one location. As the water rises and falls during the
ebb tides, fresh water enters the bays and coves of Discovery Bay, and the old water
is slowly flushed out. In general, the residence time in Discovery Bay is a function of
this tidal exchange and siphon flows.
Flooding
Existing site elevations range from approximately 2 to 8 feet NGVD. The entire
project site falls within Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map for the County (FEMA 2009), which indicates that the area is subject to
flooding during a 100-year storm event in the Delta. The project site is not
protected by an outside levee, and is directly adjacent to the Delta’s open
waterways.
1 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) is a vertical (elevation) unit of measurement similar to
mean sea level (msl) that takes into account the local gravitational forces due to astronomical
phenomenon, as well as local wind patterns, river stages, and storms. NGVD addresses the fact that
local msl is not always equal to zero in all places.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-4
The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the 100-year storm event, as defined by FEMA
and the County2, is the elevation that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded by floodwaters in any one year. Based on the current MHHW and the
flood elevation data from past storm events, the 100-year BFE for the project site is
7.5 feet NVGD. The 300-year BFE is 8.0 feet NGVD.
Sea Level Rise
The current FEMA floodplain maps do not incorporate higher flood elevations
related to the potential for rising sea levels related to global climate change. As
described in Section 4.7, Global Climate Change, rising temperatures can change
ecosystems, resulting in sea level rise. See Section 4.7, Global Climate Change, for
more detail regarding this topic and a description of the greenhouse effect.
Sea level rise increases the potential for damaging floods that could affect coastal
and tidal areas. Sea level rise, or the increasing volume of water in the global ocean,
is affected by two distinct processes: thermal expansion of warming ocean water
and melting of continental ice, including mountain glaciers and land bound polar ice
on Greenland and Antarctica.3 Over the past century, the global sea level has risen
by nearly 0.2 meters (8 inches) (PWA 2010).
There have been a number of recent projections on the future magnitude of sea
level rise in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). Each of the projections make
different assumptions in relation to the rapid economic growth and large
expansions of greenhouse house (GHG) emissions, as well as several other global
components that affect sea level rise (i.e., thermal expansion, melting of global ice,
oceanic circulation, and vertical land movement).4 The State of California Resources
Agency recommends the consideration of the following sea level rise scenarios for
planning purposes in the Delta region and California as a whole:
Year 2050 scenario – 16-inch rise (equivalent to 1.3 feet or 0.4 meters)
Year 2100 scenario – 55-inch rise (equivalent to 4.6 feet or 1.4 meters)
2 As defined in the Contra Costa County Code Section 82-28.486 – One Hundred –year flood.
3 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability
and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. April 2009.
4 The different sources for sea level rise predictions and assumptions are discussed in Attachment 1 of
the Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment memorandum (PWA, 2010).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-5
These scenarios have been adopted as policy by the California State Coastal
Conservancy and are used by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) and other state agencies for planning purposes. As such, these
scenarios are appropriate for the assessment of project-related impacts.
Channel Hydrodynamics
In order to model the pre- and post-project hydrodynamics (movement of water) of
Discovery Bay, a Delta-wide model was modified to include a detailed
representation of the Discovery Bay waters and Indian Slough (RMA 2006). The
model was calibrated by collecting existing flow data in and near the Discovery Bay
subdivision and the south Delta areas.
Presently, the north end of Kellogg Creek (immediately south of Indian Slough and
the ECCID Dredge Cut) is narrow and produces a funnel for relatively high-speed
tidal currents. These tidal currents contribute to erosion and scour of the Kellogg
Creek banks.5 Along the northern boundary of Discovery Bay, Indian Slough is
divided into a northern and southern channel by a berm.
Levee Erosion
The project site is not currently protected by a levee and no levees are proposed as
part of the project. Levees are discussed in this EIR in the context of boat traffic
generated by the project that could result in erosion of unarmored levees in the
project vicinity.
Approximately 1,100 miles of levees within the Delta protect urban and agricultural
areas from inundation due to high water levels. Levees are constructed using a
wide range of materials and bank cover is highly variable, including rock or concrete
(rip-rap), trees, and vegetation. Levees in Discovery Bay are maintained by
Reclamation District 800 (RD 800), and include urban, agricultural, and dry land
levees. All levees in RD 800 are completely armored and therefore have significantly
reduced the effects of erosional forces.
The erosion of unarmored Delta levees is due to a combination of terrestrial
processes, boat wake, channel scour, and geotechnical instability. A series of
studies funded by the California Department of Boating and Waterways from 1997-
2010 have been conducted to assess the rates of levee erosion in the Delta.
5 High-speed currents have a greater capacity to carry sediment from the bottom and sides of a creek
and/or channel. The removal of sediment from these areas results in erosion and/or scouring.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-6
Preliminary erosion data for several of the closest sites to Discovery Bay (within 5
miles) indicate average horizontal bank change rates of approximately 5 centimeters
per year (cm/yr) along portions of unarmored levees (PWA 2010).
Drainage
Except for the emergent marsh located in the northern portion of the site, the
project site has been leveled, ditched, drained and disked in the past for use as
irrigated cropland and grazing pasture. Several shallow ditches bisect the site,
providing further evidence of past agricultural land use.
RD 800 used site for detention and decanting of dredge spoils as part of a program
to remove sediment build up in Discovery Bay waterways. The dredged spoils were
spread over portions of the property outside of the delineated wetland areas,
primarily in the central portion of the site (see Figure 3-2). Currently, these piles of
dredge spoils are higher in elevation than the surrounding topography.
Existing surface drainage cannot be easily determined due to the extremely flat
terrain of the project site. Generally, storm water flow drains towards the
topographically lower seasonal wetlands and the emergent marshes on the
northern portion of the project site. Ultimately, site drainage reaches Kellogg Creek
and Indian Slough. It does not appear that off-site drainage enters the site from any
direction
Groundwater
Groundwater beneath the project site was encountered at depths between 3.5 to
13 feet below ground surface. However, groundwater levels on the site are not
static and may fluctuate due to seasonal variation in rainfall, tidal action, or other
factors not in evidence at the time of the preliminary geological investigations at the
project site (see Section 4.6, Geology and Soils).
Deeper aquifers located approximately 250 to 350 feet below ground surface are
the primary source of domestic water supply to the Discovery Bay Community
Services District (CSD). Other aquifers occur at higher levels beneath the project
site, but the water quality is poor and unsuitable for domestic consumption.
Additionally, a brackish aquifer occurs in the alluvial sands beneath the project site.
A more detailed appraisal of water supply can be found in Section 4.15, Public
Utilities.
The near-surface sediments across the project site primarily consist of eolian, tidal
wetland, lacustrine (lake-deposited) and alluvial (water-deposited) deposits. These
sediments are typically irregularly stratified, poorly-consolidated deposits of clay,
silt and sand. Deep infiltration and groundwater recharge is not feasible at the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-7
project site due to the low permeability of the clay soils. Surface runoff at the
project site typically flows into the adjacent waterways before having a chance to
permeate into the groundwater table.
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted for the
project in 2005 (refer to Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), there are
at least two former domestic groundwater wells on the project site. Improperly
decommissioned and/or abandoned groundwater wells can represent significant
environmental concerns, as the wells can act as direct conduits to groundwater for
agricultural wastes or other pollutants that are washed down with storm water
runoff.
4.9.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several
times since inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the
United States, and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the
country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water pollution in the nation’s rivers,
streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic federal laws for
regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards
for all “waters of the United States.” Several mechanisms are employed to control
domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the federal level,
the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the
state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCBs). The state of California has developed a number of water quality laws,
rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and
related federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the federal
requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules, and
regulations adopted by the state and regional boards exceed the federal
requirements.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would include a storm water drainage and treatment system to convey
runoff into the developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, which are tidally
influenced. Linear bioretention facilities would serve as soil filtration and would
treat the water to reduce water quality impacts to receiving waters (i.e., Kellogg
Creek) (see Figure 4.9-1).
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-8
The system will be designed per criteria in the County’s C.3 Storm water Technical
Guidance Manual and the California Storm water Best Management Practice
Handbook to provide a level of treatment that meets or exceeds existing standards,
as described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, and elsewhere in this section.
During construction, erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans
would prevent construction-related pollution from contaminating downstream
receiving waters consistent with the above mentioned documents. As such, the
project would be consistent with the Clean Water Act.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
Water runoff quality is regulated by the federal National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program (established by the Clean Water Act of 1972).
The NPDES objective is to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from non-
point discharges. RWQCB administers this program throughout the state. The
RWQCB issues NPDES point source permits for discharges from major industries and
non- point source permits for discharges to water bodies in the Central Valley region
for the municipality’s other dischargers.
Additionally, improvement projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during
construction are required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered under the
State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated
with construction activity. A developer must propose control measures that are
consistent with the State General Construction Permit. A Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed and implemented for each site
covered by the state’s General Permit. A SWPPP must include “Best Management
Practices” (BMPs) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality
through the construction and life of the project.
Contra Costa County Provision C.3 Requirements
The County has the authority to uphold its NPDES permit, and currently exercises
this authority in its adopted Provision C.3 requirements. The provisions require the
installation of post-construction BMPs for new development as part of the federal
NDPES program, and have set standards for their implementation.
In compliance with Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit and the County’s Stormwater
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 1014), projects creating
and/or replacing (redeveloping) impervious area exceeding 10,000 square feet shall
submit a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) for the review and approval of the Public
Works Department. The SWCP is a separate document from the SWPPP. Provision
Source: DK Consulting, 2006.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.9-1FigureProposed Storm Water Treatment Systems
300FEET1500 600
Stormwater Treatment System Area
5’-Wide Swale
6’-Wide Swale
STREET SECTION (OVERALL WIDTH)
K
e
l
l
o
g
g
C
r
e
e
k
Kellog
g
C
r
e
e
k
DISCOVERY BAY
O
l
d
ECCID Dredge CutVILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)RAVENSWOOD
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-10
Figure 4.9-1 Storm Water Treatment Systems (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-11
C.3 requires these projects to treat storm water runoff with permanent storm water
management facilities, and requires projects creating and/or redeveloping
impervious area exceeding 1 acre to design such facilities to control runoff rates and
volumes (in addition to treatment).
To comply with these requirements, new developments are required to install water
quality storm water runoff BMPs that filter or treat rainfall runoff generated from
storm events up to approximately the 85th percentile rainfall event (or
approximately the 1-inch storm event) before discharging into natural drainage
systems. Additional hydrograph modification BMPs are also required so that post-
project runoff does not exceed pre-project rates or durations, such an increase
could contribute to erosion in receiving waters downstream from the proposed
project.
Hydromodification Management Plan
Provision C.3.f in the storm water NPDES permit requires developments to manage
increases to peak runoff and increased volume. Erosion of stream channels and
banks can cause channel instability and generation of sediments that adversely
impact the downstream beneficial uses.
The Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) gives four options for meeting the
hydrograph modification management regulations:
Option 1 is demonstrating that the project does not produce a net increase in
impervious area. This option is for sites that have been previously developed.
Option 2 is the use of accepted integrated management practices to slow runoff
and treat it prior to it leaving the site. The Contra Costa C.3 Guidebook contains
information to assist in the sizing and design of these features.
Option 3 is for applicants who wish to custom design flow-control facilities for
their project site. A continuous simulation hydrologic model needs to
demonstrate that the post-development flow regime be within certain limits
compared to pre-development conditions for a variety of storm events.
Option 4 is for projects that rely on the receiving channel to handle the impacts
of post-development conditions. Within Option 4, there are three sub-options:
(a) Low Risk: Applicants must demonstrate that all downstream reaches, from
the project site to the Bay/Delta, are enclosed pipes, hardened channels,
subject to tidal action, or aggrading; (b) Medium Risk: Applicants must use the
methods and criteria in Appendix D to confirm that each reach downstream
from the project site to the Bay/Delta meets the criteria for medium risk (or low
risk) classification including implementing an in-stream mitigation project to
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-12
stabilize stream beds or banks, improve natural steam functions, and/or
improve habitat values (the expected environmental benefits of the mitigation
project must substantially outweigh the potential impacts of an increase in
runoff from the development project); and (c) High Risk: Applicants must
implement a comprehensive program of in-stream measures to improve stream
channel hydrological and ecological functions while accommodating increased
flow.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project must, as a matter of law, comply with the requirements of the regional
NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit for project operation. The applicant would
also be required to submit a NOI to the State Board and apply for coverage under
the NPDES Construction General Permit. The applicant will be required to prepare a
SWPPP and submit it to the RWQCB for review prior to commencing construction.
Once grading begins, the SWPPP must be kept on site and updated as needed
during construction. The SWPPP details the site-specific BMPs to control erosion
and sedimentation and maintain water quality during the construction phase. The
SWPPP also contains a summary of the structural and non-structural BMPs to be
implemented during the post-construction period, pursuant to the non-point source
practices and procedures encouraged by the RWQCB.
This mandatory compliance with the regulatory requirements of the NPDES General
Construction and Group Storm Water Discharge Permits will ensure that the
development envisioned by the project is consistent with all regulations and the
policies and programs of the County General Plan.
In accordance with the C.3 requirements, the project applicant has prepared a
SWCP for the project (dk Consulting 2006). The preferred BMP selected to be used
exclusively throughout the project site are dry linear bioretention facilities.
The project would include a storm water drainage and treatment system to convey
runoff into the developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, which are tidally
influenced. As such, the project would demonstrate compliance with the
requirement to manage increases in runoff peak flows and durations as included in
Option 4a of the HMP. The increases in runoff peaks would not accelerate the
erosion of downstream waterways since the storm drain outfall connects directly
with tidally influenced areas with direct connections to the Delta. The project’s
proposed storm water facilities are discussed in greater detail in Subsection 4.9.3,
Analysis of Potential Impacts.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-13
Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act as approved March 3, 1899, prohibits the
unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States.
The construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United
States, the excavating from or depositing of material in such waters, or the
accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or
capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the
Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army. The instrument of
authorization is designated a Section 10 permit.
Project Consistency Analysis
A Section 10 permit from the Corps under the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) would
be required for dredging to connect Kellogg Creek and the Discovery Bay
embayment with the new bays and coves of the project. See Section 4.3, Biological
Resources, for specific information regarding the permit and agency approval
required for the removal of bank habitat associated with the project.
State of California − Regional Water Quality Control
Board − 401 Certification
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and EPA 404(b)(1) guidelines, in
order for a Corps federal permit applicant to conduct any activity that may result in
discharge into navigable waters, the applicant must provide a certification from the
RWQCB that such discharge will comply with state water quality standards. The
RWCQB has a policy of no-net-loss of wetlands and typically requires mitigation for
all impact to wetlands before it will issue water quality certification.
Also, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code
Sections 13000-14290), the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste
that could affect the quality of the state’s waters, including projects that do not
require a federal permit through the Corps. To meet RWQCB 401 Certification
standards, it is necessary to address all hydrologic issues related to a project,
including:
Wetlands
Watershed hydrograph modification
Proposed creek or riverine related modifications
Long term post-construction water quality
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-14
Project Consistency Analysis
The discharge of dredge or fill will be considered by the Corps and, if approved, the
Corps will issue a 401 permit to the project applicant. Additional requirements
regarding 401 certification are discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this
draft EIR.
State of California — California Department of Fish
and Game
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) regulates activities that divert, obstruct, or
alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed, channel, or bank of a stream,
which CDFG typically considers to include riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity
in a natural stream channel that would substantially adversely affect an existing fish
and/or wildlife resource, would require entering into a Streambed Alteration
Agreement (SBAA) with CDFG prior to commencing work in the stream. However,
prior to authorizing such permits, CDFG typically reviews an analysis of the expected
biological impacts, any proposed mitigation plans that would be implemented to
offset biological impacts and engineering and erosion control plans.
Project Consistency Analysis
The proposed removal of bank habitat along Kellogg Creek will require a SBAA.
Impacts from project development include loss of low, moderate, and high quality
bank habitat. Mitigation measures will be necessary to offset the project’s impact to
bank habitat subject to CDFG jurisdiction as detailed in the Subsection 4.9.3.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan) includes the following policies
to manage water resources and flood risk, which are presented in Chapter 7, Public
Facilities/Services; Chapter 8, Conservation; and Chapter 10, Safety. The following
policies are relevant to the project site hydrology and water quality.
Public Facilities/Services Element
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.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-15
7-56: All residential and non-residential uses proposed in areas of special flood
hazards, as shown on FEMA maps, shall conform to the requirements of
County Floodplain management applied to all ordinances, approved
entitlements (land use permits, tentative, final, and parcel maps,
development plan permits, and variances) and ministerial permits (buildings
and grading permits).
Conservation Element
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.
8-27: 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.
Safety Element
10-33: Areas within the 100-year floodplain shall be considered inappropriate for
conventional urban development due to unmitigated flood hazards as
defined by FEMA. Applications for development at urban or suburban
densities in areas where there is a serious risk to life shall demonstrate
appropriate solutions or be denied.
10-41: Buildings in urban development near the shoreline and in flood-prone areas
shall be protected from flood dangers, including consideration of rising sea
levels caused by the greenhouse effect.
10-42: Habitable areas of structures near the shore line and in flood-prone areas
shall be sited above the highest water level expected during the life of the
project, or shall be protected for the expected life of the project by levees of
an adequate design.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would include a storm water drainage and treatment system to convey
runoff into the developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, which are tidally
influenced. Linear bioretention facilities would serve as soil filtration and would
treat the water to reduce water quality impacts to receiving waters (i.e., Kellogg
Creek) (see Figure 4.9-1). The project would not introduce any untreated storm
water into the emergent marsh or wetland areas, consistent with policy 8-23.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-16
The system will be designed per criteria in the C.3 Storm water Technical Guidance
Manual and the California Storm water Best Management Practice Handbook to
provide a level of treatment that meets or exceeds existing standards, as described
in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, and elsewhere in this section. During
construction, erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans would
prevent construction-related pollution from contaminating downstream receiving
waters consistent with the above mentioned documents. As such, the project
would be consistent with policies 7-45, 8-23, and 8-91.
The project as currently designed greatly exceeds the County requirements for
protection from the 100-year flood. Flood control measures include finish floor
elevations for waterfront lots at approximately 12.7 feet above mean sea level. This
is 3.2 feet about the County’s flood design standard, thus complying with policies 7-
56 and 10-33.
This section includes an analysis of the potential flooding impacts related to sea
level rise (see Subsection 4.9.3). A 100-year planning horizon is assumed for the
project; therefore, impacts are assessed for current conditions and the 100-year sea
level scenario. Flood control measures that address flooding associated with sea
level rise would be incorporated into the project under Mitigation Measure HYD-3.
As such the project would be consistent with policies 10-41 and 10-42.
4.9.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identified environmental issues to be
considered when determining whether a project could have significant effects on
the environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
impact to hydrology and water quality if it would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);
c) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff;
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-17
d) Substantially alter the established drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map;
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows;
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam;
i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; or
j) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Discussion of No Impacts
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
See Impact HYD-1 and Impact HYD-2 for construction-related water quality impacts,
and the “Water Quality Standards” discussion below regarding operational water
quality impacts.
The project would result in wastewater generated by residential uses. The project
site would be served by a 10-inch sewer main at Wilde Drive, on the southern
portion of the project site, and an 8-inch main at Point of Timber Road. Wastewater
from the project would enter the 10-inch sewer main at Wilde Drive, and would
flow to a lift station along Newport Drive that pumps the water to the Discovery Bay
Wastewater Treatment Facility operated by CSD. The wastewater generated by the
project would not violate any wastewater discharge requirement as residential
wastewater is accepted and treated by the Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment
Facility.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-18
The Wastewater Treatment Facility is operating in compliance with all RWQCB
regulations.6
b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
Deplete Groundwater Supplies
According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the project, the project site contains at
least two domestic groundwater wells associated with the residential structures on
the project site. These wells are currently non-operational. The project is not
proposing to drill new water wells or to directly access groundwater on the project
site through the existing wells. Therefore, the project would not directly deplete
groundwater resources to the extent that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. However, groundwater is
a source of potable water in the Discovery Bay Community Service District, and the
availability and provision of groundwater to the project are discussed in Section
4.15, Public Utilities.
Interfere with Groundwater Recharge
Deep infiltration and groundwater recharge is not feasible at the project site due to
the low permeability of the site’s clay soils. Surface runoff at the project site
typically flows into the adjacent waterways before having a chance to permeate into
the groundwater table. Therefore, the addition of impervious surfaces to the
project site is not expected to significantly affect groundwater recharge on site.
c) Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Implementation of the project would add approximately 70 acres of impervious
surface to the project site; the remaining area would be open water and open
space. The project includes a storm water drainage and treatment system that
6 Prior RWQCB Board Orders in 2008 and 2009 related to effluent limitations have all been addressed
to the satisfaction of the RWQCB; the CSD does not have any outstanding violations.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-19
collects runoff from individual drainage areas into a series of linear bioretention
facilities. Lots, sidewalks, and roadways would drain toward the linear bioretention
facilities via overland flow. Treated runoff would be collected into a series of
perforated pipe underdrains that would discharge the storm water into the
developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, in compliance with Section 401/404 and
C.3 standards. The project would not connect to an existing or planned water
drainage system and would therefore not contribute or exceed its capacity. See
Impact HYD-1 and Impact HYD-2 for construction-related water quality impacts, and
the “Water Quality Standards” discussion below regarding operational water quality
impacts.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
d) Would the project violate any water quality standards or
substantially alter the established drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on-site?
Water Quality Standards
The water quality standards applicable to the project are described above in
Subsection 4.9.2, Regulatory Setting. The project would be subject to the regional
NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit and County’s C.3 requirements during project
construction and operation. This subsection describes the operational impacts of
the project to water quality. See Impact HYD-1 and Impact HYD-2 below for
construction-related water quality impacts.
Residential developments like the proposed project typically discharge pollutants
from vehicles, landscape maintenance, and pest control into the storm management
system. Without proper storm water treatment systems, the project could
contribute sediment, heavy metals, oils and greases, nutrients and pesticides into
the nearby waterways. These pollutants have the potential to degrade the water
quality of local receiving waters.
The project design incorporates a cluster concept for the residential lots, while still
allowing water access. A SWCP C.3 Report (dk Consulting 2006) was prepared for
the project and submitted to the County’s Public Works Department in order to
comply with County C.3 water quality requirements for a NPDES permit. Engineered
linear bioretention facilities (dry swales) are the selected treatment BMP for this
project, which are area based storm water treatment facilities.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-20
The project site has been divided into 51 drainage areas. Linear bioretention
facilities would be provided on each side of the streets. In accordance with C.3
requirements, the average linear bioretention facility width proposed throughout
the site is approximately 4-feet to 5-feet wide. Some of the larger lots (i.e., at pie-
shaped lots at the end of cul-de-sacs) would have more extensive impervious areas.
In these areas, additional treatment would be needed, and 6-feet wide linear
bioretention facilities would be provided. The design of the linear bioretention
facilities would take into account the impervious areas of the roofs, driveways,
roadway, sidewalk, and non-self-retaining pervious landscaped yard areas of the
residential homes.
Storm water runoff from the individual areas would drain towards the linear
bioretention facilities via overland flow. The linear bioretention facilities would
serve as soil filtration and would treat the water prior to release into the bays and
coves, which are tidally influenced. No storm water runoff would be discharged into
the emergent marsh or wetland mitigation areas or over the creek bank
enhancement areas. Open areas of the project site would be self-retaining or self-
treating.7
The linear bioretention facilities would be designed with an 18-inch deep sandy
loam soil that contains a high percentage of organic matter and drains rapidly (5
inch/hour). The organic matter in the soil would act as a sponge to absorb the
dissolved pollutants. The linear bioretention facilities would have a perforated
underdrain that feeds into an underground storm drain system, which then
discharges to the various bays and coves throughout the development. To promote
infiltration even in clayey soils, the underdrain would be embedded in Class 2
permeable rock placed under the minimum 18-inch loamy sand layer. In this way,
water would be given an opportunity to infiltrate between storms.
Routine maintenance of the linear bioretention facilities would be required to insure
that storm water flow is unobstructed, that erosion is prevented, and that the
systems were actively treating polluted runoff. Ultimately, the cost of operating and
maintaining the storm water treatment systems would be borne by the Pantages
Bays homeowners as part of a landscaping and lighting district. Until the
establishment of the lighting and landscaping district as a permanent funding
7 The Corps 401/404 permit would not allow for discharge of treated storm water into the wetland
mitigation area, because it would adversely affect the required hydrology for the created seasonal
wetlands. Storm water discharge over the sloped/benched creek bank habitat enhancement areas is
also inconsistent with the required tidal hydrology for that vegetation. For these reasons, the
applicant does not intend to introduce any treated storm water into the emergent marsh or wetland
mitigation area, or over the creek bank enhancement areas.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-21
mechanism by future homeowners, the project applicant would bear the costs for
the operation and maintenance of the storm water treatment systems (dk
Consulting 2006).
As required by law, the project applicant would need to receive a water quality
certification from the SWRCB and comply with all stated permit conditions.
Provided that the project is constructed in adherence to the applicable regulations,
operational impacts to water quality would be less-than-significant.
The project’s C.3 report also identifies source control measures that would reduce
the potential level of pollutants entering the storm water treatment systems.
Table 4.9-1 lists the proposed source control measures.
Table 4.9-1 Sources of Pollutants and Proposed Control Measures
Potential
Source Permanent Controls (BMPs) Operational Controls (BPMs)
On-site dumping
into storm drain
inlets
All accessible on-site inlets will be marked
with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay”
Markings will be periodically repainted
or replaced.
Inlets and pipes conveying storm
water to BMPs will be inspected and
maintained as part of BMP Operation
and Maintenance Plan.
Landscape/outdoor
pesticide use
Final landscape plans will:
Be designed to minimize irrigation and
runoff and to minimize use of fertilizers
and pesticides that can contribute to
storm water pollution.
Specific plantings within bioretention
areas, and bioswales that are tolerant of
the sandy loam soil and periodic
inundation.
Include pest-resistant plants.
Include plantings appropriate to site
soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain,
land use, air movement, ecological
consistency and plant interactions
Landscape will be maintained using
minimum or no pesticides.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
information will be provided to new
homeowners.
Vehicle washing Driveways and parking areas drain to
bioretention area, swales, or bioswales.
Distribute storm water pollution
prevention information to
homeowners.
Source: dk Consulting 2006.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-22
The proposed drainage system has been designed to comply with NPDES and the
County’s C.3 requirements. As required by law, the project applicant would need to
receive water quality certification from the SWRCB and comply with all regulated
permit conditions. Provided that the project is constructed in the adherence to the
drainage system plan and applicable regulations, operational impacts to water
quality would be less than significant.
Open Water Areas
The project would create approximately 47 acres of bays, coves, and open-water
areas. As shown in Figure 3-5, the open-water areas created by the project would
include the widening of Kellogg Creek (17.05 acres), the North Cove (3.16 acres),
North Bay (11.97 acres), South Cove (5.01 acres), and South Bay (9.54 acres).8
Consistent with RD 800 standards, constructed bays and coves would be excavated
to a depth of at least 10 feet below msl to allow for safe boat passage at low tide.9
The project would require approval from the Contra Costa LAFCO for annexation to
the RD 800 sphere of influence and corresponding service boundary.
As required by RD 800 standards, Kellogg Creek would be widened to 300 feet at the
elevation of 3 feet above msl to provide adequate access for docks on both sides of
the channel.10 At the southern end of the project site, Old Kellogg Creek would be
widened from its current width of 60 feet to a maximum of 200 feet to provide
adequate access, per RD 800 requirements, to areas with docks on one side. Old
Kellogg creek would also be excavated to a depth of 5 to 10 feet below msl.11
Improvement to Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek would be funded and
implemented by the project applicant. RD 800 would be responsible to maintain
the waterways within and along the project site. In order to establish long-term
maintenance, the project applicant will establish an Assessment District prior to
selling the residential homes to fund these maintenance activities.
8 17.05 + 3.16 + 5.01 +11.97 + 9.54 = 46.73 acres, personal communication with Catherine Ginn at dk
Consulting Inc., December 4, 2009
9 Personal communication with Jeff Conway, RD 800 District Manager.
10 RD 800 minimum standards per Jeff Conway.
11 Old Kellogg Creek would be widened to 200 feet at the opening to the main Kellogg Creek, and
would be widened to 60 feet at the westernmost portion.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-23
Residence Times12
The excavation of new bays and coves on the project site, in combination with the
widening of Kellogg Creek, would result in increased residence times in the
Discovery Bay Area. The largest increases would occur at the far south end of the
western Kellogg Creek branch. In this area, residence times would increase from 5.7
days to 6.3 days (an approximately 9 percent increase). In the central-south part of
the western branch of Kellogg Creek, residence times would increase from 2.5 days
to 3.0 days (an approximately 20 percent increase). However, relative to the
maximum residence times elsewhere in the Discovery Bay waters (9 days in the
eastern branch), these changes are not considered significant (RMA 2006).
Residence times in the new bays and coves would be less than 2 days.
Tidal Currents and Erosion
Additional hydraulic analyses were conducted (RMA 2006) to understand the
erosion potential that could occur from widening the northern portion of Kellogg
Creek on the Indian Slough. As previously discussed, the existing fast tidal currents
in Kellogg Creek contribute to erosion and scour of the banks and also pose a hazard
for boat users. In order to reduce existing tidal currents, the project would widen
the portion of Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek immediately east of the site.
Based on the modeling conducted for post-project hydrodynamics, the widening of
Kellogg Creek would have a positive impact on reducing the rapid tidal currents
(RMA 2006). Over the tidal cycle, averaged flood velocities (i.e., the speed of water
flow) in Kellogg Creek would be reduced by 55 percent.13
The principal flow controlling peak flood velocities in Indian Slough is the upstream
tidal prism of Kellogg Creek and adjacent bays and coves of Discovery Bay. 14 The
excavation of new bays and coves on the project site, in combination with the
widening of Kellogg Creek, would increase the tidal prism controlling the peak flood
velocities in Indian Slough. With the increased tidal prism from the project, more
water would pass through Indian Slough, and small increases in the flood velocities
of the north and south channels of Indian Slough would occur. Over the tidal cycle,
12 Residence Time is the amount of time a particle spends in a particular system.
13 The widening of Kellogg Creek would reduce peak ebb velocities from 2.37 feet per second (ft/sec) to
1.06 ft/sec (approximately 55 percent) (RMA 2006).
14 A tidal prism is the volume of water in an estuary or inlet between mean high tide and mean low
tide, or the volume of water leaving an estuary at ebb tide.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-24
peak velocities would increase by 3 percent in the southern channel and 9 percent
in the northern channel. However, these small increases would not be enough to
result in scour or cause any problems for boaters (RMA 2006).
Overall, it is expected that post-development flow conditions will not create an
increase in net erosion rather result in a beneficial impact by reducing erosion and
scour of the water banks near the project site and reducing fast tidal currents, which
is hazardous for boat users. Additionally, model results also show that the widening
of Kellogg Creek would not have an impact on the tidal cycle water levels in
Discovery Bay and there would be no impact on the existing siphon flows.
Boat wakes and Levee Erosion
The project would result in an additional 131 new vessels to Discovery Bay;
approximately 3,420 new boat trips per year (see Section 4.16, Transportation and
Circulation). This represents an approximately 3 percent increase in the number of
local boat trips within Discovery Bay. At the Delta-wide scale, the project would
result in an approximately 0.07 percent increase in boat trips.
Limited data exist to accurately quantify erosion rates of mud levees on a per-boat-
passage basis. Observed erosion rates will depend on boat hull size and shape,
speed, water depth, channel width, levee material, vegetative cover, and levee
geometry. Without information on trip routes originating from Discovery Bay it is
difficult to estimate the impact of increased boat trips on levee erosion. However,
for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the increase in bank erosion of
unarmored levees will be proportional to the increase in number of project boats
trips.
Preliminary erosion data for unarmored levee monitoring sites near Discovery Bay
(within approximately 5 miles of the project site) indicate an average horizontal
erosion rate of approximately 5 centimeters/year (cm/yr). With an increase in boat
traffic by approximately 3 percent, the project is only expected to increase erosion
rates by 1 millimeter/year (mm/yr) at this location.
Preliminary erosion data for unarmored levee monitoring sites Delta-wide indicate
an average horizontal erosion rate of 12 cm/yr. With an increase in Delta-wide boat
traffic by approximately 0.07 percent, the project is only expected to increase
erosion rates by less than 1 mm/yr.
Given the relatively minor estimated increases in boat traffic and erosion rates
associated with the project, and the extent of levee armoring near the project site,
this impact is found to be less than significant. Furthermore, boat wakes within the
project site will be controlled in a similar manner as for existing waterways within
Discovery Bay, through designation as a no wake zone (5 mph).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-25
d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
The majority of the project site is considered undeveloped and pervious. Storm
water generally drains towards the topographically lower seasonal wetlands and the
emergent marshes on the northern portion of the project site and ultimately enters
Kellogg Creek and Indian Slough. Implementation of the project would add
approximately 70 acres of impervious surface to the project site; the remaining area
would be open water and open space. The project includes a storm water drainage
and treatment system that collects runoff from individual drainage areas into a
series of linear bioretention facilities. Lots, sidewalks, and roadways would drain
toward the linear bioretention facilities via overland flow. Treated runoff would be
collected into a series of perforated pipe underdrains that would discharge the
storm water into the developed bays, coves, and Kellogg Creek, in compliance with
Section 401/404 and C.3 standards.
The storm drain outlets would be protected with flap gates to prevent water from
back-flowing into the streets during very large storm events. During large storm
events, water would flow overland into the bays, which are tidally influenced.
As previously described, C.3 requires that certain areas within the County
implement a net zero increase in storm water runoff as a result of new impervious
surfaces. However, because all surface water runoff from the project site would
drain into to a connection point within tidally influenced waterways, the project
area does not require a net zero increase in storm water runoff. The project would
demonstrate compliance with the requirement to manage increases in runoff peak
flows and durations as included in Option 4a of the HMP, described above in
Subsection 4.9.2, . The increases in runoff peaks would not substantially contribute
to off-site flooding since the storm drain outfall would connect directly to tidally
influenced areas with direct connections to the Delta.
As the proposed storm drainage would handle all stormwater runoff from the
developed portion of the site, on- and off-site flooding would not occur. The
increase in surface runoff from the project site is therefore considered less than
significant.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-26
e) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as delineated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Zone Map?
f) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?
The entire project site falls within Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map for Contra Costa County (FEMA 2009), which indicates that it is
subject to flooding during a 100-year event in the Delta. The Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) for the 100-year storm event, as defined by FEMA and the County15, is the
elevation that has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded by floodwaters
in any one year. Based on the current mean higher high water MHHW (i.e., average
high tides) and the flood elevation data from past storm events, the 100-year BFE
for the project site is 7.5 feet NGVD. The 300-year BFE is 8.0 ft NGVD.
In locations subject to tidal variations (such as the project site), the County’s flood
design standard requires a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard (a factor of safety
expressed in feet above a known flood level) between the finished floor elevation of
a home and the BFE of the 100-year flood event. Given that the 100-year BFE for
the project site is 7.5 feet NGVD, finished floor elevations must be at least 9.5 feet
NGVD.16
The project site is not protected by an outside levee because it is directly adjacent
to the Delta’s open waterways. To ensure adequate flood protection, the applicant
has conservatively designed the project to exceed the BFE of the 300-year storm
event. The finished floor elevations of all waterfront lot homes would be 12.7 feet
NGVD,17 which is a full 3.2 feet above the County’s flood design standard for the BFE
of the 100-year flood event.18
For the purpose of flood protection calculations, the project development is divided
into three groups of homes as shown in Table 3-3 of this EIR. As shown in the table,
the waterfront homes located on lots adjacent to water and subject to tidal
variation would have a minimum finished floor elevation of 12.7 feet NGVD, which is
15 As defined in the Contra Costa County Code Section 82-28.486 – One Hundred –year flood.
16 Contra Costa County Code Section 82-28.1002, 3A.
17 Finished floor elevation is calculated under the assumption that a 10- inch thick Post Tension
Concrete Slab (“PT Slab”) is utilized. If instead a pier and grade beam foundation is utilized, the
finished floor elevation would be higher.
18 300-year base flood event is .5 feet higher than the 100-year event in this location, per the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Special Study Hydrology, dated February 1992, and as confirmed by
Chris Neudeck, engineer for Reclamation District 800.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-27
5.2 feet above the 100-year BFE and 4.7 feet above the 300-year BFE at high tide.
Interior lots would have a finished floor elevation of at least 11.5 NGVD, which is 4.0
feet above the 100-year BFE and 3.5 feet above the 300-year flood elevation.
Based on the current estimated 100-year BFE, the proposed finish floor elevations
of the project would meet the County’s flood design standards, reducing potential
risks from flooding to a less-than significant level.
g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Dam safety is regulated by the State Department of Water Resources, Division of
Safety. All large reservoirs in the County have been investigated for potential
failures, and many have been strengthened. Further, the Office of Emergency
Services has produced inundation maps and emergency plans covering various
scenarios of dam failure in the County.
The closest reservoir is Los Vaqueros, located approximately 7.5 miles to the west.
The project site is located along the eastern edge of the inundation area. The
Contra Costa Water District recently completed an environmental analysis for the
expansion and upgrading of the Los Vaqueros facility. The EIR prepared by the
Contra Costa Water District included a less than significant impact related to
downstream flooding associated with the risk of dam failure, based on the
conservative design of the facility that ensures it can withstand a maximum credible
earthquake, and the policies and procedures that guide the monitoring of
operations of the facility, ensuring that if needed, emergency “drawdown” of water
levels can be implemented to reduce the level of inundation. As such, potential risks
related to dam failure are considered less than significant.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Tsunamis are long sea waves, generated by displacements associated with
earthquakes. These waves can reach great heights when they encounter shallow
water. The project site is located approximately 80 miles from the ocean and the
potential for tsunamis affecting it from this source is remote. Tsunamis can also be
generated in sheltered near shore waters due to landslides and underwater land
movements.
Seiches are caused by seismically-induced ground motions imparted to bodies of
water which cause them to oscillate from side to side. There is no known evidence
of these near-field tsunami and seiches sources and they are not considered a risk
to the project. In any case, the fire department uses a fire boat to respond to
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-28
emergencies within the waterways adjacent to the project site. The fire department
also works with the coast guard and Sheriff Marine Patrol division to responds to
water-related emergencies.
The project site is nearly flat and would thus not be subject to mudflows related to
landslides.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
i) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
Impact HYD-1: Construction activities would alter the existing drainage patterns
resulting in erosion, sedimentation, and contamination of storm water runoff
which could degrade water quality in adjacent water bodies.
Construction will involve earth moving activities, with a large portion being wet
excavation associated with excavating the bays and coves. Demolition, clearing and
site preparation would be performed utilizing excavators/front-end loaders, tracked
dozer with disk, and trucks for debris removal. Rainfall could carry loose soils into
adjacent waterways, resulting in increased sedimentation and degradation of water
quality. Concentrated flow due to grading in some areas would increase the
potential for erosion and potentially increase sediment transport into the adjacent
areas. Construction equipment debris and fuel could also further degrade the
quality of storm water runoff if fueling activity and maintenance products are not
handled properly. This contamination could impact nearby waterways (i.e., Kellogg
Creek) and the on-site marsh lands and wetlands.
The waterfront development would be constructed by excavating bays and
waterways and creating elevated building pads adjacent to a vertical reinforced
shoring wall. Removal of material to depths of up to 10 feet would be required to
excavate the proposed bays and construct the shoring walls. The wet excavation of
bays, coves and the dredging of Kellogg Creek would produce large quantities of
suspended sediment that could impact the water quality in Kellogg Creek.
Excavation of the Bays
Excavation of the South and North Bays would occur in conjunction with the
widening of Kellogg Creek (described below). The bays would be excavated from
within the proposed development area of the project site. Excavated soils from the
bays would be primarily “wet” (i.e., material from below the water table that is
pulled out in a wet or moist condition). The material would be dried on site before
being reused as engineered fill for the project.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-29
Initially, the mouth of each bay would remain closed by an approximately 100-foot-
wide earthen barrier (soil plug). The soil plugs would separate the excavation
operations from Kellogg Creek so that sediment and silt would be prevented from
entering Discovery Bay waterways. With the soil plugs in place, the bays would fill
with water through natural groundwater equalization (i.e., through the ground) or
via gravity flow through an installed culvert pipe. Water would eventually fill the
excavated bays until water levels are equal to Kellogg Creek. Sediment in the bays
would settle to the bottom over a period of one to two days. Once the sediment
has cleared, a small, engineered breach in each of the soil plugs would be created to
allow waters from the bays and Kellogg Creek to mix and stabilize. Once the waters
of Kellogg Creek and the bays were stabilized, the entire soil plug would be
removed.
Turbidity barriers (see Figure 4.9-2) would be placed within Kellogg Creek to provide
an approximately 5-foot buffer around the soil plug as it is breached and removed.
The turbidity barriers would consist of a floating top boom section attached to an
anchored curtain made of tightly woven nylon, plastic, or other non-deteriorating
material. The curtain would allow water to flow between the excavation areas and
Kellogg Creek, while preventing sediment and other larger materials from entering
the Discovery Bay waterways. A qualified hydrologist on the project team would
determine the optimum position of the turbidity barriers. The turbidity barrier
would be removed once all sediment from the construction site has settled.
Widening of Kellogg Creek and Old Kellogg Creek
Working north to south along the project site, the banks of Kellogg Creek and Old
Kellogg Creek will be excavated to a maximum depth of 10 feet in order to widen
the Discovery Bay waterways and create the onsite shoring (bank-stabilization)
walls. Turbidity barrier installation (as described above for the creation of the bays)
and excavation would be undertaken in the three segments: (1) northern segment,
which is the north cove; (2) central segment between the North Bay and South Bay;
and (2) southern segment between the North Bay and South Bay.
Back hoe and related excavation operations for the creek widening would be staged
from the landward side of the project site—atop the shoring wall location that
would be created with the engineered technique referred to as “cement deep soil
mixing” in a previous phase. Any wet excavated materials would be dried on site
prior to subsequent use as engineered fill for the project. The enhanced habitat on
the newly formed creek banks along Pantages Island, the northerly side of North
Cove, and at the end of Old Kellogg Creek would also be created as part of this
phase of work (see Section 4.3, Biological Resources, for a detailed description of
the bank habitat restoration).
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.9-2FigureExample Turbidity Barrier
Source: InSite, 2010.
NOT TO SCALEWater Level
Boom/Floats Tensioning Cable
Permeable Silt Skirt
Bottom Anchor
HighWater LowWater
Curtain bottom conformsto river bed to blocksuspended particles
Depth Variesto suit max.water depth
River Bed
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-31
Onsite activities from excavation, grading, and general construction could pose a
potentially significant impact to stormwater quality and water quality in the
surrounding waters of Kellogg Creek and Discovery Bay. Mitigation Measures
HYD-1a through HYD-1c would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1a: A qualified hydrologist on the project team shall
perform, at minimum, weekly monitoring of the water quality in Kellogg Creek
adjacent to the turbidity barriers to determine whether adjustments to their
position or depth are required. Monitoring shall be more frequent, as needed,
to accurately assess water quality degradation.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1b: The applicant shall submit a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Building
Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development. The
SWPPP shall be consistent with the terms of the State Construction Storm
Water General Permit, the manual of Standards for Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments, policies and
recommendations of the County and the RWQCB. The County has SWPPP
resources available on its website: http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/depart/pw/design/swppp/.
Mitigation Measure HYD -1c: To prevent pollution of receiving waters due to
equipment fueling, storage, and maintenance, the contractor shall develop a
detailed set of guidelines to follow. Final plan notes, and contractor bid
documents shall include the following specifications:
1. Space in the staging area shall be reserved for storage of maintenance
materials, and refueling purposes.
2. The staging area shall be graded to prevent any runoff so that any
contaminants such as spilled fuel, oil, or grease will not reach the receiving
waters.
3. If heavy-duty construction machinery is left overnight in an area that is not
protected from direct runoff to receiving waters, drip pans shall be placed
beneath the engine block and hydraulic systems.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Weekly monitoring of the water quality adjacent to the turbidity barriers during
project construction would ensure that potential water quality impacts to
Kellogg Creek are avoided, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-significant
level. Preparation of a SWPPP would include compliance with RWQCB
guidelines, an erosion control plan addressing control of sediment, stabilization
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-32
of erosion, and protection of water quality, and soil stabilization techniques.
These measures would ensure that construction activities would not degrade
water quality, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact HYDRO-2: Abandoned groundwater wells on the project site could act as
direct conduits to groundwater for hazardous waste.
According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the project (see Section 4.8, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials), the project site contains at two domestic groundwater wells.
The wells can act as a direct conduit for pollutants that are washed down with storm
water runoff if they are not properly decommissioned. This is considered a
potentially significant impact to groundwater quality.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project
applicant shall coordinate with Contra Costa Environmental Health Division
(CCEHD) to identify and survey the existing and abandoned groundwater wells
on the project site.
The identified groundwater wells shall be properly decommissioned and/or
retrofitted under permit from CCEHD. CCEHD shall inspect the decommissioned
wells for approval.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Properly decommissioned and/or retrofitting the existing groundwater wells on
the project site would ensure that pollutants would not be able to seep into the
groundwater through the well sites, thereby reducing the impact to a less-than-
significant level.
f) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as delineated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Zone Map?
Impact HYD-3: The project site is located within areas of projected tidal inundation
due to sea level rise, which would place people and structures within a flood
hazard associated with long-term sea level rise. (Significant)
The entire project site falls within Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map for Contra Costa County (FEMA 2009), which a 100-year BFE for
the project site of 7.5 feet NGVD. The 300-year BFE is 8.0 feet NGVD. The flood risk
to the project site is expected to increase with future sea level rise. As previously
discussed in Subsection 4.9.1, Existing Conditions, global sea level is predicted to
rise by approximately 1.3 feet over the next 50 years and 4.6 feet by 2100. A
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-33
relative sea level rise of 4.6 feet over the next 100 years would increase the
project’s existing 100-year BFE of 7.5 feet to 8.8 feet NGVD in Year 2050, and to 12.1
feet NGVD in Year 2100.
Residential Units
The residential structures are currently designed to account for the 2050 sea level
rise scenario. Therefore, impacts associated with long-term flooding hazards are
considered less-than-significant through 2050. However, to satisfy the 2100 sea-
level rise scenario, the minimum finished floor elevation with a concrete slab
foundation would have to be 14.1 feet.
As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the project applicant is proposing
to account for the Year 2100 scenario for sea level rise by redistributing the finished
grades as part of the final grading plans. This design element is not currently
reflected in existing project plans and is therefore added as a mitigation measure to
reduce long-term water flooding impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Street Elevation
The minimum proposed street elevation for the project is 9 feet NGVD. Under the
existing conditions, the proposed elevations of the streets would provide 1.5 feet of
freeboard above the 100-year BFE. However, under the 100-year sea level rise
conditions, the streets and storm drainage systems would be below the 100-year
flood event by 3.1 feet. This is considered a significant impact.
The County requires that all subdivision proposals have public utilities located and
constructed to minimize flood damage.19 Per County requirements, the project
applicant should perform an assessment to minimize any other flood damage due to
this level of street flooding.
Mitigation Measure HYD-3a: The final map and improvement plans, including
grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished floor elevation of residential
units at 14.1 feet.
Mitigation Measure HYD-3b: The final map and improvement plans, including
grading plans shall include, at minimum, a finished street level elevation of 12.1
feet.
19 Contra Costa County Code, Section 82-28.1006,4.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-34
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures HYD-3a and HYD-3b would require
the applicant to design the project to meet 2100 sea-level rise scenario
predictions. This would reduce long-term flooding impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
4.9.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Water Quality
The 2005 General Plan update identified that an increase in urban runoff due to
urban development would contribute pollutants and sediments to the surface
waters of the Delta. The General Plan determined that this increase in pollutants
was a significant impact to the water quality of the Delta. The discharge of
stormwater runoff from new development in California is highly regulated by local,
state, and federal laws specifically to ensure that they do not result in the gradual
degradation of water quality. The General Plan includes policies that specifically
reinforce these regulations by establishing the County’s active role in water quality
programs. The General Plan policies also establish support for water quality
standards that are adequate to protect human health in important areas like the
Delta estuary. Point sources of pollution are required to be identified and
controlled in order to protect adopted beneficial uses of water. Implementation of
these policies occurs as part of the development review and construction permitting
process and were found to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Therefore, the project in conjunction with the development proposed as part of the
General Plan would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to water
quality.
Flooding and Sea Level Rise
The 2005 General Plan update identified that future development within the 100-
year floodplain would increase the number of persons and amount of property
potentially exposed to flood conditions, including risks from flood hazards caused by
sea level rise and levee or dam failure. As such, the General Plan includes policies
that require all development proposed in areas of special flood hazards to conform
to the County’s flood-resistant design requirements related to building elevations,
drainage requirements, etc. The project has been proactively designed with
building pad elevations that conform to the conservative estimates for sea level rise
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9-35
in 2050 and 2100. The project would not therefore increase the number of persons
or amount of property potentially exposed to flood conditions and would result in a
considerable contribution to this cumulative impact.
The General Plan policies also require that the review of development proposals
occur in conjunction with the most recent dam failure inundation maps in order to
determine evacuation routes. As noted earlier in this section, the project is located
at the eastern edge of the inundation area for Los Vaqueros reservoir. As such the
project would be subject to the same evacuation routes identified for the entire
Town of Discovery Bay that have already been established.
4.9.5 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County Community Development Department (2003). Contra Costa
County Watershed Atlas
Contra Costa County (2005). Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020.
Dk Consulting (2006). Pantages Bays Stormwater Control Plan C.3 Report.
ENGEO (2006). Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California
(revised October 27, 2006).
ENGEO (2005). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Pantages at Discovery Bay,
Contra Costa County, California.
ENGEO (2004). Geotechnical Exploration, Pantages, Discovery Bay, California.
FEMA (1987). Flood Insurance Rate Map. Contra Costa County, California
(Unincorporated Areas).
InSite (2010). Summary of applicant’s proposed phasing of project grading and site
improvements.
PWA (2010). Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment Memorandum.
RMA (2006). Numerical Modeling of Discovery Bay: Evaluation of the Pantages Bays
Project.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) (2009).
Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay
and on its Shoreline.
Stillwater Sciences (2007). Pantages Bays Aquatic Resources Report.
Pantages Bays Project
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR
4.9-36
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-1
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section describes the existing land uses and land use designations on the
project site and in the project vicinity. Land use designations are defined by the
2005-2020 Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan) and Zoning Ordinance
(Title 8 of the Contra Costa County Code). This section also evaluates project
consistency with applicable General Plan policies. Information regarding land use
and planning in Contra Costa County was obtained from site visits, the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and communication with the County’s Community Development
Division.
No comments related to land use and planning were received in response to the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Land Uses
The project site is within the Discovery Bay area in the eastern portion of Contra
Costa County (County). Contra Costa is adjacent to Alameda, San Joaquin,
Sacramento, and Solano counties in Northern California. According to the General
Plan, the County covers 805 square miles, including approximately 732 square miles
of land and 73 square miles of water.
The County is comprised of three areas: West County, Central County, and East
County. The project site is located within East County, which includes the
communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley. East County also
includes the unincorporated areas of Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, and
Byron. The East County has experienced rapid growth over the past 20 years as
agricultural lands have transitioned to urban uses. Agricultural lands still
predominate along the eastern boundary of the County, while urban uses
(residential, commercial, retail, and education) have continued to develop within
incorporated cities.
Project Site Land Uses
The approximately 171-acre project site consists of 162 acres of land owned by the
project applicant, and 9.2 acres of land owned by the ECCID, including Pantages
Island and land along the East Contra Costa County Irrigation District Dredge
Cut/Intake Channel (ECCID Dredge Cut).
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-2
The project site is comprised of 10 assessor parcels that are designated Agricultural
Lands (AL), Delta Recreation (DR) and Water (WA) by the General Plan and are
zoned General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3). The
project site is within the Urban Limit Line (ULL), as established by the voters of the
County, and is identified for future urban development. Land uses beyond the ULL
are primarily agricultural, including lands to the northeast of the project site,
beyond Indian Slough (see Figure 3-1).
The project site is currently vacant, and has not been cultivated and irrigated since
1992. The site is disked annually and seeded with a grass mixture. A small number
of cows (approximately 10) graze the site, as a hobby of the current tenant. The site
is vegetated with 80 trees and low-lying non-native annual grasslands, and also
contains three abandoned residential structures, including one residence and
associated outbuildings near the center of the site, and one barn on the eastern
portion of the site. Several shallow irrigation ditches bisect the site.
Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 3-1 depicts the land uses surrounding the project site.
The ECCID Dredge Cut forms the northern project boundary, and lands to the
northeast remain in agricultural production.
The Discovery Bay community, located east and south of the site, is comprised of
3,700 residences, a golf course, marina and harbor, commercial uses, a church, and
Discovery Bay Elementary School. Several communities are located west of the
project site. The Ravenswood development includes 181 single-family residential
units and 22 duets as well as Ravenswood Park. A second subdivision, known as
Discovery Bay West, is comprised of five “Villages” that will total 1,999 units when
fully constructed. Village I is located directly west of the Ravenswood development
and contains the Timber Point Elementary School as well as Slifer Park. The
remaining villages are laid out to the north, and include Village II, commonly
referred to as the Lakeshore subdivision; and Villages III, IV, and V, which are known
collectively as the Lakes at Discovery Bay.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-3
4.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Contra Costa County General Plan
The General Plan provides goals, policies, and specific implementation measures
that will guide decisions on future growth, development, and conservation of
resources within the County. The current General Plan was adopted in 2005 and
provides policies to guide development through year 2020.
As previously noted, the General Plan land use designations for the project site are
Agricultural Lands (AL), Delta Recreation (DR) and Water (WA) which are defined as
follows:
Agricultural Lands (AL) – The AL designation preserves and protects lands
capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber and plant
materials. The uses that are allowed in the AL designation include all land-
dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and related
activities.
Delta Recreation (DR) – The DR designation encompasses the islands and
adjacent lowlands of the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. Agricultural and
wildlife habitat is to be considered the most appropriate uses in the area, with
limited recreational uses allowed which do not conflict with the predominant
agricultural and habitat uses.
Water (WA) – This designation is applied to approximately 68 square miles of
water in the San Francisco-San Pablo Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River
estuary system in the County.
The project applicant is seeking approval for a general plan amendment from AL, DR
and WA to the following designations: Single-Family Residential-Medium Density
(SM), Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH), Water (WA), Public/Semi-Public
(PS), and Open Space (OS).
These land use designations are generally defined in the General Plan as follows:
Single-Family Residential-Medium Density (SM) – The SM designation allows
between 3.0 and 4.9 single-family units per net acre. Lot sizes can range up to
14,519 square feet. Population densities would normally range from about 7.5
to about 12.5 persons per acre.
Primary land uses include detached single-family homes and associated
accessory structures. Secondary land uses considered to be compatible
with low density homes may be allowed, including home occupations, small
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-4
residential care and childcare facilities, churches and other similar places of
worship, secondary dwelling units, and other uses and structures incidental
to the primary uses.
Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) – The SH designation allows
between 5.0 and 7.2 single-family units per net acre. Lot sizes can range up to
8,729 square feet. Population densities would normally range from about 12.5
to about 22 persons per acre.
Primary and secondary land uses permitted in the SH are the same as
described under the SM designation. In addition, in specified areas of the
County with conventional zoning, attached single-family units (duplexes or
duets) may be allowed.
Water (WA) – As noted above, the WA designation covers approximately 68
square miles of water in the San Francisco-San Pablo Bay and Sacramento-San
Joaquin River estuary system located within the County, as well as all large
inland bodies of water such as reservoirs.
Public/Semi-Public (PS) – The PS designation includes properties owned by
public governmental agencies such as libraries, fire stations, schools, etc. This
designation is also applied to public transportation corridors, such as freeways
and highways, as well as privately-owned transportation and utility corridors
such as railroads, Pacific, Gas & Electric (PG&E) lines, and pipelines.
Open Space (OS) – This OS designation includes publicly-owned, open space
lands, such as wetlands and tidelands and other areas of significant ecological
resources, or geologic hazards.
The OS designation also includes privately-owned properties where
development rights have been deeded to a public or private agency. For
example, significant open space areas within planned unit developments
identified as being owned and maintained by a homeowners association fall
under this designation.
Resource management, such as maintaining critical marsh and other
endangered habitats are appropriate uses within the OS designation. Other
appropriate uses are low intensity, private recreation for nearby residents.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project as proposed is not permitted within the agricultural lands (AL) land use
designation. The project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to
change the existing land use designations to those that would allow for the type and
intensity of development proposed. The type and density of development proposed
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-5
is compatible with land uses and densities in the surrounding area, including the
Discovery Bay West subdivisions to the west that were approved recently by the
County through a similar General Plan Amendment and rezoning process.
The project site and surrounding properties were included within the ULL in 1992
when it was originally adopted. By including properties within the ULL, the County
acknowledged the potential for future development of these areas as urban uses,
while preserving lands outside the ULL in the agricultural core. The County has, over
the past 15 years, processed applications for development within the Discovery Bay
ULL, including the Ravenswood, and Discovery Bay West developments.
Zoning Ordinance
Parcels on the site are zoned General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy
Agricultural District (A-3) by the Zoning Ordinance (Title 8 of County Code).
Permitted uses within the A-2 and A-3 districts include:
All types of agriculture, including general farming, horticulture, and floriculture;
Other agricultural uses such as sheds and warehouses;
A stand of agricultural product;
A detached single-family dwelling;
A public foster home or family care home; or
A family day care.
Other uses, such as commercial recreational facilities, medical offices, or churches,
may be allowed with a land use permit. In addition, uses must comply with
development standards related to lot area, width, depth, and height.
The project is seeking approval of a rezoning to P-1. Permitted uses within the P-1
District include:
Any land uses permitted by an approved final development plan that are in
harmony with each other, serve to fulfill the function of the planned unit
development, and are consistent with the general plan;
A detached single-family dwelling on each legally established lot and the
accessory structures and uses normally auxiliary to it.
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-6
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would rezone approximately 171 acres from A-2 and A-3 zoning to a P-1
District. The P-1 District is intended to serve large-scale development such as the
project, and to allow diversification of uses, buildings, lot sizes and open space while
insuring compliance with the General Plan.
The P-1 District classification sets forth the specific development standards of the
project, including lot size, width, setbacks, building heights, etc. The project would
be consistent with these customized standards.
Subdivision Ordinance and Building Code
The Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9 of the County Code) is intended to guide the
adoption of subdivision regulations in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act,
Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California. The
Subdivision Ordinance includes development standards related to site
improvements, streets and roadways, and utilities.
The Building Code (Title 7 of the County Code) establishes the regulations and
standards that apply to all buildings or structures within the County.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project applicant would be required to submit Final Subdivision Maps to the
County for approval. Project plans are required to comply with the County’s
Building Code.
Urban Limit Line – 65/35 Contra Costa County Land
Preservation Plan
County voters approved the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan
(Plan) as part of Measure C – 1990, was adopted on November 6, 1990. The Plan
limits urban development to 35 percent of land within the County and requires that
at least 65 percent of all land within the County be preserved for agriculture, open
space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses. According to the General Plan,
168,500 acres (35 percent) of land within the County could potentially be devoted
to an urban use under the 65/35 standard 1 (2005 Contra Costa County General Plan
update).
1 Of the 481,430 acres of land in Contra Costa County.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-7
The purpose of the ULL is two-fold:
To ensure the preservation of identified non-urban agricultural, open space, and
other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be
designated during the term of the Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-
2020, and
To facilitate the enforcement of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard Plan2.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project site is located within the ULL and no adjustment to the ULL boundary is
required. Potential development on the project site is assumed within the 35
percent (168,500 acres) adopted countywide as part of the ULL.
Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies
This section evaluates policies contained in the Land Use Element of the General
Plan that are applicable to the project and determines whether the project
conforms to those policies. Project consistency with policies in other elements of
the General Plan is provided throughout the applicable technical sections of this EIR.
Land Use Element
3-5: New development within unincorporated areas of the County may be
approved, providing growth management standards and criteria are met or
can be assured of being met prior to the issuance of building permits in
accordance with the growth management.
3-8: Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. Proposals that
would prematurely extend development into areas lacking requisite
services, facilities and infrastructure shall be opposed. In accommodating
new development, preference shall generally be given to vacant or under-
used sites within urbanized areas, which have necessary utilities installed
with available remaining capacity, before undeveloped suburban land are
utilized.
2 The 65/63 Land Preservation Standard limits urban development to 35 percent of land within the
County and requires that at least 65 percent of all land within the County be preserved for agriculture,
open space, wetlands, parks, and other non-urban uses.
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-8
3-47: The Plan directs most of the residential and commercial growth that is
anticipated to occur in the unincorporated East County area during the
planning period into the Oakley community, with smaller amounts of
recreation-oriented development allowed on Bethel Island.
3-49: The density and development of single-family homes in the East County
area, in lands designated for residential or other urban uses, shall be related
to the service availability criteria.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project site is located within the ULL and is designated for future urban uses. In
reference to policy 3-5, the requested general plan amendment would be
considered by the County since the subject property is located within the ULL. The
project is vacant, and could be considered to be an infill site as it is surrounded by
several large existing residential developments. The project is therefore in
compliance with policy 3-8.
In regards to policy 3-47, while the project site is not located in the Oakley or Bethel
Island communities, the site is located within the adopted ULL and fulfills a pattern
of development that has been implemented over the past 15 years. The project
would be an extension of the existing Discovery Bay water-oriented residential
development. In response to policy 3-49, public water and sewer connections are
available within a public utility easement that crosses the project site to serve the
existing Discovery Bay development. The project would extend existing connections
via project streets subject to LAFCO approval.
4.10.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant land
use impact if it would:
a) Physically divide an established community;
b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan; or
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-9
c) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that no impact would
result for two of the three significance criteria. The following discussion presents
the evidence in support of this conclusion.
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project site is currently vacant, and development of the site would not divide an
established community. The existence of the Discovery Bay community to the east
and recent County approval of subdivisions to the west have resulted in the site
becoming an island of vacant land surrounded by residential development to the
east, west, and south. Implementation of the project would continue the residential
pattern of development that is already defined. There are no impacts related to the
project physically dividing an established community.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
In October of 2007, Contra Costa County adopted Ordinance No. 2007-53 for the
“East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community
Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Fees and Implementation Procedures.” The
HCP/NCCP establishes a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the
“incidental take” of endangered species within eastern Contra Costa County.
The project site is located adjacent to but outside of the HCP/NCCP Inventory Area
and as a result the project is not eligible for take coverage through the HCP/NCCP.
Although the project is located outside the inventory area of the HCP/NCCP, it is
expected that the project may be allowed to make a financial contribution to the
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (Conservancy) as mitigation for
impacts to federal- and state-listed special status species. The mitigation funding
would be determined by state and federal regulatory agencies and agreement from
the Conservancy. Further discussion of mitigation funding to the Conservancy is
included in Section 4.3, Biological Resources. The project would not conflict with
any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and no
impact would occur.
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-10
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the three
significance criteria stated above shows that there would be a less-than-significant
impact for one of the three criteria. The following presents the evidence in support
of this conclusion.
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The project is currently in conflict with the existing zoning and general plan land use
designation which identify the site for agricultural uses. The project seeks approval
of a general plan amendment from the current designation to Single-Family
Residential – Medium Density (SM), Single-Family Residential – High Density (SH),
Water (WA), Public/Semi-Public (PS), and Open Space (OS) designations to support
the proposed development.
Similarly, the applicant also seeks approval for rezoning from General Agricultural
District and Heavy Agricultural District to Planned Unit District. Approval of the
general plan amendment and rezoning would ensure that the project is consistent
with the applicable land use plan and zoning regulations. If the Board of Supervisors
does not approve the requested general plan amendment and rezoning, the project
as currently proposed would not be implemented.
The project site is located within the ULL, which identifies the site for potential
development with urban uses. As discussed in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources,
no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance exists
on the project site. The majority of the project site is designated by the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program as Urban and Built-up Land with a portion located
on the southern end of the project site designated as Farmland of Local Importance
and Other Land. The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes and
is completely surrounded by residential development. As concluded in Section 4.1,
Agricultural Resources, conversion of Farmland of Local Importance to non-
agricultural uses is not considered an impact.
The project would be consistent with all other policies related to land use as
discussed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10-11
4.10.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative context for land use and planning includes development projects
listed in Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, and development
anticipated under the County’s General Plan in Eastern Contra Costa County (East
County).
The General Plan EIR noted the change in land use patterns that would occur with
implementation of the Urban Limit Line (ULL); namely, a concentration of growth
within areas designated for urban development and a preservation of the
agricultural core for purely agricultural uses. The General Plan EIR recommended
rezoning and other clarifications to address inconsistencies between existing land
use designations that conflict with the intent of the newly adopted ULL.
The project site was included within the ULL in 1992, as part of an approximately 6-
square-mile island of land designated for urban use. The ULL “island” includes the
community of Discovery Bay and lands immediately adjacent to the east, west, and
north (See Figure 3-1). As shown in Figure 3-1, lands in the northwest quadrant of
this ULL island have recently been developed with residential subdivisions.
Although the zoning for the project site (and all undeveloped lands within the ULL
island) was left agricultural, the County’s intention for future development of these
lands was clearly identified. The ULL was adopted by the voters of the County
through the passage of Measure C, which also provided for ongoing financing via a
sales tax to support infrastructure improvements for the identified urban areas. All
projects listed in Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, have
been designated for future urban development as part of the ULL; therefore, the
combined development of properties within the ULL is not considered a
cumulatively significant land use impact.
4.10.5 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-
2020, January 2005.
Jones & Stokes. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural
Community Conservation Plan, October 2006.
Pantages Bays Project
4.10 Land Use and Planning Draft EIR
4.10-12
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11-1
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing mineral resources available on and in the vicinity
of the project site, and assesses the potential for the project to result in a significant
environmental impact to mineral resources. Information regarding mineral
resources was obtained from the Contra Costa General Plan, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and through personal communications with staff at the
Department of Conservation, Mines and Mineral Resources division.
There were no public comments related to mineral resources received in response
to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR.
4.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
There are no mines or quarries located within the project vicinity. The most valuable
mineral resources mined within Contra Costa County include crushed rock in the
Concord area, shale in the Port Costa area, and sand and sandstone in the Byron
area. There are also regionally significant deposits of diabase, an intrusive igneous
rock used as roadbase and rip-rap to prevent streambank erosion, found in the Mt.
Zion area near Concord and Clayton (Contra Costa County 2005).
The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service identified four soils types on the
project site. Soil series at the project site include Marcuse Clay, Brentwood Clay
Loam (wet), Pescadero Clay Loam, and Sacramento Clay, Alkalai. The southern and
northern portions of the project site are Marcuse clay. Both sides of Point of Timber
Road are Brentwood Clay Loam (wet). The northeast portion of the project site is
Pescadero Clay Loam. The island in the north of the project site is Sacramento Clay,
Alkali. Summaries of the USDA soil descriptions (USDA 2010) for each soil series are
as follows:
Marcuse Clay is characterized as a deep, very poorly drained soil that formed in
alluvium from sedimentary rock. It is subject to ponding, has slow to very slow
water runoff and has slow permeability. This soil is used for irrigated pasture,
dryland saltgrass pasture, and occasionally row crops.
Brentwood Clay Loam (wet) is characterized as nearly level soil formed in valley fill
from sedimentary rocks. This soil is moderately to well drained and runoff is very
slow to medium. It has moderately slow permeability. This soil can be irrigated and
used for tree fruit, nut crops, vegetables, and field crops. Vegetation includes annual
grasses, forbs, and scattered oaks.
Pantages Bays Project
4.11 Mineral Resources Draft EIR
4.11-2
Pescadero Clay Loam is characterized as a very deep, poorly drained soil that
formed in alluvium from sedimentary rock. This soil type occurs in level basins.
Permeability is very slow, and the soil is subject to ponding due to very slow surface
runoff. Vegetation commonly found growing on this soil series includes annual
grasses, saltgrass, pickleweed and forbs. This soil type is mainly used for livestock
grazing.
Sacramento Clay, Alkali is characterized as a nearly level soil located at elevations of
near sea level to 60 feet. The soil is very poorly drained and has very slow to slow
surface runoff. Uncultivated areas of this soil contain willows, cottonwoods,
scattered oaks, and grasses and forbs.
4.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of
1975
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted in 1975
and updated in January 2007 to limit new development in areas with significant
mineral deposits. SMARA is part of California Public Resources Code (PRC), Division
2, Chapter 9, Section 2710 et seq. Through SMARA, the California Geological Survey
(CGS) produces mineral land classification maps and reports to aid in development
and land use plans. Natural resources identified within the maps and reports
include geologic deposits of valuable minerals used in manufacturing processes and
the production of construction materials. SMARA classifies lands into mineral
resource zones (MRZs) according to the known or inferred mineral potential.
The criteria for establishing the zones are based on four general categories,
discussed below:
MRZ 1 Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral
deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for
their presence.
MRZ 2 Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral
deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for
their presence.
MRZ 3 Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be
evaluated.
MRZ 4 Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any
other MRZ zone.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11-3
Project Consistency Analysis
The project is not located within an identified mineral resources area, and would
therefore be consistent with SMARA.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Mineral Resource Areas of Chapter 8, the Conservation Element, in the Contra
Costa County General Plan contains the following relevant policies related to
mineral resources.
Conservation Element
8-54 Mining and quarrying shall be a permitted use in certain privately owned
areas which are in an open space designation in the General Plan (e.g. Open
Space, Agricultural lands, etc.) and which contain known mineral deposits
with potential commercial value. These deposits include, but are not
limited to, rocks, gravel, sand, salt, and clay.
8-56 Incompatible land uses shall not be permitted within the mineral resource
impact areas identified as containing significant sand and gravel deposits (as
shown in Figure 8-4 of the General Plan)
8-57 Incompatible uses are defined as land uses inherently incompatible with
mining and/or uses that require high public or private investment in
structures, land improvements, and landscaping that prevent mining
because of the higher economic value of the land and its improvements.
8-58 Future development in the vicinity of valuable mineral resource zones shall
be planned and designed to minimize disturbance to residential areas or
other sensitive land uses and to permit the safe passage of quarry trucks.
8-59 Development of compatible land uses shall be encouraged within 1,000 feet
of the quarrying sites. Compatible uses include secondary activity related to
the quarry operation, recreation facilities, parks, agricultural uses, and
permanent open space.
Policy Consistency Analysis
The project is not located within an identified mineral resources area and thus
would not cause an incompatible land use near a mine or quarry. Therefore, the
project would be consistent with General Plan policies related to mineral resources.
Pantages Bays Project
4.11 Mineral Resources Draft EIR
4.11-4
4.11.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, a project would have a significant impact on
mineral resources if it would:
a) 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; or
b) 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.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project details and project site characteristics in the context of the
two significance criteria stated above clearly shows that no mineral resource
impacts would result. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of
this conclusion.
a) Would the project 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?
According to the California Geological Survey, the project site is not classified or
designated within a mineral resource zone (S. Kohler, personal communication, May
17, 2007). Furthermore, based on General Plan maps of the area, the project site is
not within an area of known mineral importance. Therefore, the project would not
impact mineral resources
b) Would the project result in the loss of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Neither the project site nor the project vicinity has a history of mining and the
project site is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any known map
or plan. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11-5
4.11.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for mineral resources includes the project in combination
with the cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1. According to the General Plan,
none of these projects are within an area of known mineral importance. Therefore,
the development of the project in combination with other projects in the area
would have no potential to impact state-designated regionally significant mineral
resources and there would be no cumulative impact related to mineral resources.
4.11.5 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020:
Conservation Element.
Kohler, Susan, California Geological Survey – Mineral Resources, State of California
Department of Conservation. Personal Communication, May 14, 2007.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. National Cooperative Soil
Survey. http://soils.usda.gov/partnerships/ncss/.
Pantages Bays Project
4.11 Mineral Resources Draft EIR
4.11-6
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-1
4.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION
This section describes existing sources of noise within the project site and vicinity
and evaluates whether construction and operational noise generated by the project
would exceed applicable noise standards. The section also evaluates potential
vibration impacts associated with project construction.
Information presented in this section was obtained from noise measurements and
modeling conducted by Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz as part of an Environmental
Noise Study for Pantages Bays (see Appendix E). The environmental noise study
that has been incorporated into this analysis is available for review at Contra Costa
County, Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development
Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California
To determine the existing noise environment, sound level meters were deployed at
four locations on and around the project site to record fluctuations in sound over
extended periods. Noise measurements were made on April 22 through 26, 2010.
See Subsection 4.12.2, Existing Conditions for a complete description of the noise
monitoring conducted for this analysis.
No comments related to the noise environment were received in response to the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report (EIR).
4.12.1 NOISE AND VIBRATION CONCEPTS
Noise
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound and is commonly measured with an
instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter “captures” sound
with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels
are expressed in units called decibels (dB).
To correlate the microphone signal to a level that corresponds to the way humans
perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-
frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to human hearing.
The use of A-weighting is required by most local agencies as well as other federal
and state noise regulations (e.g., the California Department of Transportation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety &
Health Administration and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development).
The abbreviation dBA is often used when the A-weighted sound level is reported.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-2
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many
descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual
descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken
together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. There are
four descriptors that are commonly used in environmental studies: the maximum
instantaneous noise level (Lmax), equivalent noise level (Leq), sound level exceeded
90 percent of the time (L90), and community noise equivalent level (CNEL).1
The maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness
of a single event such as a car pass-by or airplane flyover. To express the average
noise level, the Leq is used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is
typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level
(or residual noise level) is the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually
generated by steady sources such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified
with a descriptor called the L90, which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the
time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the CNEL is used. The CNEL is an
average like the Leq, except it includes a 10-dBA penalty for noises that occur during
nighttime hours and a 5-dBA penalty during evening hours to account for increased
sensitivity during these time periods.
In environmental noise, a change in the noise level of 3 dBA is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5-dBA change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10-
dBA change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
Traffic Noise
The source level of traffic noise depends on four primary factors, including the
volume of the traffic, speed of the traffic, number of trucks in the flow of traffic, and
the condition of the road surface. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is
increased by higher traffic volumes, faster speeds, a greater number of trucks, and
rougher pavement. Noise generally increases 3 dB with each doubling of traffic
volume (all else being equal) and 6 dB with each doubling of speed (all else being
equal). Higher ratios of trucks and rougher pavement do not have as direct of an
effect on the noise levels.
Noise Attenuation
Most noise sources can be classified as either point sources (e.g., stationary
equipment), or line sources, such as a roadway. Sound generated by a point source
nominally diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance
away from the source. For example, a 60 dBA noise level measured at 50 feet from
1 CNEL can also be expressed as the Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn or DNL).
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-3
a point source would be 54 dBA at 100 feet from the source and 48 dBA at 200 feet
from the source. Noise from a line source normally attenuates at 3 dBA per
doubling of distance.
Sound levels can also be attenuated by man-made or natural barriers. Solid walls,
berms, or elevation differences typically reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. Closed
windows can reduce interior levels anywhere from 20 to 40 dBA (or higher for very
specialized windows), while buildings with partially open windows can reduce
interior noise levels around 15 dBA.
Vibration
Ground vibrations are small oscillatory disturbances to the soil, which are
transmitted outwards from their source and reduce in magnitude with increasing
distance. The vibration source stimulates the adjacent ground, creating vibration
waves that travel through the various soil and rock strata to the foundations of
nearby buildings. The vibration then travels from the building foundation
throughout the remainder of the building structure. Vibration levels are expressed
in units called peak particle velocity (ppv), which is defined as the maximum
instantaneous peak of the vibration amplitude.
The vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration, rattling of items
such as windows or dishes on shelves, or a rumble noise. The rumble is the noise
radiated from the motion of the room surfaces. In essence, the room surfaces act
like a giant loudspeaker. This is called ground-borne noise.
Ground-borne vibration is harder to perceive by people who are outdoors.
Although the motion of the ground may be felt, the motion does not provoke the
same adverse human reaction without the effects associated with the shaking of a
building. In addition, the rumble noise that usually accompanies the building
vibration can only occur inside buildings (FRA 2005).
4.12.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Noise Environment
A series of land uses have been deemed “sensitive” by the State of California. These
land uses require a serene environment as part of the overall facility or residential
experience. Many of these facilities depend on low levels of sound to promote the
well being of the occupants. These uses include, but are not necessarily limited to
schools, hospitals, rest homes, long term care facilities, mental care facilities,
residential uses, places of worship, libraries, and passive recreation areas.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-4
The closest sensitive land uses to the project site are the residential communities of
Discovery Bay and the Ravenswood and Lakeshore subdivisions. Timber Point
Elementary School and Regatta Park are located farther to the west, in the Village I
portion of Discovery Bay West.
There are several sources of noise in the study area, including vehicular traffic on
Point of Timber Road, airplanes from the local private air strip, and motorized boats
and personal watercraft (e.g., jet skis) on Kellogg Creek. Distant noise at the site is
also audible from traffic along Bixler Road and Newport Drive.
Noise Measurements
Existing CNEL noise levels at the project site are between 45 and 53 dBA, reflecting
the vacant state of the property.
Analysis of the existing and future noise environments was based on technical
reports, noise monitoring, and noise prediction modeling. Noise measurements
were made on and around the project site to quantify the existing noise
environment on April 22 through 26, 2010, including two long-term, 4-day noise
measurements (Location A and B) and two short-term, 15-minute measurements
(Locations 1 and 2).
Figure 4.12-1 illustrates the measurement locations. Figure 4.12-2 illustrates the
hourly noise levels at the long-term Locations A and B. Table 4.12-1 lists the results
of the short-term measurements. The measurements span both weekdays and
weekends.
Table 4.12-1 Short-term Noise Measurement Results – April 2010
Location Time/
Date
A-weighted Sound Levels, dBA
Leq L10 L50 L90 CNEL
1
West property line of project
site, adjacent to existing homes.
160 feet north of Point of Timber
Road, 5 ft elevation
3:45 P.M. - 4:00
P.M. (4/22/10) 45 49 41 36 53
2
Along Kellog Creek
5 feet elevation
4:15 P.M. - 4:30
P.M. (4/22/10) 43 47 39 35 45
Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der 2010.
Note: Estimate of CNEL based on comparison of short-term measurements with results of long-term measurement
Noise Measurement Locations
Source: Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc.; Google Earth, 2010.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.12-1Figure
CirclePoint
300
FEET
1500 600Kellogg CreekOld Kellogg CreekVILLAGE II (LAKESHORE)POINT OF TIMBER ROAD
RAVENSWOODDISCOVERY BAY
ECCID D r ed g e C u tA1B
2
Long-term Noise Measurement Results - Location A
Ldn = 52 dBA
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
18:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:00Time/DateHourly Average Noise Level (Leq), dBAThu
22-Apr-2010
Fri
23-Apr-2010
Sat
24-Apr-2010
Sun
25-Apr-2010
Mon
26-Apr-2010
Long-term Noise Measurement Results - Location B
Ldn = 53 dBA
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
18:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:000:006:0012:0018:00Time/DateHourly Average Noise Level (Leq), dBAThu
22-Apr-2010
Fri
23-Apr-2010
Sat
24-Apr-2010
Sun
25-Apr-2010
Mon
26-Apr-2010
PANTAGES BAYS
4.12-2Figure
CirclePoint
Long-Term Noise Measurement Results
Source: Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc., 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-7
Watercraft
As stated above, watercraft create noise at the project site and at the existing
homes along the east side of Kellogg Creek. The data from the noise monitor at
Location A was reviewed to quantify the watercraft noise over the two weekend
days of long-term noise measurements. There were 36 distinct boat passbys on
Saturday and 58 on Sunday. The typical watercraft produced an Lmax of between 60
and 70 dBA. The loudest Lmax was 79 dBA. The measured noise levels shown in
Figure 4.12-2 are average noise levels that are dominated by other noise sources
such as distant traffic and construction. The CNEL due to watercraft alone is less
than 50 dBA. These results are representative for both the project site and for the
adjacent homes in Discovery Bay.
Aircraft
Several airplane overflights were observed during the long-term noise
measurements including jets and smaller general aviation aircraft. The infrequent
nature and relatively low noise levels means that they are not a significant
contributor to the average noise at the project site.
Traffic Noise
The main sources of traffic noise in the study area are from traffic along Point of
Timber Road, Bixler Road, and Newport Drive (see Figure 4.16-1). Table 4.12-2
shows the calculated existing noise levels along these roads, which provide access to
the project site.
Table 4.12-2 Existing CNEL for Roads Surrounding Project Area
Road Segment Existing CNEL (dBA) (50 feet
from centerline of roadway)
Bixler Road
Balfour Road to Point of Timber Road 64
Point of Timber Road to Marsh Creek Road 66
Marsh Creek Road to State Route 4 66
Point of Timber Road
Byron Highway to Bixler Road 56
Just east of Bixler Road 55
Just west of project Site 51
Newport Drive
Bixler Road to Slifer Drive 57
Slifer Drive to Newport Lane 55
Newport Lane to State Route 4 56
Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-8
4.12.3 REGULATORY SETTING
California Code of Regulations
California’s Model Community Noise Ordinance (Construction
Noise)
The State of California’s Model Community Noise Ordinance (Office of Noise Control
1977) contains noise level limits of 75 dBA for mobile construction equipment and
60 dBA for stationary construction equipment at single-family residential areas.
Project Consistency Analysis
Although these standards have not been adopted by the County, the noise study
used the California’s Model Community Noise Ordinance limits to assess the
construction noise impacts at residences. The County does not have quantitative
noise performance standards for construction activities.
Without mitigation, project construction would cause a temporary increase in noise
levels that would have significant noise impacts on the surrounding residential
development. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1a – 1b would impose
specific hours for construction and would include other measures to attenuate
sound during the construction period such as temporary barriers, truck routing, and
location of stationary equipment. Implementation of these measures would ensure
consistency with California’s Model Noise Ordinance. See Subsection 4.12.4,
Analysis of Potential Impacts for a complete discussion of the project’s potential
noise impacts.
Harbors and Navigation Code Section 654.05
The California Harbors and Navigation Code (Code) requires all motorized
watercrafts to have a muffling system that is in good working condition, and brings
the vessel into compliance with the noise limits. In accordance with Section 654.05
of the Code, the owner of a motorized watercraft cannot operate a vessel in or upon
the inland waters in a manner that exceeds the following noise levels.
1. For engines manufactured before January 1, 1993, a noise level of 90 dBA when
subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE
J2005, Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for Pleasure
Motorboats.
2. For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1993, a noise level of 88 dBA
when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice
SAE J2005, Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for Pleasure
Motorboats.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-9
3. A noise level of 75 dBA measured as specified in the Society of Automotive
Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J1970 (Shoreline Sound Level
Measurement Procedure). However, a measurement of noise level that is in
compliance with this paragraph does not preclude the conducting of a test of
noise levels under paragraph (1) or (2).
Project Consistency Analysis
Owners of the motorized vessels for future residents of the project traveling within
adjacent waterways will be required by law to comply with the Harbors and
Navigation Code. Marine law enforcement officials regularly use a standardized
method of testing for motorboat noise.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The major objective of the Noise Element of the General Plan is to provide
guidelines to achieve noise/land use compatibility. The Noise Element contains the
following policies designed to meet this objective
Noise Element
11-1 New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level
standards as established in the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
[shown in Figure 4.12-3].
11-2 The applicable standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a
CNEL of 60 dBA. However, a Ldn of 60 dBA or less may not be achievable in
all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints.
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.
11-8 Construction activities should 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.
11-9 Sensitive land uses shall be encouraged to be located away from noise
areas, or the impacts of noise on these uses shall be mitigated.
11-11 Noise impacts upon the natural environment, including impacts on wildlife,
shall be evaluated and considered in review of development projects.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.12-3Figure
CirclePoint
Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environments
Source: Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc., 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-11
Policy Consistency Analysis
As discussed in Subsection 4.12.4, the project would not result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels, and would generally maintain the noise
level standards identified in policies 11-1, 11-2, and 11-6.
Without mitigation, project construction would cause a temporary increase in noise
levels that could have a significant noise impact on surrounding residential
development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a described below
would include restrictions on the hours of construction, consistent with policy 11-8.
The project site is located within an existing residential area that does not
experience high noise levels. As such, the project would be consistent with policy
11-9.
The residential land uses proposed on the project site would not introduce
significant increases in noise levels that could impact the natural environment.
However, temporary increases in noise levels due to the construction of the
proposed improvements could have an effect on nesting birds and other sensitive
wildlife, which is inconsistent with policy 11-11. Potential noise impacts to the
natural environment, including impacts on wildlife, are further discussed in Section
4.3, Biological Resources. Implementation of pre-construction nesting surveys, as
identified in Mitigation Measures BIO-8, BIO-10, and BIO-11 would reduce
potential noise impacts to the natural environment to a less-than-significant level,
consistent with policy 11-11.
4.12.4 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
related to noise if it would result in:
a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,
exposure of people residing of working in the project area to excessive noise
levels;
b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels;
c) 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;
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-12
For this study, an increase of less than 5 dBA from existing conditions is
considered less than significant, while an increase of 5 dBA or greater is
considered significant.
d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project;
e) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels; or
f) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above existing levels existing without the project.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that no impact would
result for two of the six significance criteria. The following discussion presents the
evidence in support of this conclusion.
a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project is located approximately 8 miles north of the East County (Byron)
Airport. The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan indicates that
the project is not within the airport sphere of influence and is not located within the
approach zone for either of the airport’s two runways. The project is too distant
from the airport for there to be airport-related noise impacts.
b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
The Funny Farm Airport, the nearest private airstrip, is located approximately 2.6
miles northwest of the project site in the Brentwood area. This airport services
small private aircraft. Several airplane overflights were observed during the long-
term noise measurements including jets and smaller general aviation aircraft. The
infrequent nature and relatively low noise levels means that they are not a
significant contributor to the average noise at the project site. Given the relative
distance to the project site and the types of aircraft associated with the airstrip, no
airstrip-related noise impacts are anticipated.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-13
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
less than significant impact for three of the six significance criteria. The following
discussion presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
c) Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
d) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
According to the General Plan, a community noise exposure level of up to 60 dBA is
considered normally acceptable for single-family residential uses. There are several
sources of noise in the study area. These include vehicular traffic on Point of Timber
Road and in the adjacent subdivisions, airplanes overhead, and motorized
watercraft such as boats and personal watercraft (e.g., jet skis) on Kellogg Creek.
Distant noise at the site is also audible from traffic along Bixler Road and Newport
Drive. Noise measurements indicate that the existing CNEL is between 45 and 53
dBA. The existing environment therefore maintains a sound level of less than 60
dBA and would not subject the proposed residents to unacceptable levels of sound
as defined by the General Plan.
Residential developments typically do not cause substantial increases in noise.
However, the project would slightly increase noise in the vicinity of the project site
due to greater numbers of automobiles and motorized watercraft, as described in
more detail below. As described in Chapter 3.0 Project Description, the project
includes a Medivac helicopter landing to provide emergency air-lift services for
boating accidents. The landing would only be used for emergency situations to
transport accident victims from the project area to nearby hospitals. The noise
associated with this operation would be temporary and sporadic, and would not
result in a permanent change to the ambient noise environment. Therefore, the
proposed helicopter landing would result in a less-than-significant impact to the
existing and future noise environment.
Traffic Noise
Project-generated traffic has the potential to increase noise on roadways in the
area. These roadways include Point of Timber Road, Bixler Road, and Newport
Drive. Future noise levels were estimated based on the traffic volumes contained in
the traffic study prepared for the project (Fehr & Peers 2010). Table 4.12-3 shows
the predicted CNEL for the project condition and summarizes the resulting increase
in noise.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-14
Table 4.12-3 Existing and Future CNEL for Roads Surrounding Project Area
Road Segment
CNEL at 50 feet from
Centerline of Roadway
Existing Existing Plus
Project
Increase in
CNEL
Bixler Road Balfour Road to Point of Timber Road 64 64 0.1
Point of Timber Road to Marsh Creek
Road
66 67 0.9
Marsh Creek Road to State Route 4 66 67 0.5
Point of Timber
Road
Byron Highway to Bixler Road 56 59 2.2
Just east of Bixler Road 55 57 1.9
Just west of project Site 51 54 3.6
Newport Drive Bixler Road to Slifer Drive 57 58 1.1
Slifer Drive to Newport Lane 55 56 1.0
Newport Lane to State Route 4 56 57 0.4
Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der 2010.
The greatest increase in noise due to project traffic occurs on Point of Timber Road.
The “existing plus project” noise levels are 2.2 to 3.6 dBA greater than the existing
conditions. Since this increase is less than the 5 dB threshold of significance, this is a
less-than-significant noise impact. (The future noise level with the addition of
project traffic would also remain below 60 dBA.)
Watercraft Noise
The project would increase the number of watercraft passbys along Kellogg Creek,
which is a major thoroughfare for Discovery Bay. To predict the increase in noise for
adjacent Discovery Bay residents, the estimated increase in watercraft trips was
based on the proposed number of homes with docks, and ownership rates for non-
waterfront lots.
The project would construct 116 waterfront lots with deepwater access and 176
interior lots. The analysis assumes one boat per waterfront household, and also
assumes additional boats pursuant to County-wide ownership rates for interior lots.
Based on this methodology, the project is estimated to contribute an additional 131
new vessels to Discovery Bay. Based on an average trip rate of 26.1 trips per year
(PWA 2010), Pantages Bays would contribute approximately 3,420 new boat trips
per year, an increase of approximately 2.8 percent in the number of local boat trips
within Discovery Bay.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-15
The type of watercraft resulting from the project is expected to mirror the existing
environment; therefore, the maximum sound level from individual boat passbys
(Lmax) would be the same. The estimated 2.8 percent increase in the number of
watercraft is estimated to result in an increase in watercraft-generated CNEL of less
than 1 dBA, which is not considered a significant increase in ambient noise levels.2
Owners of the motorized vessels for future residents of the project traveling within
adjacent waterways will be required by law to comply with the Harbors and
Navigation Code, which regulates maximum engine noise levels from boats (see
Subsection 4.12.3, Regulatory Setting above).
Marine law enforcement officials stationed on site would use a standardized
method of testing for motorboat noise, when applicable (see subsection Harbors
and Navigation Code Section 654.05 above). Furthermore, boat noise within the
project site will be controlled in a similar manner as for existing waterways within
Discovery Bay through designation as a no wake zone (5 mph). The speed
requirements would be clearly specified in the homeowners association’s
covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) which would stipulate that marina
privileges may be suspended if a speeding citation is received.
e) Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive
ground borne vibration levels?
The creation of bays, coves, and waterways around the homes would require the
permanent stabilization of creek banks through the installation of shoring walls.
Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) is the method proposed for installing shoring walls
along the project’s waterfront. The CDSM method introduces and mixes cement-
type materials with local soils by drilling overlapping columns and mixing soil-
cement in place. To resist lateral forces on the soil-cement columns, steel
reinforcement is installed in the form of steel I-beams. The steel is lowered into
each column while the soil-cement mixture is still in a fluid state. Once the columns
solidify other phases of grading can occur to form the completed bank. This
operation involves approximately two large tractor/cranes, pumping equipment to
deliver the soil-cement mixture, and small work trucks to move personnel and
equipment around the job site.
The project does not include any components that would generate excessive ground
borne vibration levels during construction activities such as deep dynamic
compaction. The CDSM method includes drilling columns into the ground, but
control of the drilling speed would render any vibration from the construction area
negligible.
2 This increase in noise level was calculated by using the standard formula of 10 times the logarithm of
the ratio of the number of future boats to the number of existing boats.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-16
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
significant impact for one of the six significance criteria. The following discussion
presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
f) Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels existing without the project?
Impact NOI-1: Project construction would cause a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels. (Significant)
Noise from the construction of the residential improvements would occur from site
preparation, foundation work, framing, and interior work. In addition, the project
would involve extensive excavation and dredging by bulldozers, scrapers, etc., to
create the bays, coves, and waterways around the homes.
Table 4.12-4 shows equipment noise levels for various construction equipment and
activities, including estimated sound levels at a distance of 50 feet and 300 feet
from the source.
The 50-foot distance is representative of the homes along the western property
boundary (in Ravenswood and Village II, Lakeshore). The 300-foot distance is
representative of the homes across Kellogg Creek in Discovery Bay.
As shown in Table 4.12-4, construction activities at the project site would result in
noise levels exceeding 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels decrease at a
rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source.
Earthmoving activities, such as excavation, grading, would occur over a two-year
period, and construction of the homes is expected to occur over a five year period.
Due to the complexities of the grading sequences, including time constraints on
grading Kellogg Creek and the size of the project site, earthmoving activities would
not occur over the entire site for the entire two year period. Site work will progress
systematically throughout the site as different sequences of grading are
commenced and completed. Home construction would also progress systematically
throughout the site. It is anticipated that the custom waterfront lots would be built
out at a slower rate than the interior lots. Similar to the earthmoving activities,
home construction would occur during specific windows of time during the 8-year
construction period, in specific areas of the project site, not the entire site at once.
Based on these assumptions, the noise levels at adjacent residences to the west
could exceed 75 dBA during particular activities in close proximity to the project’s
western boundary. This is considered a significant, but short-term impact.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-17
Table 4.12-4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) dBA
at 50 feet
Maximum Noise Level (Lmax)
dBA at 300 feet
Backhoe 78 63
Compactor (ground) 83 68
Compressor (air) 78 63
Concrete Mixer Truck 79 64
Concrete Pump Truck 81 66
Crane 81 66
Dozer 82 67
Dump Truck 76 61
Excavator 81 66
Front End Laoder 79 64
Generator 81 66
Paver 77 62
Pneumatic Tools 85 70
Pumps 81 66
Roller 80 65
Scraper 85 70
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2006 (FHWA-HEP-05-054)
Bank Stabilization, Excavation and Widening of Kellogg Creek
The creation of bays, coves, and waterways around the homes would require
excavation and the permanent stabilization of the banks through the installation of
shoring walls. As previously stated, the preferred method for installing shoring walls
along the project’s waterfront is CDSM. The noise levels from CDSM are primarily
due to the drill/crane unit, cement silo, and a generator. Therefore, where CDSM is
used, the noise levels would be no more than the ‘generator’ noise levels (as seen in
Table 4.12-4).
Based on the noise levels that would be generated by the equipment used in CDSM
method, noise from the installation of steel I-beams would be well below the state
standards at 240 feet from the noise source, which is the distance of the closest
homes in Ravenswood and Lakeshore to the CDSM construction. Across Kellogg
Creek at the closest Discovery Bay homes (approximately 150 feet), construction
noise levels associated with bank stabilization and excavation are expected to range
up to 75 dBA.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts related
to construction noise at adjacent residences to a less-than-significant level.
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-18
Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: All noise generating construction activities shall
be limited to the hours of 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, and
shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays on the calendar dates that
these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below:
New Year’s Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal)
Washington’s Birthday/Presidents’ Day (State and Federal)
Lincoln’s Birthday (State)
Cesar Chavez Day (State)
Memorial Day (State and Federal)
Independence Day (State and Federal)
Labor Day (State and Federal)
Columbus Day (State and Federal)
Veterans Day (State and Federal)
Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving (State)
Christmas Day (State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please
visit the following websites:
Federal Holidays: http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/
fedhol/2011.asp
California Holidays: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/holidays.shtml
Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted
construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site,
and a day and evening contact number for the County in the event of problems.
An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be available to respond to
and track complaints. The manager will be responsible for responding to any
complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent
land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and
coordinate with the construction team to implement effective measures
(considered technically and economically feasible) warranted to correct the
problem. The telephone number of the coordinator shall be posted at the
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-19
construction site and provided to neighbors in a notification letter. The
manager will be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available
during all construction hours to respond to complaints.
At least one week prior to commencement of grading or construction activities
for each major phase of construction the applicant shall prepare a notice that
grading or construction work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the
site and mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of
the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized
assessment roll. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name,
title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for
maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times
and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective
action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for
noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles,
erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly
identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of the
project and a copy shall be mailed to the Contra Costa County Department of
Conservation and Development.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: The project applicant shall prepare a detailed
construction noise mitigation plan for review and approval by the County. The
goal of the plan is to provide a framework for notifying neighbors of the extent
of the noise that can be expected during particular phases of the project
grading, what mitigation will be applied, and who to call if there are noise-
related complaints. Submission of this construction noise mitigation plan shall
be required as part the building permit application.
The construction noise mitigation plan shall use the California Model
Community Noise Ordinance limits of 75 dBA for mobile equipment and 60 dBA
for stationary equipment as the primary noise mitigation goals.
Information in the plan shall include but not be limited to the following:
Construction schedule showing dates and location of activities.
List of equipment to be used during each major construction phase and
sound level estimates for each phase.
Height, length, and location of any recommended noise barriers. The
barriers can be constructed out of wood or other materials as long as they
have a minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5 pounds per square
foot. Possible materials include 1-1/8-inch-thick plywood or fully
overlapping 1x redwood boards (1-1/2-inch-thick total). The barriers would
likely be 6 to 8 feet tall but this would be refined as part of the construction
noise control plan. Issues to consider when determining the ultimate
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-20
height, length, and location of the barriers are the actual construction
practices, including equipment to be used and the location and duration of
noisier activities. The topography will also need to be considered in the
final determination of barrier heights and effectiveness.
Truck routing to minimize noise at existing noise sensitive locations. The
project applicant shall limit trucks to routes, hours, and days of the week set
by Contra Costa County.
Location of stationary equipment as far from residents as is practicable
and/or enclose noise sources.
The project applicant shall require the contractor to use electric or
hydraulically powered rather than diesel or pneumatically powered
equipment and construction tools as feasible.
Provide intake silencers and “resident-type” exhaust mufflers on vehicles
and equipment and/or acoustically shroud or shield impact tools as feasible.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1c: The project applicant shall construct temporary
noise barriers along the western property line neighboring the existing
residences at the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West subdivisions. Noise
barriers shall provide noise reductions in the range of 5 to 10 dBA.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
The implementation of restricted days and hours of construction, notification,
sound attenuating barriers, and restrictions on certain activities to summer
months would result in the greatest feasible reduction in temporary sound
levels associated with construction.
4.12.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The General Plan EIR noted that build-out would result in increased ambient noise
levels related to roadway traffic and construction, as well as airport activity,
industrial activity and the extension of BART. The project is not located in the
vicinity of an airport, industrial site, or BART extension, and would not contribute
noise to any of these identified cumulative impacts.
The cumulative impact area for noise includes areas where noise from the project
could be heard and could combine with noise from adjacent land uses. As all of the
surrounding land uses would continue to be residential and/or agricultural, the main
source of cumulative noise would be from local roadways.
The following analysis concludes that the project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to increases in roadway noise.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.12 Noise and Vibration
4.12-21
Cumulative noise levels are based on the forecasted traffic growth in the County,
which was calculated using the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Decennial Travel Demand Model (see Section 4.16, Traffic and Transportation).
Table 4.12-5 identifies the predicted CNEL increase due to cumulative traffic noise
with and without the project.
As shown in Table 4.12-5, cumulative increases in noise levels would not exceed the
5 dBA DNL threshold with the exception of a segment of Point of Timber Road
(between Byron Highway and Bixler). This segment of roadway would experience an
increase of 6.3 dBA DNL in the cumulative scenario and an additional 0.7 dBA DNL
with the project, increasing the current ambient noise level of 57 dBA DNL to 63 dBA
DNL in the cumulative plus project condition. The project’s contribution (0.7 dBA
DNL) is less than 1.0 dBA and is not a cumulatively considerable contribution to this
impact.
Moreover, the area of impact is zoned for agricultural uses, which is subject to a
“normally acceptable” range of sound up to 75 dBA. As noted above, the future
sound level with cumulative development would be 63 dBA DNL, 12 decibels below
the normally acceptable limit. While the cumulative increase exceeds the 5 decibel
threshold, it is worth noting that the future sound level would be well within the
acceptable limits established for this type of land use.
Table 4.12-5 Predicted CNEL Increases Due to Cumulative Traffic Noise
Road Segment
Increase in CNEL (Dba) with respect
to the Existing Conditions
Existing
plus
Project
Cumulative Cumulative
plus
Project
Future
Sound
level
Bixler Road Balfour Road to Point of Timber Road 0.1 0.5 0.6 64.6
Point of Timber Road to Marsh Creek Road 0.9 2.0 2.5 68.5
Marsh Creek Road to State Route 4 0.5 3.3 3.5 69.5
Point of Timber
Road
Byron Highway to Bixler Road 2.2 6.3 7.0 63.0
Just east of Bixler Road 1.9 1.0 2.6 57.6
Just west of project Site 3.6 1.1 4.4 55.4
Newport Drive Bixler Road to Slifer Drive 1.1 3.0 3.6 60.6
Slifer Drive to Newport Lane 1.0 4.2 4.6 59.6
Newport Lane to State Route 4 0.4 3.3 3.5 59.5
Source: Rosen, Goldberg & Der, 2010
Pantages Bays Project
4.12 Noise and Vibration Draft EIR
4.12-22
4.12.6 REFERENCES
Contra Costa County General Plan, Noise Element.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)(2005). High-speed ground transportation
noise and vibration impact assessment.
Fehr and Peers. June (2010). Pantages Bays EIR Transportation Analysis.
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990). 221 Cal.App.3d 692,720.
Rosen Goldberg Der & Lewitz, Inc. July (2010). Environmental Noise Study for
Pantages Bays.
PWA (2010). Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment Memorandum.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-1
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section describes and evaluates the project’s effects on population and
housing. The analysis includes the existing and projected demographics of
Discovery Bay based on the most current data available from the Contra Costa
County General Plan (General Plan), the U.S. Census, and estimates from the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2009. For the purposes of
this analysis, the project is anticipated to be fully operational by 2018. The
following discussions focus on the most current population, employment, and
housing projections data available. This section also describes relevant policies from
the General Plan related to population and housing, and evaluates the project’s
consistency with those policies.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), a comment was received requesting that the draft EIR quantify the County’s
regional housing needs allocation from ABAG and include the numbers of low, very
low, and moderate housing units that would be provided by the project. The
County’s regional housing needs allocation is shown in Table 4.13-2 below.
However, the project application was deemed complete prior to the
implementation of the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2006, which
requires 15 percent of units in any new residential development be marketed as
affordable. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance does not therefore apply to the
project, and the project is not required to provide affordable units.
4.13.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Population
The project site is located in the community of Discovery Bay, which is an
unincorporated community located in eastern Contra Costa County (County) near
the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and the unincorporated communities of Bethel
Island, Knightsen, and Byron. Within the larger framework of unincorporated
County lands, the community of Discovery Bay is part of the Rural East Contra Costa
County subregional study area (SSA) as designated by ABAG, which includes Bethel
Island, Byron, and other small rural communities in the eastern part of the county.
Table 4.13-1 details current population and housing statistics as well as projections
through 2020. Based on the projections, the population of the Rural East Contra
Costa County SSA (Rural East County) in 2005 was estimated at 16,200. (ABAG
2009)
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-2
ABAG estimates that by 2010 the population of the Rural East County will increase
by 11.7 percent, to 18,100, and by 2020 the population will be 19,400. The
estimated increase represents a growth rate of 20 percent between 2005 and 2020
in Rural East County, similar to the 20 percent increase for the County as a whole
during the same time period.
Table 4.13-1 County and Rural East County Population and Household
Information
Jurisdiction 2005 2010 2015 2020
Contra Costa County
Population 1,023,400 1,049,250* 1,130,700 1,177,400
Households 368,310 375,364* 407,250 424,340
Average Household Size 2.75 2.77* 2.75 2.75
Rural East County
Population 16,200 18,100 18,800 19,400
Households 6,090 6,830 7,050 7,330
Average Household Size 2.63 2.61 2.62 2.61
Source: ABAG 2009
* 2010 data is drawn from the 2010 U.S. Census.
Housing
The total number of households in the Rural East County is expected to keep
relative pace with the rest of the County. As shown in Table 4.13-1, the total
estimated number of households in 2005 was 6,090. According to ABAG Projections
2009, the number of households is expected to grow to 7,330 by 2020 (a 20 percent
increase), similar to the 20 percent increase in the total number of households
Countywide during the same period.
Average Household Size
The number of persons per household in Rural East County in 2005 was 2.63
persons, slightly lower than the countywide estimate of 2.75 persons per
household. In order to account for growth based on the larger-size homes that
characterize development in much of Discovery Bay, a conservative multiplier of 3.0
persons per household is assumed for the project, compared to the ABAG estimate
of 2.61 persons per household in 2020 for Rural East County. (Nelson 2007)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-3
Regional Housing Need Determination
In 2008, ABAG released the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), which
projects each community’s share of the region’s future growth and housing demand
based on forecasts from San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2007-2014.
According to the Contra Costa County Updated Housing Element, and as illustrated
in Table 4.13-2, the total number of RNHA allocation for the County was 27,072
units. The unincorporated areas were assigned approximately 13 percent of the
growth (3,508 units). The balance of the units was assigned to incorporated cities
throughout the County. Between 2007 and 2009, the County provided 1,350 RHNA
units, 38 percent of the County’s total RHNA units to be constructed by 2014.
Table 4.13-2 Share of Regional Housing Needs for 2007-2014
Income Group Total RHNA Allocation
for Contra Costa County
RHNA Allocation for
Unincorporated Areas
RNHA units provided in
Unincorporated Areas
(2007-2009)
Very Low 6,512 815 88
Low 4,325 598 34
Moderate 4,996 687 320
Above Moderate 11,239 1,408 908
Total 27,072 3,508 1,350
Sources: ABAG 2008; Contra Costa County Updated Housing Element 2009; Annual Housing Element Progress
Report 2009.
Employment
Table 4.13-3 illustrates the number of jobs projected for the Rural East County and
Contra Costa County.
According to ABAG, employment in the County is projected to decrease between
2005 and 2010, a reflection of the wider economic downturn. However, ABAG
projects economic expansion from 2010 through 2020, as 69,520 jobs are projected
to be added to the countywide economy, an increase of 18 percent.
Rural East County creates approximately 1 percent of the jobs within the County as
a whole, and this ratio is expected to remain relatively constant throughout the next
10 years. ABAG projects an increase of 790 jobs in Rural East County from 2010-
2020, representing an increase in employment in of approximately 20 percent from
2010 to 2020.
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-4
Table 4.13-3 Rural East County and Contra Costa County Employment
Projections
2005 2010 2015 2020
Rural East County
Total Jobs 3,910 3,870 4,290 4,660
Contra Costa County
Total Jobs 379,030 376,030 409,650 445,550
Source: ABAG 2009.
4.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains the following relevant policies
related to population and housing.
Land Use Element
3-21 The predominantly single-family character of substantially developed
portions of the County shall be retained. Multiple-family housing shall be
dispersed throughout the County and not concentrated in single locations.
Multiple-family housing shall generally be located in proximity to facilities
such as arterial roads, transit corridors, and shopping areas.
3-23 A diversity of living options shall be permitted while ensuring community
compatibility and quality residential development.
3-24 Housing opportunities shall be improved through encouragement of distinct
style, desirable amenities, attractive design, and enhancement of
neighborhood identity.
3-25 Innovation in site planning and design of housing developments shall be
encouraged in order to upgrade quality and efficiency of residential living
arrangements and to protect the surrounding environment.
3-27 Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible
land uses and traffic levels exceeding adopted service standards.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-5
3-28 New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it
will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the
environment and upon the existing community.
Housing Element
An Updated Housing Element was adopted by the County in 2009 and identifies
state, regional, and local housing policies, as well as recognized housing needs of
the County’s residents, housing resources, and housing constraints. As defined by
the State Housing Element law, the Housing Element is required to be “An
assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant
to the meeting of these needs.”
State law requires that this assessment include an analysis of population, household
characteristics, employment trends, regional housing needs, and an inventory of
suitable land for residential development. The assessment should also include an
analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints, special housing needs,
opportunities for energy conservation, and publicly-assisted housing developments
that may convert to non-assisted housing developments. The purpose of these
requirements is to develop an understanding of the existing and projected housing
needs within the County and to set forth policies that promote preservation,
improvement, and development of diverse types and costs of housing throughout
the County.
The Updated Housing Element contains the following relevant policies associated
with population and housing:
7.1 Establish and maintain development standards that support housing
development while protecting quality of life goals.
7.4 Continue to provide for timely and coordinated processing of residential
development projects in order to minimize project holding costs and
encourage housing production.
Policy Consistency Analysis
The project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies of the
Land Use and Housing Elements related to population and housing. The project site
is located within the Urban Limit Line (ULL), which identifies the project site and
surrounding properties for urban development, consistent with policies 7.1 and 7.4.
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-6
As the project proposes 292 single-family residential units, it would retain the
predominantly single-family character of the County and be consistent with policy 3-
21. The project would also comply with Policies 3-23 and 3-24 insofar as it would
provide diversity in terms of waterfront living that is distinct from a more traditional
subdivision.
In reference to policy 3-27, the proposed single-family detached residential units are
designed to be similar to and compatible with the Discovery Bay community,
including waterfront lots with deep water access.
The project design also includes preservation of existing wetland and marsh areas
on a portion of the property and, as documented throughout this EIR, the project
would not create severe unmitigated adverse effects upon the environment and
upon the existing community, consistent with Policies 3-28 and 3-25.
4.13.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
related to population and housing if it would:
a) Displace substantial numbers of existing houses, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere;
b) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
c) Induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure).
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and project site characteristics in the context of the
three significance criteria stated above shows that no impacts would result for two
of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-7
a) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No project-related improvements are proposed that would displace any existing
housing. The project site contains three residential structures that are dilapidated
and abandoned. Demolition of the dilapidated and abandoned residential structures
does not constitute displacement of substantial numbers of housing units since the
units are vacant and uninhabitable. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The residential sites on the project site are vacant; therefore, no individuals would
be displaced or in need of replacement housing as a result of the project. No impact
related to the displacement of people would occur.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the three
significance criteria stated above shows that some degree of impact would result for
one of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
c) Would the project induce substantial population growth in the
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Direct Growth
The project would construct 292 housing units, which would directly increase the
Rural East County population by an estimated 876 people.1 For the years 2010 to
2020, the 2009 ABAG Projections report an anticipated population increase
Countywide of 87,100 and an increase in population in Rural East County of
approximately 1,300 (see Table 4.13-1).
1 This number was determined by using the Contra Costa County projected number of 3.0 persons per
household for the Discovery Bay area. It is anticipated that some of the residential units would be
occupied by persons that already work and/or live in the County.
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-8
The ABAG Projections reflect a trend of continued development in Rural East
County, and the project is included in the population projections for the next 10
years. Population generated by the project represents approximately 67 percent of
the projected growth in Rural East County and 1 percent of the projected growth
estimated for the County as a whole for the same period.2
The project and surrounding properties were included within the ULL to indicate an
intention for future conversion to urban uses. The timing for the development of
these areas is speculative and regional population projections have attempted to
project a reasonable rate of growth based on market conditions.
Given that the direct population increase associated with the project would be
within the ABAG population forecasts, this impact is considered less than significant.
Indirect Growth
The project site is located within the ULL and is identified for potential future urban
development. The project would require the extension of utilities and roads to a
previously undeveloped area, and such extensions can often indirectly induce
growth in adjacent areas. In this instance however, the project is an infill
development and adjacent lands are either already developed with residential uses,
or are located outside the ULL, which prevents further development. Therefore,
indirect impacts related to indirect population growth are considered less than
significant.
4.13.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for population growth and housing includes eastern Contra
Costa County, and the County as a whole. The General Plan EIR stated that build-
out of the General Plan could result in up to 145,206 new residents in the County by
the end of the planning period (2020). The General Plan EIR also noted that
adoption of the General Plan would concentrate population in urban areas, and
would preclude development and extension of urban services and facilities outside
of the ULL.
The General Plan and adoption of the ULL identified an intended pattern of
residential development that included urban development of the area surrounding
Discovery Bay. The General Plan EIR did not identify a significant impact related to
population growth and therefore a cumulative impact related to population and
2 The subdivisions currently under construction to the west are assumed to be included in the 2005
and/or 2010 baseline.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.13 Population and Housing
4.13-9
housing does not exist. The General Plan EIR noted that build out in accordance
with the ULL and in tandem with a program of employment development would
create a jobs housing balance that would support a more vibrant and sustainable
community.
The project is located within the ULL and would not require an extension of services
outside the ULL boundary. The project, as well as the proposed 67-lot residential
subdivision (Newport Pointe), and the Villages at Discovery Bay project—which
includes 80 townhomes—would require a General Plan Amendment and were not
therefore assumed as part of the growth increase discussed in the General Plan
because these properties were assumed to stay in agricultural production or
commercial uses, and their development therefore represents new growth (see
Figure 4-1). However, all of these properties are located within the ULL and were
therefore identified for future development in accordance with the 65/35 urban
limit line.
The ULL effectively limits pressure for indirect growth via extension of utilities. As
noted above a cumulative impact relative to population and housing was not
identified in the General Plan EIR. The project in conjunction with other projects
located within the ULL would therefore not generate a cumulatively significant
impact related to direct or indirect growth.
4.13.5 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections, 2009.
Association of Bay Area Governments. San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan
2007-2014, 2008.
Contra Costa County General Plan, Urban Limit Line Map, November 8, 2006.
Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020, January 2005.
Nelson, Will, Senior Planner, Contra Costa County, personal communication, May
28, 2007.
Pantages Bays Project
4.13 Population and Housing Draft EIR
4.13-10
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-1
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This section evaluates public services and recreation facilities related to the project,
including police and fire protection, schools, parks and recreation, and other public
facilities. Information regarding public services and public recreation was obtained
primarily through personal communications with service providers, service
providers’ websites, and the Contra Costa County General Plan (General Plan).
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report
(EIR), one commenter expressed concern regarding public recreational facilities and
access to the Delta. This comment is addressed in the impact analysis presented
below in Subsection 4.14.3, Analysis of Potential Impacts.
4.14.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Police Protection Services
Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office
Police protection services in the project vicinity are provided by the Delta Station of
the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, located at 220 O’Hara Avenue within the
City of Oakley. The Delta Station provides police services to the following three
geographical areas (commonly referred to as “beats”) (Lt. M. Burton February
2010):
Beat 31: Unincorporated areas of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley
Beat 32: Discovery Bay
Beat 33: Bethel Island, Knightsen, and Byron
The Delta Station’s staffing goal for the Discovery Bay beat is to have one sergeant,
three deputies, two resident deputies, and a school resource officer. All areas
within Discovery Bay are accessible within a five minute time frame, in most
situations (ibid.).
The General Plan includes a sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station per
1,000 people within the unincorporated area of the County. As of 2010, the County
is meeting this standard.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-2
Marine Services Division
The Marine Services Division of the Contra Costa County Sheriff Reserve provides
marine patrol services within the Discovery Bay area. The marine patrol is currently
staffed with five full-time deputies, one sergeant, and one lieutenant who are
dispatched from an office space at the Lauritzen Yacht Harbor in Oakley and operate
from one of the following boat slips (Lt. Wright, July 2011):
Three boat slips at Lauritzen Yacht Harbor at 115 Lauritzen Lane in Oakley
Two boat slips at Discovery Bay Marina at 5901 Marina Road in Discovery Bay
Regularly assigned deputies are occasionally supplemented by additional officers
during weekends and holidays, and by reserve officers on an as needed basis. One
patrol vessel services the project area on a daily basis, and is deployed from the
Discovery Bay Marina (see Figure 4.14-1). Typical calls investigated by the Marine
Services Division include boating accidents, derelict vessel reports, and speeding (Lt.
W. Duke July 2010).
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
Fire protection and emergency medical response services for the project area are
provided by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD). Fire protection
to the project site would be provided by Fire Station 59 at 1801 Bixler Road,
Discovery Bay, located approximately 1 mile from the project site
(see Figure 4.14-1). According to the Public Facilities/Services Element in the
County’s General Plan, the County strives to have a minimum of 3 firefighters at
each fire station, and to locate a fire station within 3 minutes and/or 1.5 miles of all
non-rural areas. In suburban areas, the County strives to achieve a total response
time of 5 minutes for 90 percent of all emergency calls.
The ECCFPD currently employs approximately 75 firefighters (career and on-call) (P.
Hubbard, July 2011). Fire Station 59 is staffed by three full-time personnel and is
equipped with one Type I Engine (basic fire engine) and one Type III wildlands
Engine, which is a basic fire engine designed for wildland fire (Chief Henderson
February 1, 2011).
Station 59 was funded and constructed as part of the Discovery Bay West
Development. Any new development in the service area of Station 59 (such as the
Pantages Bays project) is required to pay into a reimbursement fund for
construction of the station.
Source: Google Earth, 2010.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.14-1FigurePublic Services in the Project Vicinity
500 FEET 10000 2000
4
4
4Bixler RoadByron HighwayDiscovery Bay Boulevard Kellogg Creek ECCID Ch a n n e lIndian Slough
Point of Timber Road
PROJECT
SITE
DISCOVERY BAY
Timber Point
Elementary School
Excelsior
Middle School
Discovery Bay
Elementary School
Discovery Bay
Marina
Fire Station 59
Legend
Project Site
Discovery Bay West
The Lakes at Discovery Bay
(Villages III, IV and V)
Ravenwood
Urban Limit Line
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-4
Figure 4.14-1 Public Services in the Project Vicinity (back)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-5
The ECCFPD relies mainly on property tax revenue to fund operations. Because of a
significant drop in the assessed property values of homes and properties in East
County, the ECCFPD Board met on February 27, 2012, and voted to call a special
election on June 5, 2012 proposing a special tax of $197 per parcel as a revenue
enhancement for the District. The proposed tax will sunset in 2023, unless the
voters decide to extend it. (ECCFPD Town Hall meeting Schedule 1/2012, LAFCO Fire
Service Update 3/14/12).
Schools
The Byron Union School District (BUSD) (Kindergarten through 8th grade) and the
Liberty Union High School District (LUHSD) provide public education services to
students in the Discovery Bay area. Students from the neighborhoods surrounding
the project site attend Timber Point Elementary School, Excelsior Middle School in
Byron, and Liberty High School in Brentwood. Figure 4.14-1 shows the location of
the schools in the project vicinity.
Tables 4.14-1 and 4.14-2 detail the current enrollment and capacity statistics for
schools in the project vicinity. In general, schools in the vicinity have experienced
fairly steady enrollment rates (B. Nicolaisen, July 14 2010).
Table 4.14-1 Byron Unified School District
School Distance from
Project Site
Current
Enrollment Capacity Availability
Discovery Bay Elementary Less than 1 mile 506 720 +214
Timber Point Elementary Less than 1 mile 583 720 +137
Excelsior Middle School Approximately 2.3 miles 587 690 +103
Source: Byron Union School District, Gaby Hellier, Chief Business Official, Personal Communication December 13,
2010.
Table 4.14-2 Liberty Union High School District
School Distance from
Project Site
Current
Enrollment Capacity Availability
Liberty High School 4.6 miles 2,068 2,200 +132
Freedom High School 7 miles 2,472 2,200 -272
Heritage High School 7.5 miles 2,144 2,200 +56
La Paloma High School* 6.5 miles 193 190 -3
* A continuation school.
Source: Wayne Reeves, Director of Project Development, LUHSD. Personal Communication December 2, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-6
Planned Improvements
Middle School
In June 2006, a Measure C Bond was passed to improve the conditions of BUSD’s
campuses, including construction of 14 additional classrooms at the Excelsior
Middle School. As part of this construction, some of the older classrooms will be
removed. The demolition and construction of this improvement at Excelsior Middle
School is on hold until BUSD receives matching state funding. It is unknown at this
time when BUSD would receive this funding from the state. (G. Hellier, December
2010).
High School
The construction of an additional high school is currently being considered by the
LUHSD and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and is awaiting
certification. The high school would be located at the intersection of Delta and
Sellers Avenue in unincorporated Contra Costa County. This high school would not
operate as a comprehensive high school, but as a magnet high school that would
provide capacity for approximately 700 to 800 students. If the project is approved,
it would open in 2014 (Reeves, W. December 2010).
Parks and Recreation
Local Parks
Several local parks are located in the project vicinity as shown in Figure 4.14-2.
Ravenswood Park is immediately west of the project site on Bronte and Poe Drives.
Slifer Park, part of the Discovery Bay West project, is located on the corner of
Newport and Slifer Drives. Regatta Park is southwest of the site, just north of
Highway 4, located on Sailboat Drive. Cornell Park is located on Discovery Bay
Boulevard. Table 4.14-3 presents information related to each local park.
Table 4.14-3 Local Parks
Park Size Distance to
Project Site Amenities
Cornell Park 9 acres 0.75 mile Basketball and tennis courts, baseball and soccer fields,
bocce ball court, picnic tables, children’s play areas.
Regatta Park 3 - 5 acres 1 mile Picnic tables, barbeque pits, playground, pathway, turf.
Ravenswood Park 3 acres 0.05 mile Picnic tables, barbeque pits, soccer field, playground,
pathway
Slifer Park 5 acres 0.25 mile Playground, basketball court, soccer field, pathway.
Source: Virgil Koehne, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay, Personal Communication, November 20, 2009.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.14-2Figure
CirclePoint
Local Parks in the Project Vicinity
Source: Google Earth; Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District, 2010.
1000FEET5000 2000
4
4Bixler RoadDiscovery Bay BoulevardCornell Park
Ravenswood
Park
Regatta
Park
Slifer Park Kellogg Creek ECCID Chann e lIndian Slough
Point of Timber Road
PROJECT
SITE
DISCOVERY BAY
Legend
Project Site
Local Parks
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-8
Regional Parks
East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) owns and manages several regional parks
and trails in Contra Costa and Alameda County. The core mission of the EBRPD is to
“acquire, develop, manage, and maintain a high quality, diverse system of
interconnected parklands which balances public usage and education programs with
protection and preservation of natural and cultural resources.”
The closest regional parks to the project site include the Antioch/Oakley Regional
Shoreline, Black Diamond Mines Reserve, Contra Loma Regional Park, Morgan
Territory, and Round Valley Regional Preserve. Table 4.14-4 presents information
related to each regional park.
Table 4.14-4 Regional Parks
Park Acreage Distance to Project Area Amenities
Antioch/Oakley Regional
Shoreline 7.5 14 miles Pier access, fishing,
picnicking.
Black Diamond Mines
Preserve 5,375 20 miles Hiking, camping.
Contra Loma Regional
Park 780 15 miles Boat launch, swimming,
picnic areas, trails.
Morgan Territory 4,708 25 miles Hiking, horseback riding,
picnicking, camping.
Round Valley Regional
Preserve 1,911 10 miles Hiking, horseback riding,
bicycling.
Source: East Bay Regional Parks District, http://www.ebparks.org, 2008. Accessed November 17, 2009
Park Dedication and Fee Requirements
State law authorizes local governments to require the dedication of parkland or
impose a fee (in lieu of land dedication) to offset the additional demand for parks
and recreational facilities generated by new development. State law limits
dedication requirements to at most 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
The General Plan Growth Management Element requires new development to
provide 3 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1,000 people. Pursuant to the
County’s dedication requirements, the 292-unit project would require the
dedication of 2.6 acres of parkland.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-9
Because the project area is within an unincorporated area within the East County,
County Code Section 920-6.602 has established fees which assesses new
development projects a fee of $3,142 per single family residential unit to reduce
park and recreation impacts. However, because the project application was
deemed complete before these new fees were established (new park fees were
adopted May 15, 2007) the project is subject to the previous fee of $1,350 per
dwelling unit.
The County Code also permits a combination of land dedication and fee payment
(Section 920-6.206).
Libraries
Contra Costa Library operates 25 facilities in Contra Costa County, including
Brentwood Library, located at 104 Oak Street in Brentwood, approximately 6 miles
from the project site. The Brentwood Library opened in 1979 and serves a
population of over 40,000 in East County. The Contra Costa Library system is
primarily funded by local property taxes, with additional revenue from
intergovernmental sources.
Hospitals
Contra Costa County Health Services District (CCCHSD) operates 10 health facilities
in the County. CCCHSD is primarily funded by federal and state funding programs,
with additional revenue from local tax resources. County health facilities generally
serve low-income and uninsured patients. The closest public health center to the
project site is the Brentwood Health Center located at 17 Sand Creek Road in
Brentwood, approximately 7 miles to the west. The Brentwood Health Center is a
family practice with internal medicine, pediatrics, prenatal care, and women’s
health care departments.
4.14.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Senate Bill 50
The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, or Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), restricts
the ability of local agencies to deny project approvals on the basis that public school
facilities (classrooms, auditoriums, etc.) are inadequate. School impact fees are
collected at the time when building permits are issued. Payment of school fees is
required by SB 50 for all new residential development projects and is considered
“full and complete mitigation” of any school impacts. School impact fees are
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-10
payments to offset capital cost impacts associated with new developments, which
result primarily from costs of additional school facilities, related furnishings and
equipment, and projected capital maintenance requirements. As such, agencies
cannot require additional mitigation for any school impacts.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would be developed within the BUSD and LUHSD boundaries, and would
be subject to school impact fees for both districts. Pursuant to an agreement
between BUSD and Pantages Bays, LLC, Pantages Bays LLC has agreed to pay the
BUSD a sum in excess of the standard school impact fees. For the LUHSD, the
project applicant would pay the standard developer fees for new housing.
The payment of monetary funds would satisfy local and state laws related to school
impacts and school impact fees. Therefore, the project is consistent with SB 50.
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Growth Management Element of the General Plan requires 3 acres of public
parks per 1,000 people for all new residential development. The Public
Facilities/Services and Open Space Elements of the General Plan contain the
following relevant public services and recreation goals and policies.
Public Facilities/Services Element
7-1 New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all
existing public facilities it utilizes, based upon the demand for these facilities
which can be attributed to new development.
7-2 New development, not existing residents, should be required to pay all costs
of upgrading existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are
exclusively needed to serve new development.
7-4 The financial impacts of new development or public facilities should
generally be determined during the project review process and may be
based on the analysis contemplated under the Growth Management
Element or otherwise. As part of the project approval, specific findings shall
be adopted which relate to the demand for new public facilities and how
the demand affects the service standards included in the growth
management program.
Public Protection
7-57 A sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station per 1,000 population
shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-11
7-58 Sheriff patrol beats shall be configured to assure minimum response times
and efficient use of resources.
7-59 A maximum response time goal for priority 1 or 2 calls of five minutes for 90
percent of all emergency responses in central business district, urban and
suburban areas, shall be strived for by the sheriff when making staffing and
beat configuration decisions.
7-60 Levels of service above the county-wide standard requested by
unincorporated communities shall be provided through the creation of a
County Service Area or other special government unit.
Fire Protection Policies
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.
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.
7-64 New development shall pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection
facilities and services.
7-70 The effectiveness of existing and proposed fire protection facilities shall be
maximized by incorporating analysis of optimum fire and emergency service
access into circulation system design.
7-75 Fire stations and facilities shall be considered consistent with all land use
designations used in the General Plan and all zoning districts.
Open Space Element
9-1 Permanent open space shall be provided within the County for a variety of
open space uses.
9-36 To develop a sufficient amount of conveniently located, properly designed
park and recreational facilities to serve the needs of all residents.
9-38 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.
9-39 To achieve a level of park facilities of 3 acres per 1,000 population.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-12
9-40 Major park lands shall be reserved to ensure that the present and future
needs of the County’s residents will be met and to preserve areas of natural
beauty or historical interest for future generations. Apply the parks and
recreation performance standards in the Growth Management Element.
9-41 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.
9-47 Recreational development shall be allowed only in a manner which
complements the natural features of the area, including the topography,
waterways, vegetation, and soil characteristics.
Safety Element
10-70 Applications for private or commercial docks which would encroach into
waterways used primarily for recreation boating should be reviewed by the
county to evaluate their aggregate impact upon public safety.
Project Consistency Analysis
The project would include the payment of fire impact fees and also includes the
construction of a marine patrol substation to ensure conformance with General Plan
policies related to emergency service response and staffing. Furthermore, the
project is subject to County approval prior to the construction of any docks or
waterways to ensure public safety.
Although the project would not create additional parklands, it would comply with
the County’s dedication requirements through a combination of dedication of a
public access trail within the emergent marsh and payment of an in lieu parkland
dedication fee to fund future acquisition of County parklands.
4.14.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As stated in Appendix G, the project would have a significant impact
related to public services if it would:
a) 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
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-13
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following
public services:
i. Fire Protection;
ii. Police Protection;
iii. Schools;
iv. Parks; or
v. Other public facilities.
Recreation impacts are considered significant if the project would:
b) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated; or
c) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which would have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the seven
significance criteria stated above shows that a less-than-significant impact would
result for six of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
a) Would the project 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 following public services?
Fire Protection
According to the ECCFPD, construction and operation of the proposed project would
generate a small increase in the demand for fire protection and emergency medical
services; however, it would not require additional staff, acquisition of new
equipment, or construction of new facilities (Chief Henderson February 2011).
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-14
As previously discussed, fire services would be provided by Station 59. Fire and
emergency response times from Station 59 to the farthest proposed residences
would be approximately 4 minutes (T. Leach December 2009). Therefore, crews
dispatched from Station 59 would be able to respond to emergency calls from the
project site within the 5 minute service threshold established by the Public
Facilities/Services Element in the County’s General Plan. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the project applicant would be required to make a fair share
contribution to the reimbursement fund for the developer funded construction of
Station 59.
Adequate emergency access to the project site would be available through Point of
Timber Road and the project’s Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) road, and would not
require the construction of additional roads. The EVA would be constructed in the
northwest portion of the project site through the proposed wetland mitigation and
open space area. The EVA would connect the northernmost portion of ‘A’ Street to
the northernmost portion of ‘B’ Street, as illustrated in Figure 3-3.1 In addition,
there is a second EVA located in the Ravenswood development connecting Wilde
Drive to “B” Street. The cost of maintaining the EVAs and public trails would be
borne by the Pantages Bays homeowners as part of a landscaping and lighting
district. Furthermore, development of the site would not adversely affect response
times to the adjacent residential developments. Therefore, the project would not
increase or create unsafe emergency response times (Chief Henderson July 2011).
As discussed, implementation of the project would not require the construction any
additional fire facilities, the construction of which could result in environmental
impacts. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact related to fire
protection services.
Police Protection
According to the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, there would be a slight
increase in demand for police and marine patrol services.2 With the project’s
anticipated development of 116 docks with deep water access, the additional boat
traffic generated by the project could exceed the ability of the Marine Services
Division to provide adequate enforcement.
1 Street names will be changed prior to final subdivision map.
2 Personal Communication with Lt. George Wright, April 29, 2011.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-15
As part of the project, a marine patrol substation is proposed at the northeasterly
point of the project site (see Figure 3-4). The applicant has consulted with the
Office of the Sheriff-Coroner regarding the design of the substation.3 The substation
would include a permanent modular building, a two-boat dock, and related
improvements, and would be accessible by the proposed 20-foot EVA. Based on
discussions with the Office of the Sheriff-Coroner, the applicant proposes to fund
through a P-1 Service District the cost of one deputy, who would perform either
marine patrol or land patrol services from this station on an as needed (part-time)
basis.
The Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Station would serve the residents from the project and
surrounding areas, and would significantly decrease response times to Discovery
Bay, such that a sheriff would no longer be deployed from the Lauritzen Yacht
Harbor in Oakley (Lt. W. Duke July 2010).
The environmental impacts associated with the construction of the marine patrol
station are evaluated in the relevant technical sections of this draft EIR (i.e.,
Sections 4.3, Biological Resources, and 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality).
Implementation of the project would not require the construction of any other
police facilities; the construction of which could result in environmental impacts.
The existing staff, equipment, and facilities of the existing Sheriff’s Delta Station
would be able to provide adequate police services to the project site. Although the
Marine Patrol Substation on the project site would not be staffed full-time, the
addition of one part-time sheriff deputy would enhance police services on the
project site and in the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts related to increases in
demand for police services would be less than significant.
Schools
Elementary and Middle School
According to the BUSD, the project would generate 1634 additional students (K-8).
Students generated by the project would attend Timber Point Elementary which has
capacity for an additional 137 students, and Discovery Bay Elementary School which
has capacity for an additional 214 students. Together, these schools have space for
351 additional students. Middle school students generated by the project would
attend Excelsior Middle School, which currently has capacity for an additional 103
3 Letter from Mark Armstrong to Lt. Will Duke dated March 25, 2008 and response letter from Sheriff
Warren Rupf dated May 21, 2008.
4 According to BUSD, the student generation rate is 0.559 students (K-8) per unit. The project would
construct 292 units. 292 units x 0.559 students/unit = 163 students.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-16
students. The elementary schools and middle school serving the project site have
adequate capacity to serve the additional students generated by the proposed
project.
Implementation of the project would not require the construction of any school
facilities; the construction of which could result in environmental impacts. As
confirmed by SB 50, payment of standard school impact fees is considered “full and
complete mitigation” of any school impacts. Pursuant to an agreement between the
BUSD and Pantages Bays LLC, dated September 19, 2006, Pantages Bays LLC agrees
to pay school impact fees in excess of the established impacts fees for this district
(see Appendix F).5 Payment of school impacts fees as required by SB 50 would
reduce the impact of increased elementary and middle school students to nearby
schools to a less-than-significant level.
High School
According to student generation rates provided by the LUHSD, the project would
generate 73 additional high school students.6 Liberty High School, the high school
that would serve the project site, is currently under capacity by 143 students.
Therefore, sufficient capacity exists to serve the project.
Implementation of the project would not require the construction of new high
school facilities; the construction of which could result in environmental impacts.
Pursuant to SB 50, the applicant would pay school fees as “full and complete
mitigation” to LUHSD. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant
impact to the high schools that serve the project site.
Other Facilities
The project is projected to provide housing for approximately 876 residents (see
Section 4.13, Population and Housing, for further discussion). This additional
population could increase the demand for library services, including facilities and
equipment, book or media volumes, and staff time. Neither California nor Contra
Costa County has formal library standards for collections or facilities. The
Brentwood Library, located at 104 Oak Street, serves the project site and other
residents in the area. The Contra Costa Library system is primarily funded by local
property taxes, with additional revenue from intergovernmental sources. Currently
the library serves a population of over 40,000. The Contra Costa County Library
5 See Appendix F, Agreement between Byron Unified School District and Pantages Bays LLC.
6 According to the LUHSD, the Districts “student generation rate” is 0.25 students per household. The
project would construct 292 units. Therefore 0.25 x 292 = 73 students generated.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-17
Services (County Library) has a Strategic Plan which accounts for the existing library
services in the County and planned improvements and facilities. The construction of
a new library is dependent on a needs assessment and available funding. According
to the County Library, a population increase would not, in and of itself, require a
new or expanded library (V. Zito July 2010) and so is considered to be less than
significant.
This additional population could also increase the demand for health services,
including facilities, equipment, and staff time. Neither California nor Contra Costa
County has formal health service standards for facilities. Given that County health
facilities generally only serve low-income populations, and the population
generated by the project would not be low-income, the County would not require a
new or expanded health facility as result of project implementation (K. Stryker July
2010). Therefore, this is considered a less-than-significant impact.
b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
There are a number of parks and recreational facilities available for public use in
East Contra Costa County including local parks such as Ravenswood Park, Cornell
Park, Slifer Park, and East Bay Regional Parks such as Black Diamond Mines Preserve.
According to the Contra Costa County Department of Parks and Recreation, Contra
Costa County owns approximately 52 acres of parkland and 4 other parks and
playgrounds located in east Contra Costa County. Additionally, Black Diamond Mine
Preserve, located east of the project site, alone provides 6,286 acres of parkland to
the County. Therefore, there is no deficiency in parkland in the County and the
existing parks would accommodate the additional 876 new residents generated by
the project.
The project applicant would be required to adhere to the County’s parkland
requirement of 3 acres per 1,000 people as discussed in Impact PS-1. Additionally,
the project would provide approximately 2.6 acres of public trail on-site, which
would be available for use by the new residents generated by the project as well as
the public. Therefore, the County has ample public parkland and other recreational
facilities to support the project. The project would have a less-than-significant
impact related to the substantial deterioration of park facilities that serve the
project site.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-18
c) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which would
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project would allow the development of a 20-foot wide EVA road in the
northwest portion of the project area, through the proposed wetland mitigation and
open space area. The EVA road would also serve as a publicly accessible
bicycle/pedestrian trail and would include interpretive signage, kiosks, and seating
areas. The construction of the public trail and the creation of seasonal wetland and
emergent marsh would occur concurrently (see Chapter 3.0, Project Description).
For a discussion of the impacts of the construction of the trail to the marsh and
other biological resources, see Section 4.3, Biological Resources.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics in the context of the seven
significance criteria stated above shows that some degree of impact would result for
one of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
a) Would the project 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 following public services?
Parks
Impact PS-1: The project would be required to provide 2.6 acres of parkland to
meet the County’s parkland dedication requirement. (Significant)
The project would result in an estimated population increase of 876 persons. Based
on the County’s parkland requirements of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 people, the
project would be required to provide 2.6 acres of parkland to meet the County’s
parkland dedication requirements.7
7 Section 4.13, Population and Housing calculates a projected increase in population of 876 people.
Based on a standard of 3 acres of park per 1,000 people the project would generate a need for 2.6
acres of parkland. 876/1,000 x 3 = 2.6 acres.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-19
To meet this requirement, the project proposes a public trail system through the
emergent marsh in the northern portion of the site with two passive recreation
locations with tables and seating next to the open water (See Figure 3-4). The trail
system would provide approximately 2.6 acres of recreational use to the future
residents of the Pantages Development and the public for year round use by
walkers, joggers and bikers.
The County Code also permits a combination of land dedication and fee payment
(Section 920-6.206).
Mitigation Measure PS-1: The project applicant shall, concurrent with the
recording of the map, dedicate to the County or other public agency
approximately 2.6 acres of public trails and two passive recreation locations
with tables and seating next to the open water, including the eight foot side
walk leading from Point of Timber Road to the public trails through the
preserved open space. The public trail through the open space area also serves
as an EVA and must comply with Fire Department standards. In combination
with the dedication of the public trail the project shall pay a park dedication fee
of $1351 per dwelling unit upon issuance of building permits. The future
residence of Pantages would pay for the maintenance of the public trails and
passive recreation areas for their use and that of the public.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
The County has determined that the combination of payment of fees and
dedication of land for a public trail represents full and complete mitigation for
parkland impacts. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1
would reduce the project’s impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.14.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Emergency Services
The cumulative setting for emergency services includes any proposed development
within the service districts of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office Delta Station
and East Contra Costa County Fire Department (ECCCFD) that, in combination with
the project, may generate the need for new facilities.
The General Plan EIR noted that buildout of the General Plan would require new
stations, equipment and staffing to maintain acceptable service ratios. The
implementation of the project in combination with the Discovery Bay projects
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-20
identified in Table 4-1 in Chapter 4.0, Setting, Impacts, and MItigation Measures,
would increase demands for police and fire services and would contribute to this
cumulative impact.
In the Discovery Bay area, the service district of ECCFPD has recently been improved
with the construction of Station 59 that would serve the project area. The location
of this facility ensures that acceptable service ratios can be maintained in the
Discovery Bay area and alleviates the cumulative impact for the provision of fire
services within the project’s cumulative setting. Furthermore, the project would
pay fire impact fees that would help the ECCCFD plan additional facility and staff
expansions to serve the East County area.
The ECCFPD relies mainly on property tax revenue to fund operations. Because of a
significant drop in the assessed property values of homes and properties in East
County, the ECCFPD Board met on February 27, 2012, and voted to call a special
election on June 5, 2012 proposing a special tax of $197 per parcel as a revenue
enhancement for the District. The proposed tax will sunset in 2023, unless the
voters decide to extend it. (ECCFPD Town Hall meeting Schedule 1/2012, LAFCO Fire
Service Update 3/14/12).
Regarding sheriff services, the project includes construction of a marine patrol
station to augment services in the region. The Delta Station has not identified a
need for additional facilities beyond the marine patrol substation, indicating that
acceptable service ratios can be maintained in the Discovery Bay area and
alleviating the cumulative impact for the provision of police services within the
project’s cumulative setting.
Parks and Recreation
The cumulative setting to parks and recreation includes any proposed development
that could affect parks and recreational facilities within Discovery Bay, which
includes the projects in Discovery Bay listed in Table 4-1. The General Plan EIR
noted that build out of the General Plan would require the designation of
substantial additional parkland to conform with adopted park standards.
The General Plan requires that any new development include 3 acres of public
parkland per 1,000 people. The County Code also permits a combination of land
dedication and fee payment to mitigate park impacts. In conformance with this
policy, the project would provide parkland, in the form of the public trail through
the open space area as described above and would also pay fees to mitigate impacts
to local parks.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.14 Public Services and Recreation
4.14-21
Schools
The cumulative setting to schools facilities and services includes any proposed
development within the BUSD and the LUHSD. The project in combination with
other residential projects in the vicinity, listed in Table 4-1, would generate new
students and would be required to pay development impact fees to the BUSD and
the LUHSD, consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB 50).
Payment of these fees is considered to completely mitigate any impacts to schools.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to school facilities or services would be less than
significant.
4.14.5 REFERENCES
Burton, M., Lt. Personal Communication, February 2, 2010.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Open Space Element.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Public Facilities/Services Element.
Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. Safety Element.
Douglas, Sgt. Marine Services Division, Contra Costa County Sheriff Reserve.
Personal Communication, May 16, 2007.
Duke, W., Lt. Marine Services Division, Contra Costa County Sheriff Reserve.
Personal Communication, September 8, 2006, April 24, 2007, January 21,
2010, and July 26, 2010.
East Bay Regional Parks District. 2008. Available at http://www.ebparks.org,
Accessed November 17, 2009
Hellier, G. Chief Business Officer, Byron Unified School District, Personal
Communication, November 20, 2009; December 2010.
Henderson, H. Fire Chief. ECCCFPD. Personal Communication, August 31, 2006,
May 8, 2007, February 1, 2011, and July 2011.
Hubbard, P. Administrative Assistant. ECCFPD. Personal Communication, July 28,
2011.
Koehne, V. General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District.
Personal Communication, November 20, 2009.
Leach, T. Fire Inspector, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Personal
Communication, December 2, 2009.
Pantages Bays Project
4.14 Public Services and Recreation Draft EIR
4.14-22
Meyer, T. Superintendent, Byron Union School District. Personal Communication,
September 28, 2006, and March 8, 2007.
Nicolaisen, B. Administrative Assistant. BUSD. Personal Communication, July 14,
2010.
Reeves, W. Director of Project Development, LUHSD. Personal Communication,
November 18, 2009, and December 2, 2010.
Steffensen, A. Secretary, ECCCFPD. Personal Communication, July 14, 2010.
Stryker, K. Contra Costa Health Services District. Personal Communication, July 14,
2010.
Williams, Lt. Marine Services Division, Contra Costa County Sheriff Reserve.
Personal Communication, April 24, 2007.
Wright, G. Marine Services and Air Support Unit, Contra Costa County Office of the
Sheriff. Personal Communication, December 6, 2010, April 29, 2011, and
July 28, 2011.
Zito, V. Business Librarian. Contra Costa County Library Services. Personal
Communication, July 21, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-1
4.15 PUBLIC UTILITIES
This section describes the utilities serving the project site and the Town of Discovery
Bay, including water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste. Regulations and
policies affecting utilities are also described. As part of this analysis, individual
utility providers were contacted and asked to confirm the anticipated demand and
their ability to serve the project.
No comments related to utilities and service systems were received in response to
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this draft EIR.
4.15.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Solid Waste
Discovery Bay Disposal Service provides solid waste removal and recycling services
in the project area. Solid waste collected by Discovery Bay Disposal Service is
transported to the Contra Costa Waste Recycling Center & Transfer Station, located
at 1300 Loveridge Road in Pittsburg. From there, solid waste is transported to the
Potrero Hills Landfill, located at 3675 Potrero Hills Lane in Solano County. Potrero
Hills Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of approximately 21.5 million cubic
yards (mcy) (CalRecycle Facilities 2010). The landfill currently receives 1,900
tons/day (seven days per week) and has remaining capacity of approximately 6 mcy.
The expected closure date of the landfill with its current remaining capacity is at the
end of 2016 (Dunbar 2010).
An EIR for the expansion of the landfill was certified by a Solano County Superior
Court Judge in November 2009, allowing for the facility to be expanded to a capacity
of 83 mcy and extended the closure date by 35 years. The court’s ruling allows the
Potrero Hills Landfill and regulatory agencies that oversee landfill operations to
move forward with review of required permits for the expansion.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 mandated that cities and
counties divert 50 percent of all solid waste by 2000 through source reduction,
recycling, and composting activities. Similarly, the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors adopted on July 8, 2004, Ordinance 2004-16, which requires owners of
all construction or demolition projects that are 5,000 square feet in size or greater
to demonstrate that at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition debris
generated on the jobsite is reused, recycled, or otherwise diverted. According to
the Waste Stream Profiles on record with the Department of Resources Recycling
and Recovery, unincorporated Contra Costa County achieved a 50 percent diversion
rate in 2005 and a 54 percent diversion rate in 2006 (CalRecycle Profiles 2010).
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-2
Discovery Bay offers curbside recycling to its residents to encourage waste stream
diversion. Curbside recycling is provided by Knightson Curbside, part of the Oakley
Disposal Service. Materials collected include a variety of glasses, metals, organics,
papers, plastics, motor oil, oil filters, and specialty materials by appointment, such
as cathode ray tubes, computers monitors, and televisions (Contra Costa County
2010).
Water Supply
Water would be supplied to the project site by the Town of Discovery Bay
Community Services District (TDBCSD). Water supply information and analysis are
based on the January 2012 Discovery Bay Water Master Plan (Water MP), prepared
by Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers. The TDBCSD Board of Directors
formally accepted the Water MP at its public meeting on February 8, 2012.1 The
Water MP is incorporated by reference in this draft EIR and is available for review
on the TDBCSD website at: <http://www.townofdiscoverybay.org/>. It is also
included as Appendix H to this draft EIR.
The TDBCSD water supply system derives all of its water supply from five active
groundwater supply wells. Raw water from the wells is delivered and treated at two
water treatment plants (WTPs): the Newport WTP and the Willow Lake WTP. Each
WTP is equipped with storage tanks, booster facilities pumps, standby generators,
and a network of piping to facilitate the distribution of water to the service
community.
Approximately 6,865 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs)2 are currently served by the
TDBCSD water supply system. The water use factor for the base unit is
approximately 0.37 gallons per minute (gpm) per dwelling unit (0.37 gpm/EDU).3
The five active groundwater wells are capable of supplying 7,400 gpm during
summer dry years and up to 8,500 gpm during winter wet years.4 The current
maximum day demand (MDD) within the service area is 5,700 gpm and at planning
1 Howard, Rick, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, February 16, 2012.
2 A useful tool in water demand assessment is to represent the demands of each customer type in
terms of equivalence to a base unit. The system is comprised of a mixture of water uses consisting of
four basic categories; residential, commercial, irrigation and other. By making the base unit equal to
one residential unit, the demand of the entire system can be viewed in terms of total number of
equivalent residential units being served. This is also known as an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU).
3 This information is presented on page 2-5, in Section 2.2, Table 2-2, of the Water MP.
4 This information is presented on pages 3-1 and 3-2, in Section 3.2, and on page 3-4, in Table 3-1, of
the Water MP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-3
horizon in 2020 is estimated to be 7,000 gpm, which suggests that the system is
capable of meeting future demand when all wells identified in the Water MP are
operating at capacity.5
California Department of Public Health Waterworks Standards (Title 22, Chapter 16,
California Code of Regulations) require that systems using only groundwater—like
the TDBCSD—must be capable of meeting MDD with the highest capacity source
well off line (i.e., non-operational).6 Under these conditions, the total source
capacity of the TDBCSD system is reduced to 5,600 gpm. With the current MDD for
water in the TDBCSD at 5,700 gpm, the existing source capacity with the highest
capacity source well off-line has a current shortfall of 100 gpm. When all committed
service connections become active, MDD would increase to 6,000 gpm and the
shortfall would be 400 gpm. With all projected growth, MDD would be 7,000 gpm
and the shortfall would be 1,400 gpm.7
The Water MP identifies projected growth through 2020 within the existing TDBCSD
boundaries and through anticipated annexation of in fill adjoining its boundaries.
Projected growth within the TDBCSD was identified by TDBCSD staff and the Board
of Directors following consultations with the County Department of Conservation
and Development.8 This projected growth includes the 292 single-family units
proposed as part of the project. The Water MP includes recommended
improvements and programs to meet the projected water demands through 2020.9
The improvements and programs in the Water MP would be implemented through a
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funded by financial mechanisms approved by the
TDBCSD. The TDBCSD Board of Directors has approved a capacity fee study, which
will be used by the TDBCSD to develop a fair share water supply capacity fee for new
development. New development would be responsible for the costs to construct
improvements that are necessary only to serve new development (e.g., the new
water storage tank described below). A draft capacity fee study is expected to be
completed in May of 2012.10
The majority of improvements identified in the Water MP are expected be located
within the basic footprint of the existing water supply and delivery system, existing
5 This information is presented on page 2-7 of the Water MP.
6 This information is presented on page 4-1, in Section 4.1.1, of the Water MP.
7 This information is presented on page 4-2, in Section 4.1.2, and in Figure 2-2 of the Water MP.
8 This information is presented on page 2-2, in Table 2-1, of the Water MP.
9 This information is presented on page 6-9, in Table 6-1, of the Water MP.
10 Howard, Rick, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, May 10, 2012.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-4
roadways, and TDBCSD easements.11 Specific construction details for these
upgrades are not all available at this time. The construction and operational details
of these improvements would be addressed through subsequent environmental
review by the TDBCSD to the extent required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Such document would evaluate potential impacts to the
physical environment and identify appropriate mitigation measures associated with
any planned improvement as necessary. A summary description of the planned and
recommended improvements is provided below.
Recommended Water System Improvements
The recommended system upgrades, that enable the TDBCSD to meet the current
and projected water demands at planning horizon in 2020, are described below.
The water system components include: water source capacity, water treatment,
system storage, and distribution system. Figure 4.15-1 shows the location of these
water system improvements.
Source Capacity Recommendations
The following water source capacity improvements are included in the Water MP.12
Source capacity is also addressed as a CIP item in the Water MP.13 Ground basin
assessment programs are also discussed in this section below.14
1. Implement well pump equipment upgrades to the largest well off line to
increase production to address the current deficiency of 100 gpm in source
capacity.15
2. Construct a new water supply well to serve the Newport Water Treatment Plant
(WTP). The new water supply well would satisfy source capacity requirements
of the system beyond the projected build-out. The new well is needed
immediately to provide sufficient capacity to meet its future committed service
levels, including this project as well as the existing community within the 10-
year planning horizon.16 It is anticipated that the new well would be
11 With the exception of two new mainlines installed by directional drilling under Kellogg Creek
connecting the Pantages Bays project to Discovery Bay on the other side. This is further discussed in
the “Distribution System Recommendations” subsection below.
12 This information is presented on pages 4-1 through 4-4, in Section 4.1, and in Table 6-1 of the Water
MP.
13 This information is presented on page 6-3, in Section 6.4.1, of the Water MP.
14 This information is presented as a CIP item on page 6-7, in Section 6.4.5, of the Water MP. Ground
basin assessment programs are further discussed in Chapter 5 and in Table 6-1 of the Water MP.
15 This information is presented on page 4-2, in Section 4.1.2 under the “Well Capacity Upgrade”
discussion, of the Water MP.
16 This information is presented on pages 6-2 and 4-3, in Section 4.1.2, of the Water MP.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.15-1Figure
Circlepoint
Locations of Improvements to Water and Wastewater Facilities
Source: Discovery Bay CSD; Circlepoint, 2011.
Note: Wastewater Master Plan also calls for improvements to the 14
wastewater pump stations located throughout the community. The locations
of the pump stations can be found in the Water Master plan. See Table 2-2
Point of Timber Road
VILLAGE
II
(LAKESHORE)
RAVENSWOOD
DISCOVERY BAY
New main line crossingsNew main line crossings
Upgrade existing well 1B
Upgrade existing well 2
Upgrade existing well 1B
Upgrade existing well 2
Well 5BWell 5B
Indian Slough
Kellogg CreekEC
C
I
D
D
r
e
d
g
e
C
u
t
Newport Water
Treatment Plant:
new water supply well,
new storage tank
Newport Water
Treatment Plant:
new water supply well,
new storage tank
Willow Lake Water Treatment
Plant and well 6: new filter,
tank & pumps; upgrade
existing filters, chemical room
Willow Lake Water Treatment
Plant and well 6: new filter,
tank & pumps; upgrade
existing filters, chemical room
Upgrades
& Expansions
Upgrades
& Expansions
Legend
Project Boundary
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Water District Facilities
16-inch
8-inch
Proposed New Water Main Lines
1000FEET5000 2000
1
2
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-6
constructed on the west side of Discovery Bay near Newport Drive. While there
are currently no details on the location of the new well site, the TDBCSD would
prefer to locate it along its existing raw water line in the vicinity of the RV
storage lot, located at 2400 Newport Drive, and in the rear of the homes on
Newport Court. Impacts from the new water well would be addressed through
subsequent environmental review by the TDBCSD to the extent required by
CEQA. 17
3. Implement a groundwater basin management program.18
4. Create a contingency fund for future replacement of an existing well site.19
5. Monitor trends in well performance and pump station performance through
regular testing.20
Water Treatment Recommendations
The following water treatment recommendations are included in the Water MP.21
1. Construct a new filter, backwash tank, and recycle pumps at the Willow Lake
WTP to meet water demand requirements projected by 2016. Once
constructed, the new treatment equipment would satisfy treatment capacity
requirements beyond the projected planning horizon.
2. Upgrade the filter-face piping and valves on the existing filters at Willow Lake
WTP.
3. Upgrade/remodel the chemical room at Willow Lake WTP to allow all three well
pumps to operate simultaneously.
4. Create a contingency fund to replace filter media, upgrade recycle pumps at
Newport WTP, and test and upgrade booster pumps at both the Willow Lake
WTP and the Newport WTP.
17 Keone, Virgil, Water and Wastewater Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District.
Personal communication, May 11, 2012.
18 This information is presented on page 5-5, in Section 5.5, of the Water MP.
19 This information is presented on page 4-4, in Section 4.1, of the Water MP.
20 This information is presented on pages 5-4 and 5-5, in Section 5.4, of the Water MP.
21 This information is presented as a CIP item on page 6-3, in Section 6.4.2, of the Water MP. Water
treatment recommendations are further discussed on pages 4-4 through 4-7, in Section 4.2, of the
Water MP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-7
System Storage Recommendations
The following system storage recommendations are included in the Water MP.22
Construct a new 275,000 gallon storage tank at the Newport WTP for the
operational and fire safety storage requirements of the treatment plant that are
projected by 2014. The new tank would satisfy the storage capacity requirements
beyond the projected planning horizon in 2020. This new storage tank would be
part of an existing TDBCSD facility.23 The new storage tank would be located
adjacent to the existing tanks at the Newport WTP on land that is to be owned by
the District.24
1. Maintain the existing emergency standby generators to ensure continued
source of emergency storage (supply) in the groundwater aquifer.
Distribution System Recommendations
The following distribution system recommendations are included in the Water MP.25
These distribution system recommendations address system performance
deficiencies during fire flows and initiates a program that replaces the older
mainlines. They are collectively referred to as Alternative 2 pipeline
improvements.26
1. Install two new mainline canal crossings below Kellogg Creek to improve fire
flow performance in the system for project build-out conditions.
2. Replace the existing mainline on Willow Lake Road from Beaver Lane south to
Discovery Bay Boulevard in order to improve fire flow performance in the
system and to begin replacing some older mainlines in the system.
3. Replace the existing mainline on South Point, Surfside Place, Surfside Court,
Shell Court, Beach Court, Marina Circle, and Lido Circle in order to improve fire
flow performance in the system and to begin replacing some older mainlines in
the system.
22 This information is presented as a CIP item on page 6-6, in Section 6.4.4, of the Water MP. System
storage recommendations are further discussed on pages 4-7 through 4-9, in Section 4.3, and in Table
6-1 of the Water MP.
23 Plate 6 of the Water MP depicts this proposed storage tank location.
24 Keone, Virgil, Water and Wastewater Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District.
Personal communication, May 11, 2012.
25 This information is presented in Chapter 4 of the Water MP.
26 This information is presented on pages 4-13 through 4-15, in Section 4.4.7 and 4.4.8, of the Water
MP. Plate 6 of the Water MP depicts the location of the Alternative 2 pipeline improvements.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-8
Wastewater
Discovery Bay wastewater collection and treatment services are also provided by
the TDBCSD. The Discovery Bay WTP is undergoing a phased expansion to provide
adequate service and capacity to both existing and proposed developments within
its jurisdiction. Over the past decade, the treatment plant has undergone several
upgrades and has a current permitted capacity to treat 2.1 mgd27 of wastewater.
The average daily flow to the treatment plant is 1.8 mgd.28 Wastewater originating
from homes in the existing Discovery Bay, Discovery Bay West, and Ravenswood
Estates developments currently enters 8-inch mains along residential streets and
flows to a series of lift stations that gradually pump water to the Discovery Bay
wastewater treatment facility. The project would be served by a 10-inch sewer
main at Wilde Drive, on the southern portion of the project site, and an 8-inch main
at Point of Timber Road.
The TDBCSD has prepared a Wastewater Master Plan (Wastewater MP) as part of
the process to upgrade its wastewater treatment facility. The TDBCSD released the
final draft of the Wastewater MP, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc., in
October 2011. The Wastewater MP is incorporated by reference in this draft EIR
and is available for review on the TDBCSD website at: <http://www.townofdiscovery
bay.org/>. It is also included as Appendix H to this draft EIR.
The Wastewater MP was formally accepted by the Board of Directors at its public
meeting on February 8, 2012.29 The Wastewater MP includes the same projected
growth through 2020 as the Water MP. This projected growth includes the 292
single-family units on the Pantages Bays property proposed as part of the project.30
Waste discharge requirements are discussed in Section 8 of the Wastewater MP. As
described in Section 8, effluent is discharged to Old River. Discharge is regulated
under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and waste
discharge requirements adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), Central Valley Region. Approximately every five years, the TDBCSD
NPDES permit is updated.31 One objective of the Wastewater MP is to provide
27 Recent testing by the TDBCSD confirms that the plant’s actual operating capacity is 2.0 mgd.
28 Draft Final Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan, October 2011.
29 Howard, Rick, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, February 16, 2012.
30 This information is presented on pages 3-1 and 3-2, in Section 3, of the Wastewater MP.
31 This information is presented on page 8-1 of the Wastewater MP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-9
recommendations to assure future compliance with the NPDES permit as it is to be
updated. The Wastewater MP summarizes key NPDES permit requirements, plant
performance, and compliance strategies.32
The improvements would be implemented through a CIP funded by financial
mechanisms approved by the TDBCSD. The plan would include a new capacity fee
to charge new development for its fair share of wastewater treatment upgrades
that are necessary to serve both the existing community and new development.
Any improvements required exclusively to serve new development would be paid
for by new development. A draft capacity fee study is expected to be completed in
May of 2012.33
The Wastewater MP includes recommended upgrades to meet the TDBCSD
projected wastewater demands through 2020.34 Wastewater treatment
improvements are characterized as: immediate improvements; critical
improvements; other certain or likely improvements; reasonably possible or
optional improvements; and unlikely improvements.
All improvements provided for in the Wastewater MP is anticipated to be located
within the basic footprint of the existing wastewater treatment system.
Construction and operational details for these upgrades are not available at this
time. The construction and operational details of these wastewater treatment
improvements would be addressed through subsequent environmental review by
the TDBCSD or the RWQCB, to the extent required by CEQA. Such document would
evaluate potential impacts to the physical environment and identify appropriate
mitigation measures as necessary.
Recommended system upgrades, that enable the TDBCSD to meet the current and
projected water demands through build-out in 2020, are summarized below.
Recommended Wastewater Treatment Improvements
Figure 4.15-1 shows the location of these wastewater treatment system
improvements.
Influent Pump Station Recommendations. As set forth in Section 9 of the
Wastewater MP, modifications and upgrades to the Influent Pump Station
located at Plant 1 are recommended as immediate improvements in order to
mitigate for existing operational issues.
32 This information is presented on page 8-4, in Table 8-1, of the Wastewater MP.
33 Howard, Rick, General Manager, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, May 10, 2012.
34 This information is presented on page 20-3, in Table 20-1, of the Wastewater MP. Table 20-1 of the
Wastewater MP identifies specific sections of the Wastewater MP in which the need for particular
improvements are discussed.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-10
Ultraviolet Disinfection Recommendations
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is used at the plant to meet permit requirements
for total coliform. Recent improvements have been made to address
deficiencies that resulted in permit violations.35 Additional immediate upgrades
for UV system expansion are identified and include: revisions to the UV
disinfection weirs to improve flow split to UV channels, and conducting viral
bioassay tests to verify existing capacity.36
Secondary Treatment Facilities Recommendations
To address current deficiencies in the secondary treatment facilities37, the
Wastewater MP identifies several upgrades to the system including: installing a
new oxidation ditch and associated facilities at Plant 2 to accommodate for
future growth and supply adequate emergency storage; expanding solids-
handling capacity; and implementing supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA) system improvements for better monitoring and more reliable
service.38 All improvements would be constructed at one time.
Plant Improvement Recommendations
Additional plant improvements that have been identified in the Wastewater MP
as certain or likely in the future include:
Installing facilities (new filters or emergency storage facilities) to address
secondary effluent equalization to limit peak flows to filters, UV channels,
and to the export pump station;
Upgrading the plant’s UV disinfection system; 39
Adding a pump to the export pump station; 40
Adding a second solar dryer to facilitate Phase 1 solids handling
improvements; 41 and
Improving the collection system pump for reliable performance.
35 This information is presented on page 14-1, in Section 14, of the Wastewater MP.
36 This information is presented on page 14-6, in Section 14.5, of the Wastewater MP.
37 This information is presented on page 11-1, in Section 11, of the Wastewater MP.
38 This information is presented on page 4-1, in Section 4, of the Wastewater MP.
39 This information is presented on page 14-5, in Section 14.4, of the Wastewater MP.
40 This information is presented on page 7-1, in Section 7, of the Wastewater MP.
41 This information is presented on page 14-1, in Section 14, of the Wastewater MP.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-11
Stormwater
Except for the emergent marsh located in the northern portion of the project site,
the project site has been leveled, ditched, drained and disked in the past for use as
irrigated cropland and grazing pasture. Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) also used
site for detention and decanting of dredge spoils as part of a program to remove
sediment build up in Discovery Bay waterways. The dredged spoils were spread
over portions of the property outside of the delineated wetland areas. Currently,
these piles of dredge spoils are higher in elevation than the surrounding
topography. Several shallow ditches bisect the site, providing further evidence of
past agricultural land use.
Existing surface drainage cannot be easily determined due to the extremely flat
terrain of the project site. Generally, storm water flow drains towards the
topographically lower seasonal wetlands and the emergent marshes on the
northern portion of the project site. Ultimately, site drainage reaches Kellogg Creek
and Indian Slough. No runoff from the site flows into the East Contra Costa County
Irrigation District Dredge Cut/Intake Channel (ECCID Dredge Cut). Off-site drainage
is unlikely to enter the project site from any direction.
4.15.2 REGULATORY SETTING
State Assembly Bills 610 and 221
The purpose and legislative intent of Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) and Senate Bill 221 (SB
221) was to preclude projects from being approved without specific evaluations
being performed and documented by the local water provider proving that water is
available to serve the project. These laws took effect on January 1, 2002.
SB 610 requires the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for large-scale
development projects. Both SB 610 and SB 221 apply to a 500-unit residential
development or a project that would increase the number of the public water
system’s existing service connections by 10 percent. SB 221 requires the local water
provider to provide “written verification” of “sufficient water supplies” to serve the
project prior to approval of a subdivision map. This requires a higher degree of
certainty than is required for approval of a WSA.
At 292-units, the project is below the 500-unit threshold and would increase the
number water service connections served by the TDBCSD by 5 percent. Therefore,
the project does not require the preparation of a WSA and does not need to be
separately analyzed.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-12
Assembly Bill 939
Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939), the California Integrated Waste Management Act of
1989, mandated the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. The bill mandated
a minimum 50 percent diversion of material from landfills by 2000. In 2006, 54
percent of unincorporated Contra Costa County's solid waste was diverted from
landfill (CalRecycle 2010).
Contra Costa County General Plan
Policies related to stormwater drainage facilities are discussed in Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality. The Growth Management Element of the General
Plan identifies policies related to water and sanitary sewer.
Growth Management Element
Water
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 to it from consultations
with the appropriate water agency, the applicant 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.
Sanitary Sewer
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
to it from consultations with the appropriate sewer agency, the applicant or other
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-13
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-
ups or comparable evidence of adequate sewage collection and wastewater
treatment capacity availability.
The Public Facilities/Services Element of the General Plan identifies the county-wide
policies listed below related to utility services.
Public Facilities/Services Element
7-1: New development shall be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all
existing public facilities it utilizes, based on the demand for these facilities
which can be attributed to new development.
7-2: New development, not existing residents, should be required to pay all costs
of upgrading existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are
exclusively needed to serve new development.
7-4: The financial impacts of new development or public facilities should
generally be determined during the project review process and may be
based on the analysis contemplated under the Growth Management
Element or otherwise. As part of the project approval, specific findings shall
be adopted which relate to the demand for new public facilities and how
the demand affects the service standards included in the growth
management program.
7-19: Urban development shall be encouraged within the existing water Spheres
of Influence adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission; expansion
into new areas within the Urban Limit Line beyond the Spheres should be
restricted to those areas where urban development can meet all growth
management standards included in this General Plan.
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.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-14
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.
7-29: Sewer treatment facilities shall be required to operate in compliance with
waste discharge requirements established by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Development that would result in the violation of waste
discharge requirements shall not be approved.
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.
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 is 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 in information furnished or made
available to the County from consultations with the appropriate water
agency, the applicant, or other sources.
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.
7-50: Public access to watercourses shall be required of major new developments
when liability, security, and maintenance issues can be satisfactorily
resolved.
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.
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.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-15
Policy Consistency Analysis
Solid Waste: The Potrero Hills Landfill has existing solid waste capacity to serve the
project. As required by policy 7-88, the landfill has capacity to serve the project site
due to the recent ruling on the expansion of the landfill. As a standard condition of
approval, the County would include a requirement that the project be required to
divert waste from the landfill through the use of recycle programs for residents. This
condition would be in compliance with policy 7-92.
Water Supply: The TDBCSD has completed a Water MP that identifies
improvements needed to ensure sufficient capacity for projected growth at planning
horizon in 2020. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, identified below, will ensure that the
County’s Zoning Administrator is provided sufficient information to determine that
financing for the required water supply improvements is in place prior to final map
recordation of the project. This documentation will also show that the necessary
improvements have been completed and actual capacity exists prior to the issuance
of certificates of occupancy, which is consistent with policies 7-1, 7-2, and 7-4 of the
general plan. Therefore, the project would be in compliance with policy 7-21 which
requires that a project demonstrate that sufficient water capacity exists.
Further, as a condition of approval for the project, the County would require the
project to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce the daily
consumption of water. Implementation of these measures would be consistent
with the intent of policy 7-26 to decrease peak water use. Water conservation
measures shall include, but not be limited to the indoor and outdoor measures
listed below.
Indoor Water Conservation Measures
1. Hot Water Pipe Insulation – Insulation of hot-water pipes, and separation of hot
and cold water piping will avoid heat exchange
2. Low Flow Fixtures (i.e., toilets) – Low flow fixtures will be installed in the
residential units
3. Water-Efficient Dishwashers – Dishwashers with water saving features, such as
water level sensors instead of timed fillers, will be installed in each residential
unit
4. Pressure Reducing Valves or Regulators – Residential units will, at a minimum,
include a regulator that will maintain pressure thus reducing the volume of any
leakage that may occur and preventing excessive flow of water from all
appliances and fixtures
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-16
Outdoor Water Conservation Measures
1. Water-Efficient Landscaping – The project will utilize drought tolerant plant
materials, and require water efficient irrigation systems and controllers
2. Drip Irrigation and/or Misting Systems – Where applicable (i.e., non-turf areas),
drip irrigation and/or misting systems will be encouraged
Wastewater: The TDBCSD has completed a Wastewater MP that identifies
improvements needed to ensure sufficient capacity for build-out through 2020.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2, identified below, will ensure that the County’s Zoning
Administrator is provided sufficient information to determine that financing for the
required wastewater treatment improvements is in place prior to final map
recordation of the project. This documentation will also show that the necessary
improvements have been completed and actual capacity exists prior to the issuance
of certificates of occupancy, which is consistent with policies 7-1, 7-2, and 7-4.
Therefore, the project would be in compliance with policy 7-33 which requires that
a project demonstrate that sufficient wastewater treatment capacity exists.
The RWQCB approved a maximum operating capacity of 2.1 mgd for average dry
weather flows (adfw), per its permit to the TDBCSD dated December 4, 2008. The
TDBCSD wastewater treatment facility is currently operating at 1.75 mgd in adwf,
with an average annual flow (aaf) of 1.80 mgd and an average day maximum
monthly flow (admmf) of 1.98 mgd.42 As described in subsection 4.15.3 below,
project wastewater flows of 0.1 mgd would increase the amount of wastewater
treated by the facility to 1.85 mgd, leaving the facility with a remaining capacity of
0.25 mgd. The remaining capacity, however, is already committed to other planned
and approved development (i.e., Hofmann project), and therefore the treatment
plant would need to be expanded and the District’s NPDES permit would need to be
amended to provide capacity for the proposed project.43
Further, as a condition of approval for the project, the County would require the
project to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce the daily
consumption of water. Implementation of these measures would be consistent
with the intent of policy 7-37 to decrease peak water use. Water conservation
measures would include, but not limited to, indoor and outdoor conservation
measures listed above.
Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): The project would
require approval from the Contra Costa LAFCO for sphere of influence amendments
and corresponding annexation into the TDBCSD service boundary for sewer and
42 This information is presented on page 5-8, in Table 5-2, of the Wastewater MP.
43 Harris, Gregory, Engineer, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, May 10, 2012.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-17
water services. As shown in Figure 3-8 in this draft EIR, a portion of the project site
is located within the TDBCSD service boundary; the project includes annexation of
the rest of the site into the TDBCSD service area. The site is surrounded by
developments serviced by the TDBCSD and is located within the Urban Limit Line
(ULL). The project is in compliance with policies 7-19 and 7-31 which discourage
expansion into areas beyond the sphere that cannot meet all growth management
standards in the general plan.
Access to watercourses: The project would create open water areas, enhance and
create creek bank habitat, bays, and coves that would be for public use. Streets
would be private, but would allow for public pedestrian and bicycle access on the
public trail through the emergent marsh. This would be consistent with policy 7-50,
which requires public access to watercourses in major new developments when the
related liability, security, and maintenance issues can be resolved.
4.15.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies criteria to be used in evaluating
potential impacts related to utilities and service systems. As stated in Appendix G,
the Project would have a significant impact upon utilities and service systems if it
would:
a) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
b) Be served by a landfill without sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs;
c) Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste;
d) Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or be in need of new or expanded entitlements.
e) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board;
f) 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;
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-18
g) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects; or
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
a) Would the project result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
The proposed storm drainage system includes natural on-site drainage and human-
made detention basins. Stormwater would be handled completely on-site, with
treatment either in bio-swales or bioretention basins before release into the area
waterways. Impacts to storm water drainage facilities and storm water
management issues specific to the project are addressed in Section 4.9, Hydrology
and Water Quality. The proposed drainage system has been designed to comply
with NPDES and the County’s C.3 requirements and impacts related to storm
drainage facilities would be less-than-significant.
b) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
The Potrero Hills Landfill that would serve the project site currently receives 1,900
tons per day of solid waste and has a remaining capacity of 6 mcy. According to
CalRecycle, a single family residential unit generates approximately 10 pounds of
solid waste per day. The project includes 292 single-family residential units that
would generate approximately 2,920 pounds per day. The amount of solid waste
generated by the project represents less than 0.1 percent of the daily amount of
solid waste processed by the landfill. This is a conservative estimate since recycling
was not considered.
The landfill has permitted capacity through 2016 and is in the process of applying
for the required permits that would allow the landfill to operate through 2050 and
expand to more than three times its current capacity. Based on the landfill’s
expansion plans for operation through 2050, the landfill would be able to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
c) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project consists of residential land uses that would not result in the generation
of unique types of solid waste that would conflict with existing regulations
applicable to solid waste disposal. The project would be required to comply with
Contra Costa County’s solid waste requirements, including the provisions of AB 939.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-19
Furthermore, the project would have to comply with County Ordinance 2004-16,
which requires owners of all construction or demolition projects that are 5,000
square feet in size or greater to demonstrate that at least 50 percent of the
construction and demolition debris generated on the jobsite are reused, recycled, or
otherwise diverted.
In order to comply with Ordinance 2004-16, the project applicant would be required
as a condition of approval to prepare and submit a Debris Recovery Plan to the
County’s Department of Conservation and Development prior to the issuance of a
building or demolition permit. The plan would address major materials generated
by a construction project of this size, including brush and other vegetative material,
dimensional lumber, metal scraps, cardboard, packaging, and plastic wrap, and shall
address opportunities to recycle such materials or divert them away from the
Potrero Hills Landfill. Prior to final inspection, the project applicant shall submit a
Debris Recovery Report that demonstrates that at least 50 percent of jobsite debris
was diverted from disposal by providing receipts or gate-tags from facilities or
service providers used for recycling, reuse and disposal of jobsite debris. The
project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to solid
waste and this impact would be less than significant.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
be in need of new or expanded entitlements?
Impact UTIL-1: Per the requirements of Title 22 of the California Waterworks
Standards, the Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District does not
currently have sufficient legal water supply capacity to serve the project.
(Significant)
The analysis of adequate capacity uses several measurements, including total water
requirements and average day demand, as well as a computation of “peaking
factors” such as mdd, and peak hour demand (phd). The peaking factors are
expressed in gallons per minute (gpm). The State requires water districts to be able
to meet the estimated mdd.44
44 The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) regulations, specifically Section §64554 of the
California Waterworks Standards (Title 22, Chapter 16, California Code of Regulations, CCR); state: “at
all times, a public water system’s water source(s) shall have the capacity to meet the system’s
maximum day demand (MDD).” The source capacity is the estimated capacity of all sources of supply
during the time at which the maximum day demand occurs. Title 22 also states that for water systems
using only groundwater, “the system shall be capable of meeting MDD with the highest-capacity
source off line.”
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-20
Total water requirements in Discovery Bay are currently 1,335 million gallons per
year (mgy), which equates to an average daily demand of about 3.7 mgd, or about
2,540 gpm. The estimated future water requirements based on the expected infill
growth equates to an increase in the total average daily demand to 4.5 mgd, or
about 3,100 gpm.
Using those water demands as a basis, the TDBCSD determined the peaking
factors—mdd and phd—for water consumption in accordance with regulatory
guidelines. For the build-out horizon year 2020, the mdd would be 7,000 gpm.
Table 4.15-1 provides a summary of current and future demand.
As discussed in Subsection 4.15.1, the TDBCSD is currently operating with a legal
shortfall of 200 gpm.45 The TDBCSD is not therefore considered to have sufficient
capacity to serve its existing connections, nor does it have sufficient capacity to
serve the project. Although, the project would result in 292 new residential service
connections, the Water MP conservatively assumed 300 residential service
connections and 1.2 MGY in irrigation, which is equivalent to 6 residential
connections. The Water MP, therefore, assumes the connection of 306 residential
units. The project would construct 292 residential units and would require
approximately 1.2 MGY in irrigation, and would therefore require slightly less water
demand than estimated in the Water MP.
Table 4.15-1 Summary of TDBCSD Demand and Capacity
Total Annual
Requirement Daily Requirements Peaking Factors
(Regulatory Requirement
Million Gallons
Per Year
(mgy)
Million Gallons
Per Day
(mgd)
Gallons per
minute (gpm)
Million Gallons
Per Year
(mgy)
Peak hour
Demand Gallons
per minute
(gpm)
Current Demand 1,335 3.7 2,540 5,700 9,150
Projected
Growth at
Planning Horizon
(2020)
1,630 4.5 3,100 7,000 11,200
Increase 295 0.8 560 1,300 2,050
* The TDBCSD’s system has a current demand of 5,700 gpm and a current capacity of 7,300 gpm. State regulations
require that legal capacity be determined based on a scenario in which the highest-capacity source well is off-line.
Under this scenario the TDBCSD’s system has a legal capacity of 5,500 gpm, resulting in a legally defined shortfall of
capacity of 200 gpm relative to current demand.
45 Although the District has sufficient physical capacity with all five of its groundwater wells in
operation, the State Public Health standards require that capacity be calculated with the highest
producing well offline, thus resulting in a shortfall with that well subtracted from the capacity
calculation. (Title 22, Chapter 16, California Code of Regulations)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-21
As discussed above in Subsection 4.15.1 under the “Water Supply” subheading, the
TDBCSD operates five active groundwater wells which are capable of meeting future
demand when all wells are operating at capacity. Although an adequate water
supply is identified to meet current and future demands, the TDBCSD currently lacks
the appropriate facilities to ensure the source capacity to draw and distribute the
groundwater supplies.
Improvements identified by the TDBCSD to address source capacity issues are
discussed in the Water MP and are summarized above in Subsection 4.15.1 under
the “Recommended Water System Improvements” subheading. These
improvements are required to meet anticipated service demands through 2020,
which includes current demand, project demand associated with the project, and
other future development. The TDBCSD would implement the planned
improvements over time as demand increases.
The TDBCSD has identified specific facility improvements and upgrades which would
address the additional increase in pumping associated with the project.
Construction of a new well near Newport Drive would be required to provide the
project with water supply; this new well is identified as a priority CIP slated for
construction in 2012/2014. Upgrades to Well 1B pump equipment are scheduled
for this year (i.e., 2012) and would also facilitate source capacity. Additional water
storage capacity with a new tank at the Newport WTP would also be required to
serve new development. With the timely construction of these supply
improvements along with construction of the new storage tank, there would be
sufficient supply to serve projected growth, including the project.
Implementation of a combination of the facility improvements and upgrades
discussed above would ensure that an adequate distribution of water to could serve
the planned build-out of the project within the margin required by State Public
Health standards. However, due to the uncertainty in the timing of these facility
improvements and upgrades, the planned improvements may not be constructed at
the time the project seeks a new service connection with the TDBCSD. To account
for this uncertainty, this EIR conservatively assumes that impacts from inadequate
source capacity are significant. The following mitigation would address the event in
which the project would outpace available water distribution and would reduce the
potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall
provide documentation to the County (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter),
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the TDBCSD
has identified and secured sufficient financing for the construction of any
required improvements outlined in the Water MP to ensure sufficient capacity
exists to serve the project.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-22
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide
documentation to the County Zoning Administrator that said improvements
needed to serve the project are constructed and operational.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would require that the improvements to capacity
are in place prior to the project moving forward in the event that the project
outpaces available water distribution resources. Further, as a condition of
approval for the project, the County would require the project to incorporate
indoor and outdoor water conservation measures to reduce the daily
consumption of water. This condition of approval, along with Mitigation
Measure UTIL-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
e) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
f) Would the project 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?
g) Would the project require or result in the construction or
expansion of wastewater treatment facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact UTIL-2: Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District does not
currently have sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project.
(Significant)
Wastewater Conveyance System
The project site would be served by a 10-inch sewer main at Wilde Drive, on the
southern portion of the site, and an 8-inch main at Point of Timber Road.
Wastewater from the project would enter the 10-inch sewer main at Wilde Drive,
and would flow to a lift station along Newport Drive that then pumps the water to
the Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility operated by the TDBCSD. The
TDBCSD has indicated that the existing sewer mains that would serve the project
site are adequately sized to handle wastewater generated by the project (Howard
2011).
Wastewater Treatment Facility
The TDBCSD Wastewater MP provides a wastewater generation rate of 335 gpd per
residence; therefore, the project would generate approximately 98,000 gallons of
wastewater per day. The TDBCSD Wastewater Treatment Facility has an operating
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-23
capacity of adwf of 2.1 mgd, and is currently operating at adwf of 1.75 mgd. The
TDBCSD’s Wastewater Treatment Facility has a remaining capacity of adwf of 0.35
mgd.
Project wastewater flows of 0.1 mgd would increase the amount of wastewater
treated by the facility to an adfw of 1.85 mgd, leaving the facility would a remaining
capacity of 0.25 mgd. The remaining capacity, however, is already committed to
other planned and approved developments (i.e., Hofmann project), and therefore
the treatment facility would need to be expanded and the District’s NPDES permit
would need to be amended to provide capacity for the proposed project.
Please refer to Subsection 4.15.4 for a discussion of the project’s contribution to the
TDBCSD’s planned expansion of its wastewater treatment facility. All improvements
would be located within the basic footprint of the existing wastewater treatment
system (see Figure 4.15-2). Construction and operational details for these upgrades
are not available at this time. However, because all improvements to the
wastewater treatment plant would occur in the existing footprint, no significant
environmental impacts are expected to occur from construction of these
improvements (see Figure 4.15-2).46 In addition, the District will need to amend
their NPDES permit with the RWQCB to accommodate Pantages. The construction
and operational details of these wastewater treatment improvements and NPDES
permit amendments would be addressed through subsequent environmental review
by the TDBCSD or the RWQCB, to the extent required by CEQA.
Wastewater generated by the project would originate from residential sources; no
industrial wastewater would be generated by the project. New sewer lines would
be constructed on-site to accommodate the project-generated flows, which would
be typical of residential areas, and no changes to the wastewater treatment facility
would be required to treat these flows. Treated effluent from the project would not
cause the TDBCSD to exceed its operating capacity permitted by RWQCB after their
NPDES permit is revised. Improvements required to accommodate the increase in
capacity due to projected growth are included in the Wastewater MP Please refer to
Subsection 4.15.4 for a discussion of the project’s contribution to cumulative effects
related to wastewater treatment. By the time the project is ready for construction,
the necessary improvements to increase capacity (such as a new oxidation ditch), if
needed to accommodate this project due to the earlier construction of other
projected growth, should be completed. Consequently, no impacts related to
RWQCB wastewater treatment capacity requirement for the TDBCSD plant would be
expected.
46 Harris, Gregory, Engineer, Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District. Personal
communication, May 10, 2012.
EXISTING
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT
LIFT STATION
EXISTINGADMINISTRATIONBUILDING
EXISTINGEXPORTPUMPSTATION
BRINECONCENTRATOR
REVERSEOSMOSISSYSTEM
EQUALIZATIONBASIN
EFFLUENT
FILTERS
EXISTINGPARSHALLFLUME
EXISTINGUV SYSTEM
EXISTINGCLARIFIER NO.3
EXISTINGCLARIFIER NO.4
CLARIFIER NO.5
OXIDATION DITCH NO.2ACTIVE SOLAR DRYER NO.4
ACTIVE SOLAR DRYER NO.3
BELT PRESS EXPANSION
EXISTING SOLAR DRYING FACILITY
EXISTING SLUDGE
LAGOON NO.1
EXISTING SLUDGE
LAGOON NO.2
EXISTING BELT FILTER PRESS FACILITY
EXISTING FILTRATE PUMP STATION
EXISTING PLANT DRAINPUMP STATION
RASPS
EXISTINGRAS/WAS PS
EXISTING
SOIL
SCRUBBER
EXISTING OXIDATION DITCH NO. 2EXISTINGAEROBICDIGESTER
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.15-2FigureProposed Expansion of the
Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant
Source: Stantec, 2011.
75
FEET
37.50 150
Legend
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-25
The wastewater treatment facility is currently operating in compliance with all
RWQCB regulations (See Appendix G).47 Facility operation consistent with the
Wastewater MP is expected to continue in compliance with RWQCB regulations.
As part of its compliance requirements, the TDBCSD is obligated to secure RWQCB
approval of a Salinity Plan and implement it.48 The Salinity Plan is necessary due to
the 2010 noncompliance with the TDBCSD’s limit on electrical conductivity (i.e., its
limit on salinity of treated effluent that is discharged into Old River). The TDBCSD
has submitted that draft plan to the RWQCB for its review, which is pending.
Per recent monitoring efforts, the TDBCSD engineers believe electrical conductivity
in sewage from new development is greater than conductivity in treated sewage as
a whole due mostly to general use of salt based water softeners in newer homes
and some other older homes in Discovery Bay.49 Future monitoring would be
undertaken to assess the actual impact of such water softeners. Source control is
the most effective means for reducing salinity in wastewater. Implementation of
TDBCSD regulations to limit the use of salt based water softeners may be needed to
reduce electrical conductivity below the RWQCB standard. Alternative water
softeners are available that are not salt based and therefore do not cause increased
salinity in sewage.
It is anticipated that the TDBCSD may require such a restriction on salt based water
softeners in new development like this project. Before a final subdivision map for
this project is ready for approval by the County, it is expected that the TDBCSD
would secure RWQCB approval of a Salinity Plan designed to keep electrical
conductivity below the RWQCB limit in the TDBCSD permit, and that the TDBCSD
would be in compliance with RWQCB requirements for the TDBCSD to implement
that plan and thus be in compliance with the RWQCB permit for the TDBCSD.
Based on the foregoing information, it is determined that the TDBCSD is likely to
have sufficient capacity to serve the project at the time it could seek a new service
connection and that serving the project would not exceed the RWQCB requirements
for wastewater treatment. In that instance, the TDBCSD would issue the connection
and the applicant would pay a capacity fee for its fair share of improvements to the
TDBCSD’s system. In the unlikely event, however, that sufficient capacity is not
available to serve the project in a manner that it would not exceed the RWQCB
requirements of the TDBCSD’s operating permit, the following mitigation would
47 Prior RWQCB Board Orders in 2008 and 2009 related to effluent limitations have all been addressed
to the satisfaction of the RWQCB; the TDBCSD does not have any outstanding violations. See Appendix
G of this draft EIR for RWQCB’s NPDES Permit Order No. R5-2003-0067 for the wastewater treatment
facility. This information is also presented on page 8-4, in Table 8-1, of the Wastewater MP.
48 This information is also presented on page 8-4, in Table 8-1, of the Wastewater MP.
49 This information is also presented on page 8-3, in Section 8.2.3, of the Wastewater MP.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-26
avoid the situation where development would outpace those RWQCB capacity and
operating requirements, and thereby reduce the corresponding potential impact to
a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall
provide documentation to the County (i.e., Can & Will Serve letter),
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the TDBCSD
has identified and secured sufficient funding for the construction of any capacity
or treatment improvements outlined in the Wastewater MP and necessary so
that serving the project does not exceed the requirements of the RWQCB.
Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall provide
documentation to the County Zoning Administrator that said improvements
needed to serve the project are constructed and operational, and that any
source control measures are being implemented consistent with the
requirements of the RWQCB.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
The TDBCSD has completed the Wastewater Master Plan that identifies
improvements needed to ensure sufficient capacity for build-out through 2020.
Mitigation is included to ensure that financing for the required improvements is in
place prior to final map recordation and that actual capacity exists prior to issuance
of occupancy permits, which is consistent with policies 7-1, 7-2, and 7-4. Therefore,
the project would be in compliance with policies 7-21 and 7-33, which require that a
project demonstrate that sufficient capacity exists.
4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact for public utilities includes the project area and Town of
Discovery Bay. The General Plan EIR noted that future development would cause an
increase in long-term water demand that could not be accommodated by existing
water agency plans in high growth areas like East County. The EIR also noted that
future development may not have access to adequate quantities or quality of
domestic water supply.
As noted previously, the TDBCSD has completed a Water MP and a Wastewater MP
which are included as Appendix H to this draft EIR. Each of these documents
identifies specific improvements needed to ensure adequate supply and treatment
capacity through 2020.
Both the Water MP and Wastewater MP forecast supply and demand projections to
year 2020; there are no other future forecasts included beyond 2020. These
projections take into account the potential demand created by the project as well as
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-27
the reasonably foreseeable and relevant projects within the TDBCSD service
boundary (Discovery Bay/Unincorporated Contra Costa County) included in Table
4-1 and depicted in Figure 4-1 of this draft EIR.
Water Supply
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term water
supplies within the project area.
Similar to the project-level analysis, this cumulative analysis is based on the Water
MP prepared by the TDBCSD. Implementation of the project would require
approximately 108 gmp of additional water demand from TDBCSD. As
demonstrated above, although there would be an adequate water supply identifies
to meet current and future water supply demands with the project, TDBCSD lacks
the appropriate facilities to ensure capacity to draw and distribute the groundwater
supplies. Given this, planned growth identified for the 2020 horizon year, in the
Water MP, would result in significant cumulative impact under long-term
conditions. Given that the project is included in these forecasts and would require
additional demand, the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be
considerable.
Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1: The project applicant shall implement
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-1 would require that the
improvements to capacity are constructed prior to the project moving forward
in the event that the project outpaces available water distribution resources.
With the facilities to ensure capacity to draw and distribute the groundwater in
place, cumulative impacts to water supply would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Impact CUM UTIL-1: The project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable projects, would have a considerable contribution to long-term
wastewater treatment within the project area.
Similar to the project-level analysis, this cumulative analysis is based on the
Wastewater MP prepared by the TDBCSD. Implementation of the project would
generate approximately 98,000 gallons of wastewater per day. This additional
amount would increase the amount of wastewater treated by the wastewater
treatment facility by 0.1 mgd. As demonstrated above, TDBCSD lacks the
appropriate facilities to provide wastewater treatment capacity for the project and
other forecasted projects without implementation of facility improvements. If the
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-28
improvements are not in place at the time the project, in combination with other
projects, are operable, implementation of forecasted growth could result in a
significant cumulative impact under long-term conditions. Given that the project
would increase wastewater flow to the wastewater treatment plant, the project’s
contribution to this significant impact would be considerable.
Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2: The project applicant shall implement
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUM UTIL-2 would require that the
improvements to wastewater treatment capacity are constructed prior to the
project moving forward in the event that the project outpaces RWQCB capacity
and operating requirements. With the facilities to ensure wastewater
treatment capacity in place, cumulative impacts to water supply would be less
than significant.
Solid Waste
The General Plan EIR also noted impacts related to the siting of solid waste facilities.
Future residents of the development would generate demand for additional solid
waste capacity. As discussed above, consultation with existing solid waste providers
indicated that the project would not result in the need for new solid waste facilities
not already planned, and that the existing solid waste facilities would be adequate
to serve the project as proposed.
4.15.5 References
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov. Accessed July 7, 2010.
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/recycle/options/v6073.htm. Accessed
July 7, 2010.
Water Master Plan, The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District, January
2012. www.tdbcsd.ca.gov
Wastewater Master Plan, The Town of Discovery Bay Community Services District,
October 2011. www.tdbcsd.ca.gov
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist, Discovery Bay Wastewater Treatment
Plant Upgrade, September 3, 2003.
Personal Communication with Jim Dunbar, Potrero Hills Landfill, July 7, 2010.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.15 Public Utilities
4.15-29
Virgil Koehne, Town of Discovery Bay Community Service Department. Personal
Communication, August 2010, and May 2012.
Rick Howard, Town of Discovery Bay Community Service Department. Personal
Communication, August 2011, February 2012, and May 2012.
Pantages Bays Project
4.15 Public Utilities Draft EIR
4.15-30
This page intentionally left blank.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-1
4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This section describes the existing traffic and circulation patterns around the project
site and its vicinity. The evaluation addresses the potentially significant impacts of
the project in terms of trip generation, traffic distribution and assignment, and
intersection and roadway levels of service.
A total of 24 intersections and three roadway segments were evaluated using four
condition scenarios: Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative No Project, and
Cumulative Plus Project. The findings of these evaluations, as prepared in the
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (2011), are
summarized in this section. The TIA is included as Appendix I to this draft EIR and is
also available for review at Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and
Development, Community Development Division, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,
California.
In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) submitted a comment letter requesting that the impacts
to the state highway system (i.e., State Route 4 [SR4]) be addressed in the traffic
analysis for the project. Potential impacts to SR4 ramp intersections were included
in the TIA and are addressed below in Subsection 4.16.4, Analysis of Potential
Impacts of this section.
Caltrans also noted that the project applicant would have to apply for an
encroachment permit in the event that traffic control work within the SR4 right-of-
way (ROW) is required. The project does not include any work and/or mitigation
within the SR4 ROW.
4.16.1 METHODOLOGY
Study Area
Twenty-four intersections and three roadway segments were selected in
consultation with Contra Costa County (County) staff. For the purposes of
determining whether a project impact is considered significant, these intersections
are designated as either Suburban or Semi-Rural. Figure 4.16-1 shows the location
of the study intersections.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-1Figure
CirclePoint
Study Intersections
and Project Location
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-3
Study Intersections:
1. Balfour Road/Brentwood
Boulevard (Suburban)
11. Balfour Road/Bixler Road (Suburban)
2. Point of Timber Road/Preston
Drive/Grand Way (Suburban)
12. Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway
(Semi-Rural)
3. Newport Drive/Bixler Road
(Suburban)
13. Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road
(Suburban)
4. Newport Drive/Slifer Drive
(Suburban)
14. SR4/Byron Highway (north
intersection) (Semi-Rural)
5. Newport Drive/Newport Lane
(Suburban)
15. Marsh Creek Road/Walnut Boulevard
(Suburban)
6. Byer Road/Byron Highway
(Semi-Rural)
16. Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue
(Semi-Rural)
7. Holway Drive/Byron Highway
(Suburban)
17. Marsh Creek Road/Byron Highway
(Semi-Rural)
8. Camino Diablo Road/Holway
Drive (Suburban)
18. Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road
(Suburban)
9. Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road
(Suburban)
19. SR4/Byron Highway (south
intersection) (Semi-Rural)
10. Balfour Road/Byron Highway
(Semi-Rural)
20. SR4/Bixler Road (Suburban)
21. SR4/Newport Drive (Suburban) 23. Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway
(Suburban)
22. Camino Diablo Road/Vasco
Road (Semi-Rural)
24. SR4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road (Semi-
Rural)
Study area roadway segments:
1. Camino Diablo Road west of Vasco Road
2. Marsh Creek Road west of SR4
3. Vasco Road south of Camino Diablo Road
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-4
Analysis Scenarios
Traffic Impacts were evaluated for the weekday peak commute periods (i.e., AM
and PM) using the following four condition scenarios:
Existing – Existing conditions based upon data collected in 2010.
Existing Plus Project - Existing conditions based on data collected in 2010 plus
project-related traffic.
Cumulative No Project – Future (Year 2035) forecast conditions based on the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) model.
Cumulative Plus Project – Future (Year 2035) forecast conditions based on the
CCTA model plus project-related traffic.
Analysis Method
Transportation engineers and planners use the term level of service (LOS) to
qualitatively describe the operations of transportation facilities. Level of service
ranges from LOS A indicating free-flow conditions with little or no delay to LOS F
representing oversaturated conditions with excessive delays. The analysis methods
for each of the transportation facilities evaluated in this section are described
below.
Signalized Intersections
Operations of the signalized study intersections were evaluated using Contra Costa
Transportation Authority Level of Service (CCTALOS) method. The CCTALOS method
uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and
signal phasing) to estimate an intersection’s volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. Table
4.16-1 summarizes the relationship between the V/C ratio and LOS for signalized
intersections.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-5
Table 4.16-1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Services Description Sum of Critical
V/C Ratio
A
Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the
green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also
contribute to low delay.
< 0.60
B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop
than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. 0.61 - 0.70
C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or
both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though
many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping.
0.71 - 0.80
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, and/or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of
vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
0.81 - 0.90
E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable
delay. High delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle
lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.
0.91 - 1.00
F
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when
arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may
also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures.
Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to
such delay levels.
> 1.00
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Unsignalized Intersections
For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled)
intersections, the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) – Special Report 209,
Chapter 17 method was used. With this method, operations are also defined by the
average control delay per vehicle, based on the delay associated with the stop signs.
For side-street stop-controlled intersections, the delay is estimated for movements
that must yield the right-of-way.1 An intersection average delay is estimated for all-
way stop intersections. Table 4.16-2 summarizes the relationship between delay
and LOS for unsignalized intersections.
1 Includes those turning movements from stopped approaches and left-turns from major
thoroughfares.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-6
Table 4.16-2 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle (Seconds)
A Little or no traffic delays < 10.0
B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Signal Warrant Analysis
Peak hour volume traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted for all unsignalized
study intersections not meeting acceptable LOS standards. The signal warrant
analysis was conducted using the criteria described in the Federal Highway
Administration’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). MUTCD
contains eight warrants (i.e., indicators) which identify whether the installation of a
signal would improve traffic conditions at an intersection operating at an
unacceptable LOS. Generally, meeting one of the signal warrants could justify
signalization of an intersection.
Roadway Segments
Roadways identified as Routes of Regional Significance in the East County Action
Plan were evaluated. The study area roadway segments were evaluated using the
Highway Capacity Software (HCS), which applies the two-lane highway analysis
methodology from Chapter 20 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Table
4.16-3 summarizes the relationship between percent time-spent-following (PTSF)2
and average travel speed with the LOS criteria for the two-lane highway segment
analysis.
2 Percent-time-spent-following (PTSF) is the average percent of total travel time that vehicles must
travel in platoons behind slower vehicles due to inability to pass on a two-lane highway. It therefore
represents the freedom to maneuver and convenience of travel.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-7
Table 4.16-3 Two-Lane Highway LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Percent of Time Spent Following Average Speed (mph)
A ≤ 35% > 55
B > 35-50% > 50-55
C > 50-65% > 45-50
D > 65-80% > 40-45
E > 80% ≤ 40
F Applies whenever the flow rate exceeds the segment capacity
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
LOS Standards
The LOS standards that apply to all study intersections and roadways within the
project site and its vicinity are listed in Subsection 4.16.4.
4.16.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway System
The project site is located east of Bixler Road on Point of Timber Road, in Discovery
Bay. A gated entry on Point of Timber Road provides major access to the project
site. Local access to the project site is provided by Bixler Road, Byron Highway,
Camino Diablo, and Vasco Road. Regional access to the project site is provided by
SR4, located approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site.
Highways
SR4 is a two-lane undivided highway that is east-west oriented east of the
intersection of Byron Highway (south) and west of the intersection of Byron
Highway (north). Between the two intersections with Byron Highway, SR4 and
Byron Highway are considered the same highway, and are oriented in a north-south
direction. The posted speed limit on this highway is 55 miles-per-hour (mph), and
there are paved shoulders.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-8
Byron Highway is a two-lane north-south undivided highway that extends north of
Balfour Road and south to the City of Tracy. As described above, Byron Highway
intersects SR4 in two locations, and is considered SR4 in between the two
intersections. The posted speed limit on this highway varies between 35 mph and
55 mph. Paved shoulders are provided on certain segments of this roadway.
Major Roadways
Bixler Road is a two-lane north-south road that extends north of Balfour Road to
south of SR4. This segment of Bixler Road has been improved with paved shoulders,
turn-lanes at major intersections, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks adjacent to the
existing urban development. The posted speed limit is 50 mph.
Vasco Road is a two-lane north-south roadway that connects the cities of
Brentwood and Livermore. Turn-lanes are provided at major intersections. The
posted speed limit varies between 45 and 55 mph.
Camino Diablo is a two-lane east-west roadway that connects Byron Highway and
Marsh Creek Road. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. There are no paved shoulders
on this roadway.
Other Roadways
Other roadways in the project vicinity include Marsh Creek Road, Balfour Road,
Walnut Boulevard, Sellers Avenue, and Point of Timber Road, all of which are two-
lane rural roads. Figure 4.16-1 includes a map of the study intersections as they
relate to these local roadways.
Existing Traffic and Circulation
Traffic Counts
Intersection turning movement counts were conducted for morning (6:00 to 9:00
AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods in January 2010, while County
schools were in session.
Typical peak hour traffic counts are taken from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to
6:00 PM. However, County staff requested that counts to be taken outside typical
peak hours to address concerns regarding the actual peak hours of travel for
residents of far eastern Contra Costa County. The observed start of the morning
peak hour began between 6:30 AM and 7:45 AM, depending on the intersection.
The start of the PM peak hour ranged from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-9
Existing Intersection Operations
Table 4.16-4 summarizes the results of the existing conditions at the 24
intersections that were evaluated. These results are based on both CCTALOS and
HCM methods previously discussed in Subsection 4.16.1, Methodology. All
signalized intersections (Nos. 1, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24) were analyzed using
the CCTALOS method.
Table 4.16-4 Existing Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
HCM Method CCTALOS Method
Delay2,3 LOS4 V/C Ratio LOS4
1. Balfour Road/ Brentwood
Boulevard Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.52 A
PM n/a n/a 0.50 A
2. Point of Timber
Road/Preston Drive Way/
Grand Way
AWS
AM 8.3 A n/a n/a
PM 7.7 A n/a n/a
3. Newport Drive/Bixler Road SSS
AM 5.9 (19.6) A (C/WB) n/a n/a
PM 2.6 (13.7) A (B/WB) n/a n/a
4. Newport Drive/Slifer Drive SSS
AM 3.1 (9.3) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
PM 3.1 (9.1) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
5. Newport Drive/ Newport
Lane SSS
AM 0.4 (8.9) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
PM 0.6 (9.0) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
6. Byer Road/Byron Highway SSS
AM 3.0 (14.4) A (B/WB) n/a n/a
PM 0.8 (16.8) A (C/WB n/a n/a
7. Holway Drive/Byron Highway SSS
AM 0.9 (13.9) A (B/EB) n/a n/a
PM 10.4 (31.2) A (D/EB) n/a n/a
8. Camino Diablo Road/Holway
Drive SSS
AM 6.8 (12.5) A (B/EB) n/a n/a
PM 5.5 (26.9) A (D/NB) n/a n/a
9. Sellers Avenue/ Balfour Road AWS
AM 10.0 A n/a n/a
PM 10.4 B n/a n/a
10.Balfour Road/Byron Highway AWS
AM 10.0 A n/a n/a
PM 9.2 A n/a n/a
11. Balfour Road/Bixler Road AWS
AM 8.8 A n/a n/a
PM 8.9 A n/a n/a
12.Point of Timber Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 5.6 (10.4) A (B/WB) n/a n/a
PM 3.2 (10.0) A (A/WB) n/a n/a
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-10
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
HCM Method CCTALOS Method
Delay2,3 LOS4 V/C Ratio LOS4
13. Point of Timber Road/ Bixler
Road SSS
AM 9.9 A n/a n/a
PM 9.0 A n/a n/a
14.SR4/Byron Highway (north
intersection) Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.32 A
PM n/a n/a 0.50 A
15. Marsh Creek Road/Walnut
Boulevard Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.56 A
PM n/a n/a 0.68 A
16. Sellers Avenue/ Marsh
Creek Road SSS
AM 12.9 B n/a n/a
PM 12.1 B n/a n/a
17. Marsh Creek Road/Byron
Highway Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.29 A
PM n/a n/a 0.31 B
18. Marsh Creek Road/Bixler
Road SSS
AM 1.2 (14.9) A (B/EB) n/a n/a
PM 2.2 (13.6) A (B/EB) n/a n/a
19. SR4/Byron Highway (south
intersection) Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.77 C
PM n/a n/a 0.58 A
20. SR4/Bixler Road Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.53 A
PM n/a n/a 0.44 A
21. SR4/ Newport Drive SSS
AM 3.7 (28.0) A (D/SB) n/a n/a
PM 1.6 (16.9) A (C/SB) n/a n/a
22. Camino Diablo Road/Vasco
Road Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.61 B
PM n/a n/a 0.63 B
23. Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 5.3 (17.1) A (C/WB) n/a n/a
PM 6.5 (17.0) A (C/WB) n/a n/a
24. SR 4 Bypass / Marsh Creek
Road Signal
AM n/a n/a 0.39 A
PM n/a n/a 0.39 A
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled
intersection.
2. Signalized and All-Way Stop intersection LOS based on average intersection control delay according to the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000).
3. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay for worst approach (in seconds per vehicle) is presented. All
calculations reflect the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methods. Delay for worst approach is provided (in
parentheses) for SSS controlled intersections.
4. LOS = Level of Service
5. CCTA volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Signalized intersection LOS based on Technical Procedures (Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, 1997)
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-11
The remaining unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the HCM method.
Figures 4.16-2a and 4.16-2b present the existing traffic counts for the study
intersections at peak hours. As shown, all of the study intersections operate at
acceptable levels of service during both peak periods.
The eastbound approach at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection (No. 7)
operates at unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour; however, the overall
intersection operates at LOS A. Detailed intersection LOS calculation worksheets
are provided in Appendix B of the TIA (see Appendix I of this draft EIR).
Existing Roadway Segment Operations
Table 4.16-5 summarizes the results of the roadway segment analysis conducted for
Marsh Creek Road, Vasco Road, and Camino Diablo Road. Both Marsh Creek Road
and Camino Diablo Road operations meet the target Multi-modal Transportation
Service Objective (MTSO) of LOS D or better. However, Vasco Road operates at
unacceptable LOS E in the northbound or southbound directions during the AM or
PM peak hour.
Table 4.16-5 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Delay Index Summary
Roadway Segment Target MTSO1 Direction Eastbound/
Northbound
Westbound/
Southbound
Marsh Creek Road west
of SR4 D
AM C D
PM D D
Vasco Road south of
Camino Diablo Road D
AM E E
PM E E
Camino Diablo Road
west of Vasco Road D
AM C C
PM C C
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011
Bold indicates roadway segment not meeting MTSO
1. Target Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO)
Existing Multi-Modal Facilities
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Caltrans standards provide for three distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally
described below:
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-2aFigure
CirclePoint
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-2bFigure
CirclePoint
Existing Conditions Peak Hour
Intersection Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-14
Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) provides a completely separate right-of-way for the
exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. Vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow is
minimized.
Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) provides a restricted right-of-way designated for
the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bike lanes are
generally five feet wide. Vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow is permitted. In
some cases, vehicle parking is permitted adjacent to bike lanes.
Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) provides a right-of-way designated by signs or
pavement markings for shared use between bicyclists and motor vehicles.
Class II Bikeways are provided on Bixler Road and Point of Timber Road. A Class III
Bikeway is designated on Marsh Creek Road. As part of the East County Bikeway
Plan 2005 Update, additional Class III facilities are planned along Vasco Road,
Camino Diablo, SR4, and Walnut Boulevard. Class II facilities are planned on Point of
Timber Road and Byron Highway as well as a Class I bike path along the East Contra
Costa Irrigation District Main Canal Trail (between Point of Timber Road and Balfour
Road).
Sidewalks are provided on Point of Timber Road, on the east side of Bixler Road
between SR4 and Balfour Road, and on segments of Byron Highway.
Transit
Tri Delta Transit provides bus service to Discovery Bay. Route 386 provides bus
service between the Discovery Bay Park and Ride and the Brentwood Park and Ride.
This route provides service three times per day in each direction on weekdays only,
with stops on the Bixler Road/Point of Timber Road and Point of Timber
Road/Preston Drive intersections, as well as the Discovery Bay Park and Ride. As of
March 2010, Route 386 serves 21 passenger trips per day on average.
Boat Traffic
The northwest portion of Kellogg Creek at the Indian Slough junction has been
identified as a congestion point due to its narrow width, high traffic volume (up to
approximately 1,000 boats/day in summer), and confined tidal flows. The minimum
channel width along this reach is approximately 100 feet, which meets the width
requirements for recreational marinas based on both federal (100 feet) and state
(75 feet) guidance. However, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) recommends
consideration of additional factors such as vessel size and maneuverability, traffic
congestion, and the effects of wind, waves, and currents, which may increase the
design width beyond the minimum requirements.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-15
Federal and state guidance does not provide recommendations for additional
channel width required due to boat traffic on a per boat basis for inland waterways
such as Discovery Bay. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the methodology
for sizing entrance channels is based on a minimum required width for the first
1,000 boats plus 100 feet of width per additional 1,000 boats serviced by the
channel. For example, a channel servicing 2,000 boats would require an additional
100 feet of width beyond the existing 100 feet minimum width requirement.
The same type of relationship is applied here to evaluate the existing channel width
in Kellogg Creek. Assuming the northwest portion of Kellogg Creek services
approximately 75 percent of the waterfront homes in Discovery Bay, the channel
should be sized for approximately 2,025 boats.3 The recommended channel size
based on this guidance (assuming a minimum state required width of 75 feet and
1,775 boats beyond the first 1,000) would be approximately 250 feet (i.e., an
additional 175 feet of width required due to high volume of boats). Based on this
rough guidance, the northwest portion of Kellogg Creek is likely undersized relative
to the existing boat traffic.
The waterways within Discovery Bay are designated as no wake zones with a posted
speed limit of 5 miles per hour (mph). The no wake zone begins at the entrances to
Discovery Bay from Indian Slough.
4.16.3 REGULATORY SETTING
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Transportation & Circulation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan
contains the following relevant policies related to transportation and circulation:
Transportation & Circulation Element
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 specific period of time.
5-8 Direct frontage and access points on arterials and collectors shall be
minimized.
5-13 Physical conflicts between vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians shall
be minimized.
3 Seventy-five percent of the total 2,700 waterfront homes in Discovery Bay.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-16
5-14 Adequate lighting shall be provided for vehicular, pedestrian and bicyclists
safety, consistent with neighborhood desires.
5-15 Curbs and sidewalks shall be provided in appropriate areas.
5-16 Emergency response vehicles shall be accommodated in development
project design.
5-20 New subdivisions should be designed to permit convenient pedestrian
access to bus transit and efficient bus circulation patterns.
5-25 Planning and provision for a system of safe and convenient pedestrian ways,
bikeways and regional hiking trails shall be continued as a means of
connecting community facilities, residential areas, and business districts, as
well as points of interest outside the communities utilizing existing public
and semi-public right-of-way.
5-31 Local road dimensions shall complement the scale and appearance of
adjoining properties.
5-32 Landscaping and maintenance of street medians and curb areas shall be
provided where appropriate.
Project Consistency Analysis
The development of the project site would generate new traffic volumes that would
reduce the LOS ratings for some of the nearby intersections and roadways.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 and TRA-2 would lessen these
negative effects so that the impacted facilities would be able to operate at an
acceptable LOS, consistent with Policy 5-4.
Streets would be designed in compliance with County standards and requirements
of emergency service providers. In addition, access to the project site would be via
Point of Timber Road, which is not considered an arterial or collector street.
Incorporating an access point along this roadway would therefore not conflict with
Policy 5-8.
Consistent with Policy 5-16, Wilde Drive would provide emergency vehicle access
(EVA) only to the project site. The Wilde Drive EVA would also serve as a publicly
accessible pedestrian/bike access. An internal EVA road would be constructed in
the northwest portion of the project site through the proposed wetland mitigation
and open space area, consistent with Policy 5-16. The EVA road would also serve as
a publicly accessible pedestrian/bike trail and would include interpretive signage,
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-17
kiosks, and seating areas. Other pedestrian walkway systems included as part of the
project are discussed further in Subsection 4.16.4. The provision of these facilities
would make the project consistent with Policy 5-13, 5-15, 5-20, and 5-25.
Street medians and curb areas would be built in compliance with County standards,
and would provide new landscaping where appropriate, consistent with Policy 5-32.
Similarly, the project applicant has prepared a lighting plan for the review and
approval of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department and Zoning
Administrator. The review and approval would ensure that adequate lighting is
provided for vehicular and pedestrian safety, consistent with Policy 5-14.
The road dimensions on the project site would be similar to the adjacent Discovery
Bay and Discovery Bay West residential subdivisions, consistent with Policy 5-31.
4.16.4 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
transportation and traffic impact if it would:
a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks;
b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses;
c) Result in inadequate emergency access;
d) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety
of such facilities;
e) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit; or
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-18
f) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways.
Standards of Significance
The County’s LOS standards listed below were used to determine whether the
project would result in a significant impact to the study intersections and/or
roadway segments. In addition, the standards included for transit systems,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and site access and internal circulation were
developed in coordination with County staff, and are based on accepted industry
practice and adopted guidelines within the Contra Costa General Plan, East Contra
Costa County Bikeway Plan 2005 Update, and 2009 Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan.
Signalized Intersections
Signalized intersections designated as “Suburban” (Nos. 1, 15, and 20): Change
from LOS low-D (a volume to capacity ratio of 0.84 based on CCTALOS
standards) or better to LOS high-D, E, or F.
Signalized intersections designated as “Semi-Rural” (Nos. 14, 16, 17, 19, 22,
and 24): Change from LOS high-C (a volume to capacity ratio of 0.79 based on
CCTALOS standards) or better to LOS D, E, or F.
All signalized intersections: Deterioration in already unacceptable intersection
operations by a change in volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of more than 0.01
Unsignalized Intersections
All-way stop (AWS) intersections designated as “Suburban” (Nos. 2, 9, and 11):
Change from an average LOS low-D (an average delay of 30 seconds based on
HCM standards) or better to LOS high-D, E or F; and intersection meets MUTCD
Peak Hour Signal Warrant.
All-way stop (AWS) intersections designated as “Semi-Rural” (No. 10): Change
from an average LOS low-C (an average delay of 25 seconds based on HCM
standards) or better to LOS D, E or F; and intersection meets MUTCD Peak Hour
Signal Warrant.
Side-street stop (SSS) intersections designated as “Suburban” (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7,
8, 13, 18, 21, 23): Change from LOS low-D (an average delay of 30 seconds
based on HCM standards) or better to LOS high-D, E or F (except at intersections
on SR 4); and intersection meets MUTCD Peak Hour Signal Warrant.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-19
Side-street stop (SSS) intersections designated as “Semi-Rural” (Nos. 6, 12, and
16): Change from LOS C (an average delay of 25 seconds based on HCM
standards) or better to LOS D, E or F; and intersection meets MUTCD Peak Hour
Signal Warrant.
All unsignalized intersections: Deterioration in already unacceptable
intersection operations by a change in average delay of more than 5 seconds.
Roadway Segments
Change from the target Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO) of
LOS D or better to an LOS E or F.
Transit System
Transit impacts would be considered significant if the project conflicts or creates
inconsistencies with adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies or standards.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems
Pedestrian and Bicycle impacts would be considered significant if the project
conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines,
policies or standards.
Site Access and Internal Circulation
A site access or internal circulation impact would be considered significant if the
project would result in any of the following:
Inadequate emergency access; or
Designs for on-site circulation, access and parking areas that fail to meet
industry standard design guidelines.
Discussion of No Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that no impact would result for four of the
criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in support of this
conclusion.
a) Would the project result in a change to air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-20
The project does not involve aircraft or activities that would interfere with air traffic
patterns. The project includes a 100-foot by 100-foot Medivac helicopter landing
area near the Marine Patrol Substation. However, emergencies that would require
a Medivac helicopter landing on the project site are rare and would not result in a
change to existing air traffic patterns since Medivac helicopters currently land on
nearby levees when called for an emergency response. Furthermore, the closest
public or private airstrip is more than 2 miles away.
b) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses?
Internal circulation was reviewed with respect to the proposed roadway lane
widths, sight distance, and vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts. The project includes
seven streets and cul-de-sacs that would be privately owned and maintained by a
homeowners association. Pedestrian walkways would be provided on 5 and 8-foot
sidewalks on both sides of the internal roadways, with a 5-foot landscaped buffer
between the roadway and sidewalk throughout the proposed development. Other
than the EVA/public trail, the roadways within the project site would not have bike
lanes. Therefore, bicyclists would be sharing the road with motor vehicles. Given
that the traffic volumes and vehicular speeds within the project site are anticipated
to be low, road-sharing is not anticipated to cause a major conflict between
bicyclists and motor vehicles.
In addition, the internal roadways were evaluated to determine whether adequate
sight distance is provided for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The Caltrans Highway
Design Manual provides sight distance standards based on the design speed of the
roadway. A design speed of 25 miles per hour (mph) was used for the internal
roadways, which corresponds to a minimum sight distance of 155 feet. All of the
internal intersections provide adequate sight distance for pedestrian and bicyclist
safety.
c) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Streets would be designed in compliance with County private road standards and
requirements of emergency service providers. With two exceptions, streets would
include a 56-foot right-of-way (36 feet measured from each edge of pavement),
with room for parking on both sides and 10 feet on each side of the street for
separated sidewalks and a landscaped linear bioretention facility.4
4 Linear bioretention facilities are landscaped elements designed to remove silt and pollution from
surface runoff water.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-21
Exception #1: The extension of Point of Timber Road from its current terminus
to the site’s internal circulation roadway would be 40-feet wide within a 70-foot
right-of-way.
Exception #2: ‘C’ Court is a short cul-de-sac with homes fronting on one side
only. Therefore, it is designed within a 43-foot right-of-way and has a 28-foot
road measured from each edge of pavement, a 5-foot linear bioretention facility
on both sides, and parking and a 5-foot sidewalk on only one side. As such, it
meets County private road standards and Fire District requirements cul-de-sac
bulbs would be designed to meet Fire District turning-radius requirements.
In addition, an EVA road would be constructed in the northwest portion and
southwest portion of the project site. The EVA in the northwest portion of the site
would be constructed through the proposed wetland mitigation and open space
area. The applicant proposes that EVA/public trail to be 20 feet wide, with an 8-foot
paved trail in the middle and a 6-foot compacted aggregate shoulder on each side.
The EVA would connect the northernmost portion of ‘A’ Street to the northernmost
portion of ‘B’ Street, as illustrated in Figure 3-5.5 A similar EVA would be
constructed to the sheriff’s marine patrol substation. As such, the project would
provide adequate emergency access to the entire project site.
d) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
There is no planned transit service within the project development. However, the
project would connect to existing sidewalks on Point of Timber Road and Wilde
Drive. These sidewalks would provide public pedestrian/bicycle access to the open
space areas within the project site. The sidewalk connections would also provide
access from the site to the closest existing transit service (at the intersection of
Point of Timber Road/Preston Drive), schools, and parks. As such, the project would
not conflict with adopted pedestrian plans or guidelines identified in the Contra
Costa General Plan, East Contra Costa County Bikeway Plan 2005 Update, or 2009
Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The project is also consistent with the East
County Trails Master Plan dated July 2009. The Master Plan envisions access
through the Pantages site, but does not identify a precise alignment. In
conformance with this Master Plan, the project provides access via the public trail
5 Street names will be changed prior to final subdivision map.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-22
through the emergent marsh area. Trail users can also exit the Pantages site and
connect to other existing and planned trails that provide access to the south
towards Highway 4, as shown on the Master Plan
The two Tri Delta Transit routes that would serve the project site currently operate
well under capacity. Route 386 has a daily capacity of 312 trips but currently serves
21 average trips per day (approximately 7 percent capacity). The Delta Express has
a capacity of 224 trips per day and currently serves 59 average trips per day
(approximately 26 percent capacity). The excess capacity available on the existing
transit system would accommodate additional transit trips generated by the project.
The project does not conflict with any transit system plans or guidelines and would
therefore not create an impact.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project details and site characteristics in the context of the
significance criteria stated above shows that less-than-significant impacts would
result for two of the criteria. The following discussion presents the evidence in
support of this conclusion.
e) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system?
f) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion
management program?
Project Trip Generation
The amount of traffic projected to enter and exit a site is referred to as the project’s
trip generation. Trip generation estimates for the project were calculated using trip
generation data published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) 2008
Trip Generation (8th Edition) and are presented below in Table 4.16-6. The project,
as proposed, is estimated to generate approximately 2,790 daily trips, 219 AM peak
hour trips, and 295 PM peak hour trips.6
6 The project applicant is required to develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
pursuant to Section 82-32.010 of the County Code, which applies to residential projects that would
result in 13 or more dwelling units. Possible trip generation reductions from implementation of the
TDM program were not applied to the trip generation in order to provide a more conservative analysis.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-23
Table 4.16-6 Pantages Bays Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Size
(Dwelling Units) Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family1 292 2,790 55 164 219 186 109 295
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: DU = dwelling units.
1. Trip generation based on the average rates for Single-Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210) in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition), as presented below.
Daily Average Rate: T = 9.57 * X
AM Average Rate: T = 0.75 * X (inbound = 25%, outbound = 75%)
PM Average Rate: T = 1.01 * X (inbound = 63%, outbound = 37%)
Where: T = trip ends and X = number of dwelling units.
The project also includes a Sheriff’s Marine Patrol station. The station is expected to
be staffed during summer weekends to patrol the waterways of surrounding the
project site. As such, the station is not expected to generate a significant number of
vehicle trips during the weekday peak hours analyzed in this report. Furthermore,
due to the maritime nature of the station, some officers may arrive via water.
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The routes that trips use to approach and depart from a site and the percentage of
project traffic anticipated to use each route is known as a project’s trip distribution.
Using the CCTA travel demand model and knowledge of existing travel patterns, trip
distribution percentages were developed for the existing (2010) and cumulative
(2035) conditions in the project vicinity. These percentages were presented to and
approved by County staff in December 2009. Two different trip distribution
percentages were computed because the planned growth in the area would affect
project trips in the future, with a greater percentage of trips remaining in the
Brentwood area under cumulative conditions.
Figure 4.16-3 presents the trip distributions for the existing and cumulative
conditions. Peak hour project trip assignments to each study intersection for
Existing Plus Project conditions are presented on Figure 4.16-4a and Figure 4.16b.
The peak hour project traffic volumes were added to the existing traffic volumes to
determine Existing Plus Project traffic impacts. These peak hour traffic volumes are
shown in Figures 4.16-5a and 4.16-5b.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-3Figure
CirclePoint
Project Trip Distribution
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-4aFigure
CirclePoint
Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-4bFigure
CirclePoint
Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-5aFigure
CirclePoint
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
PANTAGES BAYS
4.16-5bFigure
CirclePoint
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
NOT TO SCALE
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-29
Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations
The results of the Existing Plus Project intersection analysis are provided in
Tables 4.16-7 and 4.16-8. With the addition of project generated traffic, levels of
delay and/or V/C ratios are expected to increase somewhat from the existing
conditions. With the exception of the Holway Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7), Camino
Diablo Road/Holway Drive (No. 8), and SR4/Byron Highway (south) (No. 19)
intersections, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable
LOS with the addition of project traffic. However, neither the Holway Drive/Byron
Highway nor Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive unsignalized intersections would
meet the peak hour signal warrant analysis. As previously discussed, an
unsignalized intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS must meet the MUTCD
peak hour signal warrant for the impact to be considered significant. Because
neither intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant, impacts to these
intersections as a result of the project generated traffic are considered less than
significant.
Impacts to the SR4/Byron Highway (south) are discussed further below under
discussion of significant impacts.
Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Operation
Existing Plus Project roadway segment operations were calculated for the weekday
AM and PM peak hours. Impacts were evaluated using the MTSO target of LOS D, as
previously discussed. Table 4.16-9 summarizes the results of the roadway segment
analysis. Both Marsh Creek Road and Camino Diablo would continue to operate at
acceptable LOS D with the addition of project generated traffic.
However, the addition of project traffic would exacerbate the existing deficiency of
Vasco Road, which does not meet the MTSO target of LOS D under Existing or
Existing Plus Project conditions. Impacts to Vasco Road are discussed further below
under discussion of significant impacts.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-30
Table 4.16-7 Existing Plus Project: Peak Hour Intersection HCM Levels of Service
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
Existing Existing Plus Project
Delay2,3 LOS4 V/C Ratio LOS4
2. Point of Timber Road/Preston Drive
Way/Grand Way AWS
AM 8.3 A 9.8 A
PM 7.7 A 8.5 A
3. Newport Drive/Bixler Road SSS
AM 5.9 (19.6) A (C/WB) 6.4 (24.6) A (C/WB)
PM 2.6 (13.7) A (B/WB) 2.4 (15.6) A (C/WB)
4. Newport Drive/Slifer Drive SSS
AM 3.1 (9.3) A (A/WB) 2.8 (9.4) A (A/WB)
PM 3.1 (9.1) A (A/WB) 2.6 (9.2) A (A/WB)
5. Newport Drive/Newport Lane SSS
AM 0.4 (8.9) A (A/WB) 0.3 (8.9) A (A/WB)
PM 0.6 (9.0) A (A/WB) 0.5 (9.2) A (A/WB)
6. Byer Road/Byron Highway SSS
AM 3.0 (14.4) A (B/WB) 3.0 (15.6) A (C/WB)
PM 0.8 (16.8) A (C/WB 0.8 (19.1) A (C/WB)
7. Holway Drive/Byron Highway SSS
AM 0.9 (13.9) A (B/EB) 1.2 (15.0) A (C/EB)
PM 10.4 (31.2) A (D/EB) 20.4 (56.9) C (F/EB)
8. Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive SSS
AM 6.8 (12.5) A (B/EB) 7.9 (13.6) A (B/SB)
PM 5.5 (26.9) A (D/NB) 6.3 (33.9) A (D/NB)
9. Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road AWS
AM 10.0 A 10.3 B
PM 10.4 B 10.8 B
10.Balfour Road/Byron Highway AWS
AM 10.0 A 10.4 B
PM 9.2 A 9.5 A
11. Balfour Road/Bixler Road AWS
AM 8.8 A 8.9 A
PM 8.9 A 8.9 A
12.Point of Timber Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 5.6 (10.4) A (B/WB) 6.6 (11.3) A (B/WB)
PM 3.2 (10.0) A (A/WB) 4.0 (10.7) A (B/WB)
13. Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road SSS
AM 9.9 A 11.7 B
PM 9.0 A 11.5 B
16. Sellers Avenue/Marsh Creek Road SSS
AM 12.9 B 13.5 B
PM 12.1 B 12.7 B
18. Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road SSS
AM 1.2 (14.9) A (B/EB) 1.4 (17.6) A (C/EB)
PM 2.2 (13.6) A (B/EB) 2.8 (16.7) A (C/EB)
21. SR4/Newport Drive SSS
AM 3.7 (28.0) A (D/SB) 3.8 (28.7) A (D/SB)
PM 1.6 (16.9) A (C/SB) 1.8 (20.7) A (C/SB)
23. Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 5.3 (17.1) A (C/WB) 5.3 (17.4) A (C/WB)
PM 6.5 (17.0) A (C/WB) 6.5 (17.3) A (C/WB)
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Notes: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled intersection.
2. Signalized and All-Way Stop intersection level of service based on average intersection control delay according to the Highway Capacity
Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000).
3. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay for worst approach (in seconds per vehicle) is presented. All calculations reflect the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual methods. Delay for worst approach is provided (in parentheses) for SSS controlled intersections. The
worst approach is indicated by WB (westbound), EB (eastbound), NB (northbound), or SB (southbound).
4. LOS = Level of Service
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-31
Table 4.16-8 Existing Plus Project: Peak Hour Intersection CCTA Levels of
Service
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
Existing No Project Existing Plus Project
V/C Ratio2 LOS3 V/C Ratio2 LOS3
1. Balfour Road/Brentwood Boulevard Signal
AM 0.52 A 0.54 A
PM 0.50 A 0.51 A
14. SR4/Byron Highway (north) Signal
AM 0.32 A 0.34 A
PM 0.30 A 0.32 A
15. Marsh Creek Road/Walnut
Boulevard Signal
AM 0.56 A 0.57 A
PM 0.68 B 0.69 B
17. Marsh Creek Road/Byron Highway Signal
AM 0.29 A 0.32 A
PM 0.31 A 0.33 A
19. SR4/Byron Highway (south) Signal
AM 0.77 C 0.81 D
PM 0.58 A 0.62 B
20. SR4/Bixler Road Signal
AM 0.53 A 0.55 A
PM 0.44 A 0.46 A
22. Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road Signal
AM 0.61 B 0.65 B
PM 0.63 B 0.68 B
24. SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road Signal
AM 0.39 A 0.39 A
PM 0.39 A 0.40 A
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection
2. CCTA volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Signalized intersection level of service based on Technical Procedures (Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, 1997).
3. LOS = Level of Service
Table 4.16-9 Existing Plus Project Roadway Operation
Roadway
Segment
Target
MTSO1 Direction
Eastbound/
Northbound
Westbound/
Southbound
Existing Existing Plus
Project Existing Existing Plus
Project
Marsh Creek Road D
AM C D D D
PM D D D D
Vasco Road D
AM E E E E
PM E E E E
Camino Diablo
Road D
AM C C C C
PM C C C C
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011
Bold indicates roadway segment not meeting MTSO
1. Target Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO)
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-32
Boating Traffic
The project would construct 116 waterfront lots with deepwater access and 176
interior lots. Assuming one boat per waterfront household and County-wide
ownership rates for interior lots, the project is estimated to contribute an additional
131 new vessels to Discovery Bay. Based on the California State Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) average trip rate of 26.1 trips per year (PWA 2010), this
would result in approximately 3,420 new boat trips per year originating from
Pantages Bays. This represents an approximately 2.8 percent increase in the
number of local boat trips within Discovery Bay due to the project.
The project would widen the northwest portion of Kellogg Creek to a minimum
width of 300 feet in an effort to reduce boat traffic congestion and tidal flow
constriction (refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality). Assuming the
project would introduce an additional 131 boats to Kellogg Creek, the widened
channel would service approximately 2,906 boats7 and require a minimum width of
approximately 265 feet (per the methods discussed above).8 Since the proposed
widened channel dimensions exceed the recommended width, congestion within
the widened segment of Kellogg Creek is not expected to be a significant impact.
In Indian Slough, which does not currently experience boat traffic congestion
problems, the relatively small increase in number of boats due to the project (2.8
percent) is not expected to have a significant impact on boat traffic (PWA 2010).
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Impact TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and
worsen LOS conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south intersection) signalized
intersection. (Significant)
As shown in Table 4.16-8, the signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway (south
intersection) is projected to deteriorate from LOS C to LOS D during the AM peak
hour with the addition of project trips. This is below the County’s standards of
significance for signalized, Semi-Rural intersections and is therefore considered a
significant impact.
7 As previously discussed, Kellogg Creek is currently estimated to service approximately 2,775 boats.
With the addition of 131 boats from the project, the creek would service approximately 2906 boats.
8 Assuming a minimum width of 75 feet per the first 1,000 boats serviced, plus 100 feet per additional
1,000 boats, the creek would need an additional 190 feet (2,906 – 1,000 ÷ 100 = 190) beyond the
minimum requirement: 75 feet + 190 ft = 265 feet
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-33
Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic conditions at
the SR4/Byron Highway (south) can be achieved by adding a second northbound
to westbound left-turn lane from Byron Highway onto SR4 and its associated
receiving lane. This improvement is currently identified in the 2007 Contra
Costa County Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program, although
funding has not been identified. If this improvement is not included in a County
fee program or other funding program at the time of project approvals, the
project applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the improvement
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would improve traffic conditions at
this intersection to an LOS high-C (a V/C ratio of 0.72) during the AM peak hour
and LOS A during the PM peak hour.
Impact TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes and
worsen LOS conditions on Vasco Road. (Significant)
The addition of project traffic would exacerbate the existing deficiency of Vasco
Road, which does not meet the MTSO target of LOS D under Existing or Existing Plus
Project conditions.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2: The project applicant shall pay regional roadway
fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA)
fee program to upgrade existing roadways.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
As there are no specific plans to provide additional capacity on this segment of
Vasco Road, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes on
nearby rural roads, and create conflicts with the farm equipment that share these
roads during the peak summer months. (Significant)
Several roadways serving Discovery Bay and the proposed Project site are two-lane
rural roads that have not been improved to current County standards. While the
Project does not take direct access to these roadways and there are roads that serve
the Project site that have been improved to current standards, the Project could
increase traffic on unimproved rural roadways. These roadways serve active
farming uses and during the agricultural season farm equipment often uses these
roadways to transport items and equipment between fields. The Project, in
conjunction with other approved projects in the area, is expected to increase traffic
on unimproved roadways potentially creating conflicts with farm equipment during
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-34
the peak summer months. As the added vehicle traffic could create increased
hazards with incompatible equipment on unimproved roadways, the Project, in
conjunction with other planned and pending development, could result in a
potentially significant roadway impact during peak farming periods.
Several projects are listed in the Draft East County Regional Area of Benefit (AOB)
Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list that would widen roads to current
County standards and would provide wider shoulders on area roadways that serve
active farms, including Sellers Avenue, Byron Highway and Marsh Creek Road. This
would allow farm vehicles to travel outside the main travel lane, reducing potential
vehicle/farm equipment conflicts. The project shall pay the required AOB fee which
would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project applicant
to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.16.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative impact area for traffic and transportation includes the forecasted
growth in the County. The CCTA Decennial Travel Demand Model served as the
basis for the traffic forecasts. The most recent version of the CCTA model reflects
land use assumptions from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), with
forecasts out to the year 2035. The CCTA forecasts are considered the Cumulative
No Project conditions. Traffic volumes that would be generated by the project were
added to the Cumulative No Project volumes to develop the Cumulative Plus Project
volumes.
This analysis also assumes that several roadway and intersection improvements
would be constructed by the Year 2035. Only roadway improvements with
identified funding were included in this scenario. Major roadway improvements
that are assumed to be completed by 2035 include:
Widening of SR4 Bypass from two to four lanes from Lone Tree Way to Balfour
Road with interchanges at Sand Creek Road and Balfour Road.
Widening of SR4 freeway to provide three mixed-flow lanes and one high-
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction west of Hillcrest Avenue.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-35
Existing intersection lane configurations and controls were assumed to remain the
same at all study intersections under the cumulative conditions, with the exception
of the Newport Drive/Newport Lane intersection, which includes a new two lane
west leg connecting to the proposed Newport Pointe development (refer to the
cumulative Impacts discussion in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures). Traffic signal timings were optimized. The Cumulative No
Project and Cumulative Plus Project intersection HCM and CCTA LOS analysis results
are summarized in Tables 4.16-10 and 4.16-11, respectively. Under Cumulative Plus
Project conditions, 16 of the 24 study intersections are projected to operate at an
unacceptable LOS.
Table 4.16-12 summarizes the results of the cumulative roadway segment analysis.
Vasco Road and Marsh Creek Road do not meet the target MTSO of LOS D in either
direction under the cumulative conditions.
The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient operations at Newport
Drive/Bixler Road (No. 3), Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive (No. 8), and Balfour
Road/Byron Highway (No. 10) intersections; however, none of these intersections
would meet the peak hour signal warrant. As previously discussed, an unsignalized
intersection operating at an unacceptable LOS must meet the MUTCD peak hour
signal warrant for the impact to be considered significant. Because intersection
Nos. 3, 8, and 10 would not meet the peak hour signal warrant, cumulative impacts
to these intersections as a result of the project generated traffic are considered less
than significant.
The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient operations at the
Marsh Creek Road/Walnut Boulevard (No. 15) and SR4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road
intersections (No. 24); however, the addition of project trips would not increase the
V/C ratio by more than 0.01. As previously discussed, the deterioration of already
unacceptable intersection operations (for signalized facilities) must result in a
change in V/C ratio of more than 0.01 for the impact to be considered significant.
Because project generated traffic would not increase the V/C ratio by more than
0.01 at intersection Nos. 15 and 24, cumulative impacts to these intersections are
considered less than significant.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-36
Table 4.16-10 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection LOS (HCM Method)
Location Control1 Peak
Hour
Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project
Delay2,3 LOS4 Delay LOS4
2. Point of Timber Road/Preston Drive
Way/Grand Way AWS
AM 8.7 A 10.0 A
PM 8.1 A 9.4 A
3. Newport Drive/Bixler Road SSS
AM 6.4 (22.5) A (C) 6.9 (26.7) A (D)
PM 6.9 (40.5) A (E) 8.7 (57.2) A (F)
4. Newport Drive/Slifer Drive SSS
AM 3.1 (9.7) A (A) 2.9 (9.8) A (A)
PM 2.9 (10.6) A (B) 2.8 (10.9) A (B)
5. Newport Drive/Newport Lane SSS
AM 2.3 (9.9) A (A) 2.1 (10.1) A (B)
PM 1.9 (10.8) A (B) 1.8 (11.1) A (B)
6. Byer Road/Byron Highway SSS
AM 6.7 (42.2) A (E) 7.8 (51.1) A (F)
PM 2.8 (49.0) A (E) 3.2 (61.5) A (F)
7. Holway Drive/Byron Highway SSS
AM 1.4 (24.8) A (C) 1.8 (28.7) A (D)
PM >100 (>100) F (F) >100 (>100) F (F)
8. Camino Diablo Road/Holway Drive SSS
AM 8.3 (19.5) A (C) 10.1 (22.6) B (C)
PM 7.5 (57.9) A (F) 8.8 (73.1) A (F)
9. Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road AWS
AM >100 F >100 F
PM 91.7 F >100 F
10.Balfour Road/Byron Highway AWS
AM 29.5 D 37.2 E
PM 15.4 C 17.3 C
11. Balfour Road/Bixler Road AWS
AM 12.5 B 12.6 B
PM 12.4 B 12.6 B
12.Point of Timber Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 8.4 (20.2) A (C) 12.0 (26.5) B (D)
PM 13.2 (39.9) B (E) 30.2 (93.7) D (F)
13.Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road SSS
AM 12.8 B 16.0 C
PM 20.9 C 46.4 E
16. Sellers Avenue/Marsh Creek Road SSS
AM >100 F >100 F
PM 81.7 F 87.7 F
18. Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road SSS
AM 61.8 (>100) F (F) 86.2 (>100) F (F)
PM 51.8 (>100) F (F) 89.2 (>100) F (F)
21. SR4/Newport Drive SSS
AM 15.6 (>100) C (F) 17.6 (>100) A (F)
PM >100 (>100) F (F) >100 (>100) F (F)
23. Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway SSS
AM 80.3 (>100) F (F) 83.5 (>100) F (F)
PM >100 (>100) F (F) >100 (>100) F (F)
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Notes: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled intersection.
2. Signalized and All-Way Stop intersection level of service based on average intersection control delay according to the Highway Capacity
Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000).
3. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay for worst approach (in seconds per vehicle) is presented. All calculations reflect the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual methods. Delay for worst approach is provided (in parentheses) for SSS controlled intersections. The
worst approach is indicated by WB (westbound), EB (eastbound), NB (northbound), or SB (southbound).
4. LOS = Level of Service
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-37
Table 4.16-11 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection LOS (CCTALOS Method)
Location Control1 Peak Hour
Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project
V/C Ratio2 LOS3 V/C Ratio2 LOS3
1. Balfour Road/Brentwood
Boulevard Signal
AM 0.58 A 0.59 A
PM 0.65 B 0.67 B
14. SR4/Byron Highway
(north) Signal
AM 0.68 B 0.69 B
PM 0.53 A 0.55 A
15. Marsh Creek
Road/Walnut Boulevard Signal
AM 0.93 E 0.94 E
PM 1.09 F 1.09 F
17. Marsh Creek Road/Byron
Highway Signal
AM 0.77 C 0.79 C
PM 0.77 C 0.79 C
19. SR4/Byron Highway
(south) Signal
AM 1.00 E 1.02 F
PM 0.89 D 0.92 E
20. SR4/Bixler Road Signal
AM 0.69 B 0.70 C
PM 0.72 C 0.74 C
22. Camino Diablo
Road/Vasco Road Signal
AM 0.72 C 0.74 C
PM 0.87 D 0.89 D
24. SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek
Road Signal
AM 0.86 D 0.86 D
PM 0.82 D 0.83 D
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection
2. CCTA volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Signalized intersection level of service based on Technical Procedures (Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, 1997).
3. LOS = Level of Service
Table 4.16-12 Cumulative Roadway Segment Analysis
Roadway
Segment
Target
MTSO1 Direction
Eastbound/
Northbound
Westbound/
Southbound
Cumulative No
Project
Cumulative
Plus Project
Cumulative
No Project
Cumulative
Plus Project
Marsh Creek Road D AM E E E E
PM E E E E
Vasco Road D AM F F F F
PM F F F F
Camino Diablo Road D AM C C C C
PM C C C C
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011
Bold indicates roadway segment not meeting MTSO
1. Target Multi-Modal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO)
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-38
Impact CUM TRA-1: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Byer Road/Byron
Highway (No. 6). (Significant)
The westbound approach of the Byer Road/Byron Highway (No. 6) intersection is
projected to operate at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative
No Project conditions, and LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under
Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
already deficient westbound operations by more than 5 seconds. This intersection
would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-1: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Byer Road/Byron Highway intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and a southbound left turn lane. This improvement is
not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute 12 percent of the total costs for this
improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-2: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersections of Holway
Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway (No. 23).
(Significant)
The unsignalized intersections of Holway Drive/Byron Highway (No. 7) and Camino
Diablo Road/Byron Highway (No. 23) are projected to operate at LOS F during the
PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient intersection
operations by more than 5 seconds. Both intersections meet the peak hour signal
warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and
are therefore considered significant impacts.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-39
Table 4.16-13 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Peak Hour Intersection
Levels of Service (HCM Method)
Mitigation Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Plus Project
Delay2,3 LOS4 Delay LOS4
CUM TRA-1 6. Byer Road/Byron
Highway SSS AM 7.8 (51.1) A (F) 11.1 B
PM 3.2 (61.5) A (F) 8.7 A
CUM TRA-2
(Option 1)
7. Holway
Drive/Byron Highway SSS
AM 1.8 (28.7) A (D) 0.7 (25.5) A (D)
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 16.6 (>100) C (F)
23. Camino Diablo
Road/ Byron Highway SSS/Signal
AM 83.5 (>100) F (F) 21.9 C
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 33.7 C
CUM TRA-2
(Option 2)
7. Holway Drive/
Byron Highway SSS/Signal
AM 1.8 (28.7) A (D) 8.3 A
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 15.4 B
23. Camino Diablo
Road/ Byron Highway SSS/Signal
AM 83.5 (>100) F (F) 25.1 C
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 34.2 C
CUM TRA-3 9. Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road
AWS /
Signal
AM >100 F 29.9 C
PM >100 F 31.3 C
CUM TRA-4 12. Point of Timber
Road/ Byron Highway
SSS /
Signal
AM 12.0 (26.5) B (D) 11.5 B
PM 30.2 (93.7) D (F) 14.8 B
CUM TRA-5 13. Point of Timber
Road/ Bixler Road
AWS /
Signal
AM 16.0 C 30.9 C
PM 46.4 E 31.8 C
CUM TRA-6 16. Marsh Creek
Road/ Sellers Avenue
AWS /
Signal
AM >100 F 13.9 B
PM 87.7 F 13.0 B
CUM TRA-7 18. Marsh Creek
Road/ Bixler Road
SSS /
Signal
AM 86.2 (>100) F (F) 21.6 C
PM 89.2 (>100) F (F) 16.7 B
CUM TRA-8 19. SR4/Byron
Highway (south) Signal
AM 68.0 E 27.8 C
PM 43.7 D 16.9 B
CUM TRA-9 21. SR4/Newport
Drive
SSS /
Signal
AM 17.6 (>100) A (F) 16.7 B
PM >100 (>100) F (F) 15.8 B
CUM TRA-10 22. Camino Diablo
Road/ Vasco Road Signal AM 44.5 D 44.4 D
PM 61.0 E 42.1 D
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicates potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled intersection.
2. Signalized and All-Way Stop intersection level of service based on average intersection control delay according to the Highway
Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000).
3. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay for worst approach (in seconds per vehicle) is presented. All calculations
reflect the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methods. Delay for worst approach is provided (in parentheses) for SSS controlled
intersections.
4. LOS = Level of Service
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-40
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1): Mitigation of the unacceptable
traffic conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway intersections can be achieved by installing a traffic signal
at the Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway and providing left-turn pockets on all
approaches. Traffic turning left from eastbound Camino Diablo Road to
northbound Holway Drive and left again from Holway Drive to Byron Highway
would instead turn left at the signalized Camino Diablo Road/Byron Highway
intersection. This mitigation would require modifications to the adjacent
railroad crossing west of the intersection to provide the required left turn
pocket on the eastbound approach.
This improvement is included in the Draft East County Regional AOB
Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall
pay the required AOB fee.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 2): As an alternative to Mitigation
Measure CUM TRA-2 (Option 1), mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway and Camino Diablo Road/Byron
Highway intersections can be achieved by installing traffic signals at both
intersections, in addition to adding a northbound left-turn lane pocket at the
Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection. Traffic would not be shifted under
this mitigation, and a left turn pocket across the railroad crossing at the Camino
Diablo Road/Byron Highway intersection would not be needed.
A signal at the Holway Drive/Byron Highway intersection is not identified in any
funding program. Similarly, the installation of a signal at Camino Diablo
Road/Byron Highway is not identified in any funding program.
If these improvements are not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of these improvements to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior
to the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 2 percent and 14 percent of
the total costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of Option 1 or Option 2 of this
mitigation measure would improve conditions at these two intersections to
acceptable LOS levels.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-41
Impact CUM TRA-3: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Sellers
Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road (No. 9) is projected to
operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
already deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project
and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-3: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Sellers Avenue/Balfour Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal and providing left turn lanes at all four intersection
approaches.
This improvement is included in the Draft East County AOB Transportation
Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall pay the required
AOB fee. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact
to less-than-significant.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-4: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Byron Highway (No. 12). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway (No. 12) is
projected to operate at acceptable LOS B during the PM peak hour under
Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
intersection operations from LOS B to unacceptable LOS D. This intersection would
meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative
Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-4: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway intersection can be
achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the Draft
East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project
applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-42
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-5: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber
Road/Bixler Road (No. 13). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road (No. 13) is
projected to operate at acceptable LOS C during the PM peak hour under
Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
intersection operations from LOS C to LOS E. This intersection would meet the peak
hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project
conditions, and is therefore considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-5: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Point of Timber Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved
by installing a traffic signal and adding left turn lanes at all four intersection
approaches. This improvement is not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 30 and 39 percent of the
total costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-6: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Marsh
Creek Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue (No. 16) is
projected to operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No
Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would
degrade already deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-43
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project
and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-6: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Sellers Avenue intersection can be
achieved by installing a traffic signal. This improvement is included in the Draft
East County AOB Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project
applicant shall pay the required AOB fee.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-7: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of Point of Marsh
Creek Road/Bixler Road (No. 18). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road is projected to
operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project and
Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade
already deficient intersection operations by more than five seconds. This
intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project
and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and is therefore considered a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-7: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road intersection can be achieved by
installing a traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding
program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 10 and 11 percent of the
total costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-44
Impact CUM TRA-8: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway
(south) (No. 19). (Significant)
The signalized intersection of SR4/Byron Highway (south) is projected to operate at
LOS E during the AM peak hour and unacceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour
under Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of project trips would further
degrade intersection No. 19 operations to LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E
during the PM peak hour, and would increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01. This
is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-8: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the SR4/Byron Highway (south) intersection can be achieved by
adding a second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach and a second
through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach.
The second left-turn lane on the Byron Highway approach improvement is
currently identified in the 2007 Contra Costa County Capital Road Improvement
& Preservation Program, although funding has not been identified. The second
through lane on the southeast-bound SR4 approach is not identified in any
funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-17, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 9 and 11 percent of the
total costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-14, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-9: Implementation of the project would increase traffic volumes
and worsen LOS conditions at the unsignalized intersection of SR4/Newport Drive
(No. 21). (Significant)
The unsignalized intersection of SR4/Newport Drive (No. 21) is projected to operate
at LOS F during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus
Project conditions. The addition of project trips would degrade already deficient
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-45
Table 4.16-14 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Peak Hour Intersection
Levels of Service (CCTALOS Method)
Mitigation Intersection Control1 Peak
Hour
Cumulative Plus
Project
Mitigated Plus
Project
V/C2 LOS3 V/C2 LOS3
CUM TRA-3 6. Byer Road/Byron
Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.65 B
PM n/a n/a 0.59 A
CUM TRA-4A
7a. Holway Drive/Byron
Highway SSS AM n/a n/a n/a n/a
PM n/a n/a n/a n/a
23a. Camino Diablo Road/
Byron Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.60 B
PM n/a n/a 0.71 C
CUM TRA-4B
7b. Holway Drive/Byron
Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.53 A
PM n/a n/a 0.68 B
23b. Camino Diablo Road/
Byron Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.64 B
PM n/a n/a 0.73 C
CUM TRA-5 9. Sellers Avenue/Balfour
Road AWS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.64 B
PM n/a n/a 0.54 A
CUM TRA-6 12. Point of Timber Road/
Byron Highway SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.35 A
PM n/a n/a 0.41 A
CUM TRA-7 13. Point of Timber Road/
Bixler Road AWS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.50 A
PM n/a n/a 0.64 B
CUM TRA-8 16. Marsh Creek Road/
Sellers Avenue AWS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.64 B
PM n/a n/a 0.52 A
CUM TRA-9 18. Marsh Creek Road/
Bixler Road SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.73 C
PM n/a n/a 0.67 B
CUM TRA-10 19. SR4/Byron Highway
(south) Signal AM 1.02 F 0.69 B
PM 0.92 E 0.59 A
CUM TRA-11 21. SR4/Newport Drive SSS / Signal AM n/a n/a 0.76 C
PM n/a n/a 0.68 B
CUM TRA-12 22. Camino Diablo Road/
Vasco Road Signal AM 0.74 C 0.74 C
PM 0.89 D 0.78 C
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates deficient intersection operations. Bold italics indicate potentially significant impacts.
1. Signal = Signalized intersection, SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection, AWS = All-way stop-controlled intersection.
2. CCTA volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Signalized intersection level of service based on Technical Procedures (Contra Costa
Transportation Authority, 2006)
3. LOS = Level of Service
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-46
intersection operations by more than five seconds. This intersection would meet
the peak hour signal warrant under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus
Project conditions, and is therefore considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-9: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the SR4/Newport Drive intersection can be achieved by installing a
traffic signal. This improvement is not identified in any funding program.
If this improvement is not included in a County fee program at the time of
project approvals, the project applicant shall pay its fair share towards the cost
of this improvement to the County’s Road Trust account (Fund #8192) prior to
the issuance of building permits. This trust fund shall fund improvements to
intersections identified as operating unacceptably under cumulative conditions
and not identified in a fee program. As indicated in Table 4.16-15, the project
applicant would be required to contribute between 4 and 6 percent of the total
costs for this improvement.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-13, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Impact CUM TRA-10: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions at the signalized intersection of Camino
Diablo Road/Vasco Road (No. 22). (Significant)
The intersection Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road (No. 22) is projected to operate at
LOS D during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project Conditions. The
addition of project trips would increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, which is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-10: Mitigation of the unacceptable traffic
conditions at the Camino Diablo Road/Vasco Road intersection can be achieved
by adding a northbound right turn lane. This improvement is included as one of
several improvements at this intersection in the Draft East County AOB
Transportation Mitigation Fee Update project list. The project applicant shall
pay the required AOB fee.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
As shown in Table 4.16-14, implementation of this mitigation measure would
improve conditions at this intersection to acceptable LOS levels.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.16 Transportation and Circulation
4.16-47
Impact CUM TRA-11: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Vasco Road. (Significant)
Service along Vasco Road, south of Camino Diablo Road, would not meet the MTSO
target LOS D in either the northbound or southbound direction during the AM or PM
peak hour under either cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would
worsen the LOS along this roadway segment. This is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUM TRA-11: The project applicant shall pay regional
roadway fees to the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority
(ECCRFFA) fee program to upgrade existing.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
As there are no plans to provide additional capacity on this roadway segment,
the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact CUM TRA-12: Implementation of the project would increase traffic
volumes and worsen LOS conditions along Marsh Creek Road. (Significant)
Service along Marsh Creek Road, west of SR4, would not meet the MTSO target LOS
D in either the eastbound or westbound direction during the AM or PM peak hour
under either cumulative condition. The addition of project traffic would worsen the
LOS along this roadway segment. This is considered a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2 would require the project applicant
to pay regional roadway fees to upgrade existing roadways. However, as there are
no specific plans to provide additional capacity on this segment of Marsh Creek
Road, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Fair Share Percentages
Fair share contribution percentages were calculated for each intersection impact
mitigation measure. This is the percentage of cumulative peak hour trips added to
an intersection that are contributed by the project and is calculated by dividing the
project trips by the Cumulative Plus Project traffic volume minus the Existing traffic
volume. This percentage is calculated for the AM and PM peak hours. The larger of
the two peak hour percentages is used for calculating cost allocations. Fair share
contribution percentages are summarized below in Table 4.16-15. The dollar
amount to be paid by the project applicant shall be determined by the project
applicant’s consultant based on the calculated fair share of the total project cost
and submitted to the County Public Works Department for review and approval.
Pantages Bays Project
4.16 Transportation and Circulation Draft EIR
4.16-48
Table 4.16-15 Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Fair Share Calculations
Cumulative
Mitigation Intersection Peak Hour Existing
Volume
Cumulative
Plus Project
Volume
Project
Volume
% Fair
Share
CUM TRA-1 6. Byer Road /
Byron Highway
AM 991 1,580 72 12%
PM 979 1,770 97 12%
CUM TRA-2
(Option 2)
7. Holway Drive /
Byron Highway
AM 821 1,405 72 12%
PM 957 1,670 97 14%
23. Camino Diablo
Road / Byron
Highway
AM 736 1,410 11 2%
PM 895 1,590 14 2%
CUM TRA-6 13. Point of Timber
Road / Bixler Road
AM 840 1,337 195 39%
PM 703 1,567 263 30%
CUM TRA-8 18. Marsh Creek
Road / Bixler Road
AM 669 1,460 77 10%
PM 645 1,560 104 11%
CUM TRA-9
19. SR4 / Byron
Highway (south
intersection)
AM 1,868 2,695 72 9%
PM 1,885 2,795 98 11%
CUM TRA-10 21. SR4 / Newport
Drive
AM 1,549 2,120 24 4%
PM 1,805 2,335 33 6%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Note: Bold indicates larger fair share to be used in cost allocation procedures.
4.16.6 REFERENCES
Fehr & Peers (2011). Pantages Bays EIR Transportation Analysis.
PWA (2010). Draft Additional Hydrology Impact Assessment Memorandum.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-1
4.17 VISUAL RESOURCES AND AESTHETICS
This section analyzes the effects of the project on views from nearby public
viewpoints and private residences. Visual simulations represent the existing and
future views from publicly accessible vantage points. Representative views from the
project site are also presented in this section.
No comments related to the aesthetics of the project site were received in response
to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental impact report (EIR).
4.17.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Characteristics
Regional characteristics of East County include largely flat terrain with partially
obstructed, long-range views of Mount Diablo. In the Discovery Bay area, common
characteristics include large expanses of marshlands, native and non-native annual
grasslands, and an extension of the water and Delta system of the Suisun Bay. The
overall visual character of the project region is rural and consists of agricultural
farmlands and clustered communities of single family residences.
Site Characteristics
The project site is undeveloped except for three abandoned structures. Point of
Timber Road runs east-west through the center of the site, and is partially paved.
Stands of mature trees are clustered in the northeastern corner of the project site,
with a few smaller groups of trees (less than 10) near the abandoned residential
structures. Topographically, the project site is flat and is bordered by open
waterways to the north, east, and south.
Visual Resources
Diablo Range
Significant topographic variations in landscape characterize a majority of the land
within the County. The largest and most prominent of these hills, the Diablo Range,
form the background view for much of the developed areas surrounding the project
site. Long-range views of the Diablo Range are visible from the waters and
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-2
residences of Discovery Bay. However, existing views are partially obstructed by
intervening power lines and the Ravenswood and Discovery Bay West residential
subdivisions.
The County General Plan states “…views of these major ridgelines help to reinforce
the rural feeling of the County’s rapidly growing communities.” Views of these
scenic ridges, hillsides, and rock outcroppings are considered scenic vistas.
Scenic Waterways
The Delta system of San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays is designated by the
County General Plan as a scenic vista. Kellogg Creek, which forms the eastern and
southern border of the project site, is identified as part of the Delta system and is
also designated as a scenic waterway by the General Plan. The County designates
scenic waterways for the purpose of conserving the scenic character of the Delta,
and gives special consideration to potential impacts to these waterways when
reviewing projects.
Significant Trees
Policies within the County General Plan (General Plan) preserve significant trees and
natural vegetation, including natural woodlands to the maximum extent possible.
The General Plan does not clearly define “significant trees” or “significant natural
vegetation” in terms of visual resources.
While there is no comprehensive list of specific features that automatically qualify
trees as scenic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
certain characteristics can be identified which contribute to the determination of a
scenic resource (see Subsection 4.17.3, Analysis of Potential Impacts for a detailed
discussion of the criteria used to evaluate the project’s potential impacts to visual
resources).
The site contains 80 trees, primarily scattered in small clusters in the northeastern
portion of the site. The trees are not part of larger forest or park, and the analysis
contained Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, did not identify any historically
significant structures or historically significant events associated with the site that
might have suggested the trees were associated with such as resource.
Scenic Roadways
According to the General Plan, a scenic route is defined as a “road, street, or
freeway which traverses a scenic corridor of relatively high visual or cultural value.
It consists of both the scenic corridor and the right-of-way.” The closest designated
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-3
scenic roadway is State Route 4 (SR-4), located approximately 1-mile south of the
project site. Given the relative distance from SR-4 and intervening residential
development, the project site is not visible from SR-4.
Sensitive Viewers
Public views are considered to be sensitive when they have high scenic quality and
are experienced by large groups of people. Sensitive viewers for the proposed
project include adjacent residents, motorists, boaters, and pedestrians. The degree
to which these views would be affected by project development varies depending
on the viewers’ physical location and the duration of the view. For example,
because the general topography of the project site and its vicinity is flat and long-
distance views are generally available, views from motorists travelling along Point of
Timber Road, and views from boaters traveling along Discovery Bay waterways
would likely be of a moderate duration. Views from the adjacent residential
subdivisions would be of an extended duration.
Six publicly-accessible viewpoints were selected for analysis by the County to
represent existing views. Viewpoints A, B, C, and D were determined to provide
representative views into the project site from off-site locations, and best represent
the visual character and quality and/or the unique visual resources of the
surrounding areas. Viewpoint E and F were determined to provide representative
views from the project site towards off-site locations. Figure 4.17-1 provides a key
to the location and direction of these viewpoints.
Views of the Site
The project site is visible from several public viewpoints, including the waters
surrounding Discovery Bay to the east, Indian Slough to the north, and Point of
Timber Road, as well as private properties in the residential subdivisions to the
north, east, and west.
Viewpoint A –Kellogg Creek
Viewpoint A provides a view from Kellogg Creek towards the eastern edge of the
property (see Figure 4.17-2). The viewpoint demonstrates the constrained width of
the creek which would be widened by the project to provide for increased boater
safety. Pampas grass, bushes, and other low-lying foliage are visible along the banks
of Kellogg Creek, and views of the trees lining the ECCID dredge cut indicate the
northern boundary of the project site.
The project conditions depicted in the simulated Viewpoint A are discussed in
Subsection 4.17.3 of this section.
Viewpoint Locations
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Rose Associates, 2006; CirclePoint, 2010.
PANTAGES BAYS
4.17-1Figure
CirclePoint
OLDECCI
D
D
R
E
D
G
E
C
U
T
PROPOSED MARSH CREEK TRAILB
AC
E
D
F
Existing view from Kellogg Creek looking north
Visual simulation of proposed project and marine patrol substation
PANTAGES BAYS
4.17-2Figure
CirclePoint
Viewpoint A: Kellogg Creek
Source: Environmental Vision, 2010.
Discovery Bay
Discovery Bay
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-6
Viewpoint B – Proposed East Bay Regional Park District Trail – Marsh
Creek Trail to Discovery Bay
According to their 2007 Master Plan Map, the East Bay Regional Park District
(EBRPD) proposes to extend the Marsh Creek Regional Trail along the ECCID Dredge
Cut, north of the project site. Viewpoint B provides a view towards the project site
from the proposed “Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay” (see Figure 4.17-3). This
viewpoint, highlights the flat terrain and expansive views currently afforded from
this location. (The project proposes to plant trees along the creek in the foreground
that will eventually screen views from the proposed trail to the project site.) The
housing in Village II, Lakeshore, is visible along the western property boundary.
The project conditions depicted in the simulated Viewpoint B are discussed in
Subsection 4.17.3 of this section.
Viewpoint C − Point of Timber Road
Point of Timber Road is a single-lane roadway that provides access to the project
site from the west. As shown in Figure 4.17-4, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians
at the terminus of Timber Road have unimpeded views into the site. Point of
Timber Road is partially paved and is lined with short, non-native grasses and
shrubs, as seen in the foreground from this viewpoint. Notable elements from this
location include one barn and associated outbuildings in the center of the site and
stands of mature trees, as seen in the mid-ground of this figure. Distant views of
homes in Discovery Bay are visible in the background, although the Delta waters are
not visible because of the flat topography and the intervening distance of
approximately 1,000 feet.
Residents in the Ravenswood and Lakeshore developments would have a similar
view, although both subdivisions include backyard fencing that blocks views to the
west from exterior areas. Views from the second floor of these subdivisions likely
have views to the Delta because of the higher elevation.
Viewpoint D − Discovery Bay
Figure 4.17-5 illustrates the existing views of the project site from the Discovery Bay
residential development (east of the site). As previously described in Viewpoint A,
direct views of the project site are visible from residents of Discovery Bay. Looking
west from the outermost Discovery Bay homes, open views of Kellogg Creek and its
vegetated bank dominate the foreground of this
PANTAGES BAYS
4.17-3Figure
CirclePoint
Viewpoint B: View from proposed
Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay
Source: Environmental Vision, 2010.
Discovery Bay
West
Discovery Bay
West
Existing view from proposed Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay, looking south
Visual simulation of project from proposed Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.17-4FigureViewpoint C: Point of Timber Road
100
FEET
500 200
Source: CirclePoint, 2007.
Existing barn (to be demolished)
Discovery Bay West Subdivision
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.17-5FigureViewpoint D: Discovery Bay
Source: CirclePoint, 2007.
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-10
figure. The project site encompasses the midground views from this location, and
distant, obscured views of the Diablo Range are visible in the background, beyond
the Discovery Bay West subdivision.
Views from the Site
Views from the site include views of the existing residential development to the
north, east, and west, as well as the waters of Discovery Bay. The subdivisions to the
west are organized in a grid-like pattern, whereas Discovery Bay is oriented around
curvilinear streets with intersecting bays and coves. The outermost homes in
Discovery Bay have deep water access and docks. Individual lots, especially those
closest to the project site, often include permanent and temporary structures
associated with water access (docks, boats slips, etc.).
Viewpoint E and F − Discovery Bay and Discovery Bay West
Figures 4.17-6 and 4.17-7 include typical views from the site of the Discovery Bay
and the Discovery Bay West developments.
4.17.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Contra Costa County General Plan
The Open Space Element of the General Plan contains the following relevant policies
related to visual resources and aesthetics:
Open Space Element
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.
9-14: High quality engineering of slopes shall be required to avoid soil erosion,
downstream flooding, slope failure, loss of vegetative cover, high
maintenance costs, property damages and damages to visual quality.
Particularly vulnerable areas should be avoided for urban development.
Slopes of 26 percent 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.
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.17-6FigureViewpoint E: View of Discovery Bay West from Project Site
Source: CirclePoint, 2007.
Discovery BayWest
PANTAGES BAYS CirclePoint
4.17-7FigureViewpoint F: View of Discovery Bay from Project Site
Source: CirclePoint, 2007.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-13
9-15: In order to conserve the scenic beauty of the County, developers shall 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 damages to significant trees and other visual
landmarks.
9-16: 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 for all residences.
9-20: New power lines shall be located parallel to existing lines in order to
minimize their visual impact.
9-24: Any new development shall be encouraged to generally conform with
natural contours to avoid excessive grading.
9-28: 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 levee, as otherwise specified in this Plan.
9-47: Recreational development shall be allowed only in a manner which
complements the natural features of the area, including the topography,
waterways, vegetation, and soil characteristics.
In addition to the policies stated, the General Plan identifies portions of the San
Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system as a scenic resource and identifies Kellogg Creek
as a scenic waterway.1
The General Plan does not clearly define “significant trees” or “significant natural
vegetation” in terms of visual resources. While there is no comprehensive list of
specific features that automatically qualify trees as scenic resources under CEQA,
certain characteristics can be identified which contribute to the determination of a
scenic resource. The following is a partial list of visual qualities and conditions
which, if present, may indicate the presence of a scenic resource (Caltrans 2008):
A tree that displays outstanding features of form or age;
A landmark tree or a group of distinctive trees accented in a setting as a focus of
attention; or
An unusual planting that has historical value.
1 Figure 9-1, Scenic Ridges and Waterways, Contra Costa County General Plan, page 9-6.
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-14
Conversely, examples of features that lack the typical characteristics of a scenic
resource include:
Trees that are commonplace and repetitious, occurring frequently along a
roadway;
The fringe trees of a forest; or
Trees that are incompatible with their surroundings.
Policy Consistency Analysis
The project would be consistent with the General Plan policies related to visual
resources.
Although the project would raise the elevations of the building pads for the
residential lots, the topography of the proposed development would remain flat. In
general, the proposed development would conform to the natural contours of the
land, specifically in the areas proposed for the preservation of existing emergent
marsh and wetland habitat.
The project would result in the removal of all vegetative cover on the project site,
but would replace vegetation through the planting of 770 trees throughout the
development, as shown in Figure 3-6. The planting would be based on a palette
that includes primarily drought tolerant and native species. Additional trees and
native vegetation would be planted along enhanced creek banks to provide riparian
habitat. Implementation of these project features, in addition to the preservation
and enhancement of the emergent marsh and wetland habitat on the northern
portion of the site, would be consistent with policies 9-2, and 9-28, and 9-47. As
such, the project would be consistent with policies 9-14, 9-15, and 9-24.
An emergency vehicle access (EVA) road would be constructed in the northwestern
portion of the project site through the proposed wetland mitigation and open space
area. The EVA road would also serve as a publicly accessible pedestrian/bike trail
and would include interpretive signage, kiosks, and seating areas, consistent with
policy 9-16.
Utilities (including electricity) for the project site would be undergrounded,
consistent with policy 9-20.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-15
4.17.3 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
CEQA Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies environmental issues to be considered
when determining whether a project could have significant effects on the
environment. As identified in Appendix G, the project would have a significant
impact to visual resources/aesthetics if it would:
a) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area.
Discussion of No Impact
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that no impact would
result for one of the four significance criteria. The following discussion presents the
evidence in support of this conclusion.
a) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
There are no state-designated scenic highways within 10 miles of the project site.
As such, the project would have no impacts to views from a scenic highway.
Although there are no state designated scenic highways that would be affected by
the project, the County identifies SR-4 as a local scenic route. As previously
discussed, SR-4 is located more than 1-mile south of the project site, and would not
be visible to motorists travelling along this route. Therefore, the project would have
no impacts to views from this local scenic route.
Discussion of Less-than-Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
less-than-significant impact for two of the four significance criteria. The following
discussion presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-16
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
The General Plan identifies two major visual resources in the County: (1) scenic
ridges, hillsides, and rock outcroppings of the Diablo Range; and (2) the San
Francisco Bay/Delta estuary system. As previously discussed, both resources are
visible from the areas surrounding the project site. In addition, policies within the
General Plan require preservation, to the maximum extent possible, of significant
trees and natural vegetation, including natural woodlands. For the purposes of this
analysis, “significant trees” or “significant natural vegetation” were defined per the
list of visual qualities and conditions presented in Subsection 4.17.2, Regulatory
Setting.
Trees and Vegetation
There are 80 trees scattered in small clusters throughout the project site, primarily
in the northeastern portion of the site. The trees are not part of larger forest or
park, and do not represent a distinctive planting that has historical value, nor do
they represent a unique feature of the area that is the focus of attention. As such,
the trees on the project site are not considered a significant visual resource
protected under the General Plan. The removal of the trees would therefore not
represent a significant impact to visual resources.
The Diablo Range
Distant views of the Diablo Range from Discovery Bay residences are partially
obstructed by residential development and power lines (see Figure 4.17-5).
Construction of the proposed two-story single-family homes would introduce urban
residential uses that would be compatible with surrounding residential
development.2 Given that the project site and vicinity is relatively flat, the proposed
construction would impede long-range views to the west, and would incrementally
obstruct views of the Diablo Range along the distant horizon.
Because views of the Diablo Range are already partially obstructed by the Discovery
Bay West development, and because the development is compatible with the type
and intensity of surrounding development, construction of the project is not
considered a significant impact to a scenic vista.
2 The homes that would be constructed as part of the project would be custom built and/or
production-type products similar to the existing homes in Discovery Bay and Discovery Bay West. As
such, the project applicant does not currently have elevation estimates and/or drawings for the
proposed development.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-17
Scenic Waterways
Kellogg Creek and the associated waterways of the Delta estuary system are not
visible from most of the adjacent private properties to the northwest and west of
the project site due to the flat topography and the 1,000 feet or more of distance.
Views of the Delta from the second story of these residences—to the extent that
they currently exist—would be partially obstructed by the project, although the new
bays and coves would be created in much closer proximity, potentially providing
expanded views of the water.
Views of scenic waterways from Discovery Bay (east of the site) would not be
impacted by the development of the project site, as the proposed improvements
would occur west of Kellogg Creek. Therefore, implementation of the project would
have a less-than-significant impact to a designated scenic waterway.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Development of the project site would introduce one- to two-story residential
buildings on a predominantly undeveloped vacant site. The project would be similar
in type, density, and quality with surrounding subdivisions. The project would not
substantially alter the existing urban-residential character of the area. Figure 4.17-2
illustrates the proposed project conditions for boaters travelling north along Kellogg
Creek. As seen in this figure, the project improvements along Kellogg Creek would
very similar to the existing Discovery Bay development, and would also have the
same types of permanent and temporary structures associated with water access
(i.e., docks, boats slips, etc.).
The project would construct enhanced marshlands on the northern portion of the
site, and would improve the natural habitat that is visible from the north,
northwest, and east. Figure 4.17-3 illustrates future project conditions for
individuals using the proposed EBRPD Marsh Creek Trail to Discovery Bay. This
visual simulation illustrates the distance to the proposed project development from
the future trail, and the amount of space that would be provided as part of the
project’s emergent marsh and open space area. This visual simulation illustrates an
unobstructed view of the project site, and does not show proposed vegetation that
would be planted in the foreground along the canal bank as part of the mitigation
requirements for biological impacts (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2).
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-18
The open space and reconstructed marshlands would create a visual buffer for
individuals looking at the project site from the north. Additionally, views from the
north of the project site, looking south, would not be substantially altered by the
project because of the scale of the proposed development and its consistency with
the surrounding neighborhood developments.
Given the above, impacts related to degradation of the existing character or quality
of the site and its surroundings are considered less than significant.
Discussion of Significant Impacts
Analysis of the project plans and site characteristics shows that there would be a
significant impact for one of the four significance criteria. The following discussion
presents the evidence in support of this conclusion.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Impact VIS-1: The project would create new sources of light and glare which could
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Significant)
Existing sources of lighting include nearby residential buildings and headlights from
vehicles travelling along Point of Timber Road. The project would include lighting
elements typical of a residential neighborhood (e.g., porch lights, street lights, etc.)
that would introduce new sources of nighttime lighting to the project site and
surrounding areas. The project applicant proposes the use of street light fixtures
that minimizing uplight and glare. The cutoff optical system (IES) on the streetlight
fixtures allows only 1 percent uplight. This means that the light from this fixture
allows only 1 percent of candela3 intensity to be emitted at an angle above 90
degrees to the ground or other lateral angles around the lamp. This cutoff feature is
designed to minimize sky glow and energy waste. The fixtures would be mounted
on sixteen-foot-tall poles, and spaced at approximately 115 foot intervals along all
project streets.
Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would reduce the potential impact of the new sources of
residential light and glare, and potential for lateral spread of lighting onto adjacent
properties.
3 A candela is a unit of light measurement that refers to the power emitted by a light source in a
particular direction.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
4.17-19
Mitigation Measure VIS-1: The project applicant shall prepare a lighting plan
for the review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Exterior lighting shall
be low mounted, downward casting, shielded, and shall utilize motion detection
systems where applicable. In general, the light footprint of individual units shall
not extend beyond the periphery of each property. Implementation of exterior
lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply with the standard California
Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the
lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
This measure includes specific direction to ensure the development of a lighting
system that complies with the requirements of the standard California Building
Code, including provisions to prevent nighttime lighting from spilling out onto
the adjacent properties. Compliance with the provisions of the building codes
would therefore reduce the lighting impacts to a less-than-significant level.
4.17.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative setting for aesthetics includes any proposed development and/or
cumulative projects that would affect scenic resources within the County.
The General Plan EIR noted three primary areas where scenic quality could be
degraded:
development of vacant areas would reduce natural open space and would
change the County’s character.
new development that is obtrusive, inconsistent with surrounding development
or which is placed on a location of unique scenic value.
development of hillsides, ridges, and the Bay and Delta shoreline
For the first impact, the EIR noted that adoption of the ULL would concentrate
development within 35 percent of County lands, preserving 65 percent of County
lands from urban development. Although the project would develop vacant land, it
is within the ULL and is therefore identified for conversion to an urban use, along
with the adjacent subdivisions that have already been developed.
As discussed in this section, the project site is not would be similar in type, density,
and quality to the surrounding subdivisions and would not therefore result in a
cumulative contribution to the degradation of scenic quality noted in the second
impact.
Pantages Bays Project
4.17 Visual Resources and Aesthetics Draft EIR
4.17-20
The project would not develop any hillsides or ridgelines, but would develop the
shoreline along Kellogg Creek to provide private docks with deep water access. This
development would degrade the shoreline from its current state, which is
characterized as low quality creek bank habitat. To address impacts to the shoreline
and associated biological species, the applicant would be required to enhance
11,060 linear feet of creek bank habitat on Pantages Island and along the ECCID
dredge cut to provide high and moderate quality shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
These enhancements would be visible to the public through the public trail to be
provided through the emergent marsh and wetland mitigation area (see Section 4.3,
Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure BIO-2). With the implementation of this
and other associated enhancement measures, the project’s contribution to this
identified impact would not be considerable.
4.17.5 REFERENCES
California Building Code, Title 24, Parts 1 and 6, Building Energy Efficiency
Standards. November 5, 2003
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2008). Standard Environmental
Reference (SER): Chapter 27, Visual & Aesthetics Review.
Contra Costa County General Plan (2005), Open Space Element.
5-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section
15126.6, this draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains a comparative
impact assessment of alternatives to the project. The primary purpose of this
section is to provide decision makers and the general public with a range of
reasonable project alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the basic project
objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the project’s significant
adverse environmental effects. Important considerations for these alternatives
analyses are noted below.
An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project;
An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency,
but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process;
Reasons for rejecting an alternative include:
Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives;
Infeasibility; or
Inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
5.1.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Pantages Bays Project (project) is described and analyzed in the previous
chapters with an emphasis on significant impacts and mitigation measures to avoid
these impacts. The project would result in the following significant unavoidable
impacts:
Traffic: The project would increase traffic volumes and worsen LOS conditions
along Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road. As there are no plans to provide
additional capacity on these roadway segments, the impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable. This would also be a significant unavoidable
cumulative impact.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-2
Global Climate Change: The project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in excess of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
(BAAQMD) threshold of 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)
per service population per year and would therefore have a considerable
contribution to global climate change. This would be a significant unavoidable
cumulative impact.
5.1.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The two alternatives to the project analyzed in this section are as follows:
No Build Alternative: The site would remain in its existing condition and no
development would occur.
Reduced Density (No Project Alternative): This alternative assumes future
development would be consistent with the existing general plan and zoning
designations of the project site.
The two alternatives to the project are analyzed below and include a comparison of
the project and each individual project alternative. In several cases, the description
of the impact may be the same under each alternative when compared with the
CEQA thresholds of significance (i.e., both the project and the alternative would
result in a less than significant impact). The actual degree of impact may be slightly
different between the project and each alternative, and this relative difference is
the basis for a conclusion of greater or lesser impacts.
The CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be
identified when compared to the project and other alternatives. If the alternative
with the least environmental impact is determined to be the “no project
alternative,” the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative
among the other alternatives.
Table 5-1 below presents a summary matrix of the project impacts in comparison
with all three alternatives.
5.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the two main objectives of the project
are as follows:
Build an economically viable residential community with bays, coves, and a
proportionately significant number of waterfront residences with deep-water
access and individual docks; and
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-3
Widen a portion of Kellogg Creek on the northern end of the project site to
reduce water velocities and improve public safety in that section of Kellogg
Creek.1
Other key project objectives include:
Construct market-rate housing to meet the needs of present and future
residents of eastern Contra Costa County;
Develop a project consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods (i.e.,
6,000- to 21,320-square-foot lots) to the east and west of the project site and
that creates an improved link between the original Discovery Bay and
Discovery Bay West;
Provide for flood protection in a conservative manner that exceeds current
County minimum standards for finished floor elevations above the 100-year
storm base flood elevation (BFE);
Reduce the need for dredging by Reclamation District 800 (RD 800) and
improve water quality in Kellogg Creek and Indian Slough through appropriate
bank stabilization and habitat restoration along the project shoreline, further
reducing the amount of scour and associated sedimentation;
Create new high- and moderate-quality bank habitat in and near the project
site and enhance existing banks from low-quality to high-quality bank habitat
to benefit native fish species;
Preserve the majority of the emergent marsh in the northwestern portion of
the site and all of the emergent marsh on Pantages Island;
Provide public pedestrian/bicycle access to and through the preserved open
space areas on the north side of the project site, with open views of the Delta
water, and provide seating areas and kiosks with educational signage; and
Provide improved safety for project residents and within Discovery Bay by
constructing a marine patrol substation with a two-boat dock at the
northeasterly point on the project site, and provide funding by future property
owners through a police service district tax for an extra deputy sheriff who
could operate out of the substation on an as-needed basis.
1 The existing channel is narrower than is the width generally required by RD 800.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-4
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain in its current state and there
would be no development of residential housing units, roadways, and utilities
infrastructure. The site would remain privately-owned and the open space wetland
mitigation area would remain unimproved. There would be no changes to parcels
on the site or any amendments to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.
5.3.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Under Alternative 1 no new structures would be built, the existing buildings on site
would remain vacant and no new human occupation or use of the project site would
occur. Project impacts related to construction, new buildings, and human
occupation of the site would therefore be completely avoided. Because annual
disking and cattle grazing would still occur, Alternative 1 would have the potential to
impact biological resources. Alternative 1 would not address abandoned
groundwater wells on the project site, which have the potential to impact water
quality.
The following analysis evaluates the impacts of Alternative 1 in these two topic
areas, as compared to the project. The remaining issue areas are not discussed
further since Alternative 1 would not result in impacts in these categories, although
they are shown in Table 5-1 below.
Biological Resources
Alternative 1 would involve no new human occupation or construction. Therefore
Alternative 1 would avoid many of the impacts to biological resources when
compared with the project. Although Alternative 1 would involve fewer ground
disturbing activities than the project, annual disking of the site has the potential to
result in some impacts to the California red-legged frog, the western pond turtle
and the western burrowing owl. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have biological
resources impacts slightly less than the project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The project site contains abandoned groundwater wells that could act as direct
conduits to groundwater for hazardous waste. Alternative 1 would have the same
risks as the project in terms of water quality impacts from abandoned groundwater
wells in the area (Impact HYD-2), although all other impacts would be reduced
when compared to the project.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-5
5.3.2 CONCLUSION
The No Build Alternative would avoid the project’s significant unavoidable impacts
and would have less impact on most environmental topical areas. However, this
alternative would not advance any of the project objectives.
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 2 – REDUCED DENSITY (NO
PROJECT) ALTERNATIVE
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 (e)(3)(A), when a project is a revision
to an existing land use or regulatory plan, the No Project alternative will be the
continuation of the existing land use or regulatory plan for the project site. Project
site parcels are currently designated by the General Plan as Agricultural Lands (AL),
Delta Recreation and Water (WA), and zoned as a General Agricultural District (A-2)
and a Heavy Agricultural District (A-3).
The Agricultural Lands (AL) land use designation allows for all land-dependent and
non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. The General Plan
permits residential uses at a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit per 5
acres. Other uses related to processing of agricultural products, agricultural support
services and small-scale visitor uses are allowed with a land use permit.
The A-2 and A-3 zoning designations allow the site to be developed with agricultural
uses, such as general farming and sheds and warehouses, and with residential uses,
such as a single-family dwelling or a family care home. A detached single-family
dwelling is allowed on each parcel with the A-2 or A-3 zoning designation. Other
uses, such as commercial recreational facilities, medical offices, or churches, may be
allowed with a land use permit.
Alternative 2 assumes primarily rural residential land uses on approximately 171
acres as allowed under the existing general plan and zoning designations. For
purposes of this analysis, five of the parcels on the project site are considered
developable. This alternative assumes five single-family residential units would be
constructed on the project site in accordance with current zoning designations. This
alternative would not require a General Plan amendment.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-6
5.4.1 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Under Alternative 2, the project site would be developed with rural residential uses
that would include a few agricultural-related structures such as barns and sheds.
This alternative assumes that the existing wetlands and emergent marsh would be
protected, similar to the project. The limits of development would therefore be the
same as the project, but the density would be reduced by approximately 98 percent.
The reduced density of this alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips, reducing
the traffic-related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Project impacts related to
air quality, biology, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous
materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and recreation,
utilities, and visual resources would be similarly reduced.
The following analysis evaluates the impacts of Alternative 2 as compared to the
project.
Agricultural Resources
The project site does not contain farmland designated “Prime,” “Unique,” or of
“Statewide Importance”, or land that is protected under a Williamson Act contract.
Similarly, the project site does not contain any forest land. As such, development
under either the project or Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to
agricultural or forest resources.
Air Quality
In comparison to the project, Alternative 2 provides 98 percent fewer residential
homes, and therefore substantially reduces the emissions form the use of wood-
burning stoves, resulting in reduced air quality impacts from the operation of the
proposed development (Impact AQ-1).
Both the project and Alternative 2 would result in construction-related emissions
(Impact AQ-2); however, as the physical expanse of Alternative 2 would be less than
the project, construction-related emissions that could affect sensitive receptors
would be reduced.
Biological Resources
Although the density of development allowed by Alternative 2 would be significantly
less than the project, some or all of the 80 trees on the project site could be
removed or disturbed during construction of the five residences and associated
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-7
agricultural-related structures under Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2 would
have reduced impacts to protected trees on the project site when compared with
the project (Impact BIO-1).
Alternative 2 would not involve creek widening activities, creations of new bays or
waterfront homes, and would avoid this impact and the need for mitigation (Impact
BIO-2).
Vernal pool fairy shrimp were identified in a seasonal wetland on the project site
that could be avoided by Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts to vernal pool fairy
shrimp under Alternative 2 would be similar to the project (Impact BIO-3).
Project development has the potential to result in impacts to the California red-
legged frog since the project site provides suitable habitat for this species, which is
both federal-listed as threatened, and is also a California species of special concern.
Development of Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to the California red-
legged frog when compared to the project (Impact BIO-4).
Development of the project has the potential to result in impacts to the giant garter
snake since the project site provides suitable habitat for this federal and state-listed
threatened species. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to the
giant garter snake when compared to the project (Impact BIO-5).
The western pond turtle is a California species of special concern that is known to
occur on the project site. Development of the project has the potential to impact
individual western pond turtles and their habitats. Similarly, development under
Alternative 2 would impact western pond turtles and their habitats (Impact BIO-6).
Project construction activities related to channel widening and excavation of
uplands have the potential to impact federal and/or state-listed fish species, as well
as fish species designated by the State of California as Species of Special Concern.
However, Alternative 2 would not involve creek widening activities or excavation of
interior bays or coves. Therefore, Alternative 2 would avoid this impact and
associated avoidance measures (Impact BIO-7). The enhancement of creek bank
habitat along the ECCID dredge cut and Pantages Island would not occur under this
Alternative.
Project construction activities would have a potentially significant impact on nesting
and foraging habitat of tree nesting raptors, Swainson’s hawk, and other protected
nesting birds. Although Alternative 2 would result in the removal of fewer trees
when compared to the project, it would result in similar construction activities that
could impact the nesting and foraging habitat of tree nesting raptors, Swainson’s
hawk, and other protected nesting birds (Impact BIO-8, BIO-9, and BIO-11).
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-8
Project development has the potential to result in impacts to the western burrowing
owl since they are known to nest adjacent to the project site and their presence on
the project site cannot be ruled out. Development of Alternative 2 would have
greater flexibility to avoid impacts to the western burrowing owl when compared to
the project (Impact BIO-10).
The project would have potential impacts to the waters of the Unites States and
waters of the State due to construction and development activities near the
designated waters. Since development of the project site is also proposed under
Alternative 2, impacts to waters of the United States and waters of the State would
be similar.
Cultural Resources
Subsurface construction associated with both the project and Alternative 2 would
have the same potential to damage unknown cultural resources in the project area
(Impacts CUL-1 through CUL-4). However, as the physical expanse of development
under Alternative 2 would be reduced, the likelihood of these discoveries occurring
would be less when compared to the project.
Energy
Under Alternative 2 there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes and
therefore less energy demands than when compared to the project. Neither the
project nor Alternative 2 would result in significant impacts related to Energy.
Geology and Soils
Similar to the project, Alternative 2 would expose new structures and people to
adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking and seismic related ground
failure including liquefaction and lateral spreading (Impact GEO-1). Development
under Alternative 2 would also result in similar soil erosion potential when
compared to the project (Impact GEO-2). Taken as a whole, Alternative 2 would
result in fewer homes or structures on the project site such that seismic and soil-
related hazards would endanger fewer people; however, exposure to hazards would
still be possible for anyone on the site, resulting in a similar level of impact.
Global Climate Change
In comparison to the project, there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes
under Alternative 2, and therefore approximately 98 percent fewer greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (i.e., approximately 102 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
[CO2e]) when fully developed. This level of emissions is below the BAAQMD CEQA
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-9
Guidelines’ threshold of significance of 1,100 metric tons CO2e emissions per year.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would substantially reduce the impacts to global climate
change to a less-than-significant level.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 2 would require similar construction activities as the project; therefore,
Alternative 2 would have the same risks associated with the release of hazardous
materials (Impacts HAZ-1 and HAZ-2) and related impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors (Impact HAZ-3) would occur as when compared to the project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Development of the project site under Alternative 2 would alter the existing
drainage patterns in the area to a lesser degree than what is proposed by the
project, resulting in reduced impacts to water quality when compared to the project
(Impact HYD-1). Alternative 2 would have the same risks as the project in terms of
water quality impacts from abandoned groundwater wells in the area (Impact HYD-
2). Development would be subject to the same flood risks from future sea level rise
under either the project or Alternative 2 (Impacts HYD-4 and HYD-5). Alternative 2
would not include waterfront development or the widening of Kellogg Creek, as
such water quality impacts related to these construction activities under the project
(Impact HYD-3) would be avoided under Alternative 2.
Land Use and Planning
Alternative 2 would allow development on the project site consistent with the
current general plan designations. This alternative would not require a General Plan
Amendment or a rezone and would be consistent with applicable land use plans and
policies, similar to the project.
However, Alternative 2 does not allow for a concentration of development within
the boundaries of the Discovery Bay ULL. Although Alternative 2 would be
compatible with land uses and densities in the surrounding area similar to the
project, it should be noted that development allowed by Alternative 2 would be at a
much lower density than surrounding land uses.
Mineral Resources
The project site does not contain any mineral resources. Development under either
the project or Alternative 2 would not result in impacts to mineral resources.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-10
Noise
Construction of either the project or Alternative 2 would create noise levels at
adjacent residences that would exceed the County’s standards (Impact NOI-1). The
project would require a much longer construction period and would involve more
intensive grading, excavation, and shoring of creek banks. Alternative 2 would result
in less intrusive construction-period impacts.
Population and Housing
Under Alternative 2 there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes and
therefore less population growth than when compared to the project.
Public Utilities
Under Alternative 2 there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes and
therefore less population growth than when compared to the project. This
reduction in population growth would result in lesser impacts related to utility
demands (Impact UTIL-1 and Impact UTIL-2).
Traffic and Circulation
In comparison to the project, there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes
under Alternative 2, and therefore substantially reduced traffic. This reduction in
traffic would avoid project-related impacts to the local intersections and roadways
in the project area (Impacts TRA-1 and TRA-2).
Visual Resources and Aesthetics
In comparison to the project, there would be 98 percent fewer residential homes
under Alternative 2, and therefore less impacts related to light and glare when
compared to the project (Impact VIS-1).
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the individual subsections of Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts and
Mitigation Measures, there would be cumulatively significant impacts to many of
the resource areas. For the issue areas where significant cumulative impacts were
identified, the reduced density under Alternative 2 would contribute less to these
impacts than when compared to the project.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-11
Alternative 2 would avoid the cumulative noise impact along Point of Timber Road
between Bixler Road and Byron Highway. The reduction in traffic trips would result
in a less than considerable contribution to the cumulative increase in noise along
this corridor.
Alternative 2 would avoid the conflict with implementation with the Bay Area 2010
CAP, as the property would be developed according to existing land use designation
that were assumed as part of the plan.
5.4.2 CONCLUSION
The Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative would avoid the project’s significant
unavoidable impacts and would have less impact on all environmental topical areas.
However, this alternative would not advance any of the project objectives.
5.5 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE IMPACTS
This section summarizes the comparative impacts of each of the alternatives when
compared to the project. Table 5-1 below lists the level of significance of the
impacts of the project to each environmental area analyzed in Chapter 4.0, Settings,
Impact and Mitigation Measures, and shows whether the impacts anticipated
under each alternative would be equal, lesser or greater than those of the project.
Table 5-1 Summary of Comparative Impacts
Environmental Issue Project Level of
Environmental Impact
No Build
Alternative
Reduced
Density (No
Project)
Alternative
Agricultural Resources Less than significant Lesser Similar
Air Quality (Conflict with
applicable air quality plan) Significant and unavoidable Lesser Lesser
Biological Resources Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Cultural Resources Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Energy Less than significant Lesser Lesser
Geology and Soils Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Similar
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-12
Environmental Issue Project Level of
Environmental Impact
No Build
Alternative
Reduced
Density (No
Project)
Alternative
Summary of Comparative Impacts, continued.
Global Climate Change Significant and unavoidable Lesser Lesser
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Land Use and Planning Less than significant Lesser Similar
Noise and Vibration Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Population and Housing Less than significant Lesser Lesser
Public Services and Recreation Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Public Utilities Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Transportation and Circulation Significant and unavoidable Lesser Lesser
Visual Resources and
Aesthetics
Less than significant with
mitigation Lesser Lesser
Cumulative Impacts Significant and unavoidable Lesser Lesser
Source: Circlepoint, 2011.
5.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT
ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(c), an EIR should identify any alternatives that
were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the
scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s
determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from
detailed consideration in an EIR include: (1) failure to meet most of the basic project
objectives, (2) infeasibility, or (3) inability to avoid significant environmental
impacts. To assist with this discussion, a list of the project objectives is provided in
Section 5.2, Project Objectives.
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-13
5.6.1 ALTERNATIVE OFF-SITE LOCATIONS
No feasible off-site locations for the project were found. To attain most of the
project’s objectives, the applicant would require a relatively large area of land to
develop or redevelop. The project proponents do not own or control any other
vacant property adjacent to waterways in the Discovery Bay area similar in nature to
the project site.
5.6.2 AGE-RESTRICTED COMMUNITY
The County considered and rejected an alternative that would allow a subdivision to
operate as an active adult community that would be age-restricted to residents 55
years of age or older. Housing in active adult communities generates half the
number of vehicle trips as traditional sub division housing, and senior apartments
generate even fewer vehicle trips. Although age-restricted housing on the project
site would result in fewer vehicle trips, the reduction in trips would not be enough
to avoid the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts. Furthermore, this
alternative would not reduce many of the other project impacts related to air
quality, biology, cultural resources, geology and soils, global climate change, hazards
and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and
recreation, utilities, and visual resources.
5.6.3 REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The County considered and rejected a Reduced Density Alternative that would
lessen the size of the project to a point where significant and unavoidable impacts
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The County identified an
alternative consisting of 30 residences on the project site to reduce significant and
unavoidable traffic impacts and subsequently reduce significant and unavoidable
impacts related air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise.
However, the Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative that includes the
construction of 5 residences would result in a similar reduction of impacts when
compared to a 30-residence reduced density alternative. Five residential units
represent a 98 percent reduction in density on the project site compared to a 90
percent reduction in density to 30 residential units. Since the analysis of these two
reduced density alternatives would result in the same conclusions, it was
determined that a 30-residence reduced density alternative would be redundant.
The Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative fulfills the reduce density option.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-14
Furthermore, the 30-residence alternative was rejected because of its inability to
meet the majority of the project objectives, specifically the inability to build an
economically viable residential community and to develop a project consistent with
the character of existing neighborhoods to the east and west. This alternative
would also not widen the Kellogg Creek channel and would not result in the
beneficial biological resource impacts of the project. For these reasons, this
alternative was rejected.
5.6.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, development would not be permitted in the northern part of
the project site where existing sensitive biological resources, including emergent
marsh and seasonal wetlands, are located. This alternative would protect trees,
nesting birds, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and habitat for California red-legged frog,
giant garter snake, western pond turtle, and western burrowing owl. This alternative
would not include the enhancement of creek bank habitat along the ECCID dredge
cut and Pantages Island. Furthermore, this alternative would not result in a
reduction of the significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic, air quality,
noise, and greenhouse gases, nor would this alternative advance a majority of the
project objectives.
5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among
the alternatives to the project. The environmentally superior alternative must be an
alternative to the project that reduces some of the environmental impacts of the
project, regardless of the financial costs associated with this alternative.
As demonstrated in the section, a range of reasonable alternatives were considered,
but rejected because they do not meet a majority of the project objectives or were
deemed infeasible. A comparison merit was included for the No Build Alternative
and a Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative. The reduced density alternative
was developed to avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic, and to
fulfill the requirements of CEQA to considered development under existing land use
plans. Table 5-1 provides a comparison of the potential impacts of the No Build
Alternative and the Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative. Both of these
alternatives would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable traffic, air quality,
noise, and greenhouse gas impacts. The No Build Alternative would have less
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 5.0 Alternatives
5-15
impact on most environmental topical areas when compared to the project. The
Reduced Density (No Project) Alternative would have similar or lesser impacts on all
environmental topical areas.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational
procedure and the alternative selected may not meet the goals or needs of the
County. The project under consideration cannot be identified as the
environmentally superior alternative.
Additionally, if the No Build/No Project Alternative is determined to reduce most
impacts, CEQA requires that the EIR identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative
among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). Because a
majority of the alternatives that would reduce and avoid significant impacts would
not attain a majority of the project objectives and were deemed infeasible, the
environmentally superior alternative in this case is the Reduced Density (No Project)
Alternative.
Pantages Bays Project
5.0 Alternatives Draft EIR
5-16
This page intentionally left blank.
6-1
6.0 CEQA−REQUIRED DISCUSSION
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this chapter
provides a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that could be
caused by project implementation and growth-inducing impacts of the project. The
focus of this chapter is on the environmental effects of construction and operation
of the development of the project site and the resulting growth potentially
generated by the project.
6.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
CEQA Section 15126.2(c) requires that an EIR discuss any environmental changes
that would be irreversible if the project were implemented. CEQA defines
irreversible environmental changes as the irretrievable commitment of resources
and/or irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents. Irreversible
changes may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and
secondary or growth inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar
uses. The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant
irreversible changes, including changes in land use that would commit future
generations to specific uses; irreversible changes from environmental actions; and
consumption of non-renewable resources.
6.1.1 CHANGES IN LAND USE WHICH WOULD COMMIT
FUTURE GENERATIONS
As the project site is currently undeveloped agricultural land, implementation of the
project would result in the urban development of the project site. The project
would involve the construction of 292 new residential units, utility infrastructure,
roadways, roadway improvements, and creation and enhancement of an emergent
marsh. The applicant is requesting approval of a general plan amendment that
would change the land use on the project site from agricultural lands to residential,
water, public/semi-public and open space. The land use designation for this project
Pantages Bays Project
6.0 CEQA Required Discussion Draft EIR
6-2
would not affect future specific uses at the project site and in the project vicinity
because the land use designation only applies to the specific parcels on which the
project is located.
6.1.2 IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTIONS
The project would involve the construction of new residential and service uses in
Discovery Bay. Non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels would be required for
construction and operation of the project. The change in use from undeveloped
agricultural land to urban development and the associated commitment of non-
renewable resources necessary for construction and operation of the project would
be irreversible.
6.1.3 CONSUMPTION OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
The project includes the development of a residential community. Construction and
operation of this type of development would require the consumption of
nonrenewable resources, such as electricity, natural gas and petroleum products,
and construction materials. Given the changes to the project site, an irreversible
commitment to the use of nonrenewable resources would occur with project
implementation. The investment of resources in this project would be typical of the
level of investments normally required for a residential development of this size.
6.2 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which a project could be growth inducing.
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) identify a project as growth inducing if it
would “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” The CEQA
Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement and
state that growth in any area is “necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment.” CEQA does not require separate mitigation for
growth inducement as it is assumed that these impacts are already captured in the
analysis of environmental impacts (Chapter 4.0, Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures, of this draft EIR). Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR
“discuss the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the
characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities
that could significantly affect the environment.”
Pantages Bays Project
Draft EIR 6.0 CEQA Required Discussion
6-3
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the project would have potential to induce
growth if it would:
Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., through the expansion of public
services into an area that does not currently receive these services), or through
the provision of new access to an area, or a change in a restrictive zoning or
General Plan land use designation.
Result in economic expansion and population growth through employment
opportunities and/or construction of new housing.
In general, a project could be considered growth inducing if it directly or indirectly
affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be
demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in
some other way. However, the CEQA Guidelines do not require a prediction or
speculation of where, when, and in what form such growth would occur.1
6.2.1 ECONOMIC, POPULATION, AND HOUSING GROWTH
Typically, the growth inducing potential of a project is considered significant if it
fosters growth or a concentration of population in a different location or in excess
of what is assumed in pertinent general plans or land use plans, or projections made
by regional planning agencies, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG). Section 4.13, Population and Housing, addresses the direct population
growth as a result of the residential development on the project site. The project
includes the construction of 292 residential units and would house up to 876
people. The new population created by the project would constitute approximately
44 percent of the total population growth anticipated by ABAG in Rural East County
from 2010 to 2025. The 292 units proposed by the project would represent
approximately 36 percent of the projected household growth over the same period.
While the project would not constitute a significant environmental impact as the
population growth would be within the growth projections, the project would be
growth inducing through its introduction of a new population to the project area.
Additionally, the Contra Costa County General Plan identifies the project area for
future urban development, as the area is within the Urban Limit Line (ULL). Since
the General Plan has designated the project area as being within the ULL, growth
would be occurring in an area previously planned for some type of development.
For further discussion of the ULL, refer to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
1 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15145.
Pantages Bays Project
6.0 CEQA Required Discussion Draft EIR
6-4
Construction of the project would result in a short-term increase in construction
related job opportunities in the East Contra Costa County area. However,
construction workers can be expected to be drawn from the existing construction
employment labor force, as construction of new residential development occurs
throughout the County and within surrounding cities. Therefore, opportunities
provided by construction of the project area would not likely result in the relocation
of construction workers to the project region. Therefore, the employment
opportunities provided by construction are not anticipated to induce indirect
growth in the region.
6.2.2 REMOVAL OBSTACLES TO GROWTH OR EXCEED
CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The project would include the provision of service capacity that would
accommodate population growth beyond current service levels. The Discovery Bay
Community Services District (TDBCSD) provides the existing Discovery Bay
community with water and wastewater treatment. As only a portion of the project
site is currently located within the TDBCSD, the project would require approval from
the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation of the
remainder of the site into the Discovery Bay Community Services District and
corresponding sphere of influence.
6.2.3 PRECEDENT-SETTING ACTION
Development of the project site would include both a general plan amendment and
rezoning. The project would include a general plan amendment to change the land
use designation on the project site from Agricultural Lands to Single-Family
Residential Medium Density, Single-Family Residential High Density, Water,
Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space.
The project would include the rezoning of the project area from Agricultural to
Planned Unit District to allow for up to 262 homes, 47 acres of open water, and 44
acres of open space areas including wetland and marsh. By its nature, the Planned
Unit District classification would be the plan for development on the project site, for
which the project would be consistent. Therefore, the project would be growth
inducing in respect to the changes in land use as development would be permitted,
thus, promoting urban growth in the area.
7-1
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Table 7-1 presents the organizations and individuals involved in the preparation of this draft EIR.
Table 7-1 List of Preparers of the Draft EIR
Preparer Topic/Role Contact
Contra Costa County,
Department of Conservation and
Development
Lead Agency
Geology and Soil
John Oborne, Senior Planner
Darwin Myers
Circlepoint General EIR Preparation
Mary Bean, AICP
Audrey Darnell
Jennifer Gallerani, LEED AP
Michelle Knudson
Elizabeth Antin
Jessie Shen
Rebecca Bustos
Andy Wong
Don Ballanti Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Don Ballanti
Monk & Associates, Inc. Biological Resources Sarah Lynch
Baseline Environmental Consulting Hazards and Hazardous Materials Todd Taylor
PWA Hydrology and Water Quality Nick Garrity
Bob Battaglio
Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz Noise and Vibration Alan Rosen
Fehr & Peers Transportation
Consultants Transportation and Circulation Katherine Tellez
Ryan McClain
Source: Circlepoint, 2011.
Pantages Bays Project
7.0 List of Preparers Draft EIR
7-2
This page intentionally left blank.
Village IDiscovery BayWest Ravenswood
Timber PointElementary School
Slifer DrBixler RdNewport DrNewport Ln
Village IIIDiscovery Bay WestThe Lakes at Discovery Bay
Village IIDiscovery Bay WestLakeshore
Point of Timber Rd
Villages IV and VDiscovery Bay WestThe Lakes at Discovery Bay
Pantages BaysProject Site
Approved Site:Newport Pointew/ prop dev.Discovery Bay BlvdUrban LimitLine
Inside ULL Outside ULL
With Proposed Development
Discovery Bay
ÄÅ4
®0 500 1,000250FeetMap created 3/14/2011by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development GIS Group 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-009537:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W
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. 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.
VICINITY MAPPantages BaysCounty Files GP99-0008,RZ04-3146, SD06-9010,DP04-3062
Indian SloughWerner CutEast CountyFire Station
EXHIBIT 1
Newport DrivePoint of Timber Rd
WA
SM
ALSH
DR
PR
OS
CO
PS
ML CR
®0 500 1,000250Feet
Map created 3/14/2011by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development GIS Group 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-009537:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W
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. 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.Newport DrNewport DrivePR
SM
DR
WA
ML
SH
OS
OS
SM
SH
PS
PS WA
General Plan AmendmentPantages BaysFrom AL (Agricultural Lands) &Delta Recreation (DR)toSH (Single Family High Density),SM (Single Family Medium Density),OS (Open Space), PS (Public Semi Public)and WA (Water)Point of Timber Rd
Project Site:Proposed GeneralPlan Designations and Proposed Layout
Project Site:Current General PlanDesignation (AL)
SM
EXHIBIT 2
PANTAGES BAYS
COUNTY FILES: GP#99-0008, RZ#04-3146,
SD#06-9010, DP#04-3062
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PUBLIC HEARING
DECEMBER 3, 2013
Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation & Development
1
SITE LOCATION
•171-acre Site At The East End Of Point Of Timber
Road In The Community Of Discovery Bay
•Bounded On East And South By The Original
Discovery Bay Community, To West By
Ravenswood And Lakeshore (Village II)
Residential Neighborhoods In Discovery Bay
West, To North And Northeast By Waterways And
Undeveloped Land
2
insert Google Earth birdseye view of project site
looking northward in Discovery Bay vicinity
3
insert Google Earth birdsever view of project
site looking from west to east directly over Pt. of
Timber Rd.
4
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
•Largely Undeveloped Site Contains A Barn
•Site Contains 80 Trees And Low Lying Non-
native Grasslands And A Large Emergent
Marsh Area On Its North Portion
•The Majority Of Site Has Been Leveled,
Ditched, And Drained In The Past For Use As
Grazing Pasture
•Site Does Not Contain Prime Agricultural Soils
5
CURRENT
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
•General Plan Designations: Agricultural Lands
(AL)and Delta Recreation and Resource (DR)
•Inside The Urban Limit Line
•Zoning: A-2, General Agricultural District, and
A-3, Heavy Agricultural District
6
PROJECT SUMMARY
•Develop A Gated Community Of 292 Residential Lots,
116 Of Which Have Docks For Water Access
•Create 47 Acres Of Bays And Coves To Provide Water
Access For 116 Lots
•Widen Kellogg Creek
•Create / Preserve 43 Acres Of Wetland/Emergent
Marsh And Grass Land Into 2 Open Space Areas
7
PROJECT SUMMARY -continued
•Develop A Public Trail And Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) Within One Of The Open Space Areas And Provide Public Access For Pedestrians And Bicyclists To The Water
•Develop A Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Substation On The Site
•Develop Roadways, Sidewalks, And Landscaping Within The Residential Area
8
COUNTY APPLICATIONS
•GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (County File: GP#99-0008)
•REZONING TO P-1, PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (County File: RZ#04-3146)
•SUBDIVISION / VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (County File: SD#06-9010)
•PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (County File: DP#04-3062)
9
10
11
12
ANNEXATIONS
•Town of Discovery Bay Community Service
District
Water Service
Sewer Service
EVA/ Trails / Open Space –ownership &
maintenance
•Reclamation District 800
Water/ Creek Banks / Shoring Walls Parcel –
ownership, maintenance, maintenance funding
13
CEQA REVIEW
•Notice Of Preparation For An EIR Issued On May 24, 2007
•Public Scoping Session Conducted On June 18, 2007
•Draft EIR (SCH#2007052130) Released On June 12, 2012, 45-day Comment Period Concluded On July 26, 2012, But Extended Another 15 Days
•Final EIR Released On July 25, 2013
•Zoning Administrator Recommended EIR Certification On August 12, 2013
14
15
Sheriff’s Marine Patrol
Substation
•½ Acre Site In The Northeast Corner Along
Delta Waterway
•Substation Would Contain A 2,100 Sf. Ft, 1-
Story Modular Building (No Holding Facility)
With 3 Boat Docks and Medivac Helicopter
Landing Area
•Vehicle Access By 20 Ft. EVA
•Enables Sheriff Marine Patrol To Deploy Much
Closer To Delta Waterways
16
CONCLUSION
Recommendation
I.Adopt Recommendations of County Planning
Commission (CPC Res. 6-2013)
II.Find EIR Complies With CEQA Guidelines
III.Adopt CEQA Findings
IV.Adopt General Plan Amendment and Rezoning,
and Approve Preliminary and Final Development
Plan
17