Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 10052004 - C9
'q TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,AS THE GOVERNING BOARD OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FROM: MAURICE SHIU, CHIEF ENGINEER DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2004 SUBJECT: ADOPT the Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the previously certified City of Oakley Cypress Grove Project for the purposes of conducting real property transactions and issuing flood control permits for the Cypress Grove Development in the Oakley area. (District V) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: ADOPT the previously certified Cypress Grove Project Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)(Lead Agency: City of Oakley, CA— SCH # 2001122073) and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the purposes of conducting real property transactions and issuing flood control permits associated with construction of the Cypress Grove Development(FEIR and supporting documents are available for review at the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or the Public Works Department); and ADOPT staff findings associated with each significant effect of the project, as outlined in the attached report; and Continued on Attachment: x SIGNATURE: TION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE :['PROVE e---\,,OTHER x SIGNATURE (S) ACTION OF BO ON 10 05 04 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xx aT41RR— r F VOTE OF SUPERVISORS xx UNANIMOUS (ABSENT��°'��� :-�-' ) AYES: NOES: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: OCTOBER 05, 2404 JOHN SWEETEN,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator LC:WC:cw G:\GrpDatalFLiCtS\.4dminietrationlBosrd Orders�2004 S0TE1R for Cypress Grove Develop.doc Orig.Div: Public Works Flood Control Contact: Leigh Chavez(925)333-2366 r,,. c« cno By .. ..�... .m,.•"�° '` .moi. .. ,Deputy County Counsel Wes Cooley,Flood Control 819 Striker Avenue,Suite 8 Sequoia 5acratn z A 95834 (916916)92.1-9Gt)0 FAX(916)921-01 Oor- �► Analytical --s uolalabs.ctsm Kfeinfeider-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove 5307452 2825 East M le Street Project Number: 13314/01 Reporteu. le Manager; 3oeZilles 07125/0315:50 E Stockton CA,95205 Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA Methods - Quality Contr6l Sequoia Analytical - Petaluma Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD i Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 3079487-General Preparation Blank(3070487-BLKi) Prepared&Analyzed:07/24/03 Cyanide(total) ND 0.0050 mg/l Analyzed:&ared Laboratory Control Sample(3070487-BS1) Prepared 07/24/03 Cyanide(tote!) 0.212 0.0050 mg/l 0.200 106 80-120 Duplicate(3070487-DUPI) Source: P307230-01 Prepared&Analyzed:07/24/03 Cyanide(total) ND 0.0050 mg/l ND 200 it x r 4 3 EY.. y ' { G y Set}llola Analytical-Sacramento 71e results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated, results are reported on a wet weight basis. s. , 1-his analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. ' ?age 16 of 20 819 Striker Avenue,Suite E Sequoia Sacramento,916 92 9 6M ( 4 D- 19161921-9600 Analytical FAX(916)921-0=� www.w.sequoialabs.cam � Project: Cypress Grave S307452,Kleinfelder�Stockton 1 � rotted: 2S25 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.EO1 Reported. { Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: .toe Zilles 07/25/03 15:50 Conventional'Chemistry Parameters by A.PHATPA Methods - {duality Control Sequoia Analytical - Sacramento Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Levet Result %REC Limits RPD Limit hates Match 3070293 -General Preparation } ' Duplicate(3070293-DUPI) Sources 5307455-01 Prepared&Analyzed:07/22/03 - PH 7.14 1.00 pIH Units 7,15 0.1 20 l,F Batch 3070295-General Preparation Blank(3070295-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed:07/23/03 Methylene Blue Active Substances NUJ 0.050 mgtl Laboratory Control Sample(3070295-BS1) Prepared&Analyzed.07/23/03 -� Methylene Blue Active Substances 1.00 0.20 mg/l 1.00 100 80-120 s Laboratory Control Sample Dup(3070295-ESDI) Prepared&Analyzed:07/23/03 Methylene Blue Active Substances 0.970 0.20 mgA 1.00 97 80-120 3 20 Batch 3070304-General Preparation Blank(3070304-BLKI) _ - -- Prepared:07/22/03 Analyzed:07/24/03 Total Dissolved Solids ND 5.0 mg/l r Laboratory Control Sample(3070304-BSI) Prepared:07/22/03 Analyzed:07/24/03 Total Dissolved Solids 482 5.0 mgil 500 95 80-120 Matrix Spike(3070304-MSI) Source:5307452-01 Prepared:07/22/03 Analyzed:07124103 p Total Dissolved Solids 1560 5.0 mg/l 500 1100 92 80-120 I. Matrix Spike Dup(3070304-MSDI) Source:5307452-01 Prepared:07/22/03 Analyzed: 07/24/03 i.)' Total Dissolved Solids 1520 5A mgll 500 1100 84 80-120 3 20 t,.. 1 x 4 l_ Sequoia Analytical-Sacramento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated,results are reported on a wet weight basis. 1' This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. Page 1.7 of 20 Sequoia e qu 01 a 819 Striker Avenue,Suite Sacramento,CA 9583 (9 16)92 i-9W FAX(916)921-010C. Analyticalwww.sequoiaiabs.ear- Project:j ' Kieinfeider-Stockton Cypress Grove 5307451. 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.EOI Reported: Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles 07/25/03 15:50 Notes and Definitions B-15 N.D. indicates that Coliform, bacteria were not present at or above the stated reporting limit. l" HT-04 This sample was analyzed beyond the EPA recommended holding time.The results may stili be useful for their intended purpose. HT-05 This sample was requested to be analyzed beyond the EPA recommended holding time.The results may be useful for their intended purpose. QM-07 The spike recovery was outside control limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on acceptable LCS recovery. DET Analyte DETECTED ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit NR Not Reported dry Sample results reported on a dry weight basis RPD Relative Percent Difference k i e t Y' Sequoia Analytical- SacI'=ento I'he results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated, results are reported on a wet weight basis. { This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. ra Page 20 of 20 + LU r- F- . �� LU ���Y �,✓ C7E —J C) z zLo�rn \ JCO�O `5 ! cn 1-4 m CL rti ' L } 7 i S � ch _ Is �r �l� E m t 1 � � b Q� VI<j N R LU m m m CL ,mayLU VA i 6w ` ul cn CL y All cr b A M N C7 'p Y1 iSf N m T © N w LL9 C'i m Q� N 4 APPENDIX 8 m::Y? tvy.i ,k T rake ...mac. '�`it'�,ai- ��. ^i' f'R � \v t"f a+��"t W. ger„" E! N r� s - Balance H drologics, Inc. 84! Folger Avenue • Berkeley;CA 94710-2800 P' (510)704-1000 • (fnx)704-2001 • email: office�_)balancehydro.com ° .August 26, 2043 Ms. Cindy Gnos Raney Planning &Management, inc. •' 1401 Halyard Drive, Suite 120 West Sacramento, California 95691 L:i RE: Additional Information on the Stormwater Management Strategy for Cypress Grove, City of Oakley Dear Ms. Gnos: This letter summarizes the additional information you requested on the stormwater management strategy for the proposed Cypress Grove project in the City of Oakley. I have arranged the information by general topic for your review. Interactions between the Storm water Pond and Local Ground Water There will be no impacts on groundwater from the proposed stormwater pond because it , z will be equipped with a clay liner. Liners of this type are routinely used to isolate ponds W' of all types from the local groundwater system. However, it is important to note that there would be no significant impacts even if the pond were not lined. The available evidence from the ongoing groundwater elevation monitoring activities show that any overall groundwater movement on a local basis is expected to be small. This is especially true when considering the potential for near surface groundwater flow northward from w the area of the stormwater pond where information on groundwater gradients shows that ~° there is little head difference to drive significant regional flow. General Impacts to Ground-water Quality from Stormwater LJ It is important to nate that much of the site will have higher elevations after grading(see mitigation measure 3.10-5). In fact, the lowest elevation in the site after construction will be the normal water surface of the stormwater pond,which will be isolated from the groundwater system with a liner. Based on the groundwater monitoring records developed by the project geotechnical engineer, all finished pads will have ample vertical F separation from the groundwater table (typically five feet or more) to avoid any impacts 5�' I i k 202105 Information Letter 08-26-03 Integrated Surface and Ground Water Hydrology • Water Quality and Sediment Quality • Erosion and Sedimentation ° Wetlands Balance Hydrologics, Inc. in y nos August 26, 2003 Page 2 to or from near surface groundwater at the site. Numerous studies have evaluated the potential for non-point source pollution to directly impact local groundwater. For example, studies by the U.S. Geological Survey have shown that all constituents of concern in urban runoff are sequestered in the top 6 to 8 inches of soils, even inside stormwater basins handling runoff from industrialized catchments (USGS Water- Resources Investigations Report 94-4140). This, coupled with the fact that the stormwater pond will be lined, indicates that impacts to groundwater quality will be insignificant. Impacts to Water-quality ity the Contra Costa Canal The presence of the agricultural drains, which empty into the Canal without passing through any BMPs, implies that the Canal has routinely received runoff from the surrounding fields. This contrasts with the proposed stormwater management strategy that will incorporate a number of BMPs, includes a lined stop-nwater pond sized that anticipates future standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and will route all runoff past the Canal to Emerson Slough. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the impacts to water-quality in the Canal will be positive. Efficacy of the Storrnwater Pend for Detention and Water-quality As described in Section 3 of the Balance report, the pond has been designed as a multi- function facility, with one such function being enhancement of runoff water-quality. The design criteria employed with respect to water-quality follow the most recent guidelines from the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. In fact, the overall goal of treating 85 percent of mean annual runoff has been applied at Cypress Grove even though this standard will likely not be adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB for several years. The water-quality volume (approximately 4.0 acre-feet,roughly equivalent to the runoff from a 0.5-inch rainfall) will be discharged over a period of 48 hours. However, given the fact that the permanent pond volume (7.3 acre-feet) is larger than the water-quality <; volume,the effective residence time will be significantly greater. Experience with similar pond designs indicate that the proposed configuration will have a high sediment trap efficiency and be capable of removing essentially all sediments larger than fine silt. It is equally important to consider the back-up controls at the pond for extreme wet weather events or equipment malfunction. Such controls were discussed in the Balance report (see Section 6.3). The pond as proposed is surrounded by a buffer in the form of park lands and adjoining streets. Extreme events were explicitly modeled using Contra Costa County Flood Control hydrographs for 100-year design storms up to and including 202105 hafonnation Letter 08-26-03 -- _ { Cin 6 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 1 August 26,2003 Page 3 m the 96-hour duration storm. An added margin of safety exists in this regard through the Contra Costa County guideline that requires that 70 percent of the detention volume be recovered within 24 hours of the peak inflow. In fact,the stormwater pumps will be capable of draining the pond from the peak 100-year water surface in somewhat less than 7 hours. Redundant systems will include a back-up stormwater pump and emergency J power supply in the form of a diesel generator. HM Potential Mobilization of Sediment fT Another topic is the potential for increased sediment inflows to Emerson Slough and to the Contra Costa Canal if the stormwater control system should fail in a flood event. However, the redundancies that have been included in the stormwater system design fµ4 matte this extremely unlikely. In fact,with respect to sediment loads, the DEIR accurately identifies the very low potential for sediment mobilization once the construction-phase is completed. The site has very low gradients, and it is reasonable to r° assume that sediment mobilization will be very low once improvements and landscaping are in place. In fact, the general topography implies that sediment loads will likely be at the very low end of the typical urban range, especially with incorporation of mitigation measures such as street sweeping(see Section 6.1 of the Balance report). Nonetheless, the stormwater pond was sized to provide high trap efficiencies for incoming sediment as discussed previously. The water-quality volume and associated water-duality pump system were selected such that 85 percent of the annual runoff will have a holding time of 48 hours. The outflow rate from the pond will be relatively low (roughly 34 cfs when the main stormwater pumps are operating) even for the largest storms, reducing any tendency µ' for short-circuiting of flow across the large pond surface area. Ongoing Monitoring of the Pond Comprehensive monitoring programs will not be needed to ensure the effectiveness of the BMPs employed at the site. Such monitoring programs may be appropriate where particularly high levels of constituents of concern are anticipated. However, this case does not apply to the Cypress Grove project,which constitutes a traditional residential development. It is true that predictions of removal efficiencies for any single BMP are often difficult. It is in recognition of this fact that the Regional Water Quality Control Boards have endorsed the use of comprehensive Stormwater Management Plans that incorporate a hierarchy of practices that include site design measures, source control, and treatment controls. In fact, several of the constituents of concern cited in the comments are best addressed through source control measures (e.g. bacterial and nitrogen loading ,= from pet wastes). The Cypress Grove project has set a high standard by choosing to 202105 Information Letter 08-26-03 Ms. Cindy 01nos Balance Hydrologics, Inc. F August 26,2003 Page 4 include a stormwater pond that is designed to standards that will actually not be required by the Central Valley RWQCB for several years. Past experience indicates that the ' source control measures such as the regularly scheduled street sweeping and storm drain maintenance cited in the DEIR will augment the effectiveness of the overall water-quality i management strategy. The study prepared by Balance Hydrologics includes an entire section devoted to the ' ongoing maintenance of the pond and related infrastructure that describes in detail the type of maintenance required including a detailed cost estimate of those activities. Vector Control Issues related to vector control, and specifically mosquito control, were discussed in the Operation and Maintenance section of the Balance report (see page 21 of Section 6.2). i Control measures will be implemented on an as needed basis under the direction of the Contra Costa County Mosquito and Vector Control District. Chemical control methods are generally considered if, and when, other control measures have failed. Closing I trust that this information clarifies the issues per your request. Do not hesitate to contact Balance Hydrologics if you have further questions or need further details related to these issues. Sincerely, Edward D. Ballman P.E. Civil Engineer l Hydrologist i 4. 202105 lnfonnation Letter 05-26-03 i 6i i 1 N f " < 1 Yr e� a �=t gt T ki r n�,.:rvs� .ate •i � - p ..p ay.� CFi J Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS August 13, 2003 Job No.: 985-50 ;Ia Mr. Jerry Brown CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT Planning Department 2411 Bisso Lane Concord, CA 94524 Subject: Outfall Structure at Emerson Slough i Oakley, California Dear Mr. Brown, j„ Thank you for summarizing the District's outstanding concerns associated with the outfall structure at Emerson Slough in your letter dated August 7,2003. The following clarifications or revisions are offered to address those concerns. 1' The drawing on page 3.12-17 has been modified to show the four outfall pipes within the existing 50 foot Sellers Avenue right of way(see attached). This modification moves the pipes outside the United States Bureau of Reclamation(USSR)property and eliminates the need for a license agreement. A profile depicting the existing siphon structure at Sellers Avenue and the proposed uoutfall pipes to be constructed above,has been included for your review. The four 36 inch pipes will be constructed using Basketed joints to eliminate leakage. These pipes will be subject to air and leakage tests similar to those used for water main installations to ensure that all drainage pumped from the project will be conveyed to Emerson Slough. The four 36 inch pipes will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the siphon structure at Sellers Avenue. The maximum static load on the siphon structure will occur when all four pipes are flowing full during a large storm event. Even in this scenario,the full flowing pipes constitute a lighter load than the soil they replaced. In fact,the construction of the pipes will decrease the net load on the siphon structure (see attached sample calculation). 7' PA985-50\Contra Costa Water District-001.doc -- 2603 CAMINO RAMON,SUITE 100 • SAN RAMON,CA 94583 (925)866-0322 FAX(525)866-6575 www.cbandg.com Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. i ' Outfall Structure at Emerson Slough August 13, 2003 '< Page two Job No.: 985-50 We hope this adequately addresses your concerns. F Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or require any further. information. Very truly yours, ' Zew 1 Lew Carpente , P.E. Project Engineer LC:splrjw Enclosures — Proposed outfall structure to Emerson slough Static Load Calculations Proposed Trench Detail Proposed section at Siphon Crossing cc: Ray Panek, KB Home Bob Selders,Western Pacific Housing Dino Angelosante, Contra Costa Water District David Young, united States Bureau of Reclamation Greg Rowland,United States Bureau of Reclamation Mire Oliver, City of Oakley Jason Vogan,City of Oakley Owen Poole, American Homes Real Estate Cindy Gnos, Raney Planning & Management y Christian Marsh, Stoel Rives 1 PA985-50\Contra Costa WaterDistrici-OOi.doc f ................................................................................................. .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ...................................................................................................................... .................. ................ ......... © w 0 !r t ce - O Ln C� v =D C11- 00 0 L4- � nN3AV SH 13S 000 tv 0 o 9 � . � a WAll ; A� 3 "1 LAJCL h rL ¢� J F- $ fr d W C) LAJ �r = x d � --� c E- w � p Ck: c� w r t Ckc .W •d tL] d Uj Of rt [ [� 0 csem a a ,I! z W e5 ¢ W c CL CL N CL CL A p- 1 c Q C7 < C7 O co C I-� W a f > i17 ui CJ rry G r °b- �y�L, �< W " 9 CJ C7 m O tf) rp VS 4 O Z: Cl- CL H z ci WI x F- r� Lr) E r t. t n w CLCL Z d ti cn w ry A c<� ow- Ln � { v' a� p LoLd CL CL crC W rt ° � CAc c0 �;,W r� cr- C:) --J -- a C] CL W {` C) CL m c7 0 U- tL V7 W ..moi Z 1-- c t� t�� t� C-; to 4 C) Sea Of co � r Q C) Mf m E z Carlson, Barbee l Gibson, Inc. UFTEMfP4 { CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS - PLANNERS {' August 13, 2003 Job No.: 985-50 Static Load Calculations ri t . The following is a comparison between the existing load exerted on the siphon structure and the load that will be placed on the structure once the four 36"pipes are installed. { ! The fallowing assumptions are made: f Density of native soil 95 lbs/ft' J Density of backfill material 110 lbs/ft' Density of PVC pipe 100 lbs/ft' Density of water 62.4 lbs/ft' First, calculate the existing load placed on the siphon structure as a result of the existing rt"1 material within the proposed trench: # Load (lbs/ft)=Trench width x trench height x Density of native soil j Load= (19 ft) x (4 ft) x (100 lbs)/ft') r Lod= 7+500 lbs/ft ?Next, calculate the load placed on the siphon structure as a result of the material (pipe, water,backfill) within the trench in the constructed condition.: i, Load (lbs/ft)= (Area of backfill material) x (Density of backfill material) +(Area of PVC pipe)x (Density of PVC pipe) + (Area of water) x (Density of water) Load (lbs/ft)=(46.1 ft') (l 10 lbs/ft')+(1.6 ft') (100 lbs/ft)+(28.3 ftp) (62.4 lbs/ft) Load lbs/ft= 6,996 lbs/ft Say . Existing Load (7600 lbs/ft) >Proposed Load(7000 lbs/ft) The proposed load on the siphon is projected to be less than the existing load. Therefore, no net impact on the siphon structure will exist. t cJ 411 PA985-MLOAD CALCULA73ONS.DOC 2603 CAM#NO RAMON,SUITE 100 - SAN RAMON,CA 94583 • (925)866-0322 - FAX(925)886-8575 www.cbandg.com, 1 �•, / in o- c7 co co re) j I t -t k; t s t t Y�:u ..y I (moi tom.'-� � Yt t��s 1• � �� �. lkX3 / AA Lil tj'S s*3 L: �< 0 Ti. C-4 , v tri ( C-4 �- 3 { 1. %J C-A Y tD O tr 1l s Ln C? m 5\ i a s I I i j APPENDIX D i �i z �k < ,kt- i . a--1 Tratrspbrteltlon Lzi:;r �".rZ7E1"IEktjt.3f1t5 July 3,2003 ¢.�. Jason Vogan City of Oakley M. 3639 Mair.Street Oakley,CA 94561 Subject: Supplement Traffic Analysis for the proposed Cypress Grove Properties in the City of Oakley(TJ*KM Project No.270-003) Dear Mr.Vegan: This report presents the supplement traffic analysis for the Cypress Grove Properties traffic study as requested by the project applicants. The proposed development is to be located on both sides of Cypress Road east of State Route 4. The proposed development consists of 555 single-family homes and approximately 100 condominium/apartment units. The development on the north side of Cypress Road surrounds a middle school,which opened in the fall of 2001. The original study(the draft report dated November 26, 2002)focuses on the project-related impacts at key intersections along both Main Street and Cypress Road. The previous supplement report(dated March 28, 2003)focuses on the operational conditions at another study intersection:Main StreetlMalicoat Avenue, E.� This report discusses some of the identified mitigations and its timing as presented in the Cypress i Grove Draft Ea. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 discusses the mitigation for the Main Street/Cypress Road ¢ intersection,and requires the completion prior to occupancy of any residential units(other than the model home complex(es)). The intersection of Main Street/Cypress Road currently operates at an acceptable service level,and is expected to continue to operate acceptably under the Existing plus Approved Projects conditions.The intersection operating condition, i however, is expected to worsen to an unacceptable service level under the Existing plus L Approved plus Project scenario. Note this near-term future scenario assumes the completed development of the approved projects in the area, and the Cypress Grove project itself, However, some approved projects, for example, Shea Properties(1,330 residential units),Inas been delayed,and is not-expected to be fully built in the near future. �s An interim hypothetical scenario aimed to represent traffic conditions in Year 2008 (5 years !u; from now)was developed and analyzed. This interimscenario assumes all of the approved projects in the area are completely built(100%),except for Shea Properties that is assumed t to be 50%completed. The proposed Cypress Grove project is also assumed 50%completed LF in Year 2008. LOS calculations for the Year 2008 conditions indicate that the Main 5960 Inglewood Drive,Suite 100 Pleasanton,CA 94568=6535 PLEASANTON 926-463.0811 phone 925-463.3690 tax }_yr.tikm m SANTA ROSA L.„ j Jason Vogan July 3,2003 2 t 1 i Street/Cypress Road intersection is expected to continue to operate at an acceptable service level with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90 (see Appendix A). This calculation shows that the mitigation at the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection might not be needed until Year i 2008 or when the Cypress Grove project and Shea properties are approximately 50% ' completed. Mitigation Measure 3.7-3 requires the project applicant to widen Cypress Road between Main Street/SR-4 and Sellers Avenue from two lanes (existing)to four lanes. Based on the A trip distribution assumptions,the majority(90%) of the Cypress Grove project trips are expected to travel to/from the west towards Cypress Road. Therefore,the project requirement to widen Cypress Road,from the project site to Main Street/SR-4 is warranted. f'"c The remaining 10%would travel to/from the east. It is expected that the proposed Cypress Grove project would generate only 48 a.m.peak hour trips and 66 p.m.peak hour trips on Cypress Road east of project site. These trips constitute a small proportion of all future tripsS` on this segment of the roadway, since the approved projects are expected to add 1,439 a.m. ,. peak hour trips and 1,402 p.m.peals hour trips. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant be required to widen Cypress Road from Main Street/SR-4 to the eastern project boundary only,and pay its fair share for the widening of Cypress Road between the eastern project boundary and Sellers Avenue. The operating condition at the intersection of Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Drive was analyzed under the interim hypothetical scenario Year 2008 (described in the comment on Mitigation Measure 3.7-1). Presuming that the Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Drive is signalized as intended,this intersection is expected to operate at LOS D(V/C ratio=0.87) during the a.m.peak hour and at LOS B (V/C ratio=0.62)during the p.m,peak.hour(see ; Appendix.B). The calculation shows that,under this scenario,the mitigation at the Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Drive intersection would not be needed before Year 2008 or when.the 1 Cypress Grove project and Shea Properties are approximately 50%completed. Mitigation Measure 3.74(a)discusses the required mitigation(signalization) for the Cypress Road/Street A(west of Delta Vista Middle School)intersection. Our detailed reevaluation shows that the Cypress Grove project is expected to generate 108 (=213 homes ; > x 0.75 a.m. trip/home x 0.75 outbound x 90%to west)southbound right-tum,and 7(=124 f (other 89 homes use Frank Hengel)x 0.75 x 4.75 x 10%)southbound left-tum-trips out of Street A onto Cypress Road during the a.m.peak hour. Based on an estimated a.m,peak hour volume of 115 (= 108+7),the average daily traffic(ADT)on the southbound approach on Street A is expected to be approximately 1,150 (assuming the a.m.peak hour is 10 percent of the daily traffic). According to Caltrans Minimum Vehicular Signal Warrants for new f intersections,the minimum estimated ADT(EADT)need to be at least 2,240 for a two-lane approach(and 1,680 for a one-lane approach) assuming the 85h percentile speed on Cypress Road exceeds 40 miles per hour. Therefore,this Caltrans Signal Warrant is not met. Although the southbound movements on Street A at Cypress Road are expected to experience significant delays during the a.m.peak hour,the proposed signal at Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Drive is expected to create gaps for Street A especially when the signal is green for the eastbound Cypress Road left-turn. Furthermore,the southbound drivers desiring to tam left from Street A have the option to turn left from southbound Frank Hengel Drive onto eastbound Cypress Road. Based on all these reasons,an unwarranted signal should not be installed at Cypress Road/Street A to essentially accorru-nodate the southbound Sanr-mn-145172.1 0050526-00001 ....................................................................._.........................._..._ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ l , Jason Vogan July 3, 2003 3 right-turns. To minimize the need for police enforcement,all movements should be allowed at the intersection with only Street A being stop-controlled. • Mitigation Measure 3.7-9 discusses the cumulative impacts and corresponding mitigation measures for the Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Drive intersection. The required mitigation includes signalization and widening of all four approaches at the intersection. Our specific b; focus is on the westbound approach that the Draft EIR recommends to be one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane(a total of four lanes), In the original traffic study report(dated November 26, 2002),two conditions at Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue were evaluated under the"Cumulative with Project"scenario: o With the improvements of Sellers Avenue between Cypress Road and Laurel Road,and Laurel Road between Sellers Avenue and SR4. o Without the improvements of Sellers Avenue and Laurel Road ;z With the improvements of Sellers Avenue and Laurel Road,some of the through traffic on Cypress Road would divert to use these improved corridors,resulting in a reduction in through traffic along Cypress Road. Our analysis showed that the westbound through traffic on Cypress Road at Frank Hengel Drive would reduce from approximately 1,058 vehicles (without the improvements)to 668 vehicles during the a.m,peak hour with the Sellers 1 Avenue and Laurel Road improvements. - Due to fewer westbound through traffic with the improvements of Sellers Avenue and Laurel Road,the westbound Cypress Road at Frank Hengel Drive would not require an exclusive right,-turn lane(as recommended in the Draft EIR). The intersection would operate acceptably with one left-turn lane,one through lane and one shared through/right turn lane(a total of three lanes)on the westbound approach,given that mitigation at the other three : .! approaches rennam.as stated in the Draft EIR. The Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Drive intersection with three lanes on the westbound approach is expected to operate rather well at LCIS B during the a.m,and LCIS A during the p.m.peak hour under the"Cumulative plus ' Project"scenario. See Appendix C for the detailed LOS calculations. Therefore,if the planned improvement will be installed along Sellers Avenue and Laurel Road,we suggest that the westbound Cypress Road approach at Frank.Hengel Drive to have three lanes only: one left-turn lane,one through lane and one shared through/right-turn lane (instead of four lanes as indicated in the Draft EIR). Biu Thank you for the opportunity to provide engineering service. t�. �.m Sincerely, Thirayoot Lirnanond (Pang) TJKM Transportation Consultants t SanFran-145172.1 0050526-40001 1 H frl it r a '�•- ## It C'� ft r x t i t tit tl '�.IF r }} s s t s it #f M � fi t s t r q �! tt It r t✓J �" 9� -1 d t i i 5 it f =y .��+ q t #tf I p s tau Eft .�1 H t�L7 t F*� t th t q t h t�c-n IS {t N"'++. t iY,7 t iC# t L1+ t YM1 H t- it it fY w IN it f ItH 1@1 r• S I i(F2)fttt H ar rr IX � tx_ i*w- t {�C•-t rt t;d d{}bs t 9210.2 r CM hgh / �S t 099 9 t t Ch tY5 F f# (1 tt 1 }d r t.4f�•-®t1[ t CJ.�•lr1 t O O C t t O r 11 {t g� ti C. t f"`` ''''f` tCi i b CS G�E.7 t b e"t.CS t D t3 x C}C}L7 IF tf t tl.#tC tf of, H I tt sy {} ; a r t fi !t CL i.+1 t1L St i eC If It GC x r�.•.. • fr- r+f t 0=00 t 1:1 Cf CS t C C+"D ! Ct GS C � �! 1•� s.r Lf 4Y H Y +.} f 4f r i!1 C)iP1 t,1. t LCs 8 i(5 t L't Lf't SIt 1 tt"t to I71 f 1 4� p C,' •«• ft d t YS M+O M r at}Mf'rb r V7 SCS tCJ r .L}t0 tL1 II tit of «+ lv 11 tS. r ••-M r PCS t r frt r f t-t-a- t r r r IF Ct 11 x$if L i •-` r w � � t � r i e � IF it L.! L 3t r .✓ t t t t 4t tti tr tl �p.C, ' A G9 r•t f.,, /i N M #�}! r w i if It C:J fl ,1` O }} C.^ H •"'t i 112 stt••••-••,t r+^ tsS r 1^-�•i�'x+•^ tt #32 fil t t * t * t ff i.-W t t1 f-� s N 1�N f� r C7�"'}� r C N O• r A w7 50 li C►� tt d vti7t If + ,f r • t to t Ltt O+CC•..t r t0 CXS r tfii•d t tCt H f?C�• 11 W W#- t V'Y"'-""y t ..i r !•�,J C ,J t M in P i #Yt in t r t r f V #F ts' it AX tL�} 11 i6 fl C7C t < ••'•----{N i,e' 'L #i tS.II 0ftl u : f..N N N ilt if-• }} CS>>9+ s i t i it •�•'• yy 2f.KCC}' #i fu It 4 r r t r Si Lri a. t ....; E if A St V# i W tT'"""""'°`r G G7 r Q7 lwl. d H � i i i It i tt #I C x N s •r•- r r W Z }t ..S i c t i it W d tl 1�•+ i rte- V �.+ V d I t It } tt < tY' l._. it t N h.t'` t Ch r Pr• r try N l?• t 17p t r } tt t1! !F t SC's Ch S) t il't*CY tf CS Lft tt #+• • i G C7, W L7 d x M O, r in t r••N tt If J It _ "sit fE Q.[t t in h p It C9 t r Its It # } €.:f tt 33 r < •-�r it tt..S f•-}} p� t r S t r•r. x re t rte. t r•. {f w•'n'fJ y t t r t t t tY rr rr 1 ��rw rw 1 d'ra r. t G:t^•rw I} iLl qq 4» t t v!-d t t✓t+.3 t v k-J t v k-..J H N Il t �} z CX+• N },}� f ,.., t .r v r w et t er•.++r 'a•'.,r St d U, 11 0 a=- Z tt it i✓+��' r i t0 tC '' f Y#1 t t•-• t3G r F-• r F- t F•+• if +C W 11 W tl 63 (0 t M� t r '�E r ,'.0 W r ",,,#" +- + Z R h r x,' I-7t a I- it M-t/f ; t Ld!Lr LL+ t b7 GC to t E ILL, t f9 a'w ft C} =X ,{ p )I {u� i fF r x w r w t i-W t S W it P•^••+ It 0, f3 (j�Y r r F- W li r t'C h-..t Y•- 1 6'F�-�.J t GL'Y�..t t GG x•-d 3S If "5i 4L r t ! it It it III r r•- r #x. Car C'J x}4'S tt #i s£t- t aYf s 1Gt r � + it It .:t It !i i S3 i ham- tt t x in t 6tt t H !#k It + Y of x i ft 4f Spi t� # It it it it it it p it r`_. 1I3 z aF 0: G i tT i q i +t% t N If t6 ..:1 #t q it 4 uj #�iVt $ >J LI t C3 f at' x Ctt r 'J"I ff cc H +K tl 1f t Iia fu ! '-"' r Y3 t N t o t f'••. It It G. x ISS 4 Li f-:Y t ht 1 N t e- r N If C1 t G w� 1115 s r r t if � $ t C.3 t F.J x i7 t G:5 ff H St U 11 fl •�� t � � � ff U. } t r r t It H w otftip-G1� tcmx , � I tt #fi510+O r•,L'S.gSLS•. t C3 Vt 1 G1 CJ #f if i tx li w.#•- 1 t q kP N c CS LS J3I = t G CV r d2 N i }.LL r tr-tr d t C5rr N qq H G1 ft pp 4. r HN tiS V' t GC r S t It tt. tt.ft Y r t3 LCs tl t 0000 1 c Q o t 000 t Ct o o It f S rxffig t •••th N .S } [ 1 t t if ft g fI+ tl 6 r < ••-�t t r•.•-} iv. r. rr r q C9 q q t d C t O d CY r 00 1�1 iF tli r Y a+ wt C3 t Y1 L #Pt 6 [ 6!s Lt5 t Yl LtY LC# t #Ct i[t#ri 1t H S N 11 1 H 4t t O i`3 L-t. •.. rr, r �Q 7+f tCS M t �3 j+'.?'� 1 •O K}K'J r VS V:J+LS 15 H LS t • • •-r tV Q. I tr'#try tr CCf t tr•t*x }}}} r r CL i+ ft d r t r 1 I} 11 W a 14 ` ti 1" — u ' f r it if w Lw.F it t t s IfIf G f ,., : c.f to • x r t`S Cry M t K r * e # 15 i4t H tHt 1h it d' t M"t'�'-•i r r W a- r .. F W t 5 r r 11 !-G# fl sL Y tY C f#- t "h tX3 fe•r t C3p�'<- 1 G 1T N t r t0 v? SI eC•••r Ct +.•• (t U't r r rt Ct vD i Gtt#�• t tD a•- t .¢tr iCt G GC 9 W fi } *j#.. i d d r 4'f 0 in�"f17 t d'tr1 t r e•+ t a•r N�.Y ti tlL IGC 7i �{ Qa^^*•�3• < �^--•--•31'HC St v r t iC aY N st {rLt iC1= 11 �:'SS Va! (j{I� t S-• � t- W�F +IK t f i i � C d�C} i ?••tL}-•-•^�-t C3 r q t y-+�-�0 S� � t gg t?� y r xe•- t t O t tlN. QH i f i t tdfj it L } kn t C t 41 = 11 dl r t t t t +C..,5 ii 1-• a# it tC t i t t t L. It to If t 1F 1 t L"Y r t t CC f••• t N C¢e- t 8.S7t Pr3 t N*O o 1t t LL7 , t •*%Cdt t r w n t ih•i7 r" t r+IV iN 11} f7#GS !I =X H t b C7 CS Lit } ..1 t fry i1't r- r kt;'M t r xW t it't IV I. If t-J H '�W t x , tY `t G} r t s r It I p ti s, }f > t It 11 N i f w r p-�`tti fir• 1 1 t t t W I$ .d ' t!t 111SStt 09 #}} e x t r 4 r r. t i•t r r•r t +� it O L1 tF f?t'" r r t 3f s i r+s^w t 3'r++.r-, + iL".^tL+- &; 1- t i..t= 7C p 1 1} F- t ..+ �✓#•-..t t .r t-..d t .r F+_Ir 11 p ( N tX Cit tf .'C r r.r v F vers v a+ t w+v it -,S CC tS `..•.' Yom-7t tt iVYI G# It C W t fi#k- If ,'E I W r 5"„$5•- r M r S #-tt !�M i F-Vt L�iS} r C7 W t t x9 t'11 W t Gh tr 4i. x LSI 0-G Sar it CS.Y• t1 =r ttf r f tS } r .. #i.t r U.1 t S tit x L'i f i•••+ H !4 CH w t I I.- U.1 - iir t1 C1 r F-d F r GG F•-J t tY t�.i i GC N St ! }: Bt 5 r 'C 1 }"` = 9 11 `� r 1 t t !i t!C3 If If t-• r #�- r w = L3 2 t N 34 t e i x ft #F +C�- u., rJ } fy 0 t 1J t Lit q t t itz i x co ++ �a ft v w 1 d I_ 1% 11 r f In t W t 11 1t - t f. LLS Ott M 7 l s i s x ti f? iS G1 iY + S � S ZL' it it CD w 10 C:= G'3 ti � t t:'? #t r (A to Ix If +X i1 U r .CS 3 m PIC It 0 f#d iS n fi si , S w L t. 11 t-.""+ i tl , i� Ul C5 tt it i r ° cz saw R • t n it t !-- -+ 1 >x r t� , C7 , tl , CS 1 tt 11 11 '� < iC9 in W CII ti ti 31 7if 0 it t,... A I( CSS t i9 t W tt s - tti 1i O , o &,r.*W CQ � G.p'�6 d , M F-.t C9 ; "�7 0•+6 R if /l fl .Y , GG +- N�0 01 to W , O N ig-C7 , CT a,LS CS , K#M i to H ` _ GSCC06 i o op ! OiNt4ot�tt ` rdJr�O it it •• u n# n IL u1 r14 tae cioCCiot� , C;ot3Ci 4 Ltid j c>cia it it SF M. it s fi U #R PC it l �� h 11 i + ft If. -. r- auo.. n r a R � t if it if , It In t i it _W t t"'4 _> h. It OO CId 00 t OOOd , i;JOlatl r C>OCS it it ii Y+ n t V ++ if G t 1!'4,11 itl 11136 1#'S , L#1 it't ia't Nt + vIt in Un tri , 2 M!8 if ff n it U n ' Q 0 d - I} d t V3 J,S v(S K)•Ct.CI 4 +$"no•O`O r sL7.4 10*CS + - - 11 it (f) 41 w R M + • 11 C.. , a--r-r e-r rr- , v.-r k-r s e. r -.0-e- U ti C f1*"1 11 R] , a- r r It n O if 0 n 0 + Cn ii 43 i t + It u if if L. 11, R � t!! , r ` [ ti bC n in , t-N +�c- - - M S Q tE r t A b•` If C Ff O n ttl , u..K1 t . w + G'J a-� ftttttt 044 , R w !I C<d✓ tf 0 If In w r ,-••�••• •-+ 0 #1 w W t Y It 34 L$ , ..t .'Y S QS 14 1-- , O+S#•••,7 r.e- t q Vr N K} , C3 Y•tS v7 f p O••ti N Q+-+ n G3 CS tt + I4 CS,••' �- iY iRt r N M M + V7'Q> 1t1 f'-N N , .,� If S.".� 71 W a+ 31 it F+h O d' e- r .tl'd i✓ it if w 11 -2 1 +s + , e 114 >-wLY #Yi pL xS Y SY _ r >L r S 4S tD + + + s Yt H KI Y i• CL It.c Is it } L. it LMCS tU `" Q..4 n it It— n 2 , M^J'N t Ct'1 vt N s f�.S+O ' a D+•G R + 7 Yt . �g it + 13 ++ + t',K w tF + N , O .L# + 111 h N r it1.f f' b w It H _ it t1.it it Q It SIl .�- +rr r h it in N }+it + if e < .r r A tf t�.. It W it ` • t e U , v s..'w , EN•"+•r. 5 C>:.^�•-. s �'+•^iF 7 w St Lr,. i �y , U F•- < F-..� + , v 4-....1 v f-.-„! H J I� {SI It , p + W d' O ti. rir , v v + v v v v , v W It J 4,' It L1 Y it G it r+�+ r r tV #'- s3's II W ,.3 s 1- i.L , ►- R 4 SSt## W vY- If,... it W UJ tt , ==I-, , S 1- , S r- , x tl H tl h S- ❑ #- n W + is tSC U. + C> If If ilS t UJ } U( "p+ W e S ft3 •-+S w , «..S 314 tt+-+.+ 34 O X It ft ti as ` ' . i W 'd W it '$ + aY M_.J W f+W r Cys h-J S- tY f+..!tiW i rY r J it tt��3 lu '- fl7 St if i- 7 to C3 z+ flf f1 1 i s 11 f€X S-- G tt 006 It;S. c L Y + LIS = - n r t>a m > as In R C? < L.I , ..J i-. S 11 + '2 , VS r uJ r if n R ttl if t i a r tt it it if N U i ttS �¢a it a X it a tf 14 f tt N R it h it + s r i s U tt "t U tl it ` iwi'1 rh tXY>- R d W W + ir3 , N n#�.rW4 i! t5 . F N kL tr It G CJ + of + h •3' In if Zi7 !t Q it if 4cw ffi �l U w s W} � In d FS B It 11 S W if L 1- N#-> G N wt tl #f CL a : i.} to tt -L) 9. it 2 ii n air c ti Yt ff INif it t ti et U. R 1L W tt C] s CM311M�pm i da-Nh , #�ryf oY in10i 0']NN t it S 3Y t- ..I tt 3:,1,•.: , CS d tY}+ CS C} f O h.0 , f•-.O�+M r GL'vl r t4 it i3 If.>t it m u r , c>r N r-M t+t t O c :n < Ct r ru + .-un o li a u4 s r 41 _ if is 00 1 c �. , ornNtn , tl.res 1Y 11it a . tt N it o i't n t oc>oc+�sc; + c;cari 5oci+ c � li it it ii a i 11 q d It { ii ` i e ; S Il h i , 4f it -�..•`+ n• R s O d CS C?O GS r O O d f3 + Q t7 O GJ , O d t�1! n +. G , fh Wt 111 Ilt"I"1 , 10 2 Irl Ul a U'1 U"i 111 ifl , t/1 Ul 1tf 1 Y{ S e tl O O piff +eC + 1D•4'>-0 KI+n%Q + �C`t.O�•C? , +o•U.0•t3 , •O KS•C U N s3 CL. It Q e- r a+- i w r-e- s --r- I x-r r it It w m� n d 1Y O ti•C if D + s N If i f t , , t f' It J tRt 0.` {t s i i Il 1 Is + it 1-0 r r7 i3 'LI Q it e , II O {t "..w i1 c> n th t in o ++ It=4, U its If 63 dS ' w hl---+-, r- W r ,.-•,•- - fy fi IyJµI , x. • i3 + K ,E ` " tr IN U 4- f 6 0^-h 1�-w•.3' a O fh b + N N'+1 �"N fi d«»If t x C L !f itS r r-7 v-XY t x+-.y c r CV tti M t !f! .+'i um`✓ow u11 U i• + tt r 3 r hO 4, it NN , L@Mus , n CRfiG5 z Wt + ` a tt ''w it # t OS n`.. i tS- t3 ti ttJ li Q If 5 C, N C C Iid n C7 Is tlI It CL U cc 4 H tll n d r W 2 it a M- ' v v v -1 11 d LU , < , 7 t.I LLS n M-fn n + it t., Ptt N.5 s N R 9 R r e-nJ' t ill e-ag . �-N to s J•Lh ti 6t U f-X >.. +r W I CD..1 , , M N + SS"t M � N h tl F-.,t it w W O • 1Y It ; it in if y.n It + Ui + < 4 A ) r r #S-1 M 116'tC 1 IN 11 W 11 s s t# + }W tt W 2 F , v f+-.d } L v 1-..3 , w 1'^.J s v f-d U III ti ii ...r 4t CS ' •S N N I1 r .✓..,r , .+v i +✓.�✓ c w.r v Il.,I tY' 0 GS ry C #) F 1., r S e Ul N �- YI U.1 , 4.- JS5...t K r t� ..1 w If+5 1! G s 473 < M its n f S.""S s- t 2..�t- t S d ii w , b7 t'tt is.+ + + , d Er-ts+ , E w L-.+ s C'3 LY ti ii Ci 2 tS to.. Q 11 it LOU , S + € , rtn Lu r S w , ••:G LU , ..S W CI !-w. ii 'd X i— s4 it , Le r- #-r+- , if ii i! w Fd- Cie .2+ in to + ' S ii i ;Z + fn i w + 2 if ii it •, It •-.G t L.1 ) -1 F GZ` M t ul ! .Z• t » S 'A -C r U ri 11 FI 11 t Cit , III , m , » = M 0 10 Its It 67 +a Ls y m ii it ({ 3 II fi _ it -1 r-s x , -r r-t�7 + -1 r-1 7a ! -�.-1-i q I M -1 ft it I m:6.••• , M S.. + M s-+ 1 M 5.r , G U i testi i ©Dmi7 11 It Il Z C7 If +-nm 0 }"M a7 0 !,11 7td rt v.v.•i t! (�li It -t-4 it -tI N CS1 to aU�7O 11 t ri 1t it of It cn II t . ! ! !� •rT. tD t r MC It a.evV i vvv i �r�.r� ; r vv'm , N n , •:.. f 1 I % tt tai Asa`.. ! hyS 1 it AN i 3t"r' s Www + VWw + r•O- tt fmri a 0 i -c't If 1! MT tt'i�t 7 It An A U f1•iV w ! •O'V N t #o VI I 0 A N + M a* it ~f .fir , 1 , I m b 1I r n +� n ! m rbif ! I ! ! 1' pX M t a Z rt AG7 + 3 rltt7 iE m n N �a ma r 7 » # It� 1 rmel It i C4. ",i .)•.•- - y. t--��-W NO iO a t( � it tY• S N ! Ri y'�-+t s N N I a a s r C t "1 C F'• '� r `i` Q om * � ii �7 iI m E » tart lsO -�Nt• l CVi WNs Pww ofSwVW c }p it i7 f 6»4 N w t G�ti V Nrn i Jt��*o P i•+i�Ci i r7 M M�Ui M Zi b7+ r , U o tt rt , .. .. ,._. .NMI is a•-.1 t w-+ + o u rot»it v : -4 h -t PiI1t1 � Ait It a W taws. ! wtTwP • tro o• PPPihC7• + a•• i• p i lin 1t A 1 ii » o ui eo vi . cy w d ur , us irh vl r u,vl vi+»yr r r� cy .t n ll 11 Coco � 0000 i coo= i 000000 , -i +1 "� 'G-� �r y i � Iya� 4 µµt m �+A` t1 i i t i It 1 s e i •t°1!�1 N It+�'+ 1t }I CS7d0 00450 Coco [ OO+C9430� i �� { P N W+� k. i U % CI U Npaa s 3�NOC I ••+-+00 t 0434#00 ! el ti it . � if O4:i NA ! t�+•+J tiny t PA.rC s c�PNA26i ! -f`•.I T. {I -►•t1 Vy I tTJ P w t C3-+t5m W , ti,�t w(:7 N d d ! P7 U r -� m m p tit+I If . Jr t0tXN 6'. , OCS:i4AiT r> t 0 M S cl U it 11it u o u n It tj O i i i C'P y �C+7 473 SA ! �{' 0 In I it lay. S ! 41 it I p�t 0 , '•�! , y ! 0+ t `.n+It a 0 -M M1 U�Y , it 11 m p9 2t V1 t N r O i p i } tt -t Sts N M , a d 3t ! , I r 1 d�• r e »Wu 2 It 11 , to ! m , tit !}C tt 1 r �t1 1 N 4 4t_ -4 m 1 - r r M 1 -4 M , -�-4-4 -4 So , O N m -4 r '� Il i -11,10 G.1 -111 MS-+ , MS•+ t Mx�-+ , m5— , G 11 r -i Cri it Y Com] a #M m Gs t #TI 7a Cs , #-n Sb Cs 1 # t #M=G'S r m a {t -1+! tt --i sY.S 1 -i t.�Y , -f G + -1 C s » UT , w i 41 P7 8•!t r�P _M FI MIX tt 7O -t s 70 -t , r -! t yG r�s -� ! M t P Vl + S i N '� p tom• it to CI SV r it ^w , +`�.-. . ^— , —r t = 1 W 'V 0 i 31 1i I�Q 'X ti N it r-•3 , r-1 l++ , r-i+'• ! # t--4.+� 1 --i iI v If M�+,it V`✓.ii 1 v�.+,� , v w Sts It 11 Ht9 It 1111�z 24 C3 + G--+1 V ,""" y ! 1! 11 Iit t 3 blit ! 1 • . D fl L/y i9 47 tf tis ; ! . { » -a r N1 n It -t w 1 , rel tt M i sIs a Is m ., .. G w sf +". 1 It •f3'V tfil s OT'V w s W tb wl 1 w'V S�* • x »-4 , Ei " Ot N -! i ! ! , r mb 11 r A n t`VC tt r> tt + ! 1 . rit x7 aS a 13 -n Ut79a 1 s s s IiA --1 43 -t a t3 t -.Vt-i + Ift�6 tt U31 r {� q `Si w 1»t i i i i 9 I! rn11 It's X i All-d it , r • + C C x -+ -rr + 1 41 t it O It M K' Il , r , i 45 L It "fl 7C >, . .{o.�• .1a I U it .�+•- t m Ct W If w N , tx a LI1 , ! , r C t( 's C-.1r- '�7 ttm y m a ( w -.167r , Ca Vs-+a ! -y1 Pty. , tIt 610 A + In Isl to b CF o i •, tt N'C5-d ut , o cta V w , P Oo Oso ! G C-.,1 w.d cr ! -1 3 M I'm» 7c" -�• •+ M a ,.---..- iTs , O { w tCn ti M O If , # + >� + sF 0 rt Cs-+ 1 triit It tO it tt -•I U • I it I A -1 V V It • tt i • i , 1b Ill 4� I* �w.. _... II it waw-+ . W irla , a-iaa , .rra-sar ! -tl 11 tg i � 11 N tt G `�( » II w01 L4 s WCY•WP + PvCa� 1 PPti•PtAa ! b 11 r, C -+ t7 tt I C.1 Vs d 61s , d V!rn to ! ut cJs to us ! 4n s7t txe 6ri t7s to 1 U O rr n 9 tt tt dGCC r ©oob ! CGsOd 1 CdtOGmCf s it 1 wi +C•-- + + sem• y i FI tD f eA � � ti � i i � ii N ~• � n x t � Dt ►- u t o�ldc / csoo,a ! 000c t 0000tact • ti 17214 1!! N -+d•QO r a0.-110 1 tSSdCJ C00dC�0 s bs„It O 0 tv7 w ! V•CS 111 W , iw i'-d 6 ! W W b m tg 0 ! -t'�. U x 4 . b it t3 toi tis W W ! t.»vs 0.Cts , 0-410 , 0 CS A to.So d 1 Sri 11 r -1 x t mtSD^yN , —No= ! WwN.+NC ! 31 M � _ 0 M ii Mit a _ I > t t 1 , I tf -I C S b it 1 1 , s 1 it ` --2jry tib tt { m it I i i i ri it tri fJs 1Ji `•G It If 11 a !f it t d . N , y�•1 �0 tmli in tt iV!t t� , w ! Jt. + �` ' > Z th~ s 11 d h 11 b'V it i7. , m ! -!, t ..► ! ,: ;0. te zIf W. It Q i i i f1 -m ITS 1 irl Y i 11`r if !t B s r t e ll 11 • b 1 1 0 11 _ . ADMINISTRATIVE//DRAFT EER CYPRESS GROVE APRIL 2003 Mitigation Measure None required, 3.3-2 Implementation of the proposed project would place urban la:ii&uiies within r ! a primarily agricultural area :wh ch may impair agricuiltural production and result in land use compatibility conflicts. The project site is adjacent to existing agricultural uses designated for development toe f- east and north. A project's compatibility with surrounding uses is largely based on the interaction of the proposed use and the extent to which adjacent land uses will be affected ` by this interaction. The primary areas of concern associated with this project would be a residential-agricultural interface that would be created along the eastern boundary of the project site, north of Cypress Road. r- The property to the east of the project site has most recently been farmed to produce grains and other crops for a dairy that has recently been sold which is located to the north of the project site, across the Contra Costa Water District Canal. Although the dairy has i been sold, agricultural operations may persist on the farmland to the east of the project site. Overall, potential land use conflicts can be discussed from the perspective of the farmer and from the perspective of the residents that would occupy the project area. From the farmer's perspective, agricultural production can be adversely affected as a result of restrictions on pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide use, trespassing and pilferage, increased personal injury liability as a result of trespassers, and littering of the fields. From the perspective of the residents of the project area, adjacent agricultural land uses may result in a number of nuisances and perceived hazards, such as concern over pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide use on adjacent properties, odors, dust, and slow moving vehicles. These potential land use interface conflicts can individually or cumulatively decrease the efficiency of farming operations, which can cause production costs to rise, and make farming operations less sustainable. Should agricultural operations persist on the farmland to the east of the project site, the project could result in significant impacts due to the impairment of productivity and land use conflicts. Mitigation Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of the impact; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable: 3.3-2 Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. CHAPTER 3.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3-9 Aran INISTRAT E!1 DRAFT EIP CYPRESS GROVE APRIL 2003 Cumulative Impacts 3.3-3 Cumulative Loss of Agricultural Land The Contra Costa County General Plan incorporates an UrbamLimit<,Line (ULL) and has established a minimum 40-acre lot size for prime agricultural.lands-outside the Urban Limit Line. The entire Oakley Planning Area is located-inside the County ULL and was, therefore, determined generally for urban development. .Although the General Plan Policies and Programs proposed to be implemented do preserve a buffer between urban development and agricultural land, the Oakley General Plan is primarily completing the urbanization of this area as originally intended by the County. As mentioned above, sixty-five (65)percent of the County is protected as undeveloped. The Oakley Planning Area falls in the thirty-five (35) percent that is designated for development. In addition, currently agricultural resources are fragmented and commercial agriculture is substantially compromised. The Oakley 2020 General Plan DEIR states that the General Plan accommodates agriculture while providing for the balanced needs of the City (General Plan DEIR, p. 3-77). Therefore, cumulative development within the ULL resulting from the buildout of the General Plan would not result in a significant regional and/or statewide loss to Prime Farmland. The incremental environmental effect of the General Plan on agriculture is determined to be less-than-significant upon implementation of the Policies and Programs of the Oakley 2020 General Plan(Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR,pp. 3-75,77). Mitigation Measure None required. Endnotes ' Phase I and Screening Level Phase 11 Environmental Assessment, Cypress Creek Project, Oakley California, McLaren/Hart,Inc.0 May 25,2000. 2 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Proposed Residential Development, South of Cypress Road, Oakley, Contra Costa County,California,KC Engineering, I5 March, 2001. s Soil Survey of Contra Costa County,California,US Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service, 1977. + California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance,Contra Costa County, 1995. Contra Costa Important Farmland 2000 Map, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,2000. 6 Oakley 2020 General Plan, City of Oakley,August 30,2002. CHAPTER 3.3—AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES . -i 0 r Y Jj r ; 3.4 AESTHETIC t � i f } .a DRAG -r EIR CYP'REss GRo vE MAY 2003 i 3.4 AESTHETICS INTRODUCTION This section of the EIR describes existing visual and aesthetic resources for the project site and the region, and evaluates potential impacts of the project with respect to urbanization of the area. In addition, the regulatory context associated with aesthetic duality is described. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)describes the concept of aesthetic resources in terms of scenic vistas, scenic resources(such as trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway), the existing visual character or duality of the project site, and light and glare impacts. q The following impact analysis is based on information drawn from the Cypress Grove Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines),' the Oakley 2020 General flan Background Report,' the Oakley 2020 General Plana and its associated EIR.' In addition, a site survey was conducted by Raney Planning&Managemennt, Inc. staff during January, 2002. i ENVIRONMENTAL:SETTING i The following setting information provides an overview of the existing condition of the visual resources in the Cypress Grove area,located within the Oakley City Limits in eastern Contra Costa County. The Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report stated that Oakley's rural setting provides ? views of open agricultural areas to the south and west, and the Mount Diablo to the west. The urbanized area generally consists of a mix of homes,businesses, churches, and schools. The Oakley 2020 General Plan designates the project area as Single Family Residential, High Density (north of Cypress Road and the eastern portion of the Conco South Property) and Multi-Family Residential, High Density(western portion of the Conco South Property). The proposed project site is located within the city limits and consists of three combined properties: the Williamson property (64.7 acres), and both the northern and southern Conco properties (49.7 and 32.3 acres). The three properties combine to create the total 147-acre site, j upon which approximately 541 single-family homes and.96 multi-family units would be developed. Oakley Union Elementary School District owns a rectangular property that creates a north-south notch between the Williamson property and the northern Conco property on the north side of Cypress Road. The School District has opened the 800-student Delta Vista Middle School on the site and plans to open a 700-student elementary school on the southern end of their property in 2004. The project site is bordered to the west by the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, and beyond by State Route 4 (SR-4) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company (BNSF Railroad); to the 's east by undeveloped farmland; and to the north by the Contra Costa Water District Canal. The -` southern portion of the site (Conco Property) is located just south of Cypress Road. Dense grass covers the site. A house, two mobile trailers, a metal storage unit, and a barn are located in the CHANTER 3.4-AESTHETICS 3.4-1 DRAFT Elf? CYPRESS GROVE MAY2VG3 western potion of the site, along with several trees. Several smaller buildings are also evident which possibly served as tank- or pump-houses. A site visit undertaken by Raney Planning& Management, Inc. in 2002 provided the photos shown in Figure 3.4-1. Unique Visual Features The Cypress Grove project site area is agricultural in nature, flat in elevation, and primarily undeveloped. A number of existing features are visible from the site, including the elevated portions of the $NSF Railroad and the Contra Costa Water District Canal. The Delta Vista Middle School (on the partially developed school site) stands out as the only visible development to the north of Cypress Road. The landscape to the south of Cypress Road is characterized by rural scenery and a number of dispersed residential structures and outbuildings. In addition, Mount Diablo can be seen from the project site. Mount Diablo is considered a scenic resource by the Oakley 2020 General Plan (p. 6-28). Mount Diablo can be seen from almost anywhere in the City,but mostly from those streets running east and west(i.e., Cypress Road). Marsh Creek waterways are also considered a scenic resource by the Oakley 2020 General Plan (p. 6-28). Marsh Creek forms the western boundary of the project site. The City has indicated its desire to protect and preserve these valuable scenic resources. Project Features Linder the proposed project, the Williamson property would be divided into 240 single-family lots of varying size, with lots increasing from the southern to the northern boundary of the property. The northern Conco property would have 201 single-family lots, also divided into varying lot sizes that increase from the southern to northern boundary of the property. Conco's southern property would feature a single-family detached neighborhood of 100 similar sized lots on its eastern side. An internal roadway and park amenity would separate the eastern community from the 96 multi- family dwelling units developed on the property's western side. The Cypress Grove project site is located in the Cypress Corridor Special Planning Area. The Cypress Corridor Special Planning Area encompasses approximately 2,371 acres of land located both north and south of Cypress Road(Oakley 2020 General Plan, p. 2-21). The Planning Area is bounded by the San Joaquin Delta on the north, Marsh Creek on the west, the BNSF Railroad on the southwest, Sellers Avenue and East Cypress Road on the southeast, and Jersey Island Road on the east. The Cypress Grove project site would serve as a gateway to the greater Cypress Corridor area. The City of Oakley 2020 General Plan states that one of its goals(2.9)is to establish a sense of entry at Oakley's boundaries, to enhance individual identity of Oakley's neighborhoods and to establish unified design themes throughout the City(Oakley 2020 General Plan,p. 2-11).The Final Development Plan Design Guidelines'for the CHAPTER 3.4-AESTHETICS 3.4-2 i DRAFT Elf? CYPREss GRo vE j MAY 204.3 J FIGURE 3.4 -- f SOUthWasd't°iew atrass Cyprtss Road from school site. 4 � , .r { Jt key I Photo I RP&M FIGURE 3.4 � I Vic>+ vCtile u fSeaSt ccrner of s�hol sire from Frank 3leztrd Drive, n. r awl KSS 14 t 4 8 1 Photo 2 RP&M CHAPTER 3.4—AESTHE'T'ICS 3.4-3 DRAFT E/R CYPRESS GRO vE MAY2003 FIGURE 3.4 -- 1 Ini .rsec ion of Oypress Road and Frank Hviied$rive,viewing mtbward;IS . Photo 3 RP&M FIGURE 3.4 -- I L'i<^w along w€:sibound Cypress Road from Frank Hcngel Dr.intersection. 3 ti'u 3� V,x \ bpMN k � f 0 �a Photo 4 RP&M CHAPTER 3.4—AESTHETICS 3.4-4 ._. . .................................. DRAT-7 EiR CYPRESS GROVE 1 MAY 200.3 FIGURE 3.4 -•- I i'i«w al<�ra r astl ucar9 ;v rc.ss?2cs ed£rtsrrt Frank Hengrl Dr.intrrsectjon l i ° l l ------------ Photo 5 RP&M FIGURE 3.4 -- 1 xw ac rays Gess Id ter tb er num{rest of the oI site. a 3 C„.7 Photo 6 RP&M CHAPTER 3.4—AESTHEfCS 3.4-5 DRAFT E/R CYPRESS R 0 VE MA r2003 FIGURE 3.4 — I �;F a 'd t' .fi ,�✓:' .Vi=i c IilSi=Railroad. a z Photo 7 RP&M FIGURE 3.4 — I ypress Bridge over Marsh CrceL, viewing soutlzc:ast,. z Photo & RP&M CHAPTER 3.4—AESTHETICS 3.4-6 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2©03 FIGURE 3.4 -- 1 ' i v amass pm "d to x1x , rt1s � s c�#sr3�s 1 tc `3 1 a �' + _ t 4 Photo 9 Rpam j FIGURE 3.4 -- I L irw at ENSF Ra�Ix aacl c�1'Marsh{Trek and I raTt, �e via rcarth st e�, Y qa: 1, Y +� sl i Photo 10 RP&M CHAPTER 3.4--AESTHETICS 3.4-7 DRAFT-EIR CYPRESS GRO VE MAv,2003 Cypress Grove project would achieve Goal 2.9 of the Oakley 2020 General Plan because the guidelines provide for entry monuments along Cypress Road and a consistent design theme for its individual neighborhoods and entry monuments. REGULATORY CONTEXT The following applicable goals and policies are from the Oakley 2020 General Plan: Signage and Monumentation: Goal 2.9 Establish a sense of entry at Oakley's boundaries, to enhance individual identity of Oakley's neighborhoods and to establish unified design themes throughout the City. Policy 2.9.1 Pursue the construction of community entry monuments at key locations, including but not limited to: Highway 4/Main Street immediately east of Highway 160, Neroly Road and Empire Avenue; Neroly Road and O'Hara Avenue; Highway 4 and Delta Road; and, Cypress Avenue at a location to be determined. - Policy 2.9.2 Require the construction of project monurnentation to clearly identify the location and entry to major residential and commercial development projects, as deemed appropriate. Scenic Resources: Goal 6.7 Preserve the scenic qualities of the Delta Waterway, Marsh Creek, and views of Mount Diablo. Policy 6.7.1 Preserve and enhance views of the Delta and Mount Diablo to the extent possible. Policy 6.7.2 New development and redevelopment along the Delta, adjacent to Marsh Creek and throughout the City should take advantage of view opportunities and visual impacts to the waterway and Mount Diablo, respectively. Open Space Resources: Goal 6.6 Preserve and enhance existing open space resources in and around Oakley and balance open space and urban areas to meet the social, environmental and economic needs of the City now and for the future. Policy 6.6.1 .Establish buffers from adjoining land uses to protect the natural open space resources in the City. Policy 6.6.2 Preserve and enhance the watershed, natural waterways, and areas important for the maintenance of natural vegetation and wildlife populations. Policy 6.6.3 Encourage access and improvements along the City's waterways, particularly the San Joaquin Delta, Marsh Creek and Dutch Slough. CHAPTER 3.4—AESTHETICS 3.4 -8 DRAE'T E/R MAY,2003 Policy 5.6.4 Where feasible and desirable, major open space components shall be combined and linked to form a visual and physical system in the City. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1 Standards of Significance An impact to the aesthetic values of the proposed Cypress Grove project area would be considered significant if any of the following conditions would potentially result from implementation of the { proposed project: • a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect, by which the existing visual _i quality of the site is degraded; a major obstruction of a public view; • potentially objectionable views (e.g. urban development on vacant property without landscape or other buffer; substantial new lighting source in otherwise unlit area); or • substantially altered open space that is neither in, nor near, urban or urbanizing land tr uses. j Method of Analysis R The section below gives full consideration to the development of the project site and acknowledges the physical changes to the existing setting. Impacts to the existing environment of the project site are to be determined by the contrast between the site's visual setting before and after proposed development. In this analysis, emphasis has been placed on the transformation of the existing rural setting into a landscape characterized by proposed surface grading and residential buildout. Although few standards exist to singularly define the various individual perceptions of aesthetic value from person to person, the degree of visual change can be measured and described in a reasonably objective manner in terms of visibility and visual contrast, dominance, and magnitude. t { Current residents adjacent to the project site and travelers along the Cypress road would be considered sensitive to the visual and aesthetic alteration of the Cypress Grove area. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 Impacts related to altering the existing, agricultural character of the project site. The project site has a current appearance of being rural in nature. Implementation of the -# proposed project would replace the undeveloped, rural character of the project site (currently defined as agricultural open space)with an urban residential setting. Because the project site currently provides open views from the adjacent roadways and surrounding properties,the change in the character of the site would be recognizable. The change in the site from a rural to urban environment would constitute a permanent alteration of the existing visual character of the project site. However, the site has been designated for ku development in the Oakley 2020 General Plan. In addition, the Oakley 2020 General Plan I IR under Impact 3.2-B concludes that development anticipated in the General Flan would f { CHAPTER 3.4—AESTHETICS 3.4-9 DRAF;EIR CYPRESS GROVE M Y.2003 have a less-than-significant impact to the alteration of existing visual character or quality and urban design of the Planning Area if General Plan policies are implemented. The applicant has submitted Design Guidelines and requests approval of Design Review by the City for all structures, which would ensure that the proposed project would comply with applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than- significant. Mitigation Measures) .None required. 3.4-2 Impacts related to Light and Glare. The introduction of street lighting into parks, and throughout the residential development, would alter the currently unlit conditions in the project area. Night lighting would be easily evident to neighboring properties that are not accustomed to development on the site; however, the type of lighting would be typical of residential use and would not be expected to significantly impact neighboring properties. The development would not introduce lighting unlike that which already exists at other residences in the City of Oakley. However, this level of light would represent a substantial change from the existing condition; therefore, the impact would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. 3.4-2 During construction the developer shall install hooded andlor shielded street lights to avoid excessive lighting on adjacent properties far the review and approval of the Community Development Department, 3.4-3 Visual consistency within neighborhoods and throughout project area. A total of 541 single-family homes (138.7 acres) and 96 multi-family units (6.58 acres) would be constructed per the proposed development. Design Guidelines in the project Final Development Plan were prepared by Western Pacific Housing, KB Horne South Bay, Inc., and Pacific Communities, LLC, to establish criteria for the design of the individual subdivisions. Examples of guidelines for proposed single-family homes include, but are not limited.to: • one- and two-story building elements; • usable front porches and varied front elevations; • garages with several orientations, including turn-in, rear, and recessed alignments; and • architectural treatments and detailing, facades, texture, and color, encouraging use of brick, stone and tile. For proposed multi-family residences, the guidelines include, but are not limited to: CHAPTER 3.4--AESTHETICS 3.4-10 DRAF7 E1R CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 • front elevations designed to appear as a cluster of individual homes rather than one single building; • variation in floor plans and/or roof forms in rear elevations and parking enclosures, and • unified building materials and color scheme for proposed residences, carports, and equipment/trash enclosures. r In addition, the architectural plans for the multi-family residences include the following details: o three-story building element with triangular roof pitches of various heights; i • composition shingle roofs(Elk Prestique raised class A) and vinyl windows; and • Hardplank Straight Edge shingle panel and Hardplank 8" smooth lap siding rear building texture, and a smooth painted texture for the front of the buildings. Guidelines related to landscaping and roadway infrastructure, feature components such as dense shrubbery and large trees, decorative walls, pedestrian/bike paths, and jogging trails. Overall, the proposed dwelling units, streetscapes, park areas, rights-of-way and trees have been designed to provide aesthetic variations within a unified visual standard; and would therefore be consistent with the Design Guideline's objective stated as follows: "The intent of the standards is to ensure consistent, high quality development of a planned community..." (Design Guidelines, p. 4). Therefore, compliance with the Design Guidelines would ensure that the impact would be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures) None required. 3.4-4 Impact on surrounding scenic resources. The project site is at the boundary between the City of Oakley and Contra Costa County. Therefore, the project site would be considered a "gateway" into the city. The Oakley 2020 General Plan indicates that one of its goals is to establish a sense of entry at Oakley's boundaries, to enhance individual identity of Oakley's neighborhoods and to establish unified design themes throughout the City. The project proponents have submitted Design Guidelines as part of the Final Development Plan application. The guidelines provide for entry monuments along Cypress Road. The guidelines also include landscaping and decorative walls along Cypress Road to minimize the visual impact of development along the scenic route. Therefore, the proposed project would be anticipated to support the goals and policies of the General flan 1 related to the creation of a gateway. { As previously mentioned, Mount Diablo can be seen from the project site and is considered a scenic resource by the Oakley 2020 General flan. The City wants to preserve the views of this scenic resource. The proposed project would be relatively low-profile, with. a CHAPTER 3.4---AEsTHETics 3.4-11 ADMINISTRATIVE l`I DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE APRIL 20013 the development. Mount Diablo is a prominent resource that can be seen from almost anywhere in the city. Marsh Creek forms the western border of the project site and is also considered a scenic resource by the City of Oakley. The project site is bordered on the north and east by agricultural land and on the south by agricultural land and some residential development. Therefore, very little residents exist in the project vicinity that would be affected by the project. All of the areas surrounding the project site are planned to be developed by the Oakley 2020 General Plan and therefore the project would be consistent with future 'land uses. In addition, a trail presently exists on the eastern side of Marsh Creek that would be preserved as part of the project so that the scenic resource could continue to be enjoyed. Therefore, the impact the impact of the proposed project to scenic resources would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None Required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.4-5 Cumulative impacts related to change in visual character of the region. The proposed project would contribute to the cumulative change in visual character of the eastern Contra Costa region from agricultural to residential. Due to the location of the project site within an agricultural area, the larger cumulative context of the visual impact of the proposed project could be considered as within the city as a whole. The property in the immediate vicinity of the project is designated for development by the Oakley 2020 General Plan. Therefore, in terms of the change to the visual character of the Cypress Corridor, development on the project site would be typical of what could be developed on the adjacent properties. Should development be allowed, the character of the area would change from flat agricultural fields and roadways to residences interspersed with trees. Development in the region, in addition to the development on the project site, would contribute to a significant change in the visual character of the area. Continued growth in the City of Oakley would result in a long-term change to the aesthetic character of the city, from areas of undeveloped open space to a developed environment. Such transition is already evident in many areas in and around the City of Oakley. As growth continues, the prevailing visual character would become predominantly residential with fewer open space areas. The proposed project would contribute to a significant cumulative transition of the project vicinity and the city as a whole from undeveloped to developed. Therefore, the impact would be considered significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Because feasible mitigation measures are not available, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. CHAPTER 3.4—AESTHETICS 3.4-12 j DRAF7 EIR CYPRESS GROVE SAY,200.E the alteration of existing visual character or quality and urban design of the Planning Area if General Plan policies are implemented. The applicant has submitted Design Guidelines and requests approval of'Design Review by the City for all structures, which would ensure that the proposed project would comply with applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-thorn-sign lcunt. r'Y MitiZation Measures) None required. Endnotes ' Cypress Grove Design Guidelines(Design Guidelines)0 December, 2001 z Oaklev 2020 General flan Background Report(Oakley GP Background)Q September,2001 s Oakley 2020 General Flan,City of Oakley,August 30,2002. `Oakley 2020 General PIan Environmental impact Report,City of Oakley,September,2002. L 'Design Guidelines.p.4. 3 { i � i 's i a } f CHAPTER 3.4—AESTHETiCB 3.4-13 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES c.j � I f r , i 3:_s i L i i j DRAFT EIR CYRREs.S GRn vE MAY 2003 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This biological resources analysis evaluates potential biological resource impacts associated with the proposed Cypress Grove project, and includes a discussion on the mitigation measures necessary to -than.-significant level where passible. Information contained in this reduce these impacts to ales analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the natural resources of the project site; examination of aerial photography, biological resources, and vegetation maps; and .held investigations, This analysis was prepared by Foothill Associates. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Setting r�Tj t ! The proposed Cypress Grove project is located on approximately 147 acres within the City of Oakley, in northeastern Contra Costa County(see Figure 3.5-1). The project site is located north and south of Cypress Read, just east of Highway 4, and is bounded to the north by the Contra Costa Canal, to the west by Marsh Creek and rural residential, and to the east and south by agricultural lands and rural residential. The project site surrounds a Oakley Union Elementary School District site, which is comprised of the Delta Vista Middle School and an elementary school that is proposed for construction on a portion of the middle school property. The Contra Costa Water District Canal (CCtVD Canal) segregates the project site from croplands to the north, and Marsh Creek forms the western boundary of the project site,separating undeveloped land from the project on the west. A Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) right-of-way runs ; through the southern limit of the project. Project Setting The proposedproject involves the construction of a residential development. This includes the construction of single-family residences, multifamily apartments, neighborhood parks, and associated infrastructure. In terms of storm drain infrastructure, the proposed project includes the ;s construction of a stormwater pond in the northeastern corner of the project site to accommodate runoff generated by the proposed project. Stormwater drainage would be pumped from the pond via a pump station to be located adjacent to the pond. The pump station would discharge through a 36"pipe that would run to the east,parallel to the Contra Costa Canal on the Emerson property,to Sellers Avenue where it would outfall to the south end of Emerson Slough (see Chapter 3.12, Figure 3.12-7 and Figure 3.12-8). } In order to reduce the risk of flooding, the project includes improvements to the Marsh Creek levee along the entire western boundary of the site between Cypress Road and the Contra Costa t�;<r Canal. In addition,the project would also be protected by a perimeter levee system around the A CHAPTER 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DRAFT EIR CYl3RE.SS GROVE MAY 2403 al NN 40 1 y+ r � d r�t ._.' a-.L`F r goo Yf$S�E,i�ort#� ju Ilk, } 3 l 5 IblrI.007. CYPRESS'I 7IN71" H. .: 6 �.. a �. A; a x jUSG5 7.5 Mm.Brentwood and jemey Island Quads* SITE AND VICIMTY �f00HILL ASSOCIATE S N �� scxxi q EMTIIQMMFIT IL CIMS$LTill$ • ILtMtiMC SCALE IN FEET �f URE 3. } LIIQSCktTiiCMCTICTIIf CYPRESS GROVE 02042 CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-2 DRAFT EER C'YPREss GRovE- r.., MAY2C;03 north and east sides of the project site, tying into the higher grades of Cypress Road on the south (see Figure 3.5-2). Other components of the project include, the expansion of a linear water main (extending from existing waterlines at Cypress Road along the BNSF railroad right-of-way throughprivatel y'owned f properties, crossing under the BNSF.Railroad,-and extending south along the easternn boundary of an existing residential development to the end of Laurel Read); and.creation of a Gateway to the Cypress Corridor (extending from the intersection of State Highway 4 and Cypress Road, eastward along Cypress Road to the eastern Conco property boundary), including widening the bridge over Marsh Creek and signalizing the access to the middle school, and modifying the existing multi-use trail system along Marsh Creek(see Figure 3.5-2). For purposes of this analysis, the "project site is defined as the area including all elements of the proposed project,as described above. The"project area"is defined as the area evaluated as part of the field investigations and literature search, generally encompassing the project site and areas within 500 feet of project site boundaries, including 250 foot corridors along the storwater and water line transects. The portion of the project site north of Cypress Road is currently used for cultural production f> � P l� j Yf' y l� (rove crops) and the portion of the project site south of Cypress Road is currently open space. j Elevations in the project site range from approximately 5 feet to 30 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). An abandoned residence with a few outbuildings occurs in the northwestern portion of the project site. Current land uses adjacent to the project site are agricultural and rural residential. Biological communities in this region of Contra Costa County include agricultural, annual grasslands, and open waters(canals, creeks, sloughs). Additional biological communities occurring throughout Contra Costa County include deltaic marsh(brackish, freshwater, and salt), mined oak woodland,riparian woodland, and seasonal wetlands. Vegetation and Wildlife The project site consists of agricultural lands that have been.modified by past land use practices such as grading, filling, cultivation, and irrigation. Cropland, consisting of annual grassland and ruderal (weedy) vegetation, represents the dominant habitat in the project site (see Figure 3.5-3). Other habitats identified include remnant interior dune,freshwater marsh, and a eucalyptus grove, which also includes many other non-native tree species such as tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) and Chinese elm 1' (Ulmus pare olia). Native tree species including coast live oak (Quercus agrifoha), California black w walnut(Juglans californica var. hindsii), English walnut(Juglans regia), Fremont-cottonwood(Populus fremontii), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), and ash (Fraxinus dipetala) are present on the property as well as non-native species. Much of the project site has been historically cultivated in j row crops, including alfalfa (Medicago sativa), tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and most recently barley(Hordeum vulgare). Cropland The majority of the project site appears to be routinely plowed or disked and portions support f cultivated crops during some years. The croplands are currently dominated by ruderal invasive vegetation typically associated with fallow fields. Plant species observed or expected to occur in f. CHAPTER 3.5--BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5 - 3 DRAF77 Efts CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 a PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE 'LeveeA3ignment{aff�ite) .. _.. � $iievee AGgrrmenT�on-site} Resrdenfiai Development Marsh Creek Bridge Expansion Outfall to Emerson Slough Water infrastruoture(off-site) . Water Infrastructure(on-site) a P� Pl a � v n s, a.. LspduserovidedbySycatrtwEeAstraistbsLLC .. PROPOSED DEVIOPEMENT AND PROJECT INFRWRUCTURE 4 I+DONIII ASSOCIAM r� r� tfr�atMxr£:xL ctttuLt�£f rLFxxttt A SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3.rJ`G Ltt62t FtE ttExif£E`YfE CYPRESS GROVE hxbA=.apr �2QE3 1 CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-4 DRAFT E'IR CYPRESS GROVE I MAY200.3 I ' HABITATTYEES " Eucafyotus Grove Freshwater Marsh EDInterior Dune i -9 Y � R �an.Re, x 71. " in E.and useo aeIWu�y+i�Ss�camem�Aakcrrlritau iLC�' VEGETATIVE CNIMUNITIES FOOTRILL ASSOCIATES Nsm i — low C�JI.� ++�� �.3 s+[ c[[scrf[I rt+irtt+ SCALE tNfEE1' ` i �E J.5`.Jr� CYMESS GROVE f is i CHAP-r ER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5 - 5 DRAF:`FIR CYP'RESS GROVE MAY2003 this vegetative community include annual ryegrass (Lohum multiflorum), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), Fitch's spikeweed (Hemizonia fitchii), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandfora), wild oats (Avena sp.), and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitiahs). The area immediately surrounding the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings in the northwestern portion of the project site consists of highly disturbed; sandy soils dominated by ruderal species. Cropland and ruderal land provide foraging habitat and cover opportunities for a wide variety of common wildlife species. Species expected to utilize these habitats within the project site include house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling (Stumus vulgaris), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamaicensis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), black-tailed jackrabbit(Lepus californicus), and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Interior Dune Interior dunes support a distinct vegetative community that occurs at low elevations in the vicinity of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, occupying deposits of sand or pockets of sandy soils formed from windblown stream deposits, on mounds and ridges that have become more prominent as the surrounding organic soils subsided. These areas generally occur on soils mapped as Delhi sand, Piper sand, and Piper fine sandy loam (USDA 1977). Typically interior dunes support an open, primarily perennial, winter- and spring-growing herbaceous community, often with scattered low shrubs or live oaks (Holland 1986). Interior dunes in the project site are similar to "stabilized interior dunes" as classified by Holland(1986). Within the project site, an area of remnant interior dune community occurs in the northeastern corner of the project site. The interior dune community is located on a topographic high, six to ten feet in elevation above the adjacent field. Soils in this area are mapped by MRCS as "Dehli sands" (USDA 1977). The dominant native species occurring within this community include bush lupine (Lupinus albifrons var. alb ons), California croton (Croton californicus), California poppy (Eschscholzia califomica), and slender buckwheat (Eriogonum gracile var. gracile). Associated ruderal, herbaceous vegetation includes telegraph weed, ripgut brume(Bromus diandrus), and Russian thistle. The interior dune community within the project site is highly disturbed due to historical land use practices in the project site. Little of the endemic wildlife is expected to remain within this habitat due to this level of disturbance. Wildlife species expected to utilize this habitat are similar to those described above for cropland. Additionally, California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) burrows were present throughout this habitat. The interior dune habitat could also support special- status species such as California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale) and silvery legless lizard(Anniella pulchra pulchra). Freshwater Marsh Freshwater marsh is characterized by erect, rooted herbaceous vegetation that can tolerate frequent flooding and a saturated root zone (Mayer and Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988). Within the project site, a small freshwater marsh occurs within the northeastern corner of the project site in the interior dunes community. This small marsh appears to be associated with an exploration hole that CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-6 -r EIR DRAF CYPRESS GRO VE MdY,2003 breached the water table approximately four feet below ground surface(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a). Although this marsh supports emergent vegetation such as common rule (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis),it was verified on January 15, 2003, USACE#200200334, as a non-jurisdictional area due to its isolation. Freshwater marsh also occurs on the Emerson property, theproperty adjacent to the project site, between the northeastern property boundary and the existing outfall into Emerson Slough.. This freshwater marsh habitat occurs within an artificial ditch, presumably associated with drainage or ' irrigation for the surrounding properties. This area was included within the wetland delineation for ' the Emerson and Burroughs properties (Sycamore Associates LLC. 1998), verified on December 7, 1998, USACE # 199800679, as a non-jurisdictional area. The tip of Emerson Slough at the location of the existing outfall also consists of tidally influenced freshwater marsh and supports common wetland vegetation. Species noted in these areas by Sycamore Associates include native species such as California oatgrass (Danthonia califormica), common rush(Juncus effusus var. pacfii cus), i' common large monkey-flower (Mirnulus guttatus), foothill sedge (Carex tumulicola), iris-leaf rush ij (Juncus xiphivides), low bulrush (Sci pus cernuus), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum ssp. brachyantherum), narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustxfolia), Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), and umbrella sedge(Cyperus eragrostis). Freshwater marsh habitats support a wide variety of common and special-status wildlife species. Species diversity in these habitats is generally high; however, the marsh habitats within the project site are small and localized, and may not provide as much species diversity as larger marsh areas. Species likely to utilize this habitat include great blue heron(Arden herodias), marsh wren(Cistothorus palustris), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), song sparrow (Melospiaa melodia), yellow warbler ( androica petechia), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla). Additionally, numerous waterfowl species may utilize this habitat. Contra Costa banal and Marsh Creek Contra Costa Canal and Marsh Creek occur immediately adjacent to the project site. Both aquatic systems are separated from the project site by an existing levee system. The Contra Costa Canal is an artificially modified trapezoidal channel that is regularly maintained. Little aquatic vegetation occurs within the main channel, but some trees occur along the levee banks. Similarly, Marsh Creek has been channelized adjacent to the project site and is regularly maintained for flood control. Small amounts of emergent aquatic vegetation occur along the edges of the channel banks. J Creek habitats traditionally provide foraging habitat and cover opportunities for a wide variety of resident and migratory wildlife species. Modified open water systems like those within the Contra Costa Canal and Marsh Creek support a lower diversity of wildlife species, but would still be expected to support species such as bullfrog and Pacific chorus frog in addition to avian species such as great blue heron, great egret (9rdea alba), and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Flue to the close proximity to Big Break, Dutch Slough, and the San Joaquin River, Marsh Creek could occasionally provide temporary foraging and dispersal habitat for wildlife species common to the Delta ecosystems such as anadromous and locally resident fish species. 3 t CHAPTER 3.5-- B10LOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-7 DRAF-T EIR CYPRESS GRo vE NIAY 20 3 Special-Status Natural Communities Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies or those that are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, or Section404=of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, sensitive habitats are protected under the specific policies outlined in the Oakley 2020 General Plan(2002). Sensitive habitats in the project site include Marsh Creek and Emerson:Slough. Special-Status Species Listed and Special-Status Plant and Animals Table 3.5-1a identifies the species listed on the LISFWS species list for the Antioch South, Brentwood, jersey Island, and Woodward Island 7.5—minute USGS quadrangles, all of which have once occurred in the project area (as mentioned above, the project area includes the project site, areas within 500 feet of the project site boundaries, and 250 foot corridors along the stormwater and water line transects). Additionally, Table 3.5-1a lists special-status species recorded in the CNDDB, which have occurred within five miles of the project site and/or are listed in other documents pertaining to the project area as having the potential to occur in the project area. Species listed in Table 3.5-1a as having no potential for occurrence are species that either a) are not expected to occur in the project area based on the known range of the species, or b) are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat in the project area. Species recorded in the CNDDB are shown in Figure 3.5-4. Table 3.5-1b lists only those special-status species that are likely to occur within the project site. CHAPTER 3.5 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DRAFT EI CYPREss GRo vE• ON -, _ ALKALI MILK-VETCH Astra alas tener var.tener --;--;--; I$ No ANTiocH DUNES Oenothera deltoids ssp.howdlii FE;CE;--; I B Yes EVEN INI G-PRIMROSE BIG TARPLANT Ble harizonia plumosa ssp.plumosa FSC;- -; I B No BREWER'S WIrSTERN- Hesperolinon breweri FSC;--; -.; IB No FLAX BRISTLY SEDGE Carex comosa ';-.;--;2 Yes BRr rLESCALE Atri Tex d essa >-.,--; IB Yes CAPER-FRurrED Tropidocarpum capparideum FSC;--; - ; IA ' No TROPIDOCARPUM . i A CONTRA COSTA Erysimum capitatum ssp.angustatum FE;CE; .-; IB Yes WALLFLOWER CONTRA COSTA Lanhenia conjugins FE;--;--; IB No GOLDFIELDS CROWNSCALE Atri lex coronata var.coronata --;-;--;4 No DELTA COYOTE- Eryngium racemasum --;CE;--; I B No THISTLE } DELTA MUDWORT Limosella subulaw •-;--;--;2 Yes DELTA TITLE-PEO Lath us sanii var.jffsonjj FSC;--;-; 1$ Yes y DIABLO HELiANTHELLA Hchanzhella cava»ea FSC; --; -_; I B No DIAMOND-PETALED Eschscholzia rhombipetala FSC;--; --; I B Yes CALIFORNIA POPPY EEL.-GRASS PONDWEED Potomo elan zoswi ormis ;»->- 2 Yes FRAGRANT FRRILLARY Fritillaria lihacea FS;-_;--; IB No GAIRDN- ER'SYAMPAH Perideridiaaird»eri ss airdneri ;CSC;--;4 No HALL'S BUSH MALLOW Malacothamnus hollii --;--;SLC; I B No I IEART3CALEAtri lrx cordulata FSC;-_,--; IB Yes HoovER'S Crypzantha hoaveri SLC; IB Yes CRYPTANTHA LARGE-FLOWERED Awsinckiagrandiflora FE;CE;--; IB Yes FIDDLENECK LI`T'TLE MOUSETAIL M asorus minimus ssp.!mus FSC;--;--;3 No LoBB'S AQUATIC Ranunculus lobbii .-;--;_.;4 No t BUTTERCUP 3 MASON'S LILAEOPSIS Waeo xis masonii FSC;--;--; 18 Yes MT.DIAaLO Eriogonum.tru»catum --;--;~; IA No BUCKWIMEAT CHARTER 3.5—BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-9 DRAFT EI CYPFEss GRo 1/E MAY2003 ,�, T q 4 ti e r� z — 1 MT.DIABLO FAIRY- 113 pukhcllus IB No i LANTERN NORTHERN fuglans cal fornices var.hindsii FSC;--;--; t$ No CALIFORNIA BLACK i i WALNUT RAYLESS RAGWORT ; Senecio a hanactis --; -- --; 2 No RECURVED LARKSPUR j Del binium recurvatum FSC;--;-_; I B No ROSE MALLOW hibiscus lasiocar us --;-- --;2 Yes ROUND-LEAVED Erodium macrophjyllum i --; --,--;2 Yes FILAREE SAN JOAQUIN Atripl-joaquiniana FSC;--;--; IB Yes i SPEARSCALE SHOWY MADIA Madia radiata FSC;--;--; I B Yes SLENDER-LEAVED Potamogetonfil form is --;2 No i PONDWEED SMALL-FLOWERED Convolvulus simulans ;--;--;4 Na MORNING GLORY i SMALL SPIKERUSH Eleoeharis arvula -;--;4 Yes SOFT BIRD'S-BEAK Cord]anthus mollis ssp.mollis FE;--; --; I B Yes SUISUN MARSH ASTER Aster lentus FSC;--;--; IB ( Yes ' , .. �si � ,.�,e¢ kl- AS '?i 'K' 7 .'$?b'$;r.' i�, 'se +'�;.d' .^s`:. a ANDRENID BEES Perdita hirticeps luteocincta and Perdita FSC; ,--;-- Yes scitula antiochensis AIN•THICID BEETLES Anthicus antiochensis and Anthicus FSC;--; --;-- Yes 1 Sacramento i CALIFORNIA Linderiella occidentalis ! FSC;--;--;-- No LINDERIELLA FAIRY SHRIMP CiERVO AEGIALIAN ! Aegialia concinna FSC;--;--;-- No SCARAB BEETLE CURVED-FOOT 1twotus curvipes FSC;--;--;-- Yes HYGROTUS DIVING ! BEETLE DELTA GREEN Elaphrus viridis FT;--;--,-- No GROUND BEETLE DELTA UNE BEETLE { Pol h lla stellara ; --;CSC; --;-- Yes KATYDIDS ldiostatus middlekauffil and Neduba FSC;--; --;-- No estinaa LANGE'S METALMARK Apodemia mormo langei ( FE;--;--;-- No BUTTERFLY CHAPT=R 3.5—BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 10 DRAFT E'IR CYPRESS GROVE Will mill LONGHORN FAIRY Branchinecta longiantenna � FE;--;_•;_• No ..': SHRIMP MIDVALLEY FAIRY Branchinecta mesovallensis FSC;--; --;-- No F SHRIMP l MOLESFAN BLISTER Lycra moletra FSC;--;- -- Yes BEETLE ROBBERFLIES Cophura hurdi,Efferia antiochi,and FSC;--; .,•» No Meta o on hurdi SAN JOAQUIN DUNE ! Coelus gracilis FSC;--;-_;_- No t BEETLE i ! SPHECID WASPS Eucerceris ru ices and philanthus nasalis FSC;-;.-;-- No �sx VALLEY ELDERBERRY Desmocerus californicus dimorphus FT;--,.-;-. Yes LONGHORN BEETLE VERNAL.POOL FAIRY Branehinecra lynchi FT;--;-.;-- � No SHRIMP f 1 VERNAL POOL { Lepidurus packardi FE;.-;--;-- No V TADPOLE SHRIMP ,,.« day 5��..<z ����'�:s,:5� �.s��.��<�}`�a #�:;�,.�r��3"�.{� d�'� �n } ,. £ ... � �,.,. .` xa���,•.f��"�($5���`k�r ALAMEDA WHIP5NAKE Masiico his lateralis cur vanthus FT;•-;--;-- No CALIFORNIA HORNED PhVnocoma coronatum frantale FSC;CSC;-_;-_ f Yes LIZARD CALIFORNIA RED- Rana aurora drayronii FT;CSC;--;-- Yes LEGGED FROG CALIFo.RNIA TIGER Ambysroma cal forniense ; FC;CSC;- >-- No SALAMANDER GIANT GARTER SNAKE Thamno his gMas FT;CT;--;-- Yes FOOTHILL YELLOW- Rana boylii FSC;CSC;--;-- No LEGGED FROG NORTHWESTERN Clemmys marmorato marmorato FSC;CSC;--;-- Yes POND TURTLE SAN JOAQUIN Masticophisfiagellum ruddocki FSC;CSC;- •- Yes COACHWHIP i_a SILVERY LEGLESS Anniella pulchra pulchra FSC; CSC;- -- Yes { LIZARD WESTERN SPADEFOOT ' Scaphiopus hammondii FSC;CSC;--;.- No TOAD " e4 ;a r CENTRAL VALLEY Oncorhynchus tshamytscho FT;CT,--; - j Yes SPRING-REIN CHINOOK SALMON ' i CENTRAL,VALLEY Oncorhpchus rshawytscha FC(C);CSC;--;-- Yes ,JFALULATE PALL-RUN CHINOOK SALMON CHAPTER 3.5--BIOLOGICA:-RESOURCES 3.5- 11 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 CENTRAL VALLEY Oncorhynchus mykiss I FT;--;-;-- Yes STEELHEAD i DELTA SMELT H omrsus trans ci icus ; FT;CT;--;-- Yes ' GREEN STURGEON Acienser medirostris FSC;CSC;--;-• Yes I LONGFIN SMELT S irinchus ihaleichth s FSC;CSC;--;-- Yes PACIFIC LAMPREY Lam etra tridentate FSC;--;--; Yes RIVER LAMPREY Lam ra tridentate FSC;CSC; -; Yes SACRAMENTO PERCH i Archo Rtes interni tus FSC;CSC;--;-- Yes SACRAMENTO i Pogmichthjs macrolepidotus FT;CSC;--;-- Yes SPLrI7AIL WINTER-RUN Oncorhjnchus tshawytscha FE;S£;--;-- Yes CHINOOK SALMON i t ALEUTIAN CANADA Branta canadensis leucopareia FD;--;--;-- Yes GOOSE WINTERING ALLEN'S Selasphorus Basin FSC;--;--;-- No HUMMINGBIRD NES'T'ING AMERICAN PEREGRINE Falco peregrinus anatum FD(FSC);CE;--;-- No FALCON NESTING BALD EAGLE Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT(FPD);CE(Fully No i Protected);-;-- (NESTING AND WINTERING BANK SWALLOW Riparia riparia ;CT;--;-- No NESTING BLACK TERN Chlidonias niger j FSC;CSC;-- No f NESTING COLONY BELL'S SAGE SPARROW Am his iza belli belli FSC;CSC;--;-- No i CALIFORNIA BLACK Laterallus jamas msis cotumiculus FSC;CT(Fully No RAIL Protected);- CALIFORNIA CLAPPER Rallus lonprostris obsoletus FE;CE(Fully Protected); No RAIL i `I- CALIFORNIA Toxostoma redivivum FSC;--;--;-- No THRASHER j COSTA'S Calypte costae FSC;--;--;-- i No HUMMINGBIRD NESTING j FERRUGINOUS HAWK Buteo regalis FSC;CSC;--;-- ! Yes WINTERING GRASSHOPPER Ammodramus savannarum FSC;--;-- Yes SPARROW NESTING GREATER SANDHILL Grus canadensis tabida --;CT(Fully Protected); No CRANE CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 12 DRAFT"EIJ; CYPRE.S,S GpovE, It AY2003 g J E LAWRENCE'S Carduelis lawrencei FSC;_-;-- No i GOLDFINCH NESTING LEWIS' WOODPECKER Melanerpes Lewis FSC;--;--;-- No r NESTING LITTLE WILLOW j Empidonax trailhi brewsteri FSC;CE;--;-- No FLYCATCHER NESTING LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Lanius ludovicianus FSC;CSC; ;- Yes NESTING LONG-BILLED CURLEW Numenius americanus FSC;CSC;--;-- No ;. NESTING MOUNTAIN PLOVER Charadrius montanus FPT; CSC;--; - Yes r: f WINTERING i' NUTTALL'S Picoides nuttallii --;--;SLC;-- No WOODPECKER CIAK TITMOUSE Batolohus inornatus --;--;SLC;-- No i RUFOL15 Selasphorus rufus FSC; _; No HUMMINGBIRD NESTING SHORT-EARED OWL Asia flammeus FSC;CSC;--;-- Yes NESTING SUISUN SONG Melospixa melodia maxillaris FSC;CSC;--;-- No SPARROW 3 SWAINSON'S HAWK Buteo swainsonii FSC;CT;--;" Yes NESTING TRICOLORED Agelaius tricolor FSC;CSC;--;-- Yes BLACKBIRD NESTING COLONY VAUX'S SWIFT Chaetura vauxi FSC;CSC;--;-- No NESTING WESTERN BURROWING Athene cunicularia hypugea FSC;CSC;--;-- Yes OWL BURROWING SITES i WRITE-FACED IBIS Plegadis child FSC;CSC;--;`- No ROOKERY1 WHITE-TAILED KITE. Elanus casruleus � FSC;(Fully Protected);-- Yes F. NESTING) GREATER WESTERN � �Eumops perosis cal forrucus FSC;CSC;--;- Yes i MAST IFF RAT FRINGED MYOTIS BAT Myosis thsanodes FSC; Yes LONG-EARED MYOTI5 Myotis evotis FSC;--;--;-` No RAT CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE 3.5- 13 DRA.F-T"ER CYPRESS GROVE MAY3003 r LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS Myotis`volans FSC;`-_;-=i' Yes BAT PALLID BAT Antrozous pqllidus -;CSC;- ;- Yes RIPARIAN BRUSH Sylvilagus bachmani riparius FE;CF;--;-_ No RABBIT € RIPARIAN WOODRAT Neotoma fusri es ri aria FE;CSC;--;-- No SAN FRANCISCO Neatoma fuscipes annectens FSC;CSC;--; No DUSKY-FOOTED I WOODRAT SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX I Vul es macrotis mutica FE;CT;--;-- Yes SAN JOAQUIN POCKET Puognatbus inornatus FSC;--;--;-- No MOUSE SMALL-FOOTED Myoris cilielabrum FSC;--;--;-- i No MYOTIS BAT TOWNSEND'S Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii FSC;CSC;--;-- { Yes WESTERN BIG-EARED j BAT PUMA MYOTIS BAT M oris manensis FSC;CSC;--;-- I Yes FE=federal endangered FT=federal threatened FSC=federal species of concern FD=delisted FC=candidate PT=proposed threatened CE=state endangered CT=state threatened CR=state rare CSC=California species of special concern C= candidate for listing 111=CNPS list plants presumed extinct in California 1B=CNPS list plants rare,threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Z =CNPS lists plants rare,threatened,or endangered in California,but more numerous elsewhere 3=CNPS lists plants about which we need more information 4=CNPS list plants of limited distribution SLC=species of local or regional concern or conservation significance. Source:Foothill Associates Listed and special-status species that are known to occur, or may potentially occur in the project area as identified in Table 3.S-la are discussed in greater detail below and listed in greater detail in Table 3.5-1b. As previously mentioned, the species discussed below were considered for this analysis based on field investigations and review of the CNDDB, USF'V1WS species lists for the, Antioch South, Brentwood,Jersey Island, and Woodward Island quadrangles, CNPS literature, and documents pertaining to the natural resources of the project area. CHAPTER 3.5—BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5 - 14 I l CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 a u s 5UlAINSONI HAWK" SURVEY' 14 t � '' ,`fi>.�,. . �► : z r 5(NILE RADIUS r 41 i �# �' -.. .?--�a T ►RSrJ�ECY �$l a r: ' '7e.�ae��� ��££?M c� �q S A e Antloch Dunes Evening-Primrose *Round-Leaved F'ilaree o California Tiger 5alamande £ Contra Costa Wallflower Showy Mach •Gian!Garter Snake o Delta Mudwort {, Suisun Marsh Aster o slivery Legless Lizard Delta Tule Pea a Soft Bird's-Beak s Western Pond Turrie Mason's U'laeopsis Curved-Foot Hygrotus Diving Beetle 0 Burrowing Ow( #RossrMallovv Molestan Buster Beebe R *San Joaquin Salthush �:Sacramento Perch •California Black Rai! a Swainson's Hawk k E 7r mak, CKOD$ "'"fOORI[L ASSOCIATES c 3.5 CIPI:f61 A r r T At t6I S i TI Mi . 1CCt f Illi SCALE IN MILES FI RE 3.5-4 LAN of Ca FC itCMTT TtTC tt CYPRESS GROVE O2W2 t..1 i } CHAPTER 3.5-- BIOLOGICAL-RESOURCES 3.5- 15 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRovE MAY 2003 � 1 Al Y e c ANTIOCH DUNES FE j CE j IB Inland dunes. Potential habitat for this species EVENING-PRIMROSE I i occurs within the interior dune Oenothera deltoids ssp. habitat in the project site. This howelhi j I ; species was not observed during jfocused special-status plant surveys I conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003x). However,focused special-status plant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear water main(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b). BRISTLY SEDGE -- - 2 Coastalprairie,marshes Although potential habitat for this Carex samosa and swamps,lake species occurs within the freshwater margins,and valley and marsh habitat in the project area,this foothill grasslands. species was not observed during I focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a). BRITPLESCALE 3 -- -- 1B j Alkaline and clay Although potential habitat for this Atriplex depressa j j I chenopod scrub, species occurs in the project area, i meadows and seeps, this species was not observed during 1 j valley and foothill focused special-status plant surveys r i grasslands,and vernal ; conducted in the project site Pools. (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a). CONTRA COSTA j FE CE 1B j Inland dunes. j Potential habitat for this species WALLFLOWER `` j i occurs within the interior dune Erysimum capitatum ssp. habitat in the project area. This andustatum species was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site I i (Sycamore Associates LLC,2003a). ` However,focused special-status j plant surveys were not conducted in j the expansion area of the linear water main(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b). CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5 r 16 DRAFT E•IR GYPRE'.S.S GRG7vE MAY 20103 k s r DELTA MUDWORT -- -- 2B Marshes and swamis. Although potential habitat for this 1 Limosella subulato species occurs within the freshwater t marsh habitat in the project area,this species was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys s conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003x). This species is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site CNDDB 2002). DELTA T(3LE-PEA FSC -- 1B Brackish and freshwater Although potential habitat for this a ✓ Lathvrus Jepsonii var. 4 marshes and swamps. species occurs within the freshwater fepsanii j marsh habitat in the project area,this species was not observed during focused special-status plant species surveys conducted in the project site I (Sycamore Associates LLC.2003a). { This species is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site SCNDDB 2002). DIAMOND-PETALED FSC -- 1B Alkaline or clay valley Although potential habitat for this CALIFORNIA POPPY and foothill grasslands. species occurs in the project area, Eschscholzia # this species was not observed during rhombipetala { focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site { (Sycamore Associates LLC.2003a . FEL-GRASS PONDWEED -- -- 2 Assorted freshwater Although potential habitat for this } Potamodeton marshes and swamps. species occurs withsn the freshwater zosttrormis marsh habitat in the project area,this species was not observed during focused special-status plant species surveys conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC 2003a . e HEARTSCALE FSC -- 1B Saline or alkaline Potential habitat for this species i. Atriplex cordulara chenopod scrub, occurs in the project area. This meadows and seeps,and species was not observed during sandy valley and foothill focused special-status plant surveys , l grasslands. conducted in the project site L-- (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a), However,focused special-status plant surveys were not conducted in j the expansion area of the linear water main(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b). y CHAPTER. 3.5--- BiOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 17 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE Mit Y 2003 4 w r .1 3� WE HOOVER'S SLC 'IB �: ''Sandy valley foothill Potential habitat for this species CRYPTANTHA grasslands. i occurs in the project area. This i Cryptantha hooveri ( species was not observed during ' focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003x). { However,focused special-status i plant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear water main(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b). LARGE-FLOWERED j FE I CE E 1B ; Cismontane woodland Potential habitat for this species FIDDLENECK I i and valley and foothill occurs in the project area. This Amsinckia graniflora grassland. species was not observed during jfocused special-status plant surveys i conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC.2003a). f However, focused special-status fplant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear i i water main(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b). MASON'S ULAEOPSIS FSC IB Brackish and freshwater i Although potential habitat for this Lilaeopsis masonii i marshes and swamps,and species occurs within the freshwater riparian scrub. marsh habitat in the project area,this species was not observed during I focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site E (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a). C This species is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site CNDDB 2002). ROSE MALLOW -- -- 2 Freshwater marshes and Although potential habitat for this Hibiscus lasiocarpus swamps. species occurs within the freshwater marsh habitat in the project area,this species was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys j conducted in the project site E i { (Sycamore Associates LLC.2003a). III This species is recorded in the f ' CNDDB within five miles of the i project site CNDBB 2002). CHAPTER 3.5--- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES f DRAT SIR CYPRESS GROVE 1 MAY.2003 w ;'f ROUND-LEAVEt? -- w- j 2 'Clay'eismontane Although potential habitat for this FILAREE I woodlands and valley and species occurs in the project area, Erodium macropbyllum foothill grasslands this species was not observed during c focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a). This species is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site CNDBB 2002). SAN JOAQUIN FSC -- 1B Alkaline chenopod scrub, Although potential habitat for this SPEAIiSCALE j meadows and seeps, species occurs in the project area, Atriplex joaetuiniana playas,and valley and this species was not observed during J foothill grasslands, focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC.2003a). This species is recorded in the i CNDDB within five miles of the project site CNDBB 2002)... SHOWY MADIA FSC - 1B Cismontane woodland ii Potential habitat for this species Madia radiata and valley and foothill I occurs in the project area. This grassland. species was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC.2003a). However,focused special-status { plant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear { water main(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b). SMALL SPIKERUSH -- 4 Marshes and swamps. Although potential habitat for this Eleocharis parvule; { ! ! species occurs within the freshwater i marsh habitat in the project area,this species was not observed during i i focused special-status plant species } surveys conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC.2003a). SOFT BIRD'S-BEAK FE IB Marshes and coastal salt Although potential habitat for this { Cordylanehus mollis ssp. swamps. species occurs within the freshwater MOMS ! marsh habitat in the project area,this species was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC.2003a). This species is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site(CNDBB 2002). CHAPTER 3.5— BiOLCC1CAL RESOURCES 3.5- 19 DRAFT OR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 , r .. J p � SUISUN MARSH ASTER FSC -- IB ;.,t Brackish and freshwater Although potential habitat for this Aster lentos ' marshes and swamps. ; species occurs within the freshwater marsh habitat in the project area,this I species was not observed during j focused special-status plant surveys } conducted in the project site i j (Sycamore Associates LLC, 2003a). 7 This species is recorded in the CNDDB'within five miles of the project site CNDBB 2002). Vlrx� f Ti� „ .t so-so r' ;dR=� z ANDRENID BEES FSC -- Sand dunes, potential habitat for these subspecies Perdna 6iniceps j occurs within the interior dune luteocincta and Pudita 1 habitat in the project site. These scitula antiochensis ! subspecies were not observed during a habitat assessment for special-status insects and invertebrates conducted EE in the project site(Entomological I Consulting Services,Ltd. 2092). AN'THICID BEETLE FSC Loose,fine-grained sand potential habitat for these subspecies Anthicus antiochensis i that is sparsely vegetated. occurs within the interior dune and Anthicus Sacramento i habitat in the project site. These subspecies were not observed during a habitat assessment for special-status insects and invertebrates conducted in the project site(Entomological Consultin_g Services,Ltd,2002), CURVED-FOOT FSC - I Small,drying mineralized Potential habitat for this species HYGROTUS DIVING pools,small ponds,and occurs within the freshwater marsh BEETLE j pools in intermittent 3 habitat in the project area. This 1•ly91.0tus curvipes streams. species was not observed during ! ! limited dip netting efforts conducted Il during a habitat assessment for ! special-status insects and f invertebrates conducted in the { ! project site(Entomological Consulting Services,Ltd. 2002). DELTA JUNE BEETLE CSC -- Sandy soil that support i potential habitat for this species Yolyphylla stella oaks. occurs in the project area. CHAPTER 3.5— BiOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 20 DRAFT E-lR CYPRESS GROVE f"w M4 Y 200 t " MOLES BLISTER FSC __ Grassland habitats: Potential habitat for this species BEETLE i. i - occurs in the project site. This Lytta molests species was not observed during a habitat assessment for special-status insects and invertebrates conducted in the project site(Entomological Consulting Services,Ltd. 2002). Additionally,no burrows of ground- nesting bees known to serve as hosts for this species were observed. fm i VALLEY ELDERBERRY FT -- Associated with its host Although potential habitat for this LONGHORN BEETLE plant,the elderberry species occurs in the project area, dimor eerus ral farnicus (Sambucus sp.) the project site is outside of the imorphus {'I known range of this subspecies (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd 2002 ` '11i 34i'4' ^<:a tt„�•� ,'`i�. y ..,f ,,err s e a a. CALIFORNIA HORNED FSC CSC ; .- Requires friable soils; Although there are no CNDDB' LIZARD ' occurs in a wide variety I records of this species within five Phrynocama taronatum of habitats. miles of the project site(CNDDB frontale ' 2002),potential habitat for this species occurs in the project site. CALIFORNIA RED- FT CSC Requires slow moving Although there are no CNDDB ` LEGGED FROG streams,ponds,or marsh records of this species within five Rana aurora drab tonic habitats with emergent miles of the project site(CNDDB vegetation. 2002),potential habitat for this j species occurs within Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough in the project area. GIANT GARTER SNAKE FT CT Agricultural wetlands and Potential habitat for this species Thamnophis gigas ` other waterways,such as occurs in the project area, irrigation and drainage Additionally,there are CNDDB canals,ricelands, records of this species within five marshes,sloughs,ponds, miles of the project site(CNDDB small lakes,low gradient 2002). streams,and adjacent uplands. NORTHWESTERN FSC CSC -- Permanent ponds or Potential habitat for this species POND TURTLE streams. occurs within and adjacent to the Clemmys marmoreta Contra Costa Canal,Emerson _J marmorata Slough,and Marsh Creek in the project area. Additionally,this species was observed during a field investigation conducted in the w project site(Swains Biological Consulting 2002 . CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 21 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo vE MAY 2003 SAN JOAQUIN FSC CSG. Open,dry,vegetation Although there are no CNDDB COACHWHIP i associations with little or records of this species within Five Masticophisfiagellum ! j no tree cover. ( miles of the project site(CNDDB ruddocki 2002),potential habitat for this j species occurs in the project site. SILVERY LEGLESS FSC CSC I -- Requires sandy,loose Potential habitat for this species LIZARD i loamy soils;occurs in a occurs in the project area. Anniella pulchra pulchra ; wide variety of habitats. Additionally,there is a CNDDB record of this species within Five miles of the project site(CNDDB 2002). n 1 xc �c SPECIAL-STATUS FISH See Table I See Table 1 Rivers and streams Although there are no CNDDB SPECIES tributary to the records of this species within five Sacramento-San Joaquin miles of the project site(CNDDB Rivers and Delta 2002),potential habitat for this ecosystems s cies occurs in the project site. 23',x, w � 9 { � �µ s F v, & k ALEUTIAN CANADA FD -- -- A winter resident of ; Although no occurrences of this GOOSE (WINTERING) agricultural lands. species are recorded in the CNDDB Branca canadensis within five miles of thero ect site leuco areia ! P l P ` (CNDDB 2002),potential wintering I habitat occurs in the project site. FERRUGINOUS HAWK FSC CSC -- Agricultural lands, Although no occurrences of this Buteo regalis (WINTERING) grasslands,sagebrush flats species are recorded in the CNDDB and desert scrub habitats. within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002),potential habitat for this species occurs in the project site. GRASSHOPPER FSC -- Nests in a variety of tall Although no occurrences of this SPARROW (NES3iNG) and mixed grass habitats species are recorded in the CNDDB Ammodramus including grassy fallow within five miles of the project site savannarum fields,hay fields,native (CNDDB 2002),potential habitat prairies,and pastures. for this species occurs in the project site. LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE FSC CSC Open habitats with Although no occurrences of this Lanius ludovicianus (NESTING) scattered shrubs,trees, species are recorded in the CNDDB posts,fences,utility within five miles of the project site lines,or other perches. (CNDDB 2002),this species was observed foraging in the project site during field investigations. Additionally,potential nesting ! habitat for this species occurs in the project site. CHAPTER 3.5- BiOL.OGICAL RESoi. RCES 3.5 - 22 i } DRAFT E/R CYRREss GRovE" MAY 2003 j MOUNTIAN PLOVER 3 FPT CSC -- Winter resident`of short Although no occurrences of this Charodrius montanus (WINTERING) grasslands and plowed ! species are recorded in the CNDDB fields. within five miles of the project site., potential wintering habitat for this s ecies occurs in the project site. SHORT-EARED OWL FSC CSC - Grasslands,prairies, Although no occurrences of this ASLO FrAMMEVS (NESTING) dunes,meadows, species are recorded in the CNDDB irrigated lands,and saline within five miles of the project site and fresh emergent (CNDDB 2002),potential habitat wetlands. for this species occurs in the project site. SWAINSON'S HAWK FSC CT -- Nest in isolated.trees or Potential nesting and foraging habitat f'^ Butao swainsonis` (NESTING) riparian I woodlands for this species occurs in the project ( adjacent to suitable area. Additionally,there are two ` foraging habitat CNDDB records of this species c- (agricultural fields, within five miles of the project site grasslands,etc.). (CNDDB 2002)and this species was t observed in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002b). TRICOLORED FSC CSC - Nestsin emergent Although no occurrences of this BLACKBIRD (NESTING wetlands in dense species are recorded in the CNDDB Agelaius tricolor COLONY) i blackberry,cattail,and within five miles of the project site ' willow throughout the (CNDDB 2002),potential nesting Central Valley and and foraging habitat for this species California coast. # occurs in the pLoject site. WESTERN BURROWING FSC CSC - Open grassland habitat; Potential habitat for this species OWL (BURROWING often nests in abandoned occurs in the project site. Athene cunicularia SITES) ground squirrel burrows Additionally,there are four CNDDB hvpugea ' within grasslands. ; records of this species within five miles of the project site(CNDDB j2002)and this species was observed in the project site during focused wintering burrowing owl and pre- construction bird surveys(Sycamore Associates LLC.2003e . WHITE-TAILED KITE FSC (Fully -- Nests in large trees and Although no occurrences of this Elanus caemleus (NESTING) Protected) riparian woodland species are recorded in the CNDDB C habitat. within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002),potential habitat for this species occurs in the project site. Additionally,this species was observed foraging,roosting,and potentially nesting in the project site during field investigations. � 1 CHAPTER 3.5-- BIOL.OGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 23 DRAF7,EIR CYPRESS GROVE MA Y.2007.3 i . � r RAPTORS(BIRDS OF I META §3503.5 I -- Raptors:Nests mi large Potential nesting and foraging habitat PREY:HAWKS,OWLS, DFG Code ' trees and riparian occurs throughout the project site ETC.)AND OTHER i woodland habitat. for raptors and other migratory and MIGRATORY ANDMigratory and resident resident birds. RESIDENT BIRDS birds:Nest in annual i grasslands,riparian t woodlands,oak woodlands,and I I landscaped trees. BATS(INCLUDING See Table 1 See Table 1 - Can roost in a wide Although no occurrences of these GREATER WESTERN I variety of habitats(i.e., I species are recorded in the CNDDB MASTIFF BAT,FRINGED i riparian,scrub, within five miles of the project site MYOTIS BAT,LONG- woodland),in abandoned (CNDDB 2002),potential habitat LEGGED MYOTIS BAT, buildings,and bridges. I for these species occurs in the PALLID BAT, ' I project site. TOWNSEND'S I WESTERN BIG-EARED li I I BAT,YUMA MYOTIS E E BAT} ! 1 I SAN JOAQUIN KIT Fox FE CT Agricultural lands and ' Although there are no occurrences Vulpes macrosis musico { I valley and foothill of this species are recorded in the jgrasslands. CNDDB within five miles of the I project site(CNDDB 2002),there i are approximately 13 kit fox I i occurrences within ten miles of the i project site(Townsend 2002). Potential habitat for this species occurs on the project site FE=federal endangered FT=federal threatened FSC=federal species of concern FD=delisted FC=candidate PT=proposed threatened CE=state endangered CT=state threatened CR=state rare CSC=California species of special concern C=candidate for 3 listing 1A=CNPS list plants presumed extinct in California 1B=CNPS list plants rare,threatened,or endangered in California and ' elsewhere 2=CNPS lists plants rare,threatened,or endangered in California,but more numerous elsewhere 3=CNPS lists plants about which we need more information 4=CNPS list plants of limited distribution SLC=species of local or regional concern or conservation significance. I Source:Foothill Associates I Listed and Special-Status Plants Based on review of the records search of the CNDDB, the LISFWS species list for the Antioch South, Brentwood, Jersey Island, and Woodward Island quadrangles, CNPS literature, and documents pertaining to the natural resources of the project site,potential habitat for the following plant species occurs in the project area: Antioch Dunes evening primrose (©enothera deltoids ssp. CHAPTER 3.5— +BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 24 DRAFT EIR CYPRESSGROVE 1 howellii), bristly sedge (Carex comosa), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), Contra Costa wallflower (Erysimum capitatum ssp. angustatum), Delta mudwort (Limosella subulata), Delta tole-pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii), diamond-petaled California poppy (Eschscholzia rhombipetala), eel-grass pondweed(Potamogeton zosteri-formis), heartscale(Atriplex cordulata), Hoover's eryptantha(Cryptantha hooveri), large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandflora), Mason's lilaeopsis '(L.ilaeopsis masvnii), rose mallow (hibiscus lasiocarpus), .round-leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), San Joaquin ` spearscale (Arriplex joaquiniana), showy madia (1tladia radiata), small spikerush (Eleocharis parvula), soft bird's-beak.(Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis), and Suisun Marsh aster (Aster lentus). Antioch Dunes Evening Primrose(Qe_no1hgra deltoids ssp. howellii} Antioch Dunes evening primrose (Fp, CE, CNPS list 1B) occurs in inland dunes in elevations ranging from approximately 0-100 feet above MSL. This species is a perennial herb that blooms from March through September and is known from three native occurrences in Sacramento County (( and Contra Costa County (CNPS 2001). Antioch Dunes evening primrose is recorded in the «_. f CNDDB within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The interior dune habitat within the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. Antioch Runes evening primrose was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project site during blooming period for this species by Sycamore Associates LLC. (2003a). However, focused special- status plant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear water main (Sycamore r Associates LLC. 2003b) and potential habitat for this species occurs within this area. Consequently, Antioch Dunes evening primrose could occur within this area in the project area. Bristly Sedge{Cary comosa} i Bristly sedge (CLAPS list 2) occurs in coastal prairie, marshes and swamps, lake margins, and valley r and foothill grasslands in elevations ranging from approximately 0-1394 feet above MSL. This j species is a rhizomatous, perennial herb that blooms from May through September (CNPS 2001). CNDDB records do not exist for bristly sedge occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 200}2). The freshwater marsh habitat within the project area is considered potential habitat for this species. However, bristly sedge was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a) in the project area during the blooming period for this species. Consequently, bristly sedge is not expected to occur in the project area. Brittlescale lex depressa} � S Brittlescale (CLAPS list I B) occurs in alkaline and clay chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,playas, .. valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools in elevations ranging from approximately 3-1050 feet above MSL. This species is an annual herb that blooms from May through October (CLAPS 2001). CNDDB records do not exist for brittlescale occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 20102). The annual grassland habitat within the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. However, brittlescale was not observed during focused special-status plant } surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a)in the project site during blooming period for this species. Consequently,brittlescale is not expected to occur in the project site. 1 CHAPTER 3.5--BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-25 ............ DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 Contra Costa Wal(ower r)simum cQitatum ssp.-An �tatu�m ii Contra Costa wallflower(FE, CE, CNPS list 1B) occurs in inland dunes in elevations ranging from approximately 10-65 feet above MSL. This species is a perennial herb that blooms from March through July and is known from only three occurrences at the Antioch Dunes (CLASP 2001). Contra Costa wallflower is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The interior dune habitat within the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. The Contra Costa wallflower was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a) in the project site during the blooming period for this species. However, focused special-status plant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear water main (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b) and potential habitat for this species occurs within this area. Consequently, the Contra Costa wallflower could occur within the expansion area of the linear water main. Delta Mudwort(L iMosella subgLata) Delta mudwort(CNPS list 2B) is a perennial stoloniferous herb that occurs in marshes and swamps in elevations ranging from approximately 0-10 feet above MSL. This species blooms from May through August and is known from several occurrences in the Delta(CNPS 2001). Delta mudwort is recorded in the CNDDB adjacent to open waters north of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The freshwater marsh habitat within the project area is considered potential habitat for this species. Delta mudwort was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project area during blooming period for this species by Sycamore Associates LLC. (2003a). Consequently, Delta mudwort is not expected to occur in the project area. Delta Tule-Pea th rus jepsonii var. jepso Delta tule-pea (FSC, CNPS list IB) occurs in brackish and freshwater marshes and swamps in elevations ranging from approximately 0-13 feet above MSL. This species is a perennial herb that blooms from May through September (CNPS 2001). Delta tule-pea is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The freshwater marsh habitat within the project area is considered potential habitat for this species. Delta tule-pea was not observed during focused special-status species surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a)in the project area during the blooming period for this species. Consequently, Delta tole-pea is not expected to occur in the project area. Diamond-Petaled California Poppy(Eschscholzia rhgmhipetala) Diamond-petaled California poppy(FSC, CNPS list 1 B) occurs in alkaline or clay valley and foothill grasslands. This species is an annual herb that blooms from March through April. Diamond- petaled California poppy has been extirpated from Contra Costa, Colusa, San Luis Obispo, and Stanislaus Counties. However, this species is still extant in Alameda County (CNPS 2001). CNDDB records do not exist for diamond-petaled California poppy occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The annual grassland habitat within the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. Diamond-petaled California poppy was not observed during CHAPTER 3.5— Bio-, OGICAL RESOURCES '33.5- 26 ................................ .................. ............................ ... ........ ......... DRAF7-EIS' C",PRE"..s GRo v'E MAY2003 focused special-status plant surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a) in the project area during the blooming period for this species. Consequently, diamond-petaled California puppy is not expected to occur in the project area. Eel-Grass Pondweed 'otamogeton zosteriformis) E { Eel-grass pondweed (CNPS list 2) occurs in asserted freshwater marshes and swamps in elevations ranging from approximately 0-6102 feet above MSL. This species is an aquatic, annual herb that ' blooms from June through July (CNPS 2001). CNDDB records do not exist for eel-grass 1 pondweed occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The freshwater marsh habitat within the project area is considered potential habitat for this species. However, eel-grass pondweed was not observed during focused special-status species surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a) in the project area during the blooming period for this species. Consequently, eel-grass pondweed is not expected to occur in the project area. } Heartscale(Alex cordulata} Heartscale (FSC, CNPS list 1B) occurs in alkaline or clay chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, and sandy valley and foothill.grasslands. This species is a perennial herb that blooms from April through October. CNDDB records do not exist for heartscale occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Additionally, this species was not observed during focused special-status plant species surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a) during the blooming period for heartscale. However, focused special status plant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear water main (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b) and potential habitat for this species occurs within this area of the project area. Consequently,heartscale could occur within the expansion area in the project area. 1 t Hoover's Gryptantha(Cry-ptantha hooveri) Hoover's cryptantha (SLC, CNPS list 1B) occurs in sandy valley and foothill grasslands. This 3 species is an annual herb that blooms from April through May. CNDDB records do not exist for Hoover's cryptantha occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The annual grassland habitat within the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. Hoover's cryptantha was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a) in the project area during blooming period for this species. However, i focused special-status plant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear water main (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b) and potential habitat for this species occurs within this area in the project area. Consequently,Hoover's cryptantha could occur within the expansion area 1 in the project area. Large-Flowered iddleneck(Arnsinckia ra} , 1 Large-flowered fiddleneck (FE., CE, CNPS list 1B) occurs in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland. This species is an annual herb that blooms from April through May. CNDDB k records do not exist for large-flowered fiddleneck occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The annual grassland habitat within the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. Large-flowered fiddleneck was not observed during focused special-status � q CHAPTER 3.5--BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-27 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MRY2003 plant surveys conducted in the project area by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003x) during the blooming period for this species. However, focused special-status plant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear water main (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b) and ' potential habitat for this species occurs within this area in the project area. Consequently, large- flowered fiddleneek could occur within the expansion area mi the project area. Mason's Lilaeopsis(Lilaeopsis masonii? Mason's lilaeopsis (PSC, CNPS list 1 B) occurs in brackish and freshwater marshes and swamps and riparian scrub. This species is a perennial, rhizornatous herb that blooms from April through November. Mason's lilaeopsis is locally common in Suisun Bay, which is just west of the project area, and many populations are ephemeral, exploiting newly deposited or exposed sediment(CLAPS 2001). This species is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The freshwater marsh habitat within the project area is considered potential habitat for Mason's lilaeopsis. However, Mason's lilaeopsis was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a) in the project area during the blooming period for this species. Consequently, this species is not expected to occur in the project area. Rose Mallow(Hibiscus lasiooq—us) Rose mallow (CNPS list 2) is a perennial aquatic herb that occurs in freshwater marshes and swamps. This species blooms from June through September (CNPS 2001). Rose mallow is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The freshwater marsh habitat within the project area is considered potential habitat for rose mallow. This species was not observed during focused special-status species surveys conducted in the project area during blooming period for rose mallow by Sycamore Associates LLC. (2003x). Consequently, this species is not expected to occur in the project area. Round-Leaved Filaree rodium maero�2h,1�1 Round-leaved filaree (CLAPS list 2) occurs in clay cismontane woodlands and valley and foothill grasslands. This species is an annual herb that blooms from March through May (CNPS 2001). Round-leaved filaree is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The annual grassland habitat in the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. Round-leaved filaree was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project area during blooming period for this species by Sycamore Associates LLC. (2003x). Consequently, round-leaved filaree isnot expected to occur in the project area. San Joaquin Spearscale{Atdplex joaquiniana? San Joaquin spearscale (FSC, CNPS list 1B) is an annual herb that occurs in alkaline chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, and valley and foothill grasslands. This species blooms from April through October (CNPS 2001). San Joaquin spearscale is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site (CNDDB, 2002). This species was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project area during blooming period for San Joaquin CHAPTER 3.5-- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES i D AF-r Elf; CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 { spearscale by Sycamore Associates LLC. (2003a). Consequently, this species is not expected to occur in the project site. Showy Madia(Madia radiata) Showy madia (FSC, CNPS list 1B) occurs in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grasslands. This species is an annual herb that blooms from March through May. Showy madia has been extirpated from Contra Costa, Colusa, Fresno, Kings, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San r' Joaquin Counties. However, this species is still extant in Kern, San Benito, and San Luis Counties i (CNPS 2001). Showy madia is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The annual grassland habitat within the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. Showy madia was not observed during focused special-status plant surveys conducted in the project area during blooming period for this species by Sycamore Associates LLC. (2003a). However, focused special-status plant surveys were not conducted in the expansion area of the linear water main (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b) and potentiall habitat for this species occurs within this area in the project area. Consequently, Showy madia could occur within the expansion area in the project area. .:$ Small Spikerush {Eleocharis parvula) f..j Small spikerush (CNPS list 4) occurs in marshes and swamps in elevations ranging from approximately 3-8300 feet above MSL. This species is a perennial herb that blooms from June through September (CNPS 2001). CNDDB records do not exist .for small spikerush occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The freshwater marsh habitat within the project area is considered potential habitat for this species. Small spikerush was not observed during focused special-status species surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a)in the project area during the blooming period for this species. Consequently, small spikerush is not expected to occur in the project area. Soft Bird's-Beak{'Cor ylanthus mollis sspx mollis) Soft bird's-bear (FE, CNPS list 1B) is an annual hemiparasitic herb that occurs in marshes and coastal salt swamps. This species blooms from.July through November and is known from fewer than twenty occurrences (CNPS 2001). Soft bird's-beak is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The freshwater marsh habitat within the project area is considered potential habitat for this species. Soft bird's-beak was not observed during focused special-status species surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a) in the project area during blooming period for this species. Consequently, soft bird's-beak is not expected to occur in } the project area. Suisun Marsh Aster{Aster lentos} Suisun Marsh aster (FSC, CNPS list 1B) occurs in brackish and freshwater marshes and swamps. This species is s perennial rhizomatous herb that blooms from May through November (CNPS 2001). Suisun Marsh aster is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site with records concentrated along waterways north of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The freshwater marsh within the project area is considered potential habitat for this species. Suisun Marsh aster CHAF'T ER 3.5—BIOLOGICAL.RESOURCES i 3.5.29 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo vE MAY 200.E was not observed during focused special-status species surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC (2003a) in the project area during the blooming period for this species. Consequently, Suisun Marsh aster is not expected to occur in the project area. Listed and Special-Status Animals Based on review of the records search of the CNDDB, the USFWS species list for the Antioch South, Brentwood, Jersey Island, and Woodward Island quadrangles, and documents pertaining to the natural resources of the project site potential habitat for the following animal species occurs in the project area. andrenids bees, anthicid beetles, carved-foot hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus curvipes), Delta June beetle (Polyphylla stella), molestan blister beetle (Lytta molesta), Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California horned lizard (Phrynocoma coronatum frontale), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), giant garter snake (7amnophis gigas), northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata), San Joaquin coachwhip(Masticophis flagellum ruddocki), silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), loggerhead shrike (Lanus ludovieianus), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), short- eared owl (Asia flammeus), Swainson's hawk(Buten swainsonh), tricolored blackbird(Agelaius tricolor), western burrowing owl (Achene cunicularia hypugea), white-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Additionally, several special-status fish species, migratory birds,including raptors and swallows, and special-status bat species could occur in the project area. Invertebrates Andrenid Bees(Perdita hirticeps luteocincta and Perdita scitula antiochensis) Andrenid bees (FSC) are pollinators of various native plants that occur within sand dune habitats. Both subspecies of bees have been found within the Antioch sand dunes, Contra Costa County (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). The activity period of andrenid bees ranges from the late summer through early fall months. Records from CNDDB do not show andrenid bees occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The interior dune habitat in the project site is considered potential habitat for these bees. Based on the habitat assessment for special-status invertebrates conducted in the project site by Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. (2002), andrenid bees are not expected to occur in the project site due to the absence of the favored food plants of these subspecies and the level of disturbance within the interior dune habitat in the project site. Additionally, these subspecies were not observed during the habitat assessment, which coincided with the activity period of these bees (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). Anthicid Beetles(Anthicus antiochensis and Anthicus sacramento) Anthicid beetles (FSC) occur in loose, fine-grained sand that is sparsely vegetated. The Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle (Anthicus antiochensis) and Sacramento anthicid beetle (Anthicus sacramento) have been collected in natural sand deposits such as sand dunes, sand bars, and riverine alluvial fans; and man-made deposits such as dredge spoils (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). Until recently, Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle was known only known from the Antioch Dunes; CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-30 CYPREss GRJvE MAY2003 recent surveys have discovered new populations at four localities along the Sacramento River (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). The Sacramento anthicid beetle is known from several locations in the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta region. Based on related beetles, these subspecies of anthicid beetles are likely scavengers or detritus feeders. Adults are active during the night and burrow in the sand during the daytime. Adults have been collected throughout the year, } but appear to be most common in June and July while,larvae have been observed in April and May (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). Records from CNDDB do not show the Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle or the Sacramento anthicid beetle occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The interior dune habitat in the project site is considered potential habitat for anthicid beetles. Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle and Sacramento anthicid beetle were not observed during limited sand sifting efforts conducted during the habitat assessment for special-status invertebrates conducted in the project site by Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. (2002). Because focused special-status anthicid beetle surveys were not conducted as part of the habitat assessments in the project site and the habitat assessments did not coincide with the activity periods of the anthicid beetles, Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle and Sacramento anthicid beetle could occur in the project site. Curved-Foot Hygrotus Diving Beetle(Hygrotus curvipes) Curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle(FSC) is an aquatic-dwelling beetle that occurs in small, drying, mineralized pools formed by winter rains, small ponds, and pools in intermittent streams. This species prefers sites that edge vegetation consists of salt-tolerate species (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). All known occurrences of curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle are from eastern Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Records from CNDDB do not show this species occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The freshwater marsh habitat in the project area is considered potential habitat for this species. However, based on the habitat assessment for special-status invertebrates conducted in the project area by Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. (2002), this habitat is not considered prime habitat for this species due to the absence of alkali vegetation. Curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle was not observed ,within the freshwater marsh habitat in the project area during limited dip netting efforts conducted by Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. (2002). However, focused surveys for this species were not conducted as part of the habitat assessment in the project area and the habitat assessment did not coincide with the activity periods for this i species. Consequently, curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle could occur in the project area. a � Delta June Beetle(Folyphylla stella) .1 Delta June beetles (CSC)have been found in association with oak trees (Quercus sp.)in Sacramento and Contra Costa Counties and in other areas in the Delta. Little is known about the biology and specific habitat requirements of this species (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). Based 1 on related species, Delta June beetles are probably root feeders that occur in sandy soils. Records from CNDDB do not show this species occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Based on the habitat assessment for special-status invertebrates conducted in the CHAPTER 3.5-- BIOL.OGICAL.}RESOURCES 3.5-31 DRAFT E IR CYPRESS GROVE Mei Y 2003 project site by Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. (2002), this species is not expected to occur in the project site due to the level of disturbance within the project site. Molestan Blister Beetle(Lytta molests) Molestan blister beetle (FSC) is a ground-dwelling beetle associated with grassland habitats. Little is known about biology and specific habitat requirements of this species. Like related beetles, molestan beetle is believed to be parasitic on ground-nesting bees. Adults are most frequently observed in March and April on various wild flowers and flowers of native shrubs (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). Records from CNDDB do not show this species occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The annual grassland habitat in the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. Because the majority of the native vegetation has been removed from the project site due to past and current land uses practices, the molestan blister beetle is not expected to occur in the project site. Additionally, this species was not observed during the habitat assessment for special-status insects and invertebrates conducted in the project site by Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. or theburrows of ground-nesting bees known to serve as hosts for molestan blister beetles(Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELE) (FT)is known to occur in association with its host plant, the elderberry (Sambucus spp.), especially for the larval stages. Because of VELB's dependence on its host plant, the USFWS considers the elderberry, which is a common species of riparian and upland habitats in the Central Valley, habitat for VELE. Records from the CNDDB do not exist for this species occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Three elderberry plants were observed on the northern edge of the southern property, south of Cypress Road in the project site. These plants are assumed to be ornamentally planted(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a). Although the elderberry is considered potential habitat for VELB and plants were observed during field investigations, the project site is outside of the known range of this subspecies of VELE (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002). Consequently, the protected subspecies of VELB is not expected to occur in the project site. Amphibian and Reptiles California horned lizard(Phrynocoma coronatum frontale) California horned lizard (FSC, CSC) is an endemic species to California that occurs in a wide variety of habitats, ranging from areas with an exposed gravelly-sandy substrate containing scattered shrubs, to clearings in riparian woodlands, to dry uniform chamise chaparral, to annual grassland with scattered seepweed or saltbush (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Historically,this species ranged throughout the Central Valley and Coast Range from Sonoma County south to the Los Angeles area, where it intergrades with the San Diego horned lizard (Stebbins 198S). The California horned lizard has disappeared from approximately 35% of its range in northern and central California (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The disappearance of this species has been attributed CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 32 I DRAFT EIR CYPRES.S'GRo vE jto the conversion of relict lake sand dunes and alluvial fans to agriculture and development. Land conversion has resulted in the range of this species restricted to isolated sections of natural habitat, with extant populations becoming increasingly fragmented. Horned lizards require open areas to forage where it feeds primarily on native ants (CDFG 1988a). The spread of introduced Argentine ants (Zinepithema humile), which are tonic to horned lizards, has'also contributed to the decline of this species. Stebbins (1954) reported that beetles,'`grasshoppers, flies, and wasps are also occasionally consumed by homed lizards. Although data is limited, this species appears to be active between April and October, with increased activity in April and May. Copulation occurs in late ¢ April andearly May and hatchlin s first appear in July and August(Jennings and Hayes 1994) ` Records from the CNDDB do not show the California horned lizard occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The interior dune habitat in the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. Additionally, the area adjacent to the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the area within the expansion area of a linear water main are considered potential habitat for California horned lizards. Consequently, this species could occur within these areas in the project area. California Red-Legged Frog(Rana aurora draytorui) N1 The California red-legged frog (CRLF) (FT, CSC) is endemic to California and Baja California, Mexico. This species has been extirpated from 70% of its historical range, and now occurs primarily in coastal drainages of central California, from Marin County, California south to northern Baja California, Mexico and in isolated drainages in the Sierra Nevada, northern Coast and northern Transverse Ranges of California (USFWS 2002). CRLF utilizes a variety of habitats, including various aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats below 5,200 feet (Jennings and Hayes 1994); nearly all sightings have occurred below 3,500 feet(USFWS 2002). Although use of upland habitats by CRLF is not well understood, during periods of wet weather, this species makes movements through upland habitats (USFWS 2002). CRLF rarely occur far from water during dry periods. Deep (greater than 2 feet) still or slow moving water and dense, shrubby riparian or emergent vegetation is necessary for the deposition of eggs (USFWS 2002). The breeding season occurs from November through April. Eggs require approximately 20-22 days to develop into tadpoles, and tadpoles require 11 to 20 weeks to develop into terrestrial frogs (USFWS 2002). The diet of CRLF is highly variable. However, invertebrates appear to be the most common prey consumed of adult frogs(USFWS 2002). Based on the protocol-level California red-legged frog Site Assessment conducted by Sycamore r..i Associates (2003c), suitable breeding habitat is not present on site; however, potentially suitable e upland refugia habitat exists on site within the interior dunes community and disked fallow lands, but suitable aquatic habitat does not exist in site. Potentially suitable dispersal and year-round aquatic habitat occur within the adjacent waters of the Contra Costa Canal, Marsh Creek, freshwater marsh near the proposed detention basin, and in Emerson Slough. The Contra Costa Canal and Emerson Slough also provide potentially suitable breeding habitat. However, CRF have not been documented within five miles of the project site and it is unlikely that these habitats currently support CRF due to the lack of connectivity between these habitats and those currently supporting CRF populations, the presence of predators and competitors such as bullfrogs and Wy° largemouth bass, high water flows, dense freshwater vegetation, and potentially fluctuating salinity CHAPS Eft 3.5--- BIOLOGICAL_RESOURCES 3.5-33 ................ ............ DRAT"T EIR CYPRESS Gpo vE MAY2003 levels, Therefore, the potential for CRF to occur within the project area or waters immediately adjacent project area is considered to be very low. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties contain the majority of the known CRILP-localities within the San Francisco Bay Area. This species is thriving in several areas in the eastern portions of these Counties (USFWS 2002). Although records from the CNDDB do not show the California red- legged frog occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002), CRLF are known to occur within Marsh Creek, upstream of the Marsh Creek Reservoir, approximately seven miles southwest of the project site. Potential habitat for CRLF occurs within Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough in the project area. Consequently, this species could occur in the project area. Giant Garter Snake(Tamnophis Sigas) Giant garter snake (GGS) is endemic to the Central Valley of California. Historically, this species was found in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys from Butte County southward to Kern County. Currently, GGS is found in the Sacramento Valley and isolated portions of the San Joaquin Valley (USFWS 1999). This species occurs in agricultural wetlands and other waterways, such as irrigation and drainage canals, ricelands, marshes, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low gradient streams, and adjacent uplands (USFWS 1999). GGS use upland, non-marsh areas in close proximity to summer habitat for winter retreats. Overwintering sites are located predominantly in animal burrows or under debris. The breeding season begins soon after emergence from winter retreats, extending from March through May(USFWS 1999). A mean litter of 30 live born young are born between mid-July and early September (CDFG 1988). GGS consume primarily aquatic prey such as fish and amphibians and generally remain active until around October(USFWS 1999). GGS is recorded in the CNDDB within five miles of the project site(CNDDB 2002). Contra Costa Canal, Marsh Creek, and Emerson Slough, and adjacent upland habitat are considered potential habitat for this species. Consequently, GGS could occur within and adjacent to these waterways in the project area. Northwestern Pond Turtle(Clemmys marmorata marmorata) The northwestern pond turtle (FSC, CSC) is one of the two currently recognized subspecies, northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida), of the western pond turtle. The western pond turtle is a moderate-sized turtle that occurs in slack- or slow-water aquatic habitats from Puget Sound, Washington southward to Baja California, Mexico (Stebbins 1985). The northwestern pond turtle is found from the Sacramento Valley northward, while the southwestern pond turtle is found from the vicinity of Monterey Bay southward. A zone of intergradation between these two subspecies occurs in the Central Valley of California from the San Francisco Bay south to the Transverse Range (Stebbins 1985). Western pond turtles occur in permanent or nearly permanent water in a wide variety of habitats, normally in ponds,lakes, streams and irrigation ditches or permanent pools, with basking sites such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks (CDFG 1988). This turtle usually leaves aquatic sites to reproduce, aestivate, and overwinter in upland habitats such as annual grasslands and oak woodlands (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Breeding occurs in late CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 34 ...............................000000000�� .......................... ............................................... G't AF7-E"IR CYPRESS GROVE" MAY 2003 c April or early May and eggs may be laid from April through August (Stebbins 1985). Nests are typically dug in a substrate with a high clay or silt content and located on an unshaded slope. Females lay between 3 and 11 eggs and may lay additional clutches during a year (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Western pond turtles can be seen from February through mid-November in the north and all year in the south. This species is an omnivorous species, feeding on aquatic plant material and a variety of aquatic invertebrates (Stebbins 19$5): A CNDDB record of northwestern pond turtle exists within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Additionally, a northwestern pond turtle was observed within the Contra Costa Canal immediately north of the project site during a field 'investigation conducted by Swaim Biological Consulting (2002). Because potential aquatic and upland habitat for this species occurs within and adjacent to Contra Costa Canal, Emerson Slough, and Marsh Creek in the project area, northwestern pond turtle could occur in the project area. San Joaquin Coachwliip(Masticophisflagellum ruddocki) San Joaquin coachwhip (FSC, CSC) is endemic to California, ranging from the Sacramento Valley southward to the San Joaquin Valley and westward into the inner South Coast Ranges(Jennings and y Hayes 1994). Coachwhips occur with open, dry, vegetative associations such as valley grassland and saltbush scrub habitats with little or no tree cover. Little is known about the biology or specific habitat requirements of this subspecies of coachwhip (Jennings and Hayes 1994, CDFC 1988). If similar to other subspecies, the San Joaquin coachwhip voluntarily maintains a high active body temperature than most other snakes and will not emerge from burrow retreats either on a daily or seasonal basis until near-surface temperatures reach. approximately 28°C (Jennings and Hayes 1 1994). Consequently, the emergence pf the coachwhip from burrow retreats are typically later in both the season and in the morning compared to other snakes. Animal burrows are used for refuge, and probably for overwintering and oviposition. The breeding season occurs in April and May, With oviposition occurring in June and July(CDFC 1988). Coachwhip consumes lizards,bird eggs and birds, small mammals, and carrion. Records from the CNDDB do not show the coachwhip occurring within five miles of the project site(CNDDB 2002). The interior dune habitat in the project site is considered potential habitat for this species. Additionally, the area adjacent to the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the area within the expansion area of a linear water main are considered potential habitat for San Joaquin coachwhip. Consequently, this subspecies could occur within these areas in the project area. "f Silvery Legless Lizard(A niella pulchre pulchra) i Silvery legless lizard (FSC, CSC) is a fossorial species that is near-endemic to California, ranging from near Antioch, Contra Costa County south through the Coast Ranges, Transverse Mountains, and Peninsular Ranges; parts of the San Joaquin Valley; and the western edge of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and Mojave Desert to El Censuelo, Mexico (Jennings and Hayes 1994). This species occurs primarily in areas writh sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation of beeches, chaparral, or wine-oak woodland; or sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks that occur on stream terraces (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Legless lizards are mostly active during the morning and evening, while during the day they retreat to burrows just below the ground surface. Breeding } CHAPTER 3.5-BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-35 DRAFT 0R CYPRsss GRo vs MAY.200.3 occurs in late spring or early summer and liters ranging from 1 to 4 live young are born in September, October, or November (CDFG 1988). Legless lizards consume primarily insects and spiders within the leaf litter. ' A CNDDB record of the silvery legless lizard exists within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Although this species was not observed during Meld investigations conducted in the project site, potential habitat for this species occurs within the interior dune habitat in the project site. Additionally, the area adjacent to the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the area within the expansion area of a linear water main are considered potential habitat for silvery legless lizard. Consequently, this species could occur within these areas in the project area. Central Valley Steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykisr) Central Valley steelhead (FT) rely on streams, rivers, estuaries and marine habitat during their lifecycle. In freshwater and estuarine habitats, steelhead feed on small crustaceans, insects and small .fishes. Eggs are laid in small and medium gravel and need good water flow (to supply oxygen)to survive. After emerging from the redd (nest) they remain in streams and rivers for 1 to 4 years before migrating through the estuaries to the ocean. Unlike salmon, steelhead migrate individually rather than in schools. Steelhead spend 1 to 5 years at sea before returning to natal streams or rivers. At least two specific stocks of steelhead have developed; those that enter fresh water during fall, winter and early spring -- the winter run -- and those that enter in spring, summer and early fall -- the summer run. Steelhead do not always die after spawning, but will migrate downstream through estuaries to the ocean. Records from the CNDDB do not show steelhead occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Steelhead may have historically used waterways within the project vicinity for spawning and rearing including Marsh. Creek, Dutch Slough, and Big Break. Although current conditions may limit use of waterways within the project area, steelhead could occur within Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough in the project area. Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Chinook salmon is the largest of the Pacific salmon and has a species distribution historically ranging from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, Alaska in North America, and in northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia. Several "runs" of chinook are differentiated by the maturity of fish entering freshwater, time of spawning migrations, spawning areas, incubation times, and migration timing of juveniles. Differences in life histories effectively isolate the various runs(Moyle et al, 1995). Freshwater entry and spawning timing are generally thought to be related to local temperature and water flow regimes (Miller and Brannon 1982). Temperature has a direct effect on the development rate of salmonids (Alderdice and Velsen 1978). Runs are designated on the basis of adult migration timing; however, distinct runs also differ in the degree of maturation at the time of river entry, thermal regime and flow characteristics of their spawning site, and actual time of spawning. Spring-run chinook salmon tend to enter freshwater as immature or "bright" fish, migrate far upriver, and finally spawn in the late summer and early autumn. Late, fall-run chinook salmon enter freshwater at an advanced stage of maturity, move rapidly to their spawning areas on CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-36 j DRAT-r EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 the mainstem or lower tributaries of the rivers, and spawn within a few days or weeks of freshwater entry(Fulton 1968, Healey 1991). Fall-run fish spawn in large and medium-sized tributaries, and do not show the extensive delay in maturation exhibited by spring-run chinook salmon (Fulton 1968). Winter-run chinook salmon (which presently exist only in the Sacramento River) begin their freshwater migration at an immature stage and travel to the upper portions'of the watershed to spawn in the spring. Early researchers recorded the existence of different temporal "runs" or modes in the migration of jChinook salmon from the ocean to freshwater. Two major influxes of ehinook salmon were 1 observed returning to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Diver system, although "...there is no definite distinction between spring and fall runs; there is no time during the summer when there are no salmon running" (Myers et al, 1998). Reports state that spring-run fish tended to migrate to the upriver portions of the Sacramento River and spawn earlier than the fall-run salmon, which spawned in the lower regions of tributaries and in mainstem river areas. Similarly to steelhead, records from the CNDDB do not show Chinook salmon occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Chinook salmon may have historically used waterways within the project vicinity for spawning and rearing including Marsh Creek, Dutch ,.l Slough, and Big Break. Although current conditions may limit use of waterways within the project area, Chinook salmon could occur within Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough in the project area. Delta Smelt(Hypomesus transpacipcus) The delta smelt (FT, CI") is a small, slender bodied fish that is known only from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Estuary in California. The range of this species fluctuates year to year, but has been found as far north as the mouth of the American River in the Sacramento River system and as far south as Mossdale within the San Joaquin River system.. Delta smelt are generally found in brackish water, but migrate in late winter/early spring to freshwater to spawn. Larvae are washed downstream to the "entrapment zone" where fresh and salt water mix. Delta smelt generally complete their life cycle within one year, though some survive into a second year (Moyle et al, 1995). Records from the CNDDB do not show delta smelt occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 20)02). This species may have historically used waterways within the project vicinity including Marsh Creek, Dutch Slough, and Big Break. Although current conditions may limit use $ of waterways within the project area, delta smelt could occur within Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough in the project area. Sacramento Splittail(Fogonichthys macrolepidotus) Sacramento splittail (FT, CSC) are native to California's Central Valley. Historically, this species was found as far north as Redding on the Sacramento River, as far south as the present-day site of ' Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River, and up the tributaries of the Sacramento River as far as the current Oroville Date site on the Feather River and Folsom Darn site on the American River (64 FR 5963-5981). However, dams and diversions have increasingly prevented splittail from upstream ' access to the large rivers and this species now primarily inhabits the delta and lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. 'During wet years,they migrate up the Sacramento River as far ' i -J CHAPTER 3.5-- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-37 CRAFT"E/R CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 as the Red Bluff diversion dam in Tehama County, and into the lowermost reaches of the Feather and American rivers (64 FR 5963-5981). Splittail have also been collected in the San Joaquin River and local tributaries. i Splittail are relatively long-lived, frequently reaching 5 to 7 years of age. Young-of-the-year splittail abundance fluctuates annually depending on spawning success, which is highly correlated with freshwater outflow and the availability of shallow-water habitat with submerged vegetation. The onset of spawning is associated with rising water levels, increasing water temperatures, and increasing day length. Peak spawning occurs from the months of March through May, although records of spawning exist for late January to early July (64 FR 5963-5981). Spawning occurs over flooded vegetation in tidal freshwater and euryhaline habitats of estuarine marshes and sloughs and slow-moving reaches of large rivers. Larvae remain in shallow,weedy areas close to spawning sites for 10 to 14 days and move into deeper water as they mature and swimming ability increases. Records from the CNDDB do not show the Sacramento splittail occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Similar to other special-status fish species, splittail may have historically used waterways within the project vicinity for spawning and rearing including Marsh Creek, Dutch Slough, and Big Break. Splittail have been documented within the waters of Big Break as recently as 1994, and in the lower reaches of Marsh Creek (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b). Although current conditions may limit use of waterways within the project area, splittail could occur within Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough in the project area. Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentate), River Lamprey (Lampetra tridentate), and Sacramento Perch (Archoplites interruptus) In addition to the special-status fish species discussed above, several other special-status fish species have the potential to occur in the San Joaquin and Sacramento River systems including green sturgeon (FSC, CSC), longfin smelt (FSC, CSC), Pacific lamprey (FSC), river lamprey (PSC, CSC), and Sacramento perch (PSC, CSC). Although records from the CNDDB do not show the green sturgeon, longfin smelt, Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, and the Sacramento perch occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002), and current conditions of waterways within the project vicinity may limit the use by these species, potential habitat for the aforementioned species occurs within Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough. Consequently, these species could occur within these waterways in the project area.. Birds Aleutian Canada goose (Branca canadensis leucopareia� Aleutian Canada goose (FD)was recently removed from the federal endangered species list(March 20, 2001); however, this species will be monitored for five a year period (66 FR 15643-15655). The Aleutian Canada goose is a small, inland nesting subspecies of the Canada goose. In the autumn, Aleutian Canada geese that originate on the western Aleutian Islands breeding grounds in Alaska migrate to their wintering grounds in the upper San Joaquin Valley in California,while those breeding on the eastern Aleutian Islands in Alaska migrate to their wintering grounds in Oregon (Garrett et. al 1994). On wintering grounds in California potential habitat for this species occurs in CHAPTER 3.5--BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-38 1 DRAFT-EIt; Cy,-RE5.5 43lr o vc i MAY 2003 harvested bean, rice, and cornfields; irrigated cattle pastures; and freshly planted pastures and winter wheat fields. Aleutian Canada geese leave California to return to their island breeding grounds in March and April (Garrett et. al 1994). Records from the CNDDB do not show the Aleutian Canada,goose occurring within five miles of i the project site (CNDDB 2002). The cropland habitat within the project area is considered s j potential wintering habitat for this species. Although, the project site is not a known wintering site, Aleutian Canada geese could occasionally forage within the project area during their j migration. Consequently,this species could occur within the project area. Ferruginous Hawk.(Buten regalis) Ferruginous hawk (FSC, CSC) is a winter resident and migrant of California. In the winter, this species can be found in the Modoc Plateau, Central Valley, and Coast Ranges(Zeiner et. al 1990a). Ferruginous hawks migrate to California in September and return to their breeding grounds, which } ranges from Oregon into southern Canada, by mid-April. This species frequents open habitats including, grasslands, shrubsteppes, sagebrush, deserts, saltbush-greasew ood shrublands, and outer edges of pinyon-pine and other forests. Rabbits(Lepus sp.),ground squirrels(Spermaphilus beecheyi), and mice are the primary prey consumed by ferruginous hawks. Records from. the CNDDB do not show the ferruginous hawk occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Additionally, this species was not observed during Meld investigations. Because the cropland habitat within the project area is considered potential wintering habitat for this species, ferruginous hawk could occasionally forage in the project area. Grasshopper Sparrow(Ammodramus savannarum) t Grasshopper sparrows (PSC) are a summer resident and breeder of California in the foothills and lowlands west of the Cascade-Sierra Nevada crest from Mendocino and Trinity Counties south to y San Diego County (Zeiner et. al 1990a). The species occurs in dry, dense grasslands, especially these with a variety of grasses and forts, and scattered shrubs for singing perches. Grasshopper sparrows consume a variety of insects and grasses and forb seeds. Breeding occurs in April through mid-July,peaking,in May and June(Zeiner et. al 1990a). Nests are built in slight depressions in the ground,hidden at the base of an overhanging clump of grasses or fortis. Clutch size is usually 4 or s eggs and incubation lasts approximately 11 or 12 days(Zeiner et. al 1990a). Records from the CNDDB do not show the grasshopper sparrow occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Additionally, this species was not observed during field investigations. However, potential foraging and nesting habitat for grasshopper sparrows occurs within the project site and, consequently, this species could occur in the project area. Loggerhead Shrike(Lanius ludovicianus) Loggerhead shrike (FSC, CSC)is a predatory songbird that is a common resident and winter visitor in lowlands and foothills throughout California. This species prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs,trees, posts, fences,utility lines, or other perches(Zeiner et. al 1990a). Loggerhead shrikes consume a variety of insects and other small invertebrates, including birds, small mammals, and CHAPTER 3.5-- StCLOGICRE...RESOURCES 3.5-:39 DRA F-r EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY,2003 reptiles. This species is a monogamous, solitary nester, with a breeding season that extends from March through May (Zeiner et. al 1990a). Nests are built on stable branches in densely foliaged shrub or tree and are usually well concealed. Clutch size ranges from 4 to 8 eggs and incubation lasts approximately 14 or I S days. Records from the CNDDB do not show the loggerhead shrike occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). However, this species was observed forging in the project site during field investigations (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a). In addition to foraging habitat, potential nesting habitat occurs within project area. Consequently, loggerhead shrikes could nest as well as forage within the project area. Mountain Plover(Charadrius montanus) Mountain plover (FPT, CSC) primarily occurs in the high plains and semi-desert regions of the western United States. This species is a Great Plains native that breeds on the and short-grass prairie from northern.Montana to southern New Mexico and winters in California, with small numbers wintering in Arizona and Texas. In California, this species is a winter resident from September through March, with a wintering distribution including the Central Valley from Sutter and Yuba Counties south, foothill valleys west of the San Joaquin Valley, and Imperial Valley (Zeiner et. al 1990a). Wintering habitat in Central Valley includes short grasslands and plowed fields. Mountain plover consume large insects such as grasshoppers, crickets, and flies. Records from the CNDDB do not show the mountain plover occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). The cropland habitat within the project area is considered potential wintering habitat for this species. Although, the project area is not a known wintering site, mountain plover could occasionally forage in the project site during their mitigation. Consequently, this species could occur in the project site . Short-Eared Owl(Asir Fl=meus) Short-eared owl (FSC, CSC) is a winter and yearlong resident of California that occurs in open areas with few trees including grasslands, prairies, dunes, meadows, irrigated lands, and saline and fresh emergent wetlands (Zeiner et. al 1990a). This species consumes primarily small mammals. In the coastal wintering areas and in the nesting season birds are also an important source of food (Zeiner et. al 1990a). The breeding season occurs in early March through July. Nests are placed on the ground in a depression concealed in vegetation. Clutch size ranges from 4 to 14 eggs and incubation lasts approximately 21 to 28 days(Zeiner et. al 1990a). Records from the CNDDB do not show the short-eared owl occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Additionally, this species was not observed during field investigations. Because potential foraging and nesting habitat for short-eared owl occurs within the project site, this species could occur in the project area. Swainson's Hawk(Butes swainsonii) Swainson's hawk(FSC, CT)is a breeding resident and migrant of California. This species migrates from their wintering grounds in the La Pampas Region in Argentina to their breeding grounds in CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5 -40 .......................................... ............................................ ............ ............................ i DRA—T EI CY,-RESS GROVE MAY2003 1, east-central Alaska, southwest Canada, eastern Washington and. Oregon, and the Central Valley of California from early March through early April (Bloom and Van De Water 1994) On breeding grounds Swainson's hawk prefer open habitats including mixed and short grass grasslands with scattered trees or shrubs for perching; dry grasslands; irrigated meadows; and edges between two habitat types. Breeding occurs from,late March through late August, peaking in late May through July(Zeiner et. al 1990a). In the Central Valley, Swainson's hawks nest in stands with few trees in juniper-sage flats, riparian woodlands, and oak woodlands. This species nests in close proximity to suitable foraging habitat including agricultural croplands and grasslands. Swainson's hawks prey on amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals. This species leaves their breeding grounds to return to their wintering grounds in late August or early September (Bloom and Van De Water 1994). Two CNDDB records show Swainson's hawk occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Potential nesting and foraging habitat for this species occurs in the project site. Additionally, this species was observed in the project site during a habitat assessment and focused a..a breeding season western burrowing owl survey conducted in the project site by Sycamore Associates LLC. (2002b). a Tricolored Blackbird(Agelaius tricolor) Tricolored blackbird (BSC, CSC) is a colonial species that is primarily endemic to California (USFWS 1997). This species is most numerous in the Central Valley, but also occurs in the foothills surrounding the valley. Tricolored blackbirds occur in pastures, dry seasonal pools, and agricultural fields. Additionally, this species occasionally occurs in riparian scrub, saltbush scrub, marsh borders, and grasslands habitats. Breeding occurs from mid-April through late July. Tricolor blackbirds usually nests with dense cattails (7ypha sp.) or rules (Schpus sp.) in emergent wetlands. This species also nests in thickets of blackberry (Rebus sp.), wild rose (Rosa sp.), Willow 7 (Salix sp.), and tall herbs. Clutch size ranges from 2 to 4 eggs and incubation lasts approximately 11 days(Zeiner et. al 1990a). a Records from the CNDDB do not show the tri-colored blackbird occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Additionally,this species was not observed during field investigations. The freshwater marsh habitat and the cropland habitat in the project area are considered potential. nesting and foraging habitat, respectively, for this species. Consequently, tricolored blackbirds could occur in the project area. '= Western.Burrowing Owl(Athene cunicularia hypugea) .31 Western burrowing owl (FSC, CSC) is a small ground-dwelling owl that occurs in open, dry grassland and desert habitats in western North America from Canada to Mexico, and east to Texas, and Louisiana. Although in certain areas of its range western burrowing owls are migratory, owls aare predominantly nonigratory in California(seiner et. al 1990a).This species is an opportunistic forager, foraging on large arthropods, mainly beetle and grasshoppers; small mammals, reptiles, birds, and carrion. The breeding season for western burrowing owls occurs from March through August, peaking in April and May (Zeiner et. al 1990a). Western burrowing owls nest in burrows in the ground, often in old ground squirrel burrows or badger (Taxidea taxes) dens. This species is also known use artificial burrows including pipes, culverts, and nest boxes. CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-41 DRIFTEhr? CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 Four CNNDB records show western burrowing owls occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). Potential foraging and burrowing habitat occur in the project area. Although this species was not observed during a protocol-level habitat assessment and focused breeding season burrowing owl survey conducted in the project site in June 2002 (Sycamore Associates LLC.,letter 2002b), burrowing owls were observed in the project site during focused winter burrowing owl and pre-construction bird surveys conducted in the project site in January 2003 (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003e). Consequently, western burrowing owls could utilize the project site for foraging and breeding. White-Tailed Kite(Elanus cacruleus) White-tailed kite (FSC, Fully Protected) is a medium sized raptor that is a yearlong resident in coastal and valley lowlands in California. This species occurs in agricultural, grassland, wetland, and oak woodland habitats. White-tailed kite primarily consume voles and other small mammals; however, this species will occasionally prey on insects, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. White- tailed kite are monogamous and breed from February through October, peaking from May through August (Zeiner et. al 1990a). Nests are built near the top of dense oak, willow, or other large trees. Clutch size ranges from 3 to 6 eggs and incubation last for approximately 28 days (Zeiner et. al 1990a). Records from the CNDDB do not show the white-tailed kite occurring within five miles of the project site (CNDDB 2002). However, several white-tailed kites have been observed foraging and roosting in the study during field investigations (Sycamore Associates 2003a). Additionally, a pair exhibiting courtship and breeding behaviors and frequently visiting an existing nest was observed during focused wintering burrowing owl and pre-construction bird surveys conducted in the project site in January 2003 (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003e). Raptors and Other Migratory Birds Raptors and other migratory birds forage and nest in various habitats throughout Contra Costa County. Raptor nests are protected under the META and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and. Game Code, and the nest of all migratory birds are protected under the MBTA, which makes it illegal to destroy any active migratory bird nest. Potential foraging and nesting habitat for raptor and other migratory birds occurs in the project area. Several raptors were observed in the project area during field investigations including American kestrel, Merlin, red-shoulder hawk, red-tailed hawk, Swainson's hawk, and white-tailed kite. Additionally, a pair of red-tailed hawks has been documented as successfully nesting within the eucalyptus grove in the project site in 2002 and pairs of potentially nesting white-tailed kite and red-shouldered hawk were observed in the project site in January 2003 (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003e). Mammals Bats Special-status bat species are known to occur within Contra Costa County including greater western mastiff (Eumops perosis californicus) (FSC, CSC), fringed myotis (Myosis thysanodes) (FSC), CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-42 ............................................. ............o........ ....................................... DjYA T EIS' CYPREss GRovE MAY 2 003 long-legged myotic M oris volans FSCpallid bat Antrozouspallidus) Townsend's western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii towwendii) (FSC, CSC), and Yuma myotis (Myctis yumanensis) (FSC, CSC). Due to recent population declines these species are of concern to federal and state resource agencies. Habitat for bat species consists of foraging habitat, night roosting cover, maternity roost sites, and winter hbernacula. In general,the resource agencies are most:concerned about the loss of maternity roosting sites. U] Records from the CNDDB do not show special-status bats occurring within five miles of the project 1 site (CNDDB 2002). The abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the bridge over Marsh Creek in project site are considered potential habitat for bats. Although no sign of bats was observed during the site assessment for special.-status bats conducted in the project site in June 2002 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2002), potentiall habitat for bats occurs in the project area and, consequently, special-status bats could occur within these habitats. <^ San Joaquin Kit Pax(Vuipes macrotis mutica) � t : s The San Joaquin kit fox (FE, CT) is the largest of the recognized subspecies of the kit fox, the smallest member of the dog family in North America. This species is active year-round, primarily nocturnal, and closely associated with desert and steppe habitat, generally with a covering of shrubs or grasses, throughout the San Joaquin Valley, California, and adjacent foothills. Because of -.i extensive human disturbance of habitats in the Central 'Valley, kit foxes currently use modified habitats such as annual grasslands and scrublands with active oil fields, wind turbines, and agricultural matrices of row crops, irrigated pastures, orchards, vineyards, and grazed annual grasslands ('Wilharn et al. 1998). flak woodlands, alkali sink scrubland, and vernal pool and alkali meadow communities also provide cover and forage for kit foxes; however, these communities do not provide good Benning habitat because all have moist or waterlogged clay or clay-like soils. Kit foxes prefer loose textured and well-drained soils (William et al. 1998). Kit foxes use dens for thermal regulation, reproduction, and protection from predators. In the northern part of their range, kit foxes usually enlarge ground squirrel burrows, but they can also construct their own dens (William et al. 1998). Kit foxes also den in human-made structures,such as culverts, abandoned pipes, and banks in roadbeds. Although dens belong to specific individuals or fancily groups, individuals or family groups may use several dens within a month. Den changes have been attributed to depletion of prey around the Ben or to increases in external parasites such as fleas(William et al. 1998). (. Females begin searching for natal dens in September and October. Males join females at the natal dens in October or November and breeding begins in late December, continuing through January into early February. Litter size is usually 4 or 5 pups and the sex ratio is generally equal (Morrell 1972; Cypher et al. 2000). Pups remain with the parents until they are 4 to 5 months olds, after which time family bonds begin to dissolve and pups disperse (O'Farrell 1983). Home ranges are variable,perhaps depending on prey availability(Zoellick and Smith 1992). Geographical, seasonal, and annual variations in the diet of kit faxes exist, which are based upon: temporal and spatial variation in prey abundance (William, et al. 1998). Their diet consists largely of small mammals, particularly rodents, but also includes insects, small passerine birds, lizards, CHAPTER 3.5---BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-43 .......... ©RAF-T EIR CYPRESS 137P0VE MAY 2003 amphibians, and vegetation (Morrell 1972). Leporids (cottontails and hares) and kangaroo rats (Dipodomys sp.)have been identified as their primary prey Morrell 1971; Cypher et al. 2000). Although CNDDB records of San Joaquin kit fox within five miles of the project site (CNDDE 2002) do not exist, approximately 13 kit fox occurrences exist within ten'miles"of the project site (Townsend, letter, September 9, 2002). The cropland and interior dune habitats in the project site are considered potential foraging and movement habitat for kit foxes. Frequent disking of the project site would likely preclude kit foxes from using the project site for denning. Based on the San Joaquin Kit Fox Regional Analysis for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California prepared by Townsend (2002), kit foxes are not expected to occur in the project site due to the lack of connectivity between known kit fox occurrences and the project site brought on by urbanization and documentation of kit foxes within the local vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project site is not recognized within the current geographic range of the San Joaquin kit fox; the northern extent of the kit fox range is approximately four miles southwest of the project site. RF-GULATORY Cowocr The following describes federal, state, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the CEQA review process. The CEQA significance criteria are also included in this section. Listed Species The United States Congress passed the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)in 1973 to protect those species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The State of California enacted a similar law, the California Endangered Species Act(CESA)in 1984. The federal and state Endangered Species Acts are intended to operate in conjunction with CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for implementation of the FESA, while the California Department of Fish and Game implements the CESA. During project review, each agency is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the project to affect listed plants and animals. Section 7 of the FESA and its implementing regulations outline procedures for federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitats. Pursuant to Section 7 a federal agency must, in consultation with the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed species or result in adverse modification of critical habitat. Consultation between the Federal agency and USFWS or NMFS often begins with an informal consultation phase. Informal consultation is an optional process between the USFWS or NMFS and the Federal agency or designated non-Federal representative to determine whether a proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitat. This includes all discussions and correspondence prior to formal consultation. Formal consultation is the process between the USFWS or NMFS and the Federal agency or designated non-Federal representative that commences with the Federal agency's or designated non-Federal representative's written request for CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-44 ..................................................... .... ...........................I..................... t DRAT r EIR CYPRESS GROVE Mss Y 3t2D3 consultation under Section 7 of the FESA, and concludes with the USFWS or NMFS issuing a biological opinion and incidental take statement. Special-Status Species A In addition to formal listing under the FESA and the CISA, species receive additional consideration during the CEQA process. Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of "Species of Special Concern," developed by the CDFG. CDFG tracks species in California whose numbers,reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened. The CIPS maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distributi DRAFT EIR CYPRESS Gr,,ovE MAY 2003 vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology existing under the"normal circumstances"for the site. • The lateral extent of non-tidal waters is determined by delineating the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) 133 C.F.R. §328.4(c)(1)]. The OHWM is defined by the Corps as "that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate l means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas"133 C.F.R. §328.3(e)). Wetland delineations conducted by Sycamore Associates LLC, have found no jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project site. The freshwater marsh on the Emerson property, the property adjacent to the project site, between the northeastern property boundary and the existing outfall into Emerson Slough, was included in the wetland delineation for the Emerson and Burroughs properties (Sycamore Associates LLC. 1998), verified on December 7, 1998, USACE # 199800679, as a non-jurisdictional area, while the small freshwater marsh within the northeastern corner of the project site in the interior dunes community was included in the wetland delineation for the Cypress Grove project area (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001), verified on January 16, 2003, as a non-jurisdictional area. Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough would be considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The CDFG has jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code over fish and wildlife resources of the state. tinder Section 1603, a private party must notify the CDFG if a proposed project will "substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the streambeds...except when the department has been notified pursuant to Section 1601." 1f an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected by the activity, the CDFG may propose reasonable measures that will allow protection of those resources. If these measures are agreeable to the party, they may enter into an agreement with the CDFG identifying the approved activities and associated mitigation measures. Marsh Creek and portions of Emerson Slough and the adjacent freshwater marsh may be regulated by CDFG. Wildlife Migration Corridors Wildlife migration corridors are important for the movement of migratory wildlife populations. Corridors provide foraging opportunities and shelter during migration. Generally, wildlife migration corridors are established migration routes for many species of wildlife. In wooded areas, these corridors often occur in open meadow or riverine habitats and provide a clear route for migration in addition to supporting ample food and water sources during movement. City of Oakley General Plan The City of Oakley's General Plan Area supports a diverse assemblage of plant and wildlife species throughout several habitat types. Sensitive habitat areas in Oakley (irrigated pastures and marshes/sloughs) contain valuable biological resources. Efforts to identify and preserve these valuable resources will improve the quality of the environment for Oakley residents.The following applicable goals and policies are from the Oakley 2020 General Plan(2002): CHAPTER 3.5- -BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-46 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200 3 Goal 6.3 Encourage preservation of important ecological and biological resources. Policy=6.3.1 Encourage preservation of important ecological and biological resources as open space. Policy 6.3.2 Develop ripen space uses in an ecologically sensitive manner. Policy 6.3.3 Use land use planning to reduce the impact of urban development on important ecological and biological resources identified during application review and analysis. Policy 6.3.4 Encourage preservation and enhancement of the natural characteristics of the San Joaquin Delta and Dutch Slough. Policy 6.3.5 Encourage preservation and enhancement, of Delta wetlands, significant trees, natural vegetation, and wildlife populations. Policy 6.3.6 Encourage preservation of portions of important wildlife habitats that would be disturbed by major development, particularly adjacent to the Delta. Policy 6.3.7 Preserve and expand stream corridors in Oakley, restoring natural vegetation where feasible. t�,s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance The City of Oakley adopted the Contra Costa County (CCG) Zoning Ordinance in 1999 when it incorporated. The CCC Ordinance will remain the City's Zoning Ordinance until the City adopts its own. The CCC Zoning Ordinance contains a Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. The ordinance states that among the features that contribute to the attractiveness of the County are its heritage trees growing as single specimens, in clusters, or in woodland situations. The tree preservation ordinance defines heritage trees as: 1) A tree seventy-two inches or more in circumference measured.Four and one-half feet above the natural grade; or 2) Any tree or a group of trees particularly worthy of protection, and specifically designated as a heritage tree by the board of supervisors pursuant to the provisions of this chapter because of: A) Having historical or ecological interest or significance, or B) Being dependent upon each other for health or survival, or i C) Being considered an outstanding specimen of its species as to such factors as location, size, age, rarity, shape, or health. y ' Except as provided in the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, no person shall destroy or remove any designated heritage tree unless a permit has been obtained. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION M ASURI=S Standards of Significance Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines encourages local agencies to develop and publish the -; thresholds that the agency uses in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-47 DRAF:EIR CYPRESS GROVE Ma Y 2003 projects under its review. However, agencies may also rely upon the guidance provided by the expanded Initial Study checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G provides examples of impacts that would normally be considered significant. Based on these examples, impacts to biological resources would normally be considered significant if the project would: a) 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. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or I.I.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. C) 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. d) 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. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, _Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 further provides that a plant or animal species may be treated as "rare or endangered"even if it is not on one of the official lists if, for example, it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. .Method of Analysis This biological analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the natural resources of the project area; examination of aerial photography, biological resources, and vegetation maps; and field investigations. The evaluation of whether or not an impact on biological resources would be substantial considers both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Substantial impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biological resource, or those that would clearly conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations. Impacts are sometimes locally important but not significant according to CEQA. The reason for this is that although the impacts would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish, or result in the permanent loss of, an important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis. Available information pertaining to the natural resources of the project area was reviewed. These documents include: * Cypress Grove Tree Survey(Atlas Tree Service, Inc.,14ay 7, 2003); CHAPTER 3.5—&OLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-48 DRAFT EIR CYRREss GRo vE MAY 200 3 i + Botanical Assessment,for the Cypress grove Project, Oakley, Contra Costa County, Cal fornia (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002a); + California Natural Diversity Data Base(CNDDB August 2002); • Cal forma Native Plant Society(CLAPS)Inventory o f`Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CLAPS 2001); + a list of special-status plant and wildlife species from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(2002); • Jepson Manual:Nigher Plants of California (Hickman 1993); t:: + Revised .Draft Biological Assessment for the Cypress Grove Property, Oakley, California (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a); + =Site Analysis for the Proposed Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, California (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b); + Habitat Assessment for Special-Status Invertebrates for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002); + Site Assessment for the California Red--Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii)for the Cypress Grove e. 't Project, Oakley, California(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003c); + Site Assessment for Special-Status Reptiles and Amphibians at the Proposed Cypress Grove Site in Oakley, Contra Costa County, California (Swaim Biological Consulting 2902); + Swainson's Hawk Foraging Habitat Analysis(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003d); + Protocol-Level Habitat Assessment and Focused Breeding Season Burrowing Owl Surveys for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002b); + Focused Winter Burrowing Owl and Pre-Construction Bird Surveys(Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003e); + Site Assessment for Special-Status Bats for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, Contra Costa County, Calforma (H. T. Harvey&Associates 2002); + San Joaquin Kit Fox Regional Analysis for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, California (Townsend 2092); and + Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, California (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002c). Nomenclature for vegetation communities was based on A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of Cal fon-lia (Mayer and Laudenslayer,Jr. 1988) with additional information provided by Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of Cal fornia (Holland 1986)and A Manual fCal fornia Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). 1 ootbill Associates' biologists conducted a field investigation on November 27, 2092. The Meld investigation included a habitat assessment and general plant and wildlife surveys within the project area boundary. Special attention was given to those areas within the project area with the potential to support special-status species and sensitive habitats. In conjunction with the field investigation, recent aerial photography was examined to identify biological resources and map vegetation 4 communities. L.J CHAPTER 3.5-- BiOLOGIC.AL RESOURCES 3.5-49 DRAT=r, ETR CYPREss vF,ov P,rAY 2©0.3 Project--Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 Common plant communities The proposed project would remove cropland and ruderal grassland vegetation within the project site. The amount of cropland vegetation removed is relatively small in comparison to the amount of these habitats in the region. For these reasons, and because this habitat is regionally widespread, this impact would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. 3.5-2 Habitat for common resident and migratory wildlife Implementation of the proposed project would permanently remove habitat for common resident and migratory wildlife currently utilizing the project site. Although the cropland provides some habitat for common and migratory wildlife species, primarily birds, this habitat is regionally abundant and widespread. For this reasons, wildlife would be able to move into adjacent habitats. Therefore, this impact would be considered less-than- significant. ess-than- signfcant. Mitigation Measure(sl None required. 3.5-3 Special-status plants Habitat for nineteen special-status plant species occurs within the project site including the following: Antioch Dunes evening primrose, bristly sedge, brittlescale, Contra Costa wallflower, Delta mudwort, Delta tole-pea, diamond-petaled California poppy, eel-grass pondweed, heartscale, Hoover's cryptantha, large-flowered fiddleneck, Mason's lilaeopsis, rose mallow, round-leaved filaree, San Joaquin spearscale, showy madia, small spikerush, soft bird's-beak, and Suisun Marsh aster. Focused special-status plant surveys were conducted in April and May 2002 by Sycamore Associates LLC. (2002a). In addition to focused special-status plant surveys, reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted in July 2000 and 2001, and October 2001 by Sycamore Associates LLC. (2002a). Focused and reconnaissance-level surveys resulted in negative findings for special-status plants within the project site. However, the area proposed for the expansion of the linear water main was not included in the focused or reconnaissance-level surveys due to recent revisions to the linear water main. Consequently, the potential for the special-status plants to occur in this area cannot be ruled out as focused surveys were not completed. The following six special-status plants have the potential to occur in the expansion area of the linear water main: Antioch Dunes evening-primrose, Contra Costa wallflower, heartscale, Hoover's cryptantha, large- flowered fiddleneck, and showy madia. Removal of special-status plants as part of project construction is considered potentially significant. CHAPTER 3.5-- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 50 } DRAP7-EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2 003 i Mi!Lo,ation„Mcaatlrtlg) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.S-3(a) Additional April and May surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted within e .= the expansion area of the linear water main in the project site. 3.5-3(b) f any special-status plant species are found within this area in project site, areas supporting the species shall be avoided; or 3.5-3(c) The following mitigation measures are required if an area containing a special- status plant species cannot be avoided: 9 Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar method, an equal amount of acreage, either within the project site or off-site, that contains the plant;or f7 • Harvest the plants to be lost, and relocate them to another suitable and equal i sized area either within the project site or off-site; or * Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or use seeds,from another appropriate source, and seed an equal amount of area suitable for growing the plant either within the project site or off-site. i These mitigation measures shall be completed by a qualified biologist with experience working with the species included in the mitigation. Prior to grading, the developer shall submit a written report to the Cityfor its review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with the mitigation L measures, including the steps it will take to ensure that transplanting or seeding will be successful. The report shall include maintenance and monitoring to ensure either successful establishment of relocated plants. The report shall i also include clear and measurable performance standards, including remedial actions to compensate for the loss of plants in the event the transplanting or seeding fforts fail. 3.5-4 Heritage trees The Cypress Grove project site contains a total of 122 trees as recorded by Atlas Tree Service, Inc. (May 2043). More specifically, the Williamson Property contains 13 trees, the Conco North Property contains 38 trees, and the Conco South Property contains 71 trees. As mentioned above, the City of Oakley has adopted the Contra Costa County i.> (CCC) Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, which protects heritage trees. Heritage trees are defined as trees that have a circumference of 72-inches or greater or any tree or a group of trees particularly worthy of protection. According to the Atlas Tree Service survey, the project site has a total of 37 heritage trees consisting of 19 black walnuts, 6 cottonwoods, 1 China berry, 3 eucalyptus, 1 English walnut, and 7 live oak. The Atlas Tree Service survey also notes that out of the 37 heritage trees on the project site, 23 are in poor condition, 1 tree is in good condition, and 1 is dead. Construction of the proposed project would require the removal and/or destruction of heritage trees on CHAPTER 3.5--- BIOLOGICAL, RESOURCES ............... .......... ............. ........... DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GPOIVE MAY 200.E the project site. The CCC Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance prohibits the removal or destruction of any heritage tree unless a permit has been obtained. It should be noted that a permit is not required for the maintenance of heritage trees, including trimming and pruning. Because the proposed project would result in the removal and/or destruction of heritage trees, the project would have a potentially significant impact on trees. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.5-4(a) The contractor shall avoid the removal or damage of the heritage trees on the project site to the maximum extent feasible in compliance with the Oakley Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the contractor shall contact an ISA Certified Arborist to coordinate all proposed work to ensure the preservation of Heritage trees to the maximum extent feasible for the review and approval of the Community Development Department. Mitigation measures identified by the Arborist shall include but not be limited to the following; 0 Fencing shall be installed at the dripline or other area as determined by the Arborist of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be altered. 0 Storage of materials, parking of vehicles, grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, and paving activities shall not occur within the driplines of the trees unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the City. 0 ff during construction, any damage to heritage trees occurs, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Department and be responsible for the repair of the damaged tree(s)as determined by the Arborist. 3.5-4(b) The applicant shall obtain the necessary permit for the removal andlar destruction of heritage trees that cannot be avoided during project construction for the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 3.5-5 Special-status invertebrates The interior dune habitat present on the project site is located in the northeastern corner of the site (see Figure 3.5-3). The northwestern comer of the site, located in Subdivision 8679, would be developed with single family housing; therefore, the interior dune habitat would be removed through grading activities. Special-status invertebrate species have the potential to occur within the interior dune habitat in the project site including Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle, Sacramento anthicid beetle, and curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle. These invertebrate species are federal species of concern and are not afforded any formal protection under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts; however, they receive consideration during the CEQA process. In addition, the Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR CHAf'1 ER 3.5—BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5 - 52 .......................... ..............................................00000aaooaaaaaaooa0000.o..........%................ ....... ........... .........................................................— .............................. DRAFT ECR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 (p. 3-132)lists the curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle as having a high potential to occur in the City of Oakley planning area; and the General Plan requires the protection of special- status species and their associated habitats. Therefore, if any special-status invertebrate species are found in the project site, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact. t P Mitigign Measure(s) implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.5-5(a) Pre-construction surveys for special-status invertebrates shall be conducted in the project site within interior dune habitat and submitted to the City of Oakley for their review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. If special-status invertebrates do not occur in the project site, no further mitigation is required. 3.5-5(b) If special-status invertebrates occur on the project site, the appropriate public agency (USFWS andlor CDFG) shall be contacted for technical assistance to develop and implement mitigation measures appropriate to the particular species in f . the project site. At a minimum, mitigation measures shall include either avoiding occupied habitat for these species or mitigating loss of occupied habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio. 3.5-6 California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard occur in loose friable soils within a wide variety of habitats including annual grasslands, chaparral, and oak woodlands. The interior dune habitat in the northeastern comer of the project site, the area adjacent to the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the expansion area of the linear water main in the project site may provide habitat for these species. Because California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard are of concern to federal and state resource agencies and removal of potential habitat such as the interior dune habitat would result in a local decline of these species populations, this impact would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. <: s 3.5-6(a) Focused surveys for California homed Iizard and silvery legless lizard shall be conducted. These surveys shall be conducted by a quaked biologist during the appropriate time of year for optimal detection of California horned lizard(generally April and May, though they have been observed being active April through October [Jennings and Hayes 1994,x}and silvery legless lizard. f these species are not found to occur on the project area, now further mitigation is required. 3.5-6(b) However, if these species are determined to occur in the project site, a mitigation plan for California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard shall be prepared with C HAPTER:3.5-- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5. 53 DRAFT 1=IR CYPRESS GROVE MA Y 2003 technical assistance from USFWS and CDFG. At a minimum, the mitigation plan shall include measures that either avoid occupied habitat or mitigate loss of occupied habitat through (site acquisition and preservation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. A biological monitor shall be present in the project area during construction I activities within the interior dune habitat, the area adjacent to the abandoned I"1 residence and associated outbuildings, and the area within the expansion area of the i linear water main to prevent harm to individual lizards. 3.5-7 California red-legged frog Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough provide potential habitat for California red-legged frog, a federally-listed threatened species. If this species is present in the project site, construction of the levee alignment, expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek, and placement of the stormwater drainage pipes and outfalls into Emerson Slough could affect this species. Impacts to California red-legged frog are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.5-7(a) The formal California red-legged frog Site Assessment prepared by Sycamore Associates shall be submitted to the Corps and the USFWS as part of the Corps Section 404 permit application for the Marsh Creek bridge expansion and Emerson Slough outfall. Informal consultation or"technical assistance"shall be requested so that the Corps and USFWS may evaluate potential impacts and determine if formal consultation will be required under Section 7 of the ESA. Should the Corps determine that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the California red-legged frog, no formal consultation or mitigation is required. Should the Corps determine that the proposed project may affect the California red-leggedfrog, formal consultation with USFWS is required to ensure that any mitigation measures developed are adequate to protect this species. Currently, there is a Programmatic Formal Consultation in effectfor projects that may affect CRLF in Contra Costa County (USFWS, 1499). This programmatic consultation may apply to the proposed bridge expansion and ou�falls construction projects. 3.5-7(b) If CRLF are positively identified during the protocol survey, then a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared, with technical assistance from the USFWS and CDFG, that includes measures to minimize adverse effects of construction on this species and their associated habitat. At a minimum, this plan shall include all of the following measures: • A USFWS-approved biologist shall survey the bridge, levee, and/or outfalls construction site at Ieast two weeks prior to the onset of any construction activity. If CRLF eggs, tadpoles, or adults are found, USFWS shall be contacted to determine if an appropriate relocation site exists. The USFWS shall oversee any activities associated with the capture and handling of CRLF. CHAPTER 3.5—BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5 -54 DRAF-r E1R CYPRESS GRovE MAY2003 i • Prior to any construction activities, a training session shall be conducted far construction personnel. At a minimum, this session shall include a description of CRLF and its habitat, and measures that are being implemented to conserve CRLF in the project site. + A biological monitor shall be present in the project site to monitor compliance with minimization measures. + All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall occur at least 20 meters(6S feet)from any water body. A spill response plan must be in place to allow prompt response to any spills. + All temporary disturbance areas shall be re-vegetated with appropriate native species following project construction. + Work activities shall be completed between April 1 and November 1, unless otherwise authorized by USFWS. + To control erosion during and after project implementation, the applicant shall implement best management practices, as identified by the appropriate Regional Nater Quality Control Board. 3.5-8 Giant garter snake E Contra Costa Canal, Emerson Slough, and Marsh Creek, and adjacent upland habitat provide potential habitat for Giant garter snake, a stag and federal-listed threatened species. If this species is present in the project site, construction of the levee alignment adjacent to the Contra. Costa Canal, expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek, and placement of the stor water drainage pipes and outfalls into Emerson Slough could affect this species. Impacts to giant garter snake are considered potentially significant. t ly4itigation Measurels� Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant ess- than-signfcant level. 3.5-8(a) Focused surveys approved by the USFWS shall be conducted for GGS. These surveys shall be conducted by a quaked biologist during the appropriate time of year for optimal detection. Results of the surveys will be provided to the Corps and USFWS as part of the Corps Section 404 permit application and, if the Corps determines LI that the project mqy affect the GUS, formal consultation and appropriate mitigation measures approved in consultation with the USFWS will be required. Alternatively, if this species is not found to occur on the project site, or the Corps determines that the project is not likely to adversely affect the GGS, no further mitigation is required. 3.5-8(b) f the GGS is found to occur in the project site, a Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and approved by USFWS that includes measures to avoid take of giant garter snake during construction activities. At a minimum, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the mitigation plan: k"J CHAPTER 3.5— BIC7i-OGICAL RESOURCE DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 • Construction activities within 200 feet from the banks of giant garter snake aquatic habitat will be avoided where possible. Confine movement of heavy equipment to existing roadways to minimize habitat disturbance. i • Construction activity within habitat shall be conducted between May I and October I to minimize impacts to the GGS. For any activities needed between October 2 and April 30, contact the USFWS office to determine if additional measures are necessary to minimize and avoid take. • Clearing shall be confined to the minimum area necessary to facilitate construction. Avoidance areas shall be flagged and marked as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas." These areas shall be avoided by construction personnel. • Construction personnel shall receive USFIVS-approved worker environmental awareness training. This training shall instruct workers to recognize GGS and its habitat. • 24 hours prior to construction activities, the project site shall be surveyed for GGS. Survey of the project site shall be repeated if a lapse in construction activity of two weeks or greater has occurred. Y GGS is encountered during construction, activities shall not begin until appropriate corrective measures have been completed or it has been determined that the snake will not be harmed. Any sightings and any incidental take will be reported immediately to the USFWS at(916)414-6600. • Any dewatered habitat should remain dry far at least I S consecutive days after April I S and prior to excavating orf Hing of the dewatered habitat. • AlI construction debris and stockpiled materials shall be removed following construction. • The construction area shall be regraded to preexisting contours, or a contour that would improve restoration potential of the site. • After construction is completed, upland areas of the project site will be revegetated following guidelines listed in MM 3.5-7(b). 3.S-8(c) After construction is completed, disturbed areas within GGS habitat will be revegetated. The goal of the revegetation is to attempt to restore conditions similar to that of adjacent or nearby habitats. Recommended plantings consist of the following: a) wetland emergents, b) low- growing cover on or adjacent to banks, and c) upland plantings/hydroseeding mix to encourage use by other wildlife. Riparian plantings are not appropriate because shading may result in lack of basking sites. .Native plantings are encouraged except where non-natives will provide additional values to wildlife habitat and will not become invasive in native communities. Cuttings, plantings, plugs or seeds from local sources should be used whenever possible. CHAPTER 3.5-- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I DRAFT E/R CYPRESS GROVE it AY 200 3 3.5-9 Northwestern pond turtle The proposed project may result in impacts to both aquatic and upland habitat for northwestern pond turtle. This species nests and overwinters in upland habitats such as grassland adjacent to summer aquatic habitats. Contra Costa Canal, Emerson Slough, and Marsh Creek and the adjacent upland habitat may provide potential habitat for northwestern pond turtle. Temporary construction impacts that may affect this species include presence of heavy equipment, placement of a temporary cofferdam, placement of the temporary detour,placement of rip-rap,.and earthmoving activities as part of the levee alignment construction, expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek, and placement of the stormwater drainage pipes and outfalls into Emerson Slough. Because this species is extremely wary of humans, adult pond turtles that may be in aquatic habitats during summer months are likely to move away from the area during project construction activities. Following construction, upland habitats will be revegetated and this species would be able to return to the area. Therefore, long-term affects to this species due to the proposed project are not considered significant. However, nests and overwintering adults and juveniles could be affected from April through February. This species is a state and i federal species of concern, For these reasons, impacts to this species are considered -:i potentially significant. Malian Measurefsl Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant ess- than-sign f cant level. 3.5-9 AM focused pre-construction surveyfor Northwestern pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the onset of construction activities to determine presence or absence of this species in the project site. If construction is planned after April lst, this survey shall include looking for turtle nests within the construction area. f northwestern pond turtles are not found within the project site, no further mitigation is required. f juvenile or adult turtles are found within the proposed construction area, the individuals should be moved out of the construction site with technical assistance from CDFG and USFWS. If a nest is found within the construction area, construction shall not take place within 30 meters(140 feet)of the nest until the turtles have hatched. Prior to construction, a worker environmental awareness training in the recognition of f Northwestern pond turtle, and their habitat shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Ya turtle is observed on the site, work shall cease in the area until the turtle can be moved to a safe location consistent with CDFG and USF97S regulations. ;3 3.5-10 San Joaquin coachwhip c Saiz Joaquin coachwhip occur in open, dry, vegetative associations such as valley grasslands and saltbush scrub habitats with little or no tree cover. The interior dune habitat in the northeastern corner of the project site, the area adjacent to the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the expansion area of the linear water main in the project site may provide habitat for this species. Because San Joaquin coachwhip is of concern to federal and state resource agencies and removal of potential habitat would result in a local CHAF7ER 3.5—BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 57 DRAT i EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY20G3 decline of populations of this species, this impact would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant ess- than-signfcant level. } x 3.5-14(a) Focused pre-construction surveys for San Joaquin coachwhip shall be conducted. These surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate time of year for optimal detection (April or early May through the beginning of August (Jennings and Hayes 19941). f this species is not,found to occur on the project site, no further mitigation is required 3.5-10(b) However, if San Joaquin coachwhip are determined to occur in the project site, a mitigation plan for this species shall be prepared with technical assistance from USFWS and CDFG. At a minimum, the mitigation plan shall include measures that either avoid occupied habitat or mitigate loss of occupied habitat through of- site acquisition and preservation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. A biological'monitor shall be present in the project site during construction activities within the interior dune habitat, the area adjacent to the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the area within the expansion area of the linear water main to prevent harm to individual eoochwhips. 3.5-11 Special-status fish species Several special-status fish species are known to occur-or could occur in Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough including chinook salmon (winter, spring, fall and late-fall runs), Delta smelt, Sacramento splittail, and steelhead (Central Valley ESL ). Expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek would require placement of abutments and bank stabilization materials and may require placement of a temporary containment area around the work area. Construction of the new stormwater outfalls would require permanent and temporary vegetation removal within the freshwater marsh between the northeastern property boundary of the Emerson property and Emerson Slough, and Emerson Slough, respectively, and placement of new outfalls and concrete bank stabilization materials. In addition, a temporary containment area around the construction site may be required. Operation of the stormwater outfalls would allow release of stormwater into Emerson Slough via four 36-inch pipes. Water flow would be controlled at the pump station. Water would not be controlled at the Emerson Slough (outfalls)end of the pipeline. Short-term construction impacts related to bridge expansion and outfall construction could include take of larvae (Sacramento splittail, Delta Smelt), and/or adult Central Valley steelhead, Chinook salmon, Delta Smelt, Sacramento splittail, green sturgeon, longfin smelt, Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, and Sacramento perch. In addition, short-term construction could result in short-term turbidity effects. However, long-term effects are not associated with the expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek. The possibility exists that fish could enter and become stranded in the new pipelines associated with the outfalls. CHAIPTER 3.5— BiCLCGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-58 l DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE Mit Y 2003 1 Entrapment would be considered a long-term operational impact. These short- and long- term impacts would be considered potentially significant. Mixation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the`impacts to a less- { ` than-significant level. 3.5-11(a) A Fish Rescue Plan shall be prepared by a qualifs'ed fisheries biologist for the review and approval of the CDFG, NMFS, and USFWS that details measures to avoid take } offish during expansion of the bridge and construction of the outfalls and any associated coffer dam facilities. To ensure compliance and implementation of the plan, the fisheries biologist shall be present during construction and pumping activities. ii 3.5-11(b) Formal consultation with the CDFG, NMFS, and USFWS shall be required in conjunction with Corps Section 404 and Streambed Alteration Agreement permitting to determine appropriate measures to avoid impacts to special-statusfsh species. As part of the consultation process, a Biological Assessment and Essential .. Fish Habitat Assessment shall be prepared by a fisheries biologist that evaluates the r proposed construction plans, oufall design, vegetation removal, rip-rap and bank protection placement, cffer dam and water pumping best management practices, and water flow regime (including flow rates and timing and temperature of f ow releases)from the stormwater pipeline. A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared that includes measures to avoid take of special-status fish during construction activities. At a minimum, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the mitigation plan: • entrapment in the new pipeline is determined by the f sheries biologist to be a significant issue, a fish screen or other structure approved by USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG shall be placed on the outfalls to prevent fish entering the pipeline system. + Turbidity and suspended sediment levels in water returned to Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough shall not exceed more than 10% above ambient levels in these water bodies. • Construction shall occur between May 15 and October 15 (or other period requested by the h'MFS) to work outside of the season in which juvenile or migrating salmonids are present in the system. 3 3,s-12 Swainson's hawk Potential foraging and nesting habitat occurs in the project site for Swainson's hawk, a 3 federal species of concern and state-listed threatened species. Swainson's hawks were observed in the project site by Sycamore Associates (2002b). The destruction of active _- migratory bird nests, including raptors, is a violation of the MBTA and disruption or destruction of an active raptor nest is also a violation of DFG Code .3503.5. Swainson's CHAP i ER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-59 DRAFT EER CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 hawk is additionally protected under the California Endangered Species Act. Loss of foraging habitat also may be considered significant under CEQA. z Sycamore performed an analysis of the potential foraging habitat available within a 10-mile 1 radius of a reported Swainson's hawk nest location approximately four miles southwest of the project site. Data from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program's(FMMP)land use coverage for 2400, and the California Department of 'Water Resources (DWR) agricultural land use classification coverage for Contra Costa County for 1995 was used for the analysis. Agricultural lands within a 14-mile radius of the known nest site were first identified in the 1995 DWR agricultural coverage information, and then compared to urban areas located on the 2004 FMMP data set to find how many acres, since 1995, have been converted to urban uses. Spatial analysis was performed using the above coverages in ArcGIS to calculate the potential foraging habitat. The Cypress Grove project would remove 147 acres of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat from the approximately. 29,000 acres presently available as shown by the analysis (Sycamore Associates, Swainson's Hawk Foraging Habitat Analysis, March, 2443). Suitable foraging habitat in excess of 15,400 acres would potentially remain available within a 10- mile radius of the Swainson's hawk nest site located approximately 4 miles away. Given, the requirement of at least 15,000 acres of suitable foraging habitat and the ability of this species to travel up to 18 miles to forage (Estep 1989, Babcock 1993), a sufficient amount of foraging habitat would still be available to Swainson's hawks if development rates over the next 2S years remain constant, and significant conversion of suitable agricultural crop types does not occur. Thus, both the project-specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project are not likely to significantly affect the nesting success of a pair of Swainson's hawks at the nest site. The determination of whether or not the loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat would require mitigation in this case would ultimately be made by the California Department of Fish and Game. In addition, although Swainson's hawks were not found occupying the project site during the 2042 field surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates (2002b), the possibility exists that Swainson's hawks could establish occupancy on the site prior to the initiation of construction for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts to Swainson's hawks. Mitigation Measure/s� Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.5-12(a) If construction is proposed during breeding season (February-August), a focused survey for Swainson's hawk nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a qualfed biologist in order to identify active nests in the project site. If active nests are found, a buffer zone of a minimum Of one-quarter mile (approximately 1340 feet) shall be established around the active nest. Intensive new disturbances(e.g., heavy equipment activities associated with construction) that may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging shall not be initiated within this buffer zone between March I and September 1. The buffer CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 60 ©RA r Elf; CYPREss GRo vE zone shallbe increased to one half ,anile in nesting areas away from urban development (i.e., where heavy equipment noise is not a normal occurrence during nesting season). frees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season (September to January). If no active nests are found during the focused survey, no further {' mitigation will be required. t- L: IS-12(b) Theforaging oraging habitat evaluation conducted by Sycamore shall be submitted to CDFG for review and, if CDFG determines that mitigation is required, mitigation for loss > of Swainson's hawk habitat will be determined with technical assistance from CDFG. 3.5-I3 Nesting raptors and migratory birds Potential nesting habitat for raptors such as red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, short- eared owl, and white-tailed: kite occur within the annual grassland and cropland in and adjacent to the project site. Additionally, these habitats could also provide potential nesting habitat for other migratory and resident birds, including grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, Aleutian. Canada goose,.mountain plover, and tri-colored blackbird . The freshwater marsh habitat could provide potential nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird. The destruction of active migratory bird nests, including raptors, is a violation of the MBIA and disruption or destruction of an active raptor nest is also a violation, of DFG Code 3503.5. Disruption of active raptor and migratory and resident nests could occur in conjunction with project development if raptors and migratory and resident birds were nesting within up to SOO feet of construction activities. This impact is considered potentially significant. Mitis�ati n.Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- s than signifc:ant level. 3.S-13 1f construction is proposed during breeding season (February-August), a focused survey for migratory and resident bird nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a qualified biologist in order to identi�fy active nests in the project site. f active nests are found, no construction activities shall take place within 500 feet of the raptor nests and 100 feet of other migratory birds until the young have fledged. frees containing nests that must be a removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non- breeding season (September to January). Xf no active nests are found during the focused survey, no further mitigation will be required. 3.5-14 Western burrowing owl Cropland and interior dune habitats within the project site provide potential habitat for J western burrowing owl, a federal and state species of concern. Although burrowing owls were not observed during focused breeding season surveys in the project site (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2602b), burrowing owls were observed in the project site during focused CHAPTER 3.5—J331t'OGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-61 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS'GRovE MAY 20 3 wintering surveys (Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003e). Because this species could establish nests in the project site prior to the onset of project construction, mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project to avoid impacts to this species. The proposed project would have a potentially significant impact to western burrowing owls. Mitigation Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.S-14(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey of all potential burrowing owl habitat within the project site and 250 feet of the project site boundaries and record the presence of individual burrowing owls, sign of burrowing owls, and all burrows that are in use by burrowing owl. 3.5-14(b) f the pre-construction survey does not f nd any burrowing owl activity, no further mitigation is required. The following additional mitigation measures shall be implemented if there are burrowing owls nesting in the project site or within 250 feet of the project site boundaries: • Grading shall not be allowed during the nesting season (April July), unless approved by the CDFG, within 250 feet of any nest burrow. • Prior to grading within burrowing owl habitat unoccupied burrows shall be collapsed to prevent occupation by burrowing owls subsequent to pre- construction surveys. • loss of burrowing owl foraging habitat shall be mitigated at 6.5 acres per pair at an offsite Iocation approved by the CDFG. • A monitoring report of all activities associated with surveys for and passive relocation of burrowing owls shall be submitted to the CDFG no later than two weeks after the completion of grading that occurs within 2S0 feet of occupied nesting burrows. 3.5-15 Special-status bats Special-status bat species roost in a variety of habitats such as caves, rock crevices, trees, under bridges, and in buildings. The abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the bridge over Marsh Creek in project site provide potential habitat for roosting bats. Although no sign of bats was observed during a site assessment for special-status bats (H.T. Harvey &Associates 2002), bat species could establish roost in the project site prior to the onset of project construction. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact on special-status bat species. Mitigation Measure(sl Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. CHAPTER 3.5— BiOLt7CICAL RESOURCES 3.5-62 I D AF-T EIR CYPF?Ess GRovE j MAY X003 3.5-I. (a) Prior to construction, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine presence or absence of bats roosting in the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the bridge over Marsh Creep in project site. if no bat species are found to be roosting on the project site, nod further mitigation is required. 3.S-1a(b) however, if this species is determined to be roosting in the project site, the project ' applicant shall coordinate with CDP'G to determine suitable measures to avoid disturbance of roosting bats. At a minimum, the bridge and buildings shall not be a removed while bats are present. One-way bat doors may be installed over roost entrances to ensure that bats are not trapped in the roosts during project construction. 3.5-16 Sensitive communities Sensitive habitats within the project site include Marsh Creek, Emerson Slough and adjacent freshwater marsh. The proposed project includes expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek,raising the levee adjacent to Marsh Creek, and placement of new stormwater M outfalls at Emerson Slough. These activities may result in temporarily erosion and runoff # into these water bodies and removal of existing vegetation. j The Oakley General Plan states that grading, filling, and construction activity near watercourses shall be conducted to minimize impacts from increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and biochemical or thermal pollution. Revegetation of waterways shall employ native vegetation, provided it is compatible with the watercourse's maintenance program (City GP p. 8-70). Additionally,these areas may provide habitat for special-status species as discussed above. For these reasons, construction and development impacts to i Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough are considered potentially signilcant. Mitis on Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.5-16(a) A Iievegetation and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared as part of final construction plans. This plan shall detail appropriate native vegetation for revegetation and erosion control in disturbed areas, erosion control measures for construction and post-construction sediment control, and a monitoring and maintenance schedule for revegetation efforts. The Plan shall be approved by the { City of Oakley. 3.S-Iti(b) All areas along Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough that are subject to temporary vegetation removal for project construction shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation. 3.5-16(c) To control erosion during and after project implementation, the applicant shall implement best management practices, as identified by the appropriate Regional Water QuahV Control Board. t CHAPTER 3.5--- BIOLOGICAL REsouRCE 3.5-63 DRArT EIR CYPRE55 GRU vE P✓,'AY 2O©3 3.5-17 Jurisdictional waters of the U.S.and waters of the State Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and waters regulated by the State within the project site consist of Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough. These areas are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Regional Water Quality Control Board under Section 401 of CWA, and by CDFG under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek would require placement of abutments andd bank stabilization materials and may require placement of a temporary containment area around the work area. All of these activities could adversely impact Marsh Creek. In addition, construction of the new stormwater outfalls would require permanent and temporary vegetation removal within the freshwater marsh between the northeastern property boundary of the Emerson property and Emerson Slough, and Emerson Slough, respectively, and placement of new outfalls and concrete bank stabilization materials. In addition, a temporary containment area around the construction site may be required. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially sYgnif cant impact to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project design to avoid and/or mitigate effects to these resources, thereby reducing the impacts to a less-than- significant level. 3.5-17(a) An appropriate Section 404 permit shall be acquired`f'or the expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek and the construction of the stormwater outfalls, if applicable. Section 401 water quality certification or waiver will also be required. 3.5-17(b) A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained from CDFG, pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code,for the expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek and construction of the new stormwater outfalls and any other activities affecting the bed, bank, or associated riparian vegetation. If required, the project applicant shall coordinate with CDFG in developing appropriate mitigation, and shall abide by the conditions of any executed permits. Cumulative Impacts 35-18 The proposed project has the potential to affect common species and reduce available habitat for some special-status species. "Cumulative impacts" refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines 15355). The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines 153SS). CHAPTER 3.5— BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5- 64 CYPRESS GRovE MAY,200 3 An assessment of cumulative impacts should consider both impacts identified as significant as well as those impacts identified as less than significant for individual projects that may become significant in a collective sense when considering the co-occurrence of multiple projects. {"t The Oakley area, like other communities in the Bay Area, is experiencing a great deal of growth. Many housing developments are already approved in the surrounding areas, such as Subdivisions Numbers 7797, 6963, 7986, 6965, 8403, 7655, 7630, and 7662. Cumulatively, these projects would affect common species and reduce available habitat for some special-status species. The majority of the Cypress Grove project site is highly disturbed as a result of ongoing cultivation and the nearby presence of a recently active dairy Farm. However, disturbed lands provide habitat for many common species and may provide habitat for several special-status species. The Oakley 2020 General flan EIR (Impact 3.9-F) states that a potentially significant impact to biological resources would ' result from the cumulative conversion of habitat; however, implementation of applicable General flan policies and programs would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. One of the programs that the Oakley General Plan EIR lists under Impact 3.9-A is Program 6.3.A, which is in the Open Space and Conservation element of the Oakley 2020 Genera Plan. Program 6.3.A states that prior to development within identified sensitive habitat areas, the area shall be surveyed for special status plant and/or animal species. If any special status species are found, the program requires consultation with the appropriate resource agency to establish management strategies to ensure the protection of the particular species. The mitigation measures pertaining to special status plant and animal species included in this EIR would be consistent with program 6.3.A. Ultimately, because the project could contribute to the cumulative loss of special-status species (if detected on site) and their habitat, the project could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. Mj' jgation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. 3.5-18 Implement mitigation measures 3.5-3 to 3.5-17. References Atlas Tree Service, Inc. 2043. Cypress Grove Tree Survey. May 7. Bloom, P. and D. Van De Water. 1994. Swainson's.Hawk in Life on the Edge:A Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources. Biosystems Books. Santa Cruz, CA. 550pp. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). August 2002. Special Animals. Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). August 2002. Special Plants. Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento, CA. i California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks in the Central Valley of Caliomia. November. f CHAPTER 3.5—BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-65 .................................. ............ ©R,4FT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200,3 California Natural Diversity Data Base. August 2002. Database Record Search for Special-Status Species. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society {CLAPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of.Cal Califomia Native Plant Society (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. Sacramento, CA. 388pp. City of Oakley. 2002. Oakley 2020 General Plan. November 12. Cypher, B. L., G. D. Warrick, M. R. M. Otten, T. P. O'Farrell, W. H. Berry, C. E. Harris, T. T. Kato, P. M. McCue, J. H. Scrivner, and B. W. Zoellick. 2000. Population dynamics of San Joaquin kit foxes at the Naval Petroleum Reserves in California. Wildlife Monographs. 145.1-43. Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2002, Habitat Assessment for Special-Status Invertebrates for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. September 19. Hickman,J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual:Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1400pp. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2002. Site Assessment for Special-Status Bats for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. August 8. Jennings, M.R. and Hayes, M.P. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Prepared for the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Div. Rancho Cordova, Calif. November 1. 255pp. Morrell, S. H. 1971. Life history of the San Joaquin kit,fox. .Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. 67 pp. Morrell, S. H. 1972. Life history of the San Joaquin kit fox. California Department of Fish and Game. 58.162-174. Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in Calfiornia (second edition), Prepared for the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Div. Rancho Cordova, Calif. June. 272pp. O'Farrall, T. P. 1983. San Joaquin Kit Fox Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. Stebbins, R. C. 1985, A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company. Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc. Swaim Biological Consulting. 2002. Site Assessment for Special-Status Reptiles and Amphibians at the Proposed Cypress Grove Site in Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. September IS. Sycamore Associates LLC. 1998. Preliminary Wetlands Delineation and jurisdictional Determination Of the Emerson and Burroughs Properties, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002a. Botanical Assessment for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. CHAPTER 3.5— BiCLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.5-66 ...................................... ............. i DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200.E Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002b. Protocol-Level Habitat Assessment and Focused Breeding Season Burrowing Owl Surveys w for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. August 12. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002c. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, California. August 23. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a. Revised Draft Biological Assessment for the Cypress Grove Property, Oakley, CaI forma. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b. Off Site Analysis for the Proposed Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, California. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003c. Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii)for the Cypress Grove Project, Oakley, California. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003d. Swainson's.Hawk Foraging.Habitat Analysis. March 20. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003e. Focused Winter Burrowing Owl and Pre-Construction Bird Surveys. e, February 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999, Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Carter Snake (Thamnopsis gigas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, Oregon. ix+192pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytoniis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. viii+173pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal .Endangered and Threatened Species that may be Affected by Projectsin the Antioch South, Brentwood,Jersey Island, and Woodward Island 7.5-Minute Quad. November 19, 2002. Williams, D. F.,E. A. Cypher, P. A. Kelly, K. J. Miller,N. Norvell,S. E. Phillips, C. D.Johnson, G. W. Colliver. 1998. Recovery Plan for upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 319pp. Zeiner D. C., W. F., Laudenslayer Jr., K. E., Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988. California's i Wildlife Vol. I: Amphibian and Reptiles. State of California: The Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Came, Sacramento, CA. Zeiner D. C., W. F., Laudenslayer Jr., K.E., Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990a. California's Wildlife Vol. 11: Birds. State of California: The Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Zeiner D. C.; W. F., Laudenslayer Jr., K.E., Mayer, and. M. White, eds. 1990b. California's Wildlife Vol. 111: Mammals. State of California: The Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Zoelck, B. W. and N. S. Smith. 1992. Size and spatial organization of home ranges of kit foxes in Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy. 73:83-88. CHAPTER:3.5-- BIOLOGICAL REsoURCES 3.5- 67 i >:t 3.6 CULTURAL REsbuRCES r�. l ; i t > 4 1 F LAN+ f } 1 I y DRAFT EIR C7'RRESS GRo vE MAY 2003 i 3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVZOIDUCTIONf This section of the BIR addresses known historic and prehistoric resources in the project vicinity ' and the potential for unknown resources to exist. The analysis summarizes the existing setting and j briefly describes the potential effects to historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. The analysis will both identify the thresholds of significance of possible impacts associated with the project, and develop mitigation measures that would be necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. Information for this section will be gathered from the Contra Costa County(CCC) General Plan and the CCC General flan EIR as well as information prepared for the City's General Flan Update found in the Oakley 2020 General flan Background Report(Background Report), and the Oakley 2020 General Plan'and its associated EIRi. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING � a Prehistory/Ethnography The first European explorers of the Oakley area found a landscape much different from that of today. A vast system of marshes and swamps covered most of the San Joaquin delta, including the northern and northeastern borders of what would become the City of Oakley. Sloughs meandered through the delta, filling with water at depths dependent on the annual flow of the river. Winter flooding was typical. Bulrushes, called tule by the Spaniards, dominated the delta. This perennial plant grew to an average height of four feet and made overland travel impossible for both explorers and Indians. Most of the rest of what became Oakley was also impenetrable. Nearly all of the area now bounded by the city limits on the south and west and State Route 4-on the north and east was covered in a chaparral formed by dense growths of chamise. The Indians whom the Spanish explorers encountered in the 1770's descended from people who first mine to east Contra Costa County some 4,000 years before. This group, speakers of the€Itian languages, continued migrating west and eventually occupied much of the San Francisco Bay region and the central coast to the south. Later migrants may have intermarried with some of the Utians, creating new cultural patterns without greatly altering the language. By around 1100 A.D. a distinct Utian group, the Bay Miwok,was occupying the west delta. The Bay Miwok still existed in 1770, residing in an area that included the northeast quarter of the county and continued up the Sacramento River to Brannan Island. Bay Miwok were surrounded by Costanoans elsewhere in the county, ether Miwoks to the east, Wintuns to the north, and Yokuts to the southeast. The Bay Miwok people, usually called the Julpunes or Pulpunes by European explorers, were organized into"tribelet?--•-political units that included several fairly permanent villages and a set of seasonal campsites arrayed across a well-defined territory. Food was supplied through hunting, �_J fishing, and the gathering of roots, seeds, and acorns. Houses were circular in design and constructed of poles and rule thatch. Cather buildings in a village used the same materials and CHAPTER 3.6—CULTURAL RESOURCES DRAFT E7R CYPREss GRo vc MAY 200.3 included a sweathouse, a menstrual hut, and acorn granaries. The most important village in a tribelet was also likely to have a large assembly hall. One estimate puts the Bay Miwok population in 1770 at about 1,700. Historical Period f The following discusses the three primary historical periods as identified in the Oakley 2020 General Flan Background Report. Exlsloration and Settlement X1776-1861 Spanish incursions into the Oakley area began in the 1770s; however, the Spanish never attempted to colonize the area, and they had only minimal impact on its Indian people. The first non-native settler in the county was an American,John Marsh, who came to California in 1836 and purchased a rancho the following year from its-original Mexican grantee. Marsh was instrumental in attracting other American immigrants, who carne in much larger numbers after the annexation of California and the discovery of gold in the Sierra foothills. Settlers trickled into the Oakley area during the 1850s. Some bought property near Marsh's landing, a boat dock on the San Joaquin River about three-quarters of a mile from Oakley's present western boundary; others settled to the east. By 1862 the population of the Oakley area was large enough to support a school,which was erected about a mile west from the later town site. Reclamation of the delta lands started in the 1850s when settlers realized that the rich peat soil, the product of hundreds of years' accumulation of decayed tules, would produce bumper crops if it could be drained and protected from flooding. At least one project was undertaken around 1853 just north of the present city limits. Not until 1868, after passage of legislation allowing for the formation of"swamp land districts," did reclamation get underway in earnest. In the early 1870s reclamation began on the swamp and marshland east of Dutch Slough, both within and beyond present-day Oakley. Lands north of the current city limits, in what is now called Big Break, were also reclaimed. After a downturn in prices in the late 1860s, agriculture began to stabilize. Planting on the approximately 1,100 reclaimed acres in what is now east Oakley was probably similar to that elsewhere in the delta, where reclaimed lands were used to grow orchard and field crops. To the west, the main crop was wheat, although barley, oats, and alfalfa were also grown. In 1879 the Tulare and San Pablo Railroad, soon part of the Southern Pacific, was completed, with tracks running (as they do today) along the current city limits on the southwest. The railroad gave a new shipping option to local ranchers. By 1885 all the land in present-day Oakley was in private ownership,with about two-dozen property owners holding parcels ranging from 40 to 640 acres. The founding of Oakley(1887-1900 Around the turn of the 20'century the town of Oakley was founded, giving the area a geographical focus for the first time. Local agriculture shifted from grains to orchard crops, and a new transcontinental railroad arrived. In 1887, James O'Hara had begun clearing chaparral land and CHAPTER 3.6 W CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.6- 2 DRAFT Tarr CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 I planting orchards-principally almonds but, secondarily, olive, peach, apricot, cherry, and plum trees. Grape vines were added to the orchards. C3'Hara's conspicuous success influenced other property owners who began to subdivide their holdings into parcels of ten to thirty acres, a size well suited for orchard crops, and sell parcels to new settlers. By 1908 the number of ranchers within what would later become Oakley's city limits had grown to around 130—nearly all property owners. In 1897, O'Hara and other property owners made a deal with the new San Francisco and Valley Railroad, which resulted in the;routing of that rail line through the Oakley area and the construction of a small building for use of local ranchers and, later on, a depot. The San Francisco Walley Railroad was later sold to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad in 1900. Oakley was now linked with the wider world via this transcontinental rail line. That same year, O Hara subdivided Section 25 and sold a small portion in the northwest corner to Randolph Marsh. Marsh and Alden Norcross bought additional land and established a town of ten square blocks covering nineteen acres. Marsh labeled the east-west streets (Main, Acme, Rose, Star, and Home) so that their initial letters spelled his own last name. He gave a parcel to Joseph Jesse on the condition that Jesse set up the town's first store. Marsh also successfully petitioned the government to establish a post office in town,which he named Oakley after the many live oaks that grew there. Urowt: d Dgy..l=m nt 1901-Present The town grew slowly in the next decade as the surrounding agricultural land continued to develop. The second businessman to set up shop was a blacksmith, followed in the next few years by a butcher, a cigar maker, a station agent, and a couple of additional storekeepers. By 1908 a machinist, a contractor, a stonecutter, and three carpenters were also plying their trades in town. The first hotel went up around 1909, followed by the first of several pac dnghouses, probably around 1910. Diversity in Oakley's population is evident during this period. One early resident later remembered a small Chinatown in the buildings behind the hotel, and the seasonal workers in the packinghouses were predominately Mexican-Americans who left town when packing activities ended<n September. Adding to the ethnic mix were workers from.India,who maintained the dikes and levees'of the reclaimed lands.. The property-owning group, though, was comprised almost entirely of European stock, with Portuguese and Irish ancestry predominating. f The first decade of the 2¢ury save the expansion of civic institutions, including another school (the third for the Oakley area), and several churches. Civic organizations began to emerge, notably a farmers' club and a women's club, the latter of which established the town's first library in 1913. t; ;F During the 2& century, Oakley continued its slow-but-steady growth. Although hope of developing a tourist industry flared up briefly during the 1930s, it died as neighboring Bethel Island cornered the market, and agricultural production continued as the mainstay of Oakley's economy. A large part of that economy depended upon Oakley's several large £reit and almond packinghouses, which: became unnecessary after the introduction of refrigerated trucks. That technological innovation was likely the catalyst that generated the shift in Oakley's economic base from agriculture to housing, a shut that occurred gradually from the 1930s to the mid 1970s. During that period, Oakley's economy received a boost by the construction of a new shopping :. CHAPTER 3.6—CE,1.'aTURAl. RESOURCES 3.6-3 DRAt-r ElR CYPRE.SSGRo vE" MAY 200,3 center on Main Street, while residential construction continued slowly but steadily. During the three decades from the 1970s to the present, Oakley has experienced a housing boom that has seen the conversion of much of the agricultural land into residential neighborhoods, making Oakley a -( bedroom community to the San Francisco Bay Area. According to the Background Report; only sire 1 percent of Oakley's population held jobs in Oakley in 1990, most working residents traveling outside the Oakley area to work in outlying areas, some as far away as Oakland and San Francisco. For the period from 2000 to 2020, the report forecasts a population increase for Oakley of approximately 10.000, compared to an expected growth in jobs of approximately 9,000. Until its incorporation in 1999, Oakley was under the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County. Existing Cultural Resources Archaeologists have found few prehistoric sites in the Oakley area. One substantial shell mound was discovered early in the twentieth century near what is now the east edge of town. Approximately three-dozen archaeological investigations undertaken in Oakley since that time have unearthed only four other prehistoric sites in the City. The Northwest. Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information system, which keeps track of such investigations, suggests that a high possibility exists that other prehistoric sites remain within the City.' For the period of Oakley's exploration and settlement by people of non-Native descent, little historical evidence remains. Not more than a few buildings remain from the period before 1885. These include a few ranch houses and perhaps a structure or two at Babbe's Landing. Although some resources from the late nineteenth and very early twentieth century still exist, the greatest number of cultural resources date from the period 1901 to 1955, mostly concentrated in the"old town" area. In other parts of Oakley, possibly 100 old farm buildings and as many as 200 other old buildings, nearly all houses and most in Sand Hill, located in the vicinity of SR-4 and Delta Road, still exist. REGULATORY CONTEXT Federal, State and local governments have developed laws and regulations designed to protect significant cultural resources that could be affected by actions that they undertake or regulate. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National History Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are the principal federal and state laws governing preservation of historic and archaeological resources of national, regional, State and local significance. Federal Regulations Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal ageneses to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council's implementation regulations,"Protection of Historic Properties,"are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) Part 800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites that are determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria for determining National Register eligibility are found in 36 CFR Part 60. Amendments to the Act CHAPTER 3.6— CUL"T"URAL.RESOURCES 3.6-4 CYPREss GRovE fl i (1986 and 1992) and subsequent revisions to the implementing regulations have, among other things,strengthened the provision for Native American consultation and participation in the Section 106 review process. Although federal agencies must follow federal regulations, most projects of private developers and landowners do not require this level of compliance. Federal regulations only apply in the private sector if a project requires a federal permit or if it uses federal money. Linder NHPA, the quality of significance in American history,architecture, archaeology and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, handiwork, feeling, and association. Additionally, the National Register of Historic Places requires consideration of significance of any structure over 45 years old. State Regulations i State historic preservation regulations affecting this project include the statutes and guidelines 4,.. # contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 and sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines). CEQA requires lead agencies to carefully consider the potential effects of a project on historical resources. j An "historical resource" includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant (Public Resources Code section 5020.1). Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies criteria for evaluating the importance of cultural resources,including; 1) The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Califbrnia history; 2) The resource is associated with the lives of important persons from our past; 3) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, orrepresentsthe work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values; or j 4) The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in prehistory or history. Advice on procedures to identify such resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effects is given in several agency publications such as the series produced by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (C1PR).4 The technical advice series produced by {SPR strongly recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities,including, but not limited to,museums,historical commissions,associations and societies be solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory. In addition, California law protects Native American burials,skeletal remains and associated grave goods regardless of the -' antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains.' California Historic Register J The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) also maintains the California State Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) are automatically listed on the CRHR, along with State Landmarks and Points f i CHAPTER 3.6- CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.6 - 5 DRAT-T EiR CYPRESS GRO vE MAY 2003 of Interest. The CRHR can also include properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. City of Oakley General Plan The following applicable goals and policies are from the Oakley 2020 General Plan: Goal 6.4 Preserve and protect cultural resources within the Plan Area. Policy 6.4.1 Preserve areas that have identifiable and important archaeological or paleontological significance. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance Archaeological Resources A project could have a significant effect on the environment if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource or disturb any human remains. Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, archaeological resources not otherwise determined to be historical resources may be significant if they are unique. Pursuant to Public Resources Code(PRC) Section 21083.2, a unique archaeological resource is defined as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, a high probability exists that it meets one of the following criteria: • Contains information needed to answer important scientific questions and a demonstrable public interest exists in that information; • Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; • is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. According to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are significant. A non-unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site that does not meet the above criteria. Non-unique archaeological resources do not receive further consideration under CEQA. Historic Resources Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates a finding of significance if a project would eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or pre-history. CHAPTER 3.6—CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.6 - 6 i DRAFT EIR Gr YPRE.S.S GRo vE r In addition, pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, an historical resource(including both built environment and prehistoric archaeological resources) shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if it is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or has been determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical;.Resources Commission. An historical resource may also be considered significant if the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that the resource meets the criteria for inclusion in the CRHR. Any resource that is listed on or considered eligible for inclusion on the National. Register of Historic Places is automatically considered eligible for the CRHR. Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture is present in districts, sites,buildings, structures,and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, handiwork, feeling and association and: 1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; 2. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 3. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of i construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or 'E 4. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or historv. The National Register of Historic Places requires consideration of significance of any structure over 4S years old. Method of Analysis The below section evaluates the impacts from the proposed project on the cultural resources that could occur within the project site, by consulting available information in the CCC G=eneral Plan EIR, the Oak-ley 2020 General Plan Background Report, and the Oakley 2020 General Plan Elft. Based on information in those reports, the standards of significance for cultural resources are identified, and then these standards are applied to the existing conditions to determine the impacts; lastly,mitigation measures are to be proposed, if necessary. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.6-1 Project grading could unearth previously unknown archaeological resources. s„ E ' The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR and the Oakley 2020 Background Report do not indicate known sites of archaeological significance at the proposed project site. Sites for the Paleo Indian culture have not been found in the Bay Area(CCC General Plan EIR,4.6-36). However, it is known from evidence uncovered at burial sites outside the Bay area that i these peoples were nomadic. Therefore, the project site could have potentially been occupied or traversed by the Bay Miwok tribe at any point during the time when the Miwok's were present in the area(approximately 1100 A.U. to 1770 A.U.)The possibility 1 that unknown resources would be unearthed during site grading cannot be eliminated. CHAPTER 3.6-A- CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.6-7 DRA F7-EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2D©3 Because the potential exists that previously unknown resources could be discovered, a potentially significant impact could result. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce-the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.6-1(a) During construction, if any earth-moving activities uncover artifacts, exotic rock, or unusual amounts of bone or shell, work shall be halted in the immediate area of the find and shall not be resumed until after a qualified archaeologist has inspected and evaluated the deposit and determined the appropriate means of euration. The appropriate mitigation measures may include as little as recording the resource with the California Archaeological Inventory database or as much as excavation, recordation, and preservation of the sites that have outstanding cultural or historic significance. 3.6-1(b) During construction, if bone is uncovered that may be human, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be notified. Should human remains be found, the Coroner's office shall be immediately contacted and all work halted untilfnal disposition by the Coroner. Should the remains be determined to be of Native American descent, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to determine the appropriate disposition of such remains. 3.6=2 Possible destruction of historic structures. Visual site reconnaissance, together with a review of the catalogue of significant historical structures found in Section I 1 of the Oakley 2420 Background Report, did not reveal any historical resources at the proposed project site. Only one residence with outbuildings occupies the project site. The residence, which first appears in an aerial photograph taken in 1994, was not found in aerial photographs taken of the project in 1982 and earlier(Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, KC Engineering, March 2001)and is thus not old enough to qualify as an historic structure. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project to historic structures would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.6-3 Potential to uncover previously unknown cultural resources. Buildout of approved and planned uses such as the Cypress Grove Project and other projects within the City have the potential to uncover previously unknown resource sites. Each site is a unique contributor to the overall scientific understanding of a region's pre- history. Evaluation of cultural finds and resources within their original context is a critical component of their value. Disturbance, movement, and destruction of such resources CHAPTER 3.6--CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.6 -8 i DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo✓E MAY2003 would remove or preclude the analysis of the resource within its origin and therefore adversely affect the understanding of the development of human cultural history. Increased population and intensified land use patterns associated with cumulative growth could also increase the potential for vandalism and/or inadvertent destruction of such resources. Consequently, the Oakley 2024 General Plan EIR found that cumulative development f' would create a significant impact to cultural resources. However, the Cypress Grove L Project would not significantly contribute toward cumulative impacts related to .known historic or prehistoric resources because such resources are not known or anticipated to be present on site. Therefore, cumulative impacts from implementation of the proposed project would be considered to be less-than-signif cant. Mitigation Measures None required. t- s Endnotes Oakley 2020 General Plan,City of Oakley,August 30,2002. # 2 Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,City of Oakley,September,2002. Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report,September 2001 °State of California,Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Archaeological Resources, 1994. 1 s California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 et seq. I I r. c,_J CHARTER 3.6- CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.6 -9 i ;. _. �� !'., SUBJECT: ADOPT the Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the previously certified City of Oakley Cypress Grove Project for the purposes of conducting real property transactions and issuing flood control permits for the Cypress Grove Development in the Oakley area. (District V) DATE: October 5, 2004 PAGE: 2 FIND based on the evidence outlined in the City of Oakley FEIR that the significant impacts as a result of the project are within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the City of Oakley and not within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County and that those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated are addressed in the City of Oakley's FEIR Statement of Overriding Considerations; and FIND that the City of Oakley has adopted mitigation measures that substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project as identified in the FEIR; and FIND that granting any necessary easements and flood control permits to accommodate the construction of the Cypress Grove Development will not cause a significant impact; and DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file a Notice ofDetermination with the County Clerk.; and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Community Development for processing and a$25 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Determination. II. Fiscal lmnact: There are costs associated with reviewing and adopting this document; however, the developer is compensating the District for all costs incurred. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Back round: On September 15, 2003, the City of Oakley certified an FEIR for the Cypress Grove Development (Subdivisions 86'78,8679 and 8680). The Board of Supervisors,as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,must adopt this previously approved Environmental Impact Report before Flood Control Permits can be issued to the developers of Cypress Grove to allow for construction on a levee,installation of a pedestrian bridge,widening of an existing bridge,and alterations to a staging area,along Marsh Creek north of Cypress Road. Real property transactions may be necessary in support of the project and will be brought before the Board for approval. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: Without adoption of the City of Oakley's FEIR and statement of overriding considerations,a flood control permit cannot be issued to the Cypress Grove developers. The developers will be unable to construct improvements within the District's right-of-way;and the development plan,approved by the City of Oakley, will have to be revised. �i CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (925)313-2296 Contact Person: Cece Sellgren, Environmental Planner Common Name(if any),Location,and Project Description:Cypress Grove Development Project,East County, Oakley area. IAB Homes plans to implement the Cypress Grove Development Project located north of Cypress Road and immediately east of Marsh Creek. The project involves three subdivisions around the existing Delta View Middle School and associated improvements. The City of Oakley prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the project in September of 2003 and filed a Notice of Determination on October 31, 2003. The Board of Supervisors as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District considered the FEIR as prepared by the Lead Agency and is adopting the FEIR in order to conduct real property transactions and issue Flood Control Permits necessary to accommodate the project. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: { } An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified (SCH# ) { X) The Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for the Cypress Grove Project(SCH#2001122073). ( ) A Negative Declaration ()was prepared{ } Copies of the record of project approval and the final EIR may be examined at the office of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. { X ) The Project will not have a significant environmental effect with mitigation measures incorporated. { ) The Project may have a significant environmental effect, and a Statement of Overrriding Considerations is being adopted in support of the County's authorized activities. { X) Mitigation measures were included in the City of Oakley's FEIR { X) Findings pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines are included in the District's adoption materials. Date: By: Community Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title Applicant: X County Clerk-$50 Public Works Department Total Due: $50 255 Glacier Drive Total Paid $ Martinez,CA 94553 Attn:Cece Sellgren Receipt#: GAGrpData\EngSvc\ENVIRO\Flood Control\Cypress Grove\CypressGroveNOD.doc Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Findings for the Cypress Grove Development Project The project impacts listed below were identified in the Cypress Grove Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2001122073). Staff from the environmental section at Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District has reviewed the impacts relative to the permits that will be issued and real property transactions that may be conducted in order to accommodate portions of the project. According to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), a responsible agency has responsibility for mitigating or avoiding only the direct or indirect environmental effects of those parts of the project which it decides to carry out, finance, or approve. Further,the responsible agency must make the findings required by Section 15091 (Findings) for each significant effect of its project and must make the findings in Section 15093 (Statement of Overriding Considerations), if necessary. The District's findings regarding potentially significant impacts related to issuance of flood control permits and conducting real property transactions are located at the end of each section below. This analysis only specifically addresses those potentially significant impacts associated with portions of the project the District will authorize. There are a number of potentially significant impacts associated with the larger Cypress Grove development project; however, those impacts are in the jurisdiction of and are the responsibility of the City of Oakley as the Lead Agency for the project. Following are Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Findings pursuant to Section 15091 of CEQA regarding potentially significant project impacts associated with the District's issuance of flood control permits and real property transactions for the Cypress Grove Development Project: Project impacts associated with the Cypress (Drove Development Project: Land Use There are no potentially significant land use impacts associated with the District's issuance of flood control permits or real property transactions. All potentially significant land use impacts associated with the Cypress Grove Development Project are the responsibility of the City of Oakley as the CEQA Lead Agency. Agricultural Resources There are no potentially significant agricultural resource impacts associated with the District's issuance of flood control permits or real property transactions. All potentially significant agricultural resource impacts associated with the Cypress Grove Development Project are the responsibility of the City of Oakley as the CEQA Lead Agency. Aesthetics There are no potentially significant aesthetic impacts associated with the District's issuance of flood control permits or real property transactions. All potentially significant aesthetic impacts associated with the Cypress Grove Development Project are the responsibility of the City of Oakley as the CFQA Lead Agency. Biological Resources 1.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Removal of special status plants during construction. Habitat for nineteen special-status plant species occurs within the project site. 1.2 Mitigation: Additional spring surveys for special status plants will be conducted. If any special status plant species are found: 1) areas supporting these species will be avoided, or 2)an equal amount of acreage either within the project site or off-site that contains the plants will be permanently preserved through the use of a conservation easement or other similar method, or 3)the plants to be lost will be harvested and relocated to another suitable and equally sized area either within the project site or off-site, or 4) seeds from the plants to be lost or seeds from another appropriate source will be planted on an equal amount of area suitable for growing the plant either within the project site or off-site. The mitigation will be completed by a qualified biologist with species-specific experience. Prior to grading, the developer will submit a written report for the City's review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with the mitigation measures. 1.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to special status plant species associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 2.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Removal of potential habitat for California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard. 2.2 Mitigation: Focused surveys for these species will be conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate time of year. If the species are determined to occur in the project site, a mitigation plan will be prepared with technical assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The plan will include measures that either avoid occupied habitat or mitigate loss of habitat through offsite acquisition and preservation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. 2.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to California homed lizard and silvery legless lizard associated with activities authorized by the District's flood permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 3.1 Potentially Significant Impact: If California red-legged frog is present in the project site, construction activities could affect this species. 2 _. 3.2 Mitigation: The California red-legged frog Site Assessment will be submitted to the Corps and USFWS as part of the Corps permit application. Informal consultation or"technical assistance"will be requested so the Corps and USFWS may evaluate potential impacts and determine if formal consultation will be required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act(ESA). If California red-legged frog (CRLF) are positively identified during the preconstruction surveys, a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared that includes measures to minimize adverse effects of construction on this species and their associated habitat, including: a USFWS approved biologist shall survey the bridge, levee, and/or outfall construction sites. If CRLF eggs,tadpoles, or adults are found, USFWS shall be contacted to determine if an appropriate relocation site exists. Prior to any construction activities, a training session shall be conducted for construction personnel. A biological monitor shall oversee construction of the bridge, levee, and outfall when appropriate(defined by the mitigation plan)to ensure compliance with minimization measures and avoidance of potential take of CRLF. All fueling and maintenance and staging areas shall occur at least 65 feet from any water body. All temporary disturbance areas shall be re-vegetated with appropriate native species following project construction. Work activities will be completed between April 1 and November 1 unless otherwise authorized by USFWS. To control erosion, the applicant shall implement BMPs as identified by the Regional Board. 3.3 District binding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to California red-legged frog associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction, the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 4.1 Potentially Significant Impact: If giant garter snake is present in the project site, construction activities could affect this species. 4.2 Mitigation: Focused surveys approved by the USFWS shall be conducted by a qualified biologist for giant garter snake(GGS) during the appropriate time of year for optimal detection. If the species is found to occur in the project site, a Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and approved by USFWS that includes measures to avoid take of giant garter snake during construction activities. The following mitigation measures shall be included in the plan: construction activities within 200 feet from the banks of GGS aquatic habitat will be avoided where possible,movement of heavy equipment will be confined to existing roadways to minimize habitat disturbance, construction within habitat will be conducted between May 1 and October 1, any activities necessary between October 2 and April 30 will require contact with USFWS to determine whether additional measures are necessary to avoid take,clearing shall be confined to the minimum area necessary to facilitate construction, avoidance areas will be flagged as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, construction personnel shall receive USFWS approved worker environmental awareness training, 24 hours prior to construction, the site will be surveyed for GGS, survey of the site will be repeated if a lapse in construction activities of two weeks or greater has occurred, if GGS is encountered during construction, activities shall not begin until corrective measures have been completed or it has been determined that the snake will not be harmed. Any sightings and any incidental take will be reported to USFWS immediately. Any dewatered habitat shall remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after April 15, and prior to excavating or filling of the dewatered habitat, all construction debris and stockpiled materials shall be removed following construction, the construction area shall be regraded to preexisting contours or a contour that would improve restoration, after construction is completed,upland areas and areas within GCS habitat will be revegetated. 3 4.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to giant garter snake associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction, the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 5.1 Potentially Significant Impact: The project may result in impacts to aquatic and upland habitat for northwestern pond turtle. 5.2.Mitigation: A focused pre-construction survey for Northwestern pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the onset of construction activities to determine presence or absence in the project site. If construction is planned after April 1", the survey will include looking for turtle nests in the construction area. If turtles are found in the proposed construction area,the individuals will be moved out of the construction site with technical assistance from CDFG and USFWS. If a nest is found within the construction area, construction shall not take place within 100 feet of the nest until the turtles have hatched. Prior to construction, a worker environmental awareness training for the pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If a turtle is observed on the site,work shall cease in the area until the turtle can be moved to a safe location consistent with CDFG and USFWS regulations. 5.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to Northwestern pond turtle associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 6.1 Potentially Significant Impact: The project could result in short and long-term impacts to special status fish species. 6.2 Mitigation: A fish rescue plan will be prepared by a qualified fisheries biologist for the review and approval of the CDFG,National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and USFWS that details measures to avoid take of fish during expansion of the bridge and construction of the outfalls and any associated cofferdam facilities. To ensure compliance and implementation of the plan, the fisheries biologist shall oversee critical aspects of construction to assure compliance with minimization measures and avoidance of potential take of special-status fish species. Formal consultation with the resource agencies will be required during permitting. As part of the consultation process, a Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment shall be prepared by a fisheries biologist that evaluates the proposed construction plans,outfall design, vegetation removal,riprap and bank protection placement, cofferdam and water pumping best management practices, and water flow regime from the stormwater pipeline. A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared that includes measures to avoid take of special status fish. At a minimum the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the plan: if entrapment in the new pipeline is determined by the fisheries biologist to be a significant issue, a fish screen or other structure approved by the resource agencies shall be placed on the outfalls to prevent fish entering the pipeline system. During construction dewatering, turbidity and suspended sediment levels in water returned to Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough shall not exceed more than 10% above ambient levels. Construction shall occur between May 15 and October 15 (or other period required by NMFS)to work outside of the season in which juvenile or migrating salmonids are present in the system. 4 __ 196.3.District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to special status fish species associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 7.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Swainson's hawks could establish occupancy on the site prior to the initiation of construction. 7.2 Mitigation: If construction is proposed during the breeding season, a preconstruction survey for Swainson's hawk nests will be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a qualified biologist in order to identify active nests in the project site. If active nests are identified, a buffer.zone of a minimum of a quarter-mile shall be established around the active new. Disturbances that may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging shall not be initiated within this buffer zone between March 1 and September 1. The buffer zone shall be increased to one half mile in nesting areas away from urban development. Trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season. The foraging habitat evaluation conducted by Sycamore shall be submitted to DFG for review and mitigation for loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat to the extent necessary shall be determined with technical assistance from DFG. 7.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to Swainson's hawk associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 8.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Disruption of active raptor and migratory birds nests could occur in conjunction with project development if raptors and migratory birds are nesting within up to 500 feet of construction activities. 8.2 Mitigation: If construction is proposed during the breeding season, a focused survey for migratory and resident bid nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a qualified biologist in order to identify active nests in the project site. If active nests are found,no construction activities shall occur within 500 feet of the raptor nests and 100 feet of other migratory birds until the young have fledged, unless alternative measures to avoid and minimize take are developed with technical assistance from CDFG. Trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season. 8.3 District.Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 9.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Western burrowing owl could establish nests in the project site prior to the onset of project construction. 5 9.2 Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey of all potential burrowing owl habitat within the project site and 250 feet of the project site boundaries and record the presence of individual burrowing owls, sign of burrowing owls, and all burrows that are in use by burrowing owls. If there are burrowing owls nesting in the project site or within 250 feet of the project site boundaries: grading shall not be allowed during the nesting season within 250 feet of any nest burrow unless approved by DFG, prior to grading within burrowing owl habitat, unoccupied burrows shall be collapsed to prevent occupation by burrowing owls subsequent to preconstruction surveys. Loss of burrowing owl foraging habitat shall be mitigated at 6.5 acres per pair at an offsite location approved by DFG. A monitoring report of all activities associated with surveys for and passive relocation of burrowing owls shall be submitted to the DFG no later than two weeks after the completion of grading that occurs within 250 feet of occupied nesting burrows. 9.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to Western burrowing owl associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 10.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Bat species could establish roost in the project site prior to the onset of construction. 10.2 Mitigation: Prior to construction, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine presence or absence of bats roosting in the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the bridge over Marsh Creek in the project site. If bat species are determined to be roosting in the project site, the applicant shall coordinate with DFG to determine suitable measures to avoid disturbance of roosting bats. At a minimum the bridge and buildings shall not be removed while bats are present. One-way bat doors may be installed over roost entrances to ensure that bats are not trapped in the roosts during project construction. 10.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to bat species associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 11.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Construction and development impacts to Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough are considered potentially significant. 11.2 Mitigation: A Revegetation and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared as part of the final construction plans. The Plan shall be approved by the City of Oakley. All areas along Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough that are subject to temporary vegetation removal for project construction shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation . To control erosion during and after project implementation, the applicant shall implement Best Management Practices(BMPs), as identified by the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. 11.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to sensitive communities associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. 6 As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 12.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek and construction of the new stormwater outfalls would have a potentially significant impact to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. 12.2 Mitigation: The appropriate permits will be obtained. If required,the applicant shall coordinate with DFG in developing appropriate mitigation and shall abide by the conditions of any executed permits. 12.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. As a condition of the flood control permits for work within the District's jurisdiction,the permittee will be required to obtain any necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. Cultural Resources 1.1 Potentially Significant Impact: There is a possibility that unknown cultural resources could be unearthed during construction. 1.2 Mitigation: During construction, if any earthmoving activities uncover artifacts, exotic rock, or unusual amounts of bone or shell,work shall be halted in the immediate area of the find and shall not be resumed until after a qualified archeologist has inspected and evaluated the deposit and determined the appropriate means of curation. During construction, if bone is uncovered that may be human,the Native American Heritage Commission and the County Coroner shall be notified. If human remains are found, all work shall be halted until final disposition by the Coroner. Should the remains be determined to be of Native American descent,the Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to determine the appropriate disposition of such remains. 1.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to cultural resources associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. Transportation and Circulation There are no potentially significant transportation and circulation impacts associated with the District's issuance of flood control permits or real property transactions. All potentially significant transportation and circulation impacts associated with the Cypress Grove Development Project are the responsibility of the City of Oakley as the CEQA Lead Agency. Air Qualit 1.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Construction activities would expose sensitive receptors to construction-related emissions. 1.2 Mitigation: The applicant will provide measures to reduce emissions caused during construction activities by implementing the following dust control measures during the appropriate construction activities as determined by the project contractor subject to City review and approval: water all active construction areas at least twice daily, water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials 7 that can be blown by the wind; cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non toxic soils stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; sweep daily all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; enclose, cover,water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways, and replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 1.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential impacts to air quality associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. Noise and Vibration LI Potentially Significant Impact: Activities associated with construction at the project site would result in elevated noise levels in the immediate area. 1.2 Mitigation: Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified with prior written approval by the Community Development Director. 1.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential noise and vibration impacts associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. Geolo LI Potentially Significant Impact: Increased soil erosion,wind and water erosion, and siltation of local drainage during and after construction from excavation and grading activities. 1.2 Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the City Engineer, an erosion control plan that will utilize standard construction practices to limit the erosion effects during construction of the proposed project. Measures could include,but are not limited to: hydroseeding;placement of erosion control measures within drainage ways and ahead of drop inlets; the temporary lining (during construction activities) of drop inlets with"filter fabric"; the placement of straw wattles along slope contours; directing subcontractors to a single designation"wash- out" location; use of silt fencing; use of sediment basins and dust palliatives. 1.3.District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential geologic impacts associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. 2.1 Potentially Significant Impact: Placement of fill on the site could increase erosion and sediments into the stormwater system, and transportation of fill to the site could cause traffic/pedestrian conflicts. 8 2.2 Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval of the City Engineer. The project contractor shall submit a traffic control plan in compliance with the City of Oakley standards which ensures adequate emergency access and maintains circulation to neighboring properties during construction for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. The plan shall include detour routes, appropriate signage, and construction personnel to facilitate the safe flow of traffic. 2.3 Distract Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential geologic impacts associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. Hazards There are no potentially significant hazards impacts associated with the District's issuance of flood control permits or real property transactions. All potentially significant transportation and circulation impacts associated with the Cypress Grove Development Project are the responsibility of the City of Oakley as the CEQA Lead Agency. Hydroloand Water Quality 1.1 Potentially Significant.Impact: If not maintained properly,the levee system surrounding the project could cause significant flooding risks to people and structures in the Cypress Grove development. 1.2 Mitigation: Prior to Improvement Plan approvals for any of the three subdivisions, the project engineer shall develop a levee maintenance program. The maintenance program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer and include the plan for financing and maintenance of the levee system. 1.3 District Finding: the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency and incorporated into the flood control permit for the project should mitigate any potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with activities authorized by the District's flood control permit or Real Property transactions. Public Services and Utilities There are no potentially significant public services and utilities impacts associated with the District's issuance of flood control permits or real property transactions. All potentially significant transportation and circulation impacts associated with the Cypress Grove Development Project are the responsibility of the City of Oakley as the CEQA Lead Agency. FINDINGS: The potentially significant impacts as a result of the project are within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the City of Oakley, and not within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(District). The project Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)includes specific mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts associated with the project. In addition, the FEIR includes a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those significant impacts associated with the Cypress Grove Development Project that cannot be fully mitigated to a level that is less than significant. 9 The District expects to issue Special Provisions associated with Flood Control Permits to the applicant. These special provisions will be binding on the permittee and by accepting these permits,the Permittee agrees to the provisions set forth by the District. In addition, damage occurring on or to District property will be addressed in any necessary easement language. Therefore,no significant impacts associated with the Flood Control District's real property transactions or issuance flood control permits are expected as a result of the Permittee's actions. Since no significant impacts are expected as a result of the District's real property transactions or issuance of flood control permits,there is no need for the County Board of Supervisor's to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Permittee will be responsible for obtaining all necessary regulatory permits associated with work authorized by the flood control permits. 10 Notice of Determination To: Office of Planning and research From: City of Oakley 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 3639 Main St. Sacramento, CA 95814 Oakley, CA 94561 County Clerk Contra Costa County 822 Main St. P.O. Sox 350 Martinez, CA 94553-1226 Subject: Piling of Notice of Determination in compliance with section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: Cypress Grove State Clearing House Number: 2001122073 `° 0111 Contact Person: Rochelle Henson (925) 625-7000 Project Location: 240 East Cypress Road Project Description: A Rezone, Parcel Map, three Tentative Maps, a Development Plan, Design Review and a Tree Permit for a 637-unit residential development including 541 single-family units and 96 multi-family units. This is to advise that the City of Oakley has approved the above-described project on October 27, 2003 and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project: 1. The project Cl will have a significant effect on the environment. ❑ will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Z An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 0 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures Mx were, ❑ were not, made as conditions of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations Cl was, G7 was not, adopted for this project. This is to certify that the Final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Oakley 3639 Main St. Date Received for filing and posting qty PR: October 31, 2003 Signature b)c`Agency) Title RESOLUTION NO. 76-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY MAKING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE. CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT, LOCATED ON EAST CYPRESS ROAD ADJACENT TO DELTA VISTA MIDDLE SCHOOL, INCLUDING TENTATIVE AND PARCEL MAPS, DEVELOPMENT PLANS, DESIGN REVIEW, AND A TREE PERMIT FINDINGS A. KB Home South Bay, Inc., Western Pacific Housing, and Pacific Communities, - on behalf of Conco Land Company and Donald Williamson Partnership (together, "Applicants"), have submitted applications to develop approximately 147 acres, located north and south of East Cypress Road adjacent to delta Vista Middle School, with 641 single-family and 96 multi-family units (the "Cypress Grove Project" or "Project"). The Project application includes requests for approval of the following: • Rezoning the property from General Agriculture (A2) and Heavy Agriculture (A3) to Planned Unit District (P-1); • A parcel map dividing the property south of East Cypress Road (Conco South Property) into two properties, one for the development of 96 multi-family units, the other for 100 single-family units; • Tentative Map 8678, which would subdivide one of the parcels created south of East Cypress Road into 100 single-family lots; • Tentative Map 8679, which would subdivide property north of East Cypress Road (Conco Forth Property) into 201 single-family lots, one lot or a storm water detention basin, and four lots for open space and trails; • Tentative Map 8680, which would subdivide property north of East Cypress Road (Williamson Property) into 240 single-family lots; • A development plan for the newly created P-1 district; ■ Design review for the multi-family development and each of the single-family developments; and ■ A Tree Permit to allow for the removal of 88 protected trees from the Project site. B. The Project site is designated Single-Family High (SH) and Multi-family High (MH) in the Oakley 2020 General Plan. The proposed unit densities of the Project are consistent with those General Plan designations. C. On February 1, 2002 and December 6, 2002, the City Council and Planning Commission held joint public meetings at which they received information, provided input, and heard from the public about the Project. D. The City prepared a Draft EIR dated May 2003 (SCH leo. 2001122073), which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project, The City circulated a Notice of Availability for the draft EIR Council Resolution NO. 76-03 1 on May 17, 2003, The Draft EIR was circulated for the required 45-day public review period, from May 17, 2003 through July 1, 2003. City staff and consultants reviewed and responded to comments received from the public and interested agencies in a Final EIR, which was circulated on September 5, 2003. E. The EIR identified three significant unavoidable environmental impacts that would result if the Cypress Grove Project were implemented. The City Council, on October 27, 2003 adopted Resolution No. -03, which certified the EIR, based upon findings of fact. The City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the three significant and unavoidable impacts. G. On September 15, 2003, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing at which it received a report from City staff, oral and written testimony from the Applicants and the public, and deliberated on the applications. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Commission took a straw vote and unanimously expressed its opinion that the applications should be approved, subject to the conditions recommended by staff, as revised by the Commission during its deliberations. The Planning Commission, on October 6, 2003, adopted Resolution No.12-03 approving the Cypress Grove Project. H. On October 13, 2003, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing at which it received a report from City staff, oral and written testimony from the Applicants and the public, and deliberated on the applications. At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Council introduced the Rezone Ordinance and continued the project, directing staff to prepare resolutions for approved, subject to the conditions as revised by the City Council during its deliberations. The City Council, on October 27, 2003, adopted this Resolution approving the Cypress Grove Project. I. As part of the Project, the Applicants propose to construct significant roadway, storm drainage, park, and other improvements. J. These findings are based on the City's General Plan, the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and the information submitted to the City Council at its October 13 and October 27, 2003 meetings, both written and oral, including oral information provided by the Applicant, as reflected in the minutes of such meetings, together with the documents contained in the file for the Project (hereafter the "Record"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on the basis of the above Findings and the entire Record, the City Council makes the following additional findings in support of the recommended approvals: 1. Regarding the approval of Tentative Maps 8678, 8579, and 8680, as well as the Parcel Map, the Council finds that the proposed subdivisions, together with the provisions of their design and improvement: a. The number of units, layout of lots and streets, identified improvements and dedications, and other technical requirements are consistent with the Council Resolution NO. 76-03 2 density prescribed by the General Flan and its applicable policies; b. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development; C. The Project complies with Measure C Growth Management requirements; d. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat as described in the EIR; e. The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems as described in the EIR; f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the propose subdivision because the proposed development is served by an internal public street and trail system; and g. Pursuant to California Water Code Section 10911 the City Council hereby finds, based on the entire record, including the water supply assessment prepared for the project by Diablo Water District, that projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Cypress Grove project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. 2. Regarding the approval of the Design Review application, the Council finds that: a. The proposed development of 541 single-family homes is consistent with the applicable General Plan designations. The design of the homes complies with the General Plan's policies for residential development; b. The proposed development of 541 single-family homes is consistent with all applicable honing regulations, The Project is designed to meet the requirements of the P-1 zoning and associated Development Plan in terms of building height, massing, setbacks and related matters; and c. The design and materials of the single-family homes are compatible with the surrounding area. The color palettes, elevations, and material types will blend in with the existing residential development on neighboring properties. 3. Regarding the Development Plan for the multi-family residential development, the Council finds that; a. The proposed development of a multi-family residential complex is consistent with the General Plan designation. The General Flan designation is Multi-Family High Density. The proposed Project is for multi-farm#y development and is consistent with the land use designation; Council Resolution NO. 76-03 3 b. The proposed development of a multi-family residential complex complies with all applicable Zoning regulations. The Project, as proposed and conditioned, meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance for a P-1 district and generally; and C. The proposed design and materials of the multi-family residential complex is compatible with the surrounding area. Other multi-family developments do not exist within the immediate vicinity of the Project; however, the design of the Project with the conditions of approval is consistent with City standards, and the type or multi-family residential development proposed is compatible with adjacent single-family residential development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, on the basis of the foregoing Findings and the entire Record, subject to the conditions listed below, the City Council takes the following actions: ■ Approve the parcel map to subdivide the Conco South property into two parcels; ■ Approve Tentative Maps 8678, 8679, and 8680, respectively; Approve the proposed development plan for the Project, subject to conditions; ■ Approve the proposed Design Guidelines, subject to the conditions; Approve the Design Review, subject to conditions; and • Approve the Tree Permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, on the basis of the above Findings and the Record, the City Council approves the Applicants' request for the Parcel Map, the Tentative Maps, the Development Plan, the Design Review, and the Tree Permit with the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General `. The requested Rezonings are approved, as shown on the exhibits (received by staff on July 31, 2003) and attachments, and as modified by the following conditions of approval, subject to final review and approval by the Community Development Director. 2. This Parcel Map, Tentative Maps; Development Pians, Design Review and Tree Permit approval shall be effectuated within a period of three (3) years from this date and if not effectuated shall expire on (three years from City Council approval). Prior to said expiration date, the applicant may apply for an extension of time, provided, however, this approval shall be extended for no more than a total of three years frorn (three years from City Council approval). 3. Ali conditions of approval shall be satisfied by the owner/developer. Ali costs associated with compliance with the conditions shall be at the owner/developer's expense. Council Resolution NO. 76-03 4 4. The applicant shall be required to pay a Child Care fee per dwelling unit at the time of building permit. The applicant shall pay the fee amount that is in place at the time building permits are deemed complete, per the approval of the Development Agreement, 5. The applicant shall pay a one time General Flan fee at the time of building permit. The applicant shall pay the fee amount that is in place at the time building permits are deemed complete, per the approval of the Development Agreement. 5. The applicant shall be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee per dwelling unit at the time of building permit. The applicant shall pay the fee amount that is in place at the time building permits are deemed complete, per the approval of the Development Agreement. 7. The applicant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Oakley, the City Approving Authorities, and the officers, agents, and employees of the City from any and all claims, damages and liability (including, but not limited to, damages, attorney fees, expenses of litigation, costs of court). 8. A Cypress Grove Development Agreement is currently being negotiated between the City of Oakley and the Applicants. The Development Agreement shall incorporate the Conditions of Approval, with reasonable modifications, as necessary, Design Guidelines 0. The following language shall be added to the Design Guidelines, Ill. Single- Family Design Standards, A. Architecture, #2: A mix of floor plans shall be located on each street. Single story models shall be evenly disperses' throughout the subdivisions, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 10. The fallowing language shall be added to the Design Guidelines, Ill. Single- Family Design Standards, A. Architecture, #4,d: d. All roof materials small be tile. 11. The following language shall be added to the Design Guidelines, 111. Single- Family Design Standards, B. Site Planning, #8: Detached garages built by the developer may have a second story with a 5-foot rear yard setback. Any accessory structures built after the construction of the home by the developer shall have a maximum height of 15 feet, shall have a minimum rear and side yard setback of 3 feet, and a maximum square footage of 500 square feet. 12. The Design Guidelines, Ill. Single-Family Design Standards, B. Site Planning, Council resolution NO. 76-03 5 #12, related to setbacks on irregular shaped lots shall be deleted modified to read: Side and rear yard setbacks on irregular shaped lots (e.g., cul-de-sac lots) may deviate within 10% of the standard per the discretion of the Community Development Director. 13. The Design Guidelines, IV. Multi-Family Design Standards, A. Architecture, shall add standard 11 and 12 as follows: 11. The maximum height limit shall be 38 feet. 12. All roof material shall consist of a tile like material per approval of the Community Development Director. Composition roofs shall not be allowed. 14. The Design Guidelines, IV. Multi-Family Design Standards, C. Parking requirements shall be replaced with the following: All multi-family areas shall provide a minimum of 1.5 spaces for each one- bedroom unit and 2 spaces for every two or three-bedroom unit. In addition, one guest parking space shall be provided for every four units (twenty-five percent). 15. The street trees listed in the Design Guidelines, V. Landscaping Standards, i3. Cypress Road Landscape Corridor, and E. Neighborhood Street Trees shall be revised to be consistent with the HWA Landscape booklet. 16. The Design Guidelines, V. Landscaping Standards, D. Entry Monuments #4 shall be replaced with the following language. in addition Figure 23 shall be modified to remove the Cypress Grove logo. A tubular steel trellis between stone pilasters shall be located at the major intersections within the Cypress Road median. The Cypress Grove logo shall not be located within the median of arterial roads. 17. The Design Guidelines, V. Landscaping Standards, D. Entry Monuments, #5 shall be added: 5. A consolidated directional sign program for the model home complex shall be prepared for the Cypress Grove development for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The program could include two large subdivision directional signs (approximately 32 square feet each) to be located on Cypress Road, and several smaller signs (approximately 16 square feet each.) to be located in the interior of the development. The signs shall contain a consistent quality design. The sign program shall indicate the size, location, and design of the model home complex directional signs. Council Resolution NO. 76-03 6 - - ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18. The Design Guidelines, V. Landscaping Standards, E. Neighborhood Street Trees, #3 shall be replaced with the following language: Cul-de-sac lots shall receive a minimum of one street tree and one accent tree per lot. 19. The Design Guidelines, Vi. Infrastructure, A. Roads, #2 includes a Figure 29, Typical Project Entry Section. The cross-section shall be modified for the entry to Subdivision 8378 to remove parking on the entry street. Tentative Maps General 20. The street names shall be approved by the Community Development Department and the East Contra Costa Fire District. 21. The applicant shall maintain all landscaping until occupancy and shall annex the site into a landscaping and lighting district. The applicant is required to annex to a lighting and landscaping district and notify future homeowners by deed, notice of the fact that the land is within a landscaping and lighting district. Subdivision 8678 22. The emergency vehicle access (EVA) shall be as indicated in the Landscape Design Booklet. The design of the pavers and gates shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director, 23. The southern boundary of Lots 65, 66, and 67 shall be redesigned to either obtain permission from the property owner to the south to allow the slope on the adjacent property, or to construct a retaining wall on the property lines to ensure property drainage on site. Compliance with this condition shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 24. The ends of H Street and F Street shall include barricades and a sign that indicates the roads may be extended in the future. The type and location of the barricades and sign shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Subdivision 8679 25. The design of the enclosure structure related to the pump station indicated on Parcel A of Subdivision 8679 shall be consistent with the design of the single- family homes and shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. Subdivision 8686 26. A traffic-calming feature such as a pop-out shall be included in the vicinity of Parcel D and K Street. The design and location of the pop--out shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 27. A traffic-calming feature such as a speed table shall be provided in the vicinity of Council Resolution NO. 76-03 7 Frank Hengel Way, K Street, and Q Street. The design and location of the pop- out shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Design Review Genera! 28. All proposed stone veneer shall be extended along the side elevations of the residences to the fence line. 29. Trim shall be provided around all doors and windows. 30. Lighted house numbers visible from the roadway are required for each residence. 31. There shall be no roof mounted HVAC units or units within the 5-foot side yard setback. 32. The landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy of each residence. Subdivision 8678 33. The applicant shall provide a revised color scheme to include a minimum of two additional colors. The color scheme shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 34. All stone veneer shall be balanced on the front elevations. Plan 1 Elevation B shall provide stone veneer on the right side of the house adjacent to the front window, Plan 2 Elevation C shall provide stone veneer on the columns along the right side of the house, and Plan 4 Elevation C shall provide stone veneer on the right side of the house on both sides of the garage. 35. A revised development plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director, which indicates compliance with the Cypress Grove Design Guidelines requirement that 25 percent of the corner lots shall have a single story unit. Subdivision 8679 36. The applicant shall submit a color and materials board for the review and approval of the Community Development Director, 37. A minimum of one elevation of each house plan shall provide a stone veneer accent. 38. Detached garages shall include architectural embellishments consistent with the main structure. Subdivision 8680 39. The applicant shall provide a revised color scheme to include a minimum of two additional colors. The color scheme shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. Council Resolution NO. 76-03 8 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. _..............._.........._.... 40. All stone veneer shall be balanced on the front elevations. Brookstone Plan 3 Elevation C shall provide stone veneer on the front porch columns, Wi€drose Plan 3 Elevation B shall provide stone veneer on the right side of the house on the side of the garage, and Plan 4 Elevations B and C shall continue the stone veneer on the left elevation to the fence fine. 41. The side yard fencing adjacent to A Street as well as the fencing on the lots which side and back onto Marsh Creek trail shall be pre-cast masonry. Landscaping and Fencing- General 42. The design of the two neighborhood parks shall be developed in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the City's Park and Recreation Department and shall meet the following requirements: ■ The parks & trails, including detention basin, shall all be none turn key by developers. Credits for land dedication dnd improvement shall.be factored into the project, but will not limit the park, trail, & open space development. ■ Final park designs must be approved by the City prior to construction. • The parks, trails, and the detention basin shall be completed by 40% of build out. The 2-acre park, located south of Cypress Road, shall be in before the apartments and no later than 40% of the housing project, per the Development Agreement. The Applicants shall install wells for park landscaping maintenance per a feasibility study. The number and location of wells shall be to the satisfaction of the City's Park and Recreation Manager and City Engineer. 43. The trails along Cypress Road, Marsh Creek and the Contra Costa Canal shall consist of a paved trail with an additional minimum two-foot decomposed granite shoulder along one side. The design and location of the trails shall be subject to the review and approval of the City's Park and Recreation Manager. In addition, the trail along Marsh Creek shall be subject to the review and approval of the East Bay Regional Park District. 44. The Applicants shall install parking and landscaping improvements to the property north of Cypress Road, between the railroad tracks and Marsh Creek, if allowed by the East Bay Regional Park District. Proof of the outcome of the discussions with the District shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. 45. An evergreen tree shall be introduced to the plant palette for Cypress Road. 46. The landscaping along the south side of Cypress Road adjacent to the proposed multi-family site shall be consistent with the remainder of the Cypress Road frontage landscaping. 47. The development shall provide a mix of street trees. A different street tree shall be provided at the cul-de-sac bulbs. 43. Crape Myrtle shall not be listed as a street tree, but as an accent tree. Council Resolution NO. '76-03 9 Multi-Family 49. All buildings shall contain fire sprinklers as required by the East Contra Costa Eire District. 50. An emergency vehicle access (EVA) shall be provided at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to Building 9 onto Cypress Road. The EVA shall be designed to match the EVAs proposed for Subdivision 8678. 51. Accent paving shall be provided at the project entrance and at pedestrian walkways throughout the parking areas. The location and design of the paving shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 52. The parking spaces in front of the garages that do not contain sufficient depth to qualify as a parking space shall be posted as no parking. 53. The carports and trash enclosures shall consist of the same materials and colors as the main buildings. 54. All trash enclosures shall have metal gates painted to match the enclosures. 55. The carports shall be designed to have a more substantial post, which includes stone veneer at the base, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 56. The design, location, and color of the 4-foot tall vinyl fencing along the east property line adjacent to the park shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 57. The design, location, and color of the concrete block wall along the southwest border of the project site, adjacent to the railroad tracks, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 58. The fence along the west property line shall be a six-foot high concrete block wall of a similar design as the wall along the railroad tracks. The design of the wail shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. Vines and other landscaping shall be planted adjacent to the wall. 59. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan complete with light fixture details and a photometric plan for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 60. The applicant shall submit a color and materials board for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 61. All portions of the landscaping throughout the multi-family development, which is identified for turf, shall be planted from sod. 62. All landscape areas shall be treated with a layer of two-inch bark subject to the Council Resolution NO. 76-03 review and approval of the Community Development director. 63. The water feature which is located at the corner of Cypress Road and A Street shall be relocated to the project entrance. 64. The landscape planter along the west property line shall be increased to a minimum of seven feet in order to accommodate tree plantings and shall include dense screen plantings, such as evergreen trees, per the approval of the Community Development director, 65. All H-VAC units shall be screened from public view. The design of the screens shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 66. A comprehensive sign program for the complex shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. Public Works and Engineering Conditions Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, 9, and 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any Ordinance Code exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the site plan received by the Community Development Department on July 31, 2001 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE SATISIFED PRIOR TO FILING ANY FINAL OR PARCEL MAP UNLESS OTHERWISE DOTED: General: 67. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the City Engineer for review and pay the appropriate processing costs in accordance with the Ordinance Code and these conditions of approval. 68. Submit final maps prepared by a licensed land surveyor or qualified registered civil engineer to the City Engineer for review and pay processing costs in accordance with the Ordinance Code and these conditions of approval. 69. Submit grading plans including erosion control measures and revegetation plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the City Engineer for review and pay appropriate processing costs in accordance with the Ordinance Code and these conditions of approval. 70. Submit landscaping plans, including planting and irrigation details, as prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the City Engineer for review and pay appropriate processing costs in accordance with'the Ordinance Code and these conditions of approval. 71. wilding permits for house construction shall not be issued until the subdivision streets serving the lots have been paved or until an access plan for the house construction has been approved by the City Engineer. Council Reso!uticn NO, 76-03 11 Roadway Improvements: 72. Construct Cypress Road as a four-lane divided roadway between Main Street and the eastern project boundary as shown on the Tentative Maps and the Cypress Road exhibit, with the exception that a dedicated right turn lane shall be included on Cypress Road for the westbound approach at Frank Hengel Way. Improvements shall include a widened bridge at Marsh Creek, an improved at- grade crossing at the BNSF Railroad line, a landscaped median, pedestrian facilities, and right of way landscaping. Frontage improvements adjacent to the triangle of parcels south of Cypress Road and between the BNSF Railroad and the western boundary of Parcel A shall be limited to full width pavement, curb, gutter, partial parkway landscaping, and partial sidewalk (as shown on Landscape Exhibit `Cypress Rd. at Cypress Grove,' Sheet 2 of 9). Any transition between ultimate and existing improvements at the eastern project boundary shall occur east of the project. The final design and configuration of the roadway and appurtenances is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The improvements east of the BNSF Railroad crossing shall be installed prior to the issuance of any building permits with the exception of model complexes as may be approved by the Community Development Director. The remainder of the improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 375th unit (with the apartment complex constituting 96 units). 73. Install traffic signals at the intersections of Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Way/A Street (of Subdivision 8678) and Cypress Road/A Street (of Subdivision 8680). The design and construction of the traffic signals is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the traffic signals may be required to be interconnected with the existing traffic signal at Main Street/Cypress Road and the improved at-grade BNSF Railroad crossing. The traffic signals shall be installed and operational prior to the issuance of any building permits with the exception of model complexes as may be approved by the Community Development Director. 74. Install a signalized pedestrian crossing at the intersection of the EBRPD trail along Marsh Creek and Cypress Road. The design and construction of the signalized crossing is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the signal may be required to be interconnected with the existing traffic signal at Main Street/Cypress Road, the improved at-grade BNSF Railroad crossing, and the required project traffic signals along Cypress Road. The signalized crossing shall be installed and operational prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 375th unit (with the apartment complex constituting 96 units). 75. Reconstruct the intersection of Main Street/Cypress Road to achieve a configuration consistent with urban design characteristics. The improved intersection shall accommodate projected traffic volumes while eliminating high- speed right turn pockets and shortening pedestrian movements to the maximum extent possible. Improvements will be subject to the review and approval of Caltrans but the project sponsors shall coordinate the plans with the City Engineer to ensure that the approved configuration is to the City's satisfaction. The improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of the building permit council Resolution NO. 76-03 12 for the 375th unit (with the apartment complex constituting 96 units), 76. Construct the project streets to City public road standards and as shown on the Tentative Maps with the following exceptions: A. The minimum street grade may be lowered from the standard 1% to 0.75% provided that the project proponent demonstrates that the City's drainage standards can be achieved. B. The improvements for F Street of Subdivision 8673 shall extend to the southern project boundary. Any slopes or retaining walls necessary to accommodate the extension of the roadway to the subdivision boundary shall be located outside of the public right of way. Compliance with this condition shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including a redesign of the street terminus. C. Frank Hengel Way shall be redesigned in front of Delta Vista Middle School to allow an additional lane for a southbound right turn onto Cypress Road. The design of the roadway improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 77. Submit a turning radius exhibit to the City Engineer for review and approval to illustrate that the ninety-degree turns of project streets can accommodate the largest expected vehicle to use the streets without the inclusion of City standard elbows. If the exhibit illustrates that elbows are necessary to accommodate the expected traffic then they shall be included in the improvement plans. 78. Install traffic control devices such as stop sign and other signing and striping on the project streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Parking shall be prohibited along one side of all 28-foot wide streets as well as along the apartment complex frontage of Street A. Parking shall not be allowed on H Street, adjacent to the park, from dusk to dawn. 79. Install traffic calming measures such as speed tables and curb extensions along Frank Hengel Way, K Street, and A Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 80. Construct emergency vehicle accesses between B Street, C Street and D Street of Subdivision 8678 and Cypress Road. The design and configuration of the accesses shall be per the current City standard and is subject to the review of the City Engineer. 81. Submit a phasing plan for the project streets to the City Engineer for review if the street improvement will be phased. The plan shall include provisions for emergency vehicle access, temporary turn-around facilities, and access to the occupied lots. 82. Design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Council Resolution NO, 76-03 13 Road Alignment/Sight Distance: 83. Submit a preliminary plan and profile to the City Engineer for review showing all required improvements to Cypress Road. The sketch plan shall be to scale, show horizontal and vertical alignments, transitions, curb lines, lane striping and cross sections and shall provide sight distance for a design speed of 55 miles per hour. The plan shall extend a minimum of 150 feet ± beyond the limits of the proposed work. Road and Easement Dedications: 84. Convey to the City, by offer of dedication, the right of way for Cypress Road for the planned ultimate width of 130-feet along the project frontages. 85. Convey to the City, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way for the project streets. 86. Convey to the City, by offer of dedication, the required off-site road rights of way for Cypress Road and A Street (of Subdivision 8680). Alternatively, the applicant may choose to fund the City efforts to obtain the off-site rights of way including all staff, legal, consultant, and acquisition casts. 87. Furnish necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road, utility and drainage improvements. Street Lights: 88. install streetlights along all project streets and Cypress Road, The City Engineer shall determine the final number and location of the lights, and the lights shall be on an LS2-A rate service. The lights on the project streets shall be decorative per City standards, and the lights along Cypress Road shall be General Electric double mast arm "cobra head" style and located within the median. Grading: 89. Submit a geotechnical report to the City Engineer for review that substantiates the design features incorporated into the subdivision including, but not limited to grading activities, compaction requirements, utility construction, slopes, retaining walls, and roadway sections. 90. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the City Engineer. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. Council Resolution NO. 76-03 14 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 i. Grade any slopes with a vertical height of four feet or more at a slope of 3 to 1. Slopes adjacent to Marsh Creek and the Contra Costa Water District Canal are exempted from this requirement and may be graded to a maximum slope of 2 to 1 or per the requirements of the respective operating agencies. Retaining walls that may be installed to reduce the slope must be masonry and comply with the City's building cede. 92. Grade all pads so that they drain directly to the public street at a minimum of one percent without the use of private drainage systems through rear and side yards. 93. Submit a haul route plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to importing or exporting any material from the site. The plan shall include the location of the borrow or fill area, the proposed haul routes, the estimated number and frequency of trips, and the proposed schedule of hauling. Based on this plan the City Engineer shall determine whether pavement condition surveys- must be conducted along the proposed haul routes to determine what impacts the trucking activities may have, The project proponents shall be responsible to repair to their pre-construction condition any roads along the utilized routes. 94. Prior to commencement of any site work that will result in a land disturbance of one acre or more, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Engineer that the requirements for obtaining a State General Construction Permit have been met. Such evidence may be a copy of the Notice of Intent letter sent by the State Water Resources Control Board, The WDID Number shall be shown on the grading plan prior to approval by the City Engineer, 95. Submit an updated erosion control plan reflecting current site conditions to the City Engineer for review and approval no later than September 1st of every year while the Notice of Intent is active. 96, Submit a Letter of Map Revision application or the appropriate application to FEMA to remove the building pads that are currently within the Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A frorn the flood zone. FERIA must issue no less than a Conditional Letter of Map Revision prior to the City issuing building permits for the lots affected by the Zone A designation. 97, Grade all pad elevations or install levees to satisfy Chapter 914-16 of the City's Municipal Code, including the degree of protection provisions. UtilitiesfUndergrounding: 98. Underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities, including those along the frontage of Cypress Road within the project area. 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. The joint trench composite plans must be endorsed by the City Engineer prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans for the project. The composite drawings Council Resolution NO, 76-03 15 and/or utility improvement plans shall be signed by a licensed civil engineer. 99. All utility boxes shall be installed underground and all wires and cables must be installed in conduits. Compliance with this condition shall be at the discretion of the City Engineer. Drainage Improvements: 100. Collect and convey all stormwater entering and/or originating on these properties, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility that conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 101. Submit a final hydrology and hydraulic report including 10-year and 100-year frequency event calculations for the proposed drainage system and stormwater pond to the City Engineer for review and approval. 102. Construct the proposed stormwater pond in accordance with the applicable standards of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, including any required freeboard. 103. Design and construct all storm drainage facilities in compliance with the Ordinance Code and City design standards. 104. Submit a long-term operational and maintenance plan for the stormwater pond and pump stations to the City Engineer for review. The plan must include a level of effort estimate for staffing and maintenance requirements as well as an operational and life cycle budget analysis. 105. Prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 105. Provide proof that the necessary agencies, such as Department of Fish and Game, Army Corp of Engineers, and the State Water Resources Control Board have approved the outfall structure into Dutch Slough, 107. Dedicate a public drainage easement over the drainage system that conveys storm water run off from public streets. Landscaping in the Public Right of Way: 108. Install public right of way landscaping along Cypress Road prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 50th unit. Public right of way landscaping along the project streets shall be installed prior to occupancy of homes adjacent to that street. 109. Maintain all landscaping within the public right of way until such time that the adjacent roadway improvements have been accepted for maintenance:. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Council Resolution NO. 76-03 16 _.._... 110. 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 (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate wherever feasible, the following long-term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: • Offer pavers for household driveways and/or walkways as an option to buyers. ■ Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. ■ Stenciling all storm drains with "No Dumping, Drains to Delta" thermoplastic decals. • 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. • Distribute public information items regarding the Clean Water Program to buyers. • Other alternatives as approved by the City Engineer. FeestAssessments: 111. Comply with the requirements of the development impact fees listed below, in addition to those noticed by the City Council in Resolution 00-85 and 08-03. The applicant shall pay the fees in the amounts in effect at the time each building permit is issued. A. Traffic Impact Pee (authorized by Ordinance No. 14-00, adopted by Resolution 49-03); B. Eastern Contra Costa Sub-regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (adopted by Ordinance Nos. 7-99, 18-99, and 23-99) and the East County Transportation Improvement Impact Fee (authorized by Ordinance No. 14- 00, adopted by resolution No. 05-02); C. Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee (adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03); D. Park Impact Fee (authorized by Ordinance No. 05-00, adopted by Resolution No. 19-031; E. Public Facilities Fee (authorized by Ordinance No. 05-00, adopted by Resolution No. 18-03); and F. Child Care Facilities "In Lieu" Fee (adapted by Ordinance Nos. 18-99 and 23-99). G. Fire Facilities Impact Fee, collected by the City on behalf of the Oakley Council Resolution NO. 76-03 17 Fire Protection District. The applicant should contact the City Engineer prior to constructing any public improvements to determine if any of the required improvements are eligible for credits or reimbursements against the applicable traffic benefit fees or from future developments. The applicant may be eligible for a credit against the East County Transportation Improvement impact Fee that is equal to the amount of the Eastern Contra Costa Sub-Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee paid. The Applicant may also be eligible for a credit against the Park Land Acquisition component of the Park Impact Fee that is equal to the amount of the Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee paid. 112. Annex the property to the City of Oakley Landscape and Lighting District No. 1 for citywide landscaping and park maintenance, subject to an assessment for maintenance based on the assessment methodology described in the Engineer's Report for the District. Any required election and/or ballot protest proceedings shall be completed prior to approval of the final map. The Applicant shall apply for annexation and provide all information and documents required by the City or its agents in processing the annexation. All costs of annexation shall be paid by Applicant. 113. Annex the property to the City of Oakley Landscape and Lighting District No. 1 for citywide street lighting costs and maintenance, subject to an assessment for street light maintenance based on the assessment methodology described in the Engineer's Report, Any required election and/or ballot protest proceedings shall be completed prior to filing of the Final Map. The applicant shall apply for annexation and provide all information and documents required by the City or its agents in processing the annexation. All costs of annexation shall be paid by Applicant. 114. Annex the property to the City of Oakley Landscape and Lighting District No. 1 for project specific landscaping maintenance, subject to an assessment for landscape operation and maintenance based on the assessment methodology described in the Engineer's Report. Any required election and/or ballot protest proceedings shall be completed prior to filing of the Final Map. The applicant shall apply for annexation and provide all information and documents required by the City or its agents in processing the annexation. All costs of annexation shall be paid by Applicant. 115. Participate in the provision of funding to maintain 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 cost of living adjustment) as established at the time of voting by the City Council. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to filing of the final map. Should the homes be occupied prior to the City receiving the first disbursement from the tax bill, the project proponent shall be responsible for paying the pro-rata share for the remainder of the tax year prior to the City conducting a final inspection. 116. Participate in the formation of a mechanism to fund the operation and Council Resolution NO. 76-03 18 maintenance of the storm drain system, including the stormwater pond and any proposed pump stations, as well as any levees proposed to be maintained by the City. The appropriate funding mechanism shall be determined by the City and may include, but not be limited to, an assessment district, community services district, or community facilities district. The funding mechanism shall be formed prior to filing of any final or parcel map, and the project proponent shall fund all costs of the formation. 117. Participate in the formation of an assessment district for the construction of off- site improvements such as Cypress Road, the Dain Street/Cypress intersection, the Marsh Creek Bridge, and the BNSF Railroad crossing. The assessment district shall be formed prior to. the filing of any final or parcel map, and the project proponent shall fund all costs of formation. ADVISORY" NOTES THE FOLLOWING ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED TO THE. APPLICANT AS A COURTESY BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. The applicantlowner should be aware of the expiration dates and renewing requirements prior to requesting building or grading permits. B. The project will require a grading permit pursuant to the Ordinance Code, C. Comply with the requirements of lronhouse Sanitary District. D. Comply with the requirements of the Diablo Water District. E. Comply with the requirements of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, F. Comply with the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game, Army Corp of Engineers, State Water Resources Control Board, and any other applicable agencies regarding the outfall into Dutch Slough. G. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Division. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. H. 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. 1, 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. Council Resolution NO. 76-03 19 J. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for construction within existing City rights of way. K. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for construction within the State right of way. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the East Say Regional Parks District for work within the Marsh Creek right of way. M. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Contra Costa Water District for work within the Contra Costa Water District canal right of way. Exhibits: Exhibit A Findings Regarding Alternatives Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measure Monitoring Program PASSED AND ADOPTED, THIS 27th day of October, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Anderson, Nix, Vanek, Rios, Huffaker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ASSENT: None APPROVED: ATTEST: CIT C ERK ��� EXHIBIT A FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES Sassed upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council determines that the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Cypress Grove Project and would substantially lessen any of the significant impact of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. The City Council hereby finds that the two alternatives identified and described in the EIR were considered and finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA section 21081(c). In making those findings, the City considered the goals of the Project, as follows. • Create a gateway to the Cypress Corridor and establish a tone for all future development along the corridor. • Improve the Cypress Corridor access by widening the railroad crossing and bridge over Marsh Creek and signalizing the access to the new middle school and future elementary school. . • Create a cohesive trail system by modifying the existing Marsh Creek undercrossing and pedestrian crossing at SR-4 and tying these modifications to the existing regional trail system, connecting the system to both school sites and the joint park facility. The trail would be routed adjacent to the new neighborhoods for easy access and planning for future expansion to the east. The trail would be designated a multiuse trail. • Create a new area for community-wide sporting events. In addition, the recreational areas would tie the neighborhoods together to assure safe and adequate access for pedestrians, parking, and vehicular movement. Provide guidelines to assure a consistent design theme evolves for the gateway and the individual neighborhoods. Reflect the City's vision by applying the design concepts expressed in the Cypress Corridor Design Charette. Design each neighborhood with a distinct identity yet compatible with the overall design concept. The three developers and architects would work together to create a master planned community with a cross section of architectural styles. Develop the project area buildout consistent with land uses and policies defined in the City of Oakley 2020 General Plan. - Develop 541 quality single-family residential housing units and 96 quality multi- family residential housing units for the City's expanding population. Alternative 1- No Project Finding: Infeasible. This alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines and assumes that the project is not constructed and the site remains in its current agricultural state. Alternative 1 is considered environmentally superior for most issue areas, as it would have little impact. This alternative is rejected, however, because it fails to satisfy basic project objectives and does not provide any community or financial benefits of the proposed project. Under this alternative, the zoning of the site would remain General Agriculture (A-2) and Heavy Agriculture (A-3), which is inconsistent with the current Single Family Residential, High Density (SH) and (Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH) land use designations for the project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have more impacts to current zoning than the proposed project. Additionally, many project objectives are not satisfied by alternative 1. Under this alternative, a gateway to Cypress Corridor would not be created, nor would the Cypress Corridor access be improved, because development would not occur. This alternative would not create a cohesive trail system, nor create areas for community-wide sporting events or recreational areas. There would be no guidelines for development under this alternative, as the project would not be developed and thus, the City's vision for the Cypress Corridor as expressed in the Cypress Corridor Design� C harette would not be realized. There would be no development of quality residential housing units for the City's expanding population. Finally, as stated earlier, the area would not be developed consistently with land uses and policies defined in the City of Oakley 2020 general plan and would not be developed consistently with land uses and policies defined in the City of Oakley 2020 General Plan. Alternative 2- Reduced Intensity Development Alternative Finding: infeasible. The Reduced intensity Development Alternative (RID) would still develop the project site, but in accordance with the Low Density Residential Designation, which identifies a density range of 1.0-to-2.9 dwelling units per acre. This alternative is assumed to result in a reduction of the number of houses by 50-percent. Therefore, the overall number of houses on the project site would be reduced from 637 to 319. Because of the reduction in houses under this alternative, the impacts on traffic and circulation, air quality (from residential trip vehicle emissions), water quality, hazards, and public services and utilities would be lessened. This alternative is rejected, however, because it too fails to satisfy basic project objectives, such as the development of 637 quality residential housing units for the City's expanding population, and does not provide the wealth. of community or financial benefits of the proposed project. Alternative 2 would fail to provide adequate housing for all economic segments. With a d111SII')i p-Aice of 1 .0-to-2.9 ovleiling units per acre, high density housing could not be built, and thus, members of certain economic sectors would be unable to live in the project area. This result would be inconsistent with the expressed City policies to provide a diversity of housing opportunities and an increase in the amount of affordable housing in the community. Additionally, this alternative would not meet the demands as well as the proposed project for increases in housing opportunities in the City and region that has experienced intense housing demands in the last ten years. The decreased density of this alternative will also discourage transit use, which may offset any environmentally beneficial air duality impacts of this alternative. Finally, this alternative would not provide as substantial an increase in property tax revenues to the City under the proposed project. 668303_2.DOC EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Oakley makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Cypress Grove EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Although the City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, and by future development plans as well as future mitigation measures implemented with future approvals, it recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Cypress Grove EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the EIR, and reports and other transmittals to the City Council, the City Council finds that there is substantial evidence that supports a finding that the Project will result in substantial community benefits, including specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. 2. Significant Unavoidable Adverse lmoacts. Significant impacts of the Project that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level include the following: a. (Agricultural Resources 3.3-2) Placing urban land uses within a primarily agricultural area. b. (Air Quality 3.8-2) Long term impact associated with residential trip generated air emissions. c. (Air Quality 3.8-4) Potential for emissions frorn adjacent agriculture operations that may affect residents. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Cypress Grove Project against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the EIR that have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance. To the extent that the Project would .result in unavoidable significant impacts described in the EIR, the City Council hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of Project as further set forth below. The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that unavoidable impacts of the Protect are out\l;/eighed by the substantial public bel iefits of Prola'ct. IDrovol Cf the Fmject satlsfes the Clt)/'s oos.Is fol" a general plan project benefits outweighing the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant include the following: • Creation of a new community that allows for residential uses, while preserving significant natural resources and open space. • Provision of development and transitional land use patterns which integrate and are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses. • Avoidance of leapfrog development and accommodation of projected regional growth in a location which is adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, public transit, transportation corridors, and major employment centers. • Creation of a gateway to the Cypress Corridor and establishment of a tone for all future development along the corridor. ® Improving the Cypress Corridor access. ■ Creation of a cohesive trail system. Creation of a new area for community-wide sporting and recreational events. Reflecting the City's vision by applying the design concepts expressed in the Cypress Corridor Design Charette. Developing the project area buildout consistent with land uses and policies defined in the City of Oakley 2020 General Plan. a Providing funding to maintain police services through a special police services tax. Providing for costs of new fire protection facilities and services. Providing a 1.00-acre park located in the Southwestern portion of the Conco South Property, a 5.10-acre neighborhood park located just north of Delta Vista Middle School in the Williamson Property, and 11.54 acres of open space and trail. Substantial increases in property tax revenues. Increases in housing opportunities in the City and in a region that has experienced increasingly intense housing demand in the last 10 years. Increased opportunities for the City to contribute its fair share of regional housing. Developing 541 quality single-family residential housing units and 06 quality multi-family residential housing units for the City's expanding population. 668315,2.DOc EXHIBIT C FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING PROGRAM a. The EIR for the Cypress Grove Project identifies areas of potentially significant impacts and describes mitigation measurers to minimize and/or eliminate those impacts. The City finds that the proposed Project will result in the following potentially significant impacts and that mitigation measures and/or changes to the Project will eliminate the impacts or reduce them to a level of less than significance. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth below constitute a mitigation monitoring program that identifies the responsible person for assuring the implementation of specified mitigation measures within the time set forth for each. 3.2 LAND USE Impact 3.2-1. The proposed project may be incompatible with surrounding land uses. Approval of the proposed project would result in the development of residential neighborhoods adjacent to a middle school and agricultural fields. Land use compatibility impacts are not anticipated between the project and the school site. Residences along the northern and eastern border of the project site would be adjacent to agricultural uses. The combined impacts from the farming operations on the residential uses would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. The Applicant's) shall notify prospective buyers in writing, prior to purchase, about existing and on-going agriculture activities in the immediate area in the form of a disclosure statement. The notifications shall disclose that the City of Oakley is an agricultural area subject to ground and aerial applications of chemicals and early morning or nighttime faun operations which may create noise, dust, et cetera. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to recording final maps. Fach disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner. implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact from the proposed project to a less-than-signer"kart level. Impact 3.2-2. The proposed project would change the existing zoning. The project site is currently zoned General Agriculture (A-2) and Heavy Agriculture (A-3). The proposed project would change the zoning to Planned Unit District (P-1). The rezone of the project site from A-2 and A to P with the uses proposed in the project would make the project site consistent with the recently adopted Oakley 2020 General Plan land use designations. Should the City Council approve the zoning change, the project would be consistent with the General Pian and tfo impact would occur. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2. None required. frn,pact 3.2-3. Consistency with the Genaral Pfan. The City of Oakley has recently adopted the Oakley 2020 General Plan (General Plan). The General Plan land use designations for the project site are consistent vnlith those required for the development of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact related to General Plan consistency, Mitigation Measure 3.2-3. None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.2-4. The proposed project and all other projects in the Oakley area would increase the intensity of land uses in the region. The proposed Cypress Glove project, along with all known projects such as development of the remaining Cypress Corridor and the Cypress Lakes project, would change the intensity of land uses in the City's Planning Area. In particular, this cumulative development scenario would increase development in the eastern portion of the City, and provide additional housing, employment, shopping, and recreational opportunities. Given the land use controls and development standards presently in use within the City of Oakley and the consistency of the project with the land uses and densities in the General Plan, cumulative land use impacts would be minimized to a level that is considered to be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-4. None required. 3.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 3.3-1. The proposed project would convert Prime Farmland to urban Uses. The project site comprises approximately 147 acres, The majority of this acreage is considered idered Prime Farmland by the Department of Conservation. The proposed project would convert the Prime Farmland to urban uses. The Elk found that the incremental environmental effect of the General Plan on agriculture is less-than-significant. Therefore, in accordance with the findings of the certified Oakley 2020 General Plan Elk, the loss of Prime Farmland acreage due to the development of the proposed project would be considered a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1. None required. Impact 3.3-2. Implementation of the proposed project would place urban land uses within a primarily agricultural area, which may impaIr agricultural production and result in land use compatibility' conflicts. The project site is adjacent to existing agricultural uses designated for development to the east. Should agricultural operations persist on the farmland to the east of the project site, the project could result in significant impacts due to the impairment of productivity and land use conflicts. Ls. Mitigatior! Measure 3.3-2. implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. Implementation of this mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of the impact; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable, Cumular`lve Impacts and iT,417tfgatlon IvIleasuras Impact 3.3-3. Cumulative Loss of Agrfoulturai Land. The certified Oakley 2020 Gene!'-al Pla:i E!F, found that the General Plan Fccon-irnodates agricultui-e while providing for the balanced needs of the City. In addition, currently agricultural resources are fragmented and commercial agriculture is substantially compromised. The certified Oakley 2020 General Plan LEiR found that the General Plan accommodates agriculture while providing for the balanced needs of the City. Mitigation Measure 3.2-4. None required. 3.4 AESTHETICS Impact 3.4-1. Impacts related to al=tering the existing, agricultural character of the project site. The project site has a current appearance of being rural in nature. implementation of the proposed project would replace the undeveloped, rural character of the project site (currently defined as agricultural open space) with an urban residential setting. However, the site has been designated for development in the Oakley 2020 General Plan. In addition, the Oakley 2020 General Plan E1R under impact 3.2-B concludes that development anticipated in the General Pian would have a less- than-significant impact to the alteration of existing visual character or quality and urban design of the Planning Area if General Plan policies are implemented, The applicant has submitted Design Guidelines and requests approval of Design Review by the City for all structures, which would ensure that the proposed project would comply with applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than- signi`icant. Mitigation 10easure 3.4-1. None required. impact 3.4-2. Impacts related to Light and Glare. The introduction of street lighting into parks, and throughout the residential development, would alter the currently unlit conditions in the project area. However, this level of light would represent a substantial change from the existing condition; therefore, the impact would be considered potentially significant. "Mitigation Measure 3.4-2. During construction the developer shall install hooded and/or shielded street lights to avoid excessive lighting on adjacent properties for the review and approval of the Community Development Department. Implementation of this mitigation measure wou!d reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-signif,"cani level. Impact 3.4-3. Visual consistency within neighborhoods and throughout project area. Design Guidelines in the project Final Development Plan were prepared to establish criteria for the design of the individual subdivisions. Therefore, compliance with the Design Guidelines would ensure that the impact would be less-thar- significant. M[€ tigation Measure 3.4-3. None required. Impact 3.4-4. Impact on surrounding scenic resources. The Oakley 2020 Ge^.era! Plar. indicates that one o` its goals is to establish a sense of entry at Oakley's bounda.rles, to enhance individual identity of Oa.kley's neighborhoods and to establish unified.' design themes throughout the City. The project proponents have submitted DEsicn Guidelines c.s pant of -.he Final Develcpment Plan application, The guidelines __ __ . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ provide for entry monuments along Cypress Road. The guidelines also include landscaping and decorative walls along Cypress Road to minimize the visual impact of development along the scenic route. Therefore, the impact the impact of the proposed project to scenic resources would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.4-4. Norte required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.4-5. Cumulative impacts related to change in visual character of the region. The proposed project would contribute to the cumulative change in visual character of the eastern Centra Costa region from agricultural to residential. The property in the immediate vicinity of the project is designated for development by the Oakley 2020 General Plan except for the land to the north. Therefore, in terms of the change to the visual character of the Cypress Corridor, development on the project site would be typical of what is planned for development on the adjacent properties. In addition, the Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR under Impact 3.2-13 concludes that development anticipated in the General Plan would have a less-than-significant impact to the alteration of existing visual character or quality and urban design of the Planning Area if General Plan policies are implemented. Therefore, the impact would be considered Gess-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.4-5. None required. 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 3.5-1. Common plant communities. The proposed project would remove cropland and ruderal grassland vegetation within the project site. The amount of cropland vegetation removed is relatively small in comparison to the amount of these habitats in the region. For these reasons, and because this habitat is regionally widespread, this impact would be considered less-then-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. None required. Impact 3.5-2. Habitat for common resident and migratory wifdlife. implementation of the proposed project would permanently remove habitat for common resident and migratory wildlife currently utilizing the project site. Although the cropland provides some habitat for common and migratory wildlife species, primarily birds, this habitat is regionally abundant and widespread. For this reasons, wildlife would be able to move into adjacent habitats. Therefore, this impact would be considered' less-than- Significant Mitigation Measure 3.5-2. None required. Impact 3.5-3. Special-status plants. Habitat for nineteen special-status plant species occurs within the project site. The following six special-status plants have the potential to occur in the expansion area of the linear waster main: Antioch Clunes evening- primrose, Contra Costa. vvalffiovver, hea.rtscale, Hoover's crypta.ntha, large-flowered fiddlenec{:, and slic�,���1�vy madia. Removal of specia.i-status plants a.s pa.�t of project cons�t.I�..ction �s considered pctc-ntiallysfgrfrfcE.r7L. 'Mr tfga,".fo P `ttsaszu`a 3.6-3. Acd1tional April and l',/,'@y surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted within the expansion area of the linear water main in the project site. If any special-status plant species are found within this area in project site, areas supporting the species shall be avoided, the L I e following mitigation measures are required if an area containing a special-status plant species cannot, be avoided: Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other similar method, an equal amount of acreage, either within the project site or off-site, that contains the plant; or Harvest the plants to be lost, and relocate them to another suitable and equal sized area either within the project site or off-site; or Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or use seeds from another appropriate source, and seed an equal amount of area suitable for growing the plant either within the project site or off-site. These mitigation measures shall be completed by a qualified biologist with experience working with the species included in the mitigation. Prior to grading, the developer shall submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the developer will comply with the mitigation measures, including the steps it will take to ensure that transplanting or seeding will be successful. The report shall include maintenance and monitoring onitL .. oring to ensure either successful establishment of relocated plants. The report shall also include clear and measurable performance standards, including remedial actions to compensate for the loss of plants in the event the transplanting or seeding efforts fail. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.5-4. Heritage trees. Heritage trees are defined as trees that have a circumference of 72-inches or greater or any tree or a group of trees particularly worthy of protection. Because the proposed project would result in the removal and/or destruction of heritage trees, the project would have a potentially significant impact on trees. Mitigation Measure 3.5-4. The contractor shall avoid the removal or damage of the heritage trees on the project site to the maximum extent feasible in compliance with the Oakley Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of grading perrnits, the contractor shall contact an ISA Certified Arborist to coordinate all proposed work to ensure the Preservation of Heritage trees to the maximum extent feasible for the review and approval of the Community Development Department- Mitigation measures identified by the Arborist shall include but not be limited to the following- Fencing shall be installed at the dripline or other area as determined by the Arborist of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Storage of materials, parking of vehicles, grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, and paving activities shall not occur within the dFiplines of the trees unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the City., If during construction, any damage to heritage trees occurs, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Department and be responsible for the repair of the damaged tree(s) as determined by the Arborist. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permit for the removal and/or destruction of heritage trees that cannot be avoided during project CMSILTUCtiOn for the review and approval of the Community Development Departi-nent. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-th an-signl'ficai it leve I Impact 3,6-F, speci2kstatus invertebrate species have the potential to occur within the interior dune habitat in the project site. These invertebrate species are federal species of concern and are not afforded any formai protection ander the federal or state Endangered Species Acts; however, they receive consideration during the CECA process. In addition, the General Plan requires the protection of special-status species and their associated habitats. Therefore, if any special-status invertebrate species are found in the project site, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.5-5. Pre-construction surveys for special-status invertebrates shall be conducted in the project site within interior dune habitat and submitted to the City of Oakley for their review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. If special-status invertebrates do not occur in the project site, no further mitigation is required. if special-status invertebrates occur on the project site, the appropriate public agency (USFWS and/or CDFG) shall be contacted for technical assistance to develop and implement mitigation measures appropriate to the particular species in the project site. At a minimum, mitigation measures shall include either avoiding occupied habitat for these species or mitigating loss of occupied habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio. implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 3.5-6. California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard. The project site may provide habitat for these species. Because California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard are of concern to federal and state resource agencies and removal of potential habitat such as the interior dune habitat would result in a local decline of these species populations, this impact would be considered potentially significant. i itiaation Measure 3.5-6. Focused surveys for California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard shall be conducted. These surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate time of year for optimal detection of California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard. If these species are not found to occur on the project area, no further mitigation is required. However, if these species are determined to occur in the project site, a mitigation plan for California horned lizard and silvery legless lizard shall be prepared with technical assistance from USFWS and CDFG. At a minimum, the mitigation plan shall Include measures that either avoid occupied habitat or mitigate loss of occupied habitat through off-site acquisition and preservation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. A biological monitor shall be present in the project area during construction activities within the interior dune habitat, the area adjacent to the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the area within the expansion area of the linear water main to prevent harm to individual lizards. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. lrnpact 3.5-7. California red-legged frog. If this species is present in the project site, construction of the levee alignment, expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek, and placement of the stormwater drainage pipes and outfalls into Emerson Slough could affect this species. Impacts to California red-legged frog are considered poterrtiaily s ign ifica ri t. Niftigat€on Measure 3.5-7. The formal California red-legged frog Site Assessment prepared by Sycamore Associates shall be suiDmitt d to the Corps and the USFVVS as part of the Corps Section 404 permit application for the Marsh Creek bridge expansion and Emerson Slough outfall. Informal consultation or "technical assistance" shall be requested so that the Corps and USFWS may evaluate potential impacts and determine if formal consultation will be required under Section 7 of the ESA. Should the Corps determine that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the California red- legged frog, no formal consOation or mitigation is required, Should the Corps determine that the proposed project may affect the California red-legged frog, formal consultation with USFWS is required to ensure that any mitigation measures developed are adequate to protect this species., If CRLF are positively identified during the pre- construction survey, then a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared, with technical assistance from the USFWS and CDFG, that includes measures to minimize adverse effects of construction on this species and their associated habitat. At a minimum, this plan shall include all of the following measures: A USFWS-approved biologist shall survey the bridge, levee, and/or outfalls construction site at least two weeks prior to the onset of any construction activity. If CRLF eggs, tadpoles, or adults are found, USFWS shall be contacted to determine if an appropriate relocation site exists. The USFWS shall oversee any activities associated with the capture and handling of CRILF. Prior to any construction activities, a training session shall be conducted for construction personnel. At a minimum, this session shall include a description of CRLF and its habitat, and measures that are being implemented to conserve CRLF in the project site. A biological monitor shall oversee those critical aspects of construction of the bridge, levees, and outfall when appropriate to ensure compliance with minimization measures and avoidance of potential take of CRLF The Mitigation Plan shall identify the appropriate times monitoring shall be required. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall occur at least 20 meters (65 feet) from any water body. A spill response plan must be in place to allow prompt response to any spills. All temporary disturbance areas shall be re-vegetated with appropriate native species following project construction. Work activities shall be completed between April 1 and November 1, unless otherwise authorized by USFWS. To control erosion during and after project implementation, the applicant shall implement best management practices, as identified by the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. lrnpaot 3.5-8. Giant garter snake. if this species is present in 'the .project site, construction of the levee aligni-gent adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal, expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek, and placement of the storrnwater drainage pipes and outfalls into Emerson Slough could affect this species. Impacts to giant garter snake are considered pofsnUallysignifl;Cant. Wiffigation Measure 3.5-8. Focused surveys approved by the USFWS shall be conducted for GCS. These surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate time of year for optimal detection. Results of the surveys will be provided to the Corps and USFVVS as part of the Corps Section 404 permit application and, if the Corps determines that the project may affect the GCS, formal consultation and appropriate mitigation measures approved in consultation with the USFWS will be req.,!ire.d. Alternatively, if ihis siDecies is not found l'-o Occul, On th-s PI'Ojeact Site, Or the ............ Corps determines that the project is not likely to adversely affect the GGS, no further mitigation is required. If the GGS is found to occur in the project site, a Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and approved by USFWS that includes measures to avoid take of giant garter snake during construction activities. At a minimum, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the mitigation plan: Construction activities within 200 feet from the banks of giant darter snake aquatic habitat will be avoided where possible. Confine movement of heavy equipment to existing roadways to minimize habitat disturbance. Construction activity within habitat shall be conducted between May 1 and October 1 to minimize impacts to the GGS. For any activities needed between October 2 and April 30, contact the USFWS office to determine if additional measures are necessary to minimize and avoid take. Clearing shall be confined to the minimum area necessary to facilitate construction. Avoidance areas shall be flagged and marked as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas." Construction personnel shall receive USFWS-approved worker environmental awareness training. 24 hours prior to construction activities, the project site shall be surveyed for GGS. Survey of the project site shall be repeated if a lapse in construction activity of two weeks or greater has occurred. If GGS is encountered during construction, activities shall not begin until appropriate corrective measures have been completed or it has been determined that the snake will not be harmed. Any sightings and any incidental take will be reported immediately to the USFWS at (916) 414-6600. Any dewatered habitat should remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after April 15 and prior to excavating or filling of the dewatered habitat. All construction debris and stockpiled materials shall be removed following construction. The construction area shall be regraded to preexisting contours, or a contour that would improve restoration potential of the site. After construction is completed, upland areas of the project site will be revegetated following guidelines listed in MM 3.5-7 (b). After construction is completed, disturbed areas within GGS habitat will be revegetated. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.5-9. Northwestern pond turtle. The proposed project may result in impacts to both aquatic and upland habitat for northwestern pond turtle. Because this species is extremely wary of humans, adult pond turtles that may be in aquatic habitats during summer months are likely to move away frorn the area during project construction activities. Following construction, upland habitats will be revegetated and this species would be able to return to the area. Therefore, long-term affects to this species due to the proposed project are not considered significant. However, nests and overwintering adults and juveniles could be affected from April through February. This species is a state and federal species of concern. For these reasons, impacts to this species are considered potentially significant, Mitigation Measure 3.5-9. A focused pre-construction survey for ?northwestern pond turtle shall he conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the onset of construction activities to determine presence or absence of this species in the project site. If construction is planned after April 1st, this survey shall include looking for turtle nests within the construction area, [f northvlestern pond turtles are not found vfithin the project site, no further nnitigation is required. if juvenile or adult turt;es are found within the proposed construction aPrea., the ino'.ividuals should, be moved out of the construction site with technical assistance from CDFG and USFWS. If a nest is found within the construction area, construction shall not take place within, 30 meters (100 feet) of the nest until the turtles have hatched, Prior to construction, a worker environmental awareness training in the recognition of Northwestern pond turtle, and their habitat shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If a turtle is observed on the site, work shall cease in the area until the turtle can be moved to a safe location consistent with CDFG and USFWS regulations, Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level, Impact 3.6-10. San Joaquin coachwhip. The project site may provide habitat for this species. Because San Joaquin coachwhip is of concern to federal and state resource agencies and removal of potential habitat would result in a local decline of populations of this species, this impact would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 3.5-10. Pre-construction surveys for San Joaquin coachwhip shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If this species is not found to occur on the project site, no further mitigation is required. However, if San Joaquin coachwhip are determined to occur in the project site, a mitigation plan for this species shall be prepared with technical assistance from USFWS and CDFG. At a minimum, the mitigation plan shall include measures that either avoid occupied habitat or mitigate loss of occupied habitat through off-site acquisition and preservation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. A biological monitor shall be present ;in the project site during construction activities within the interior dune habitat, the area adjacent to the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the area within the expansion area of the linear water main to prevent harm to individual coachwhips. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.5-11. Special-status fish species. Several special-status fish species are known to occur or could occur in Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough. Short-term construction impacts related to bridge expansion and outfall construction could include take of some of these species, In addition, short-term construction could result in short- term turbidity effects. However, long-term effects are not associated with the expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek. The possibility exists that fish could enter and become stranded in the new pipelines associated with the outfalls. Entrapment would be considered a long-term operational impact. These short- and long-term impacts would be considered potentially significant, Mffi�gation Measure 3.5-11. A Fish Rescue Plan shall be prepared by a qualified fisheries biologist for the review and approval of the CDFG, DMFS, and USFWS that details measures to avoid take of fish during expansion of the bridge and construction of the outfalls and any associated coffer dam facilities. To ensure compliance and implementation of the plan, the fisheries biologist shall oversee critical aspects of construction for the bridge and outfall such as coffer dam installation, dewatering, and fish rescue operations to assure compliance with minimization measures and avoidance of potential take of special-status fish species. Formal consultation with the CDFG, NIN/IFS, and USFWS shall be required in conjunction iunction v,,ith Corps Section 404 and Strearnbed Alteration Agreement permitting to determine appropriate measures to avoid linpacts to speciol-stFtlis fish spezcjes. .4s ha(-L of the conl:zultation process, a Bic-logical ......................... ............ Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment shall be prepared by a fisheries biologist that evaluates the proposed construction plans, outfall design, vegetation removal, rip-rap and bank protection placement, coffer dam and water pumping best management practices, and water flow regime (including flow rates and timing and temperature of flow releases) from the stormwater pipeline. A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared that includes measures to avoid take of special-status fish. At a minimum, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the mitigation plan: If entrapment in the new pipeline is determined by the fisheries biologist to be a significant issue, a fish screen or other structure approved by USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG shall be placed on the outfalls to prevent fish entering the pipeline system. During construction dewatering; turbidity and suspended sediment levels in water returned to Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough shall not exceed more than 10% above ambient levels in these water bodies. Construction shall occur between May 15 and October 15 (or other period requested by the NMFS) to work outside of the season in which juvenile or migrating salmonids are present in the system. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.5-12. Swainson's hawk. Potential foraging and nesting habitat occurs in the project site for Swainson's hawk, a federal species of concern and state-listed threatened species. Suitable foraging habitat in excess of 15,000 acres would potentially remain available within a 10-mile radius of the Swainson's hawk nest site located approximately 4 miles away. Given, the requirement of at least 15,000 acres of suitable foraging habitat and the ability of this species to travel up to 18 miles to forage, a sufficient amount of foraging habitat would still be available to Swainson's hawks if development rates over the next 25 years remain constant, and significant conversion of suitable agricultural crop types does not occur. Thus, both the project-specific and cumulative impacts of the proposed project are not likely to significantly affect the nesting success of a pair of Swainson's hawks at the nest site. Although Swainson's hawks were not found occupying the project site during the 2002 field surveys, the possibility exists that Swainson's hawks could establish occupancy on the site prior to the initiation of construction for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have potentially crnificant impacts to Swainson's hawks. Mitigation Measure 3.5-12. if construction is proposed during breeding season, a pre- construction survey for Swainson's hawk nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a qualified biologist in order to identify active nests in the project site. if active nests are found, a buffer zone of a minimum of one-quarter mile shall be established around the active nest, Intensive new disturbances that may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging shall not be initiated within this buffer zone between March 1 and September 1. The buffer zone shall be increased to one half mile in nesting areas away from urban development. Trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season. If no active nests are found during the pre- construction survey, no further mitigation will be required. The foraging habitat evaluation conducted by Sycamore shall be submitted to CDFG for review and nnitigation for loss of Swainson's ha,\fik foraging habitat to the eXtent necessary shall be deterrnincd ',rdith technical cssistance front CDFG. Imp!er-ientatlon of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.5-13. testing raptors and migratory birds. Potential nesting habitat for raptors occur within the annual grassland and cropland in and adjacent to the project site. Disruption of active raptor and migratory and resident nests could occur in conjunction with project development if raptors and migratory and resident birds were nesting within up to 500 feet of construction activities. This impact is considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 3.5-13. if construction is proposed during breeding season, a focused survey for migratory and resident bird nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a qualified biologist in order to identify active nests in the project site, if active nests are found, no construction activities shall take place within 500 feet of the raptor nests and 100 feet of other migratory birds until the young have fledged, unless alternative measures to avoid and minimize take are developed with technical assistance from CDFG. Trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation; shall be removed during the non- breeding season. If no active nests are found during the focused survey, no further mitigation will be required. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a fess-than-significant level. Impact 3.5-14. Western burrowing owl. Cropland and interior dune habitats within the project site provide potential habitat for western burrowing owl, a federal and state species of concern. Although burrowing owls were not observed during focused breeding season surveys in the project site, burrowing owls were observed in the project site during focused wintering surveys. Because this species could establish nests in the project site prior to the onset of project construction, mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project to avoid impacts to this species. The proposed project would have a potentially significant impact to western burrowing owls. Mitigation Measure 3.5-14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of all potential burrowing owl habitat within the project site and 250 feet of the project site boundaries and record the presence of individual burrowing owls, sign of burrowing owls, and all burrows that are in use by burrowing owl. if the pre-construction survey does not find any burrowing owl activity, no further mitigation is required. The following additional mitigation measures shall be implemented if there are burrowing owls nesting in the project site or within 250 feet of the project site boundaries: Grading shall not be allowed during the nesting season, unless approved by the CDFG, within 250 feet of any nest burrow. Prior to grading within burrowing owl habitat unoccupied burrows shall be collapsed to prevent occupation by burrowing owls subsequent to pre-construction surveys. ► oss of burrowing owl foraging habitat shall be mitigated at 6.5 acres per pair at an offsite location approved by the CDFG. A monitoring report of all activities associated with surveys for and passive relocation of burrowing owls shall be submitted to the CDFG no later than two weeks after the completion of grading that occurs within 250 feet of occupied nesting burrows. implemeMation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-ti?an-significant level. Impact 3.5-15. Special status bats. The project site provides potential habitat for roosting bats. Although no sign of bats was observed during a site assessment for special-status bats, bat species could establish roost in the project site prior to the onset of project construction. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact on special-status bat species. Mitigation Measure 3.5-15. Prior to construction, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to determine presence or absence of bats roosting in the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the bridge over Marsh Creek in project site. If no bat species are found to be roosting on the project site, no further mitigation is required. However, if this species is determined to be roosting in the project site, the project applicant shall coordinate with CDFG to determine suitable measures to avoid disturbance of roosting bats. At a minimum, the bridge and buildings shall not be removed while bats are present. One-way bat doors may be installed over roost entrances to ensure that bats are not trapped in the roosts during project construction. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 3.5-16. Sensitive communities. Sensitive habitats within the project site include Marsh Creek, Emerson Slough and adjacent freshwater marsh. Additionally, these areas may provide habitat for special-status species as discussed above. For these reasons, construction and development impacts to Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 3.5-16, A Revegetation and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared as part of final construction plans. The Plan shall be approved by the City of Oakley. All areas along Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough that are subject to temporary vegetation removal for project construction shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation. To control erosion during and after project implementation, the applicant shall implement best management practices, as identified by the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level, impact 3.5-17. Jurisdictional seaters of the U.S. and waters of the State. Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and waters regulated by the State within the project site consist of Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough. These areas are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Regional Water Quality Control Board under Section 401 of CWA, and by CDFG under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek and construction of the new stormwater outfalls would have a patentiaily significant impact to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Wti*gation Measure 3.5-17. An appropriate Section 404 permit shall be acquired for the expansion of the bridge over Marsh Creek and the construction of the stormwater outfalls, if applicable. Section 401 water glia€ity certification or waiver will also be required. A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained from CDFG, pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, for the expansion of the bridge over k4a.rsh Creel, and. construction of tl,e new stormvla,ter outfalls and any other ectivities affecting the bed, bark, or associated riparian vegetation. if required, the project applicant shall coordinate with CD1=G in developing appropriate mitigation, and shall abide by the conditions of any executed permits. These mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project design to avoid and/or mitigate effects to these resources, thereby reducing the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.5-18. The proposed project has the potential to affect common species and reduce available habitat for some special-status species. The Oakley area, like other communities in the Bay Area, is experiencing a great deal of growth. Many housing developments are already approved in the surrounding areas. Cumulatively, these projects would affect common species and reduce available habitat for some special-status species. The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR (impact 3.9->✓) states that a potentially significant impact to biological resources would result from the cumulative conversion of habitat; however, implementation of applicable General Plan policies and programs would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Ultimately, because the project could contribute to the cumulative loss of special-status species (if detected on site) and their habitat, the project could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. Mitigation pleasure 3.5-13. Implement mitigation measures 3.5-3 to 3.5-17. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES imspact 3.5-1. Project grading could unearth previously unknown archaeological resources. The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR and the Oakley 2020 Background Report do not indicate known sites of archaeological significance at the proposed project site. However, the possibility that unknown resources would be unearthed during site grading cannot be eliminated. Because the potential exists that previously unknown resources could be discovered, a potentially sianifrcent impact could result. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1. During construction, if any earth-moving activities uncover artifacts, exotic rock, or unusual amounts of bone or shell, work shall be halted in the immediate area of the find and shall not be resumed until after a qualified archaeologist has inspected and evaluated the deposit and determined the appropriate means of curation. The appropriate mitigation measures may include as little as recording the resource with the California Archaeological Inventory database or as much as excavation, recordation, and preservation of the sites that have outstanding cultural or historic significance. During construction, if bone is uncovered that €-,ay be human, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be notified. Should human remains be found, the Coroner's office shall be immediately contacted and all work ha€ted until final disposition by the Coroner. Should the remains be determined to be of Dative American descent, the Native American, Heritage Commission shat) be consulted to determine the appropriate disposition of such remains, implennentation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Impact 3.6-2. Possible destruction of historic structures. visual site reconnaissance, together with a review of the catalogue of significant historical structures found in Section 11 of the Oakley 2020 Background Deport, did not reveal any historical resources at the proposed project site. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project to historic structures would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.6-2. None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation pleasures Impact 3.6-3. Potential to uncover previously unknown cultural resources. Buildout of approved and planned uses such as the Cypress Grove Project and other projects within the City have the potential to uncover previously unknown resource sites. However, the Cypress Grove Project would not significantly contribute toward cumulative impacts related to known historic or prehistoric resources because such resources are not known or anticipated to be present on site. Therefore, cumulative impacts from implementation of the proposed project would be considered to be less- than-.s`ign flc nt. Mitigation Measure 3.6-3. None required, 3.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 3.7-1. Development of the proposed project Mould result In increased traffic volumes at Main Street (SR-4) intersections. The combined effect of the already approved projects and the Cypress Grove Project on traffic volumes at the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection, however, would result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1. The applicant/developer shall restripe the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection as follows: The northbound approach shall be restriped with one left-turn ;ane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane, The striping shall be indicated on the improvements plans submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to initiating roadway improvements; The applicant shall develop a phasing plan for the implementation of the roadway improvements for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the approval of Final Map(s). Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.7-2. Development of the Cypress Grove Project has the potential to increase traffic at the intersections of Cypress Road with Sellers Avenue and Machado Lane. Although the proposed project would increase traffic volumes at the Cypress road and Sellers Avenue and Machado Lane intersections, they would continue to operate at overall acceptable levels of service. Therefore, the impacts would be considered to be less-than-sign ificarif. Mitigation Measure 3.7-2. None required. impact 3.7.3. Devetopti-ent of the Cypress Grote Project has the potent%al to substantla:ily fRipsact Cypress Road, at the Intersection of Prank Hancael Way. Th refcTe, the proposed, project VV0JId, "stilt in P,otc17tfally slgrtiffcarrt impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road Street A, Frank Henget Way, Mitigation Measure 3.7-3. Prior to initiating roadway construction, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, for review and approval, pproval, plans for the widening of Cypress Road between Main Street/SR-4 and the eastern project boundary to provide one additional through lane in both the eastbound and the westbound directions. The applicant shall pay their fair share of cost of Cypress Road widening from the eastern project boundary to Sellers Avenue, The funding shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.7-4. Development of the Cypress Grove Project has the potential to impact Cypress Road at the intersection of Street A (west of Delta Vista Middle School) created by the project. Without the planned improvements to Cypress Road already included in the project plans, the impact pact on the Street A/Cypress Road intersection would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 3.7-4. Project applicant/developer shall fund the signalization of the Cypress Road/Street, A intersection. Prior to issuance of building permits, the signal at the Cypress Road/Street A intersection shall be installed and operational Derational and approved pproved by the City engineer. Implementation of mitigation measure 3.7-3. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 3.7-5. The project could result in impacts to the Railroad Crossing on Cypress Road. A potentially significant impact would result from the proposed project to the railroad Crossing on Cypress Road. Mitigation Measure 3.7-5. The applicant shall reconstruct the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection. The improvements shall be indicated on the improvement plans for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to initiating roadway construction. Implementation of mitigation measure 3.7-1. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a fess-than-significant level, Impact 3.7-6. The project could create a need for expanded access to public transit. The proposed project would increase demand for public transit service. Without bus stops or shelters, Tri-Delta Transit may not be able to provide service to the project area. The lack of service to the project iect area would be a potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure 3.7-6. The project proponent shall include bus stops on both sides of Cypress Road near the main entrance into the development. The final design and location of these bus stops are subject to the approval of the Oakley City Engineer and Tri-Delta Transit, Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative impacts and Mitigation Yleasures Impact 3.7-7. The project would result In cumulatve impacts to the intersect-for, at Main Street/Cypres-s- Road. The degradation of the intersection frons an LOS D to an LOS F during the evening peak hour is considered a slgnfffcant [Mpact. Fvl[caasws 3.7-7. Impiement mitigation measure 3.7-1 . Applicant shall be X........................... .............................. .............................................................................. responsible for the project's fair share of the cost to restripe the Main Street southbound approach with two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through and right- turn lane. The project's fair share funding shall be submitted as determined by the City Engineer prior to the recording of final maps. Implementation of these mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures would minimize impacts to the intersection and change the LOS F to an LOS C during the evening peak hour. Refer to Table 3.7-9 of the EIR for a level of service analysis with and without mitigation. Impact 3.7-8. Cumulative impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road and Sellers Avenge. The signalized intersection of Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F with the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have a significant impact to the intersection of Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue. Mitigation Measure 3.7-8. Prior to approval of final maps, the project proponent shall pay a fair-share portion as determined by the City Engineer for transportation and circulation improvements. Implementation of this mitigation measure would provide an acceptable LOS to the intersection; therefore reducing the impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 3.7-9. Cumulative impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road and Frank Hengel Way. The additional congestion and LOS degradation to the intersection of Cypress Road and Frank Hengel Way is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.7-9. Prior to initiating roadway construction, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval improvement plans. Implementation of this mitigation measure would provide an acceptable LCOS to the intersection; therefore reducing the impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 3.7-10. Cumulative impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road and Street A. Clue to cumulative impacts caused by the proposed project, traffic operations at Cypress Road and Street A would result in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.7-10. Prior to initiating roadway construction, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval improvement plans. Implementation of this mitigation measure would provide an acceptable LOS to the intersection; therefore reducing the impact to a less-than- significant level. 3.8 AiR QUALITY Impact 3.8-1. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Gonstruction-Related Emissions, Construction activities would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive Particulate matter emissions that would affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas en-fissions. Solvents vvould evaporate into the atn1033phere and participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban 0?011e. ,slJhalt is aw a. �"JUI`Cv of C7rga.il!C gasses for �. whoi't t(nl after Its c•i�p€1Ca.tIOt1. Construction dust could affect local air quality during implementation of the proposed project. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1. The applicant shall provide measures to reduce emissions caused during construction activities by implementing the following dust control measures during the appropriate construction activities as determined by the project contractor subject to City review and approval: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; Water or Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind-, Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to 4 inactive construction areas; Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc,); Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to I 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Implementation of these mitigation measures would provide an acceptable LOS to the intersection; therefore reducing the impact to a less-than-signillicant level. Impact 3.8-2. Residential Trip Generation Air Emissions Will Exceed Acceptable Threshold. The addition of residential units into the City of Oakley would increase the number of people within the city lirnits. As population would increase, the number of vehicular trips to and from the project area would rise as well. Therefore, the increased emissions resulting from 'trips generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.8-2. The following mitigation measures have been identified by the BAAQMD for reducing vehicle emissions from residential projects. Provide bicycle lanes, sidewalks and/or paths, connecting project residences to adjacent schools, parks, the nearest transit stop, and nearby commercial areas. Provide secure and conveniently placed bicycle parking and storage facilities at parks and other facilities. travel demand management (TDM) measures for a , of this Implement feasible ti project type; this measure is not feasible for the proposed project, but would be a measure that could be taken by the City and for which the project would be required to participate. Because feasible project-specific mitigation measures are not available at this time to reduce this irnpac� to a less-than-significant level, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.8-3. Generation of GO Operations-Related Emissions Near a Congested Intersection or School Sites. The operation of the proposed project would generate vehicle trips and contribute to vehicle travel and congestion at study intersections. Both the federal and State 8-hour standard for CO is 9.0 PPM, and the 1-hour standard varies-, the federal 1-hour standard is 35 OPM, and the State standard is 20 PPM. CO concentrations v�touid yet remain below the CO air quality standards, at 4.5 and 4.3 P'r-- fol Ti 71—2 1-!-1 CiLj I- a FId 8-hcu,r measuren-ent These levels v,lou!d be ...................."�.......................... ........ .. ....................... .............................. significantly lower than the most stringent standards of 20 and 9 for the 1-hour and 8- hour measurement respectively. Therefore, this impact of the proposed project on study intersections and existing (and future) school sites would be considered less- than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.8-3. None Required. Impact 3.8-4. Emissions From Adjacent Agriculture Operations. The location of the proposed project would create the potential for exposure to emissions from farm operations to the east. Therefore, the project would have a significant impact to residents. Mitigation Measure 3.8-4. Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the magnitude of this impact by ensuring that potential residents would be aware of the exposure to emissions and odors from the adjacent fields. However, measures are not available to eliminate these impacts. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation pleasures Impact 3.8-5. Cumulative Impacts to Regional Air Quality. The Oakley 2920 General Plan EIR concludes that the implementation of the proposed Oakley 2020 General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts on regional air quality. Therefore, because the Oakley 2020 General Plan would be consistent with regional air quality plans and policies and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation Measure 3.8-5. None rewired. 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION Impact 3.9-1. Project-related increase in existing traffic noise levels. The project would generate increased traffic on the existing roadway network. Because the project- generated traffic would not cause significant ambient traffic noise level increases along the existing roadway network, this impact is considered to be less-than-significant. .Ttiitigabon Measure 3.9-1. None required. €rnpact 3.9-2. Future (cumulative) increase in traffic noise levels. The project would contribute to the cumulative future traffic noise environment along the roadways utilized by project traffic. Because the project-generated traffic would not cause significant cumulative traffic noise level increases along the existing roadway network, this impact is considered to be fess-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.9-2. None required. Impact 3.9-3. Construction noise. Activities associated with construction at the project site would result in elevated noise levels in the immediate area. Therefore, noise levels generated =ram construction activities would I"lave a potSr7Gfally signfr"°i"cant 111PFC-L to fU'LL"i'e residents. Mitigation Measure 3.9-3. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal Holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified with prior written approval by the Community Development Director. Implementation of this noise mitigation measure would reduce this Impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.9-4. Traffic noise levels at proposed residences on the project site. Traffic noise levels would exceed the City's 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard at some of the residences located nearer to Cypress Road. Therefore, traffic noise levels Would have a significant impact on the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 3.9-4. A six-foot high noise Darner shall be constructed along the boundaries of the residences proposed adjacent to Cypress Road, at the locations shown in Figure 3.9-3 of the EIR. The design and location of the sound wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance Of building permits. Implementation of this noise mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.9-5. Railroad-related vibration at proposed residences. Railroad passages near proposed residential uses on the project site would generate vibration levels similar to, but lower than, those indicated in Table 3.9-6 of the EIR, well below levels that would cause damage to structures, and below the recommended thresholds of annoyance. Therefore, railroad related vibration would have a less-than-significant impact on the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 3.9-5. None required. Impact 3.9-6. Exterior railroad noise levels at proposed residences on the project site, north of Cypress Road. Because railroad noise levels are not predicted to exceed 65 dB Ldn within the backyards of the residents proposed on the north side of Cypress Road, the impact pact is considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.9-6. None required. 1-impact 3.9-7. Exterior railroad noise levels at proposed residences on the project site, south of Cypress Road. At the residences on the south side of Cypress Road which are nearest to the railroad tracks, railroad noise exposure is predicted to exceed 65 dB Ldn within the backyard areas of those residences. Therefore, railroad noise levels would have a significant impact on the proposed protect south of Cypress Road. Mitigation Mleasure 3.9-7. 1,,Ioise barriers shall be constructed along the boundaries of the residences on the south side of Cypress Road at the locations shown on Figure 3.9- 3 of the EIR. The design and location of the sound wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director Prior to the issuance of building permits. !mDlernentation of this noise mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. r ==act 3.9-8. lntsr-'i'or railroad noise levels at proposed residences on the profect broth north and south: of Cypress Road. Several residences ai-e 1DMjDOSed iVV�tf u1111 ....... ........ ....... ...................................................................... ............ .............. .......... .. ....................... the 65 dB Ldn BNSF Railroad noise contour. At these proposed residences, interior noise levels could exceed the City's 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard and/or the potential for sleep disturbance could be increased during train passages. Therefore, the BNSF railroad would have a significant impact to the noise levels inside the residences of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 3.9-6. residences proposed within the 65 dB Ldn contours.shown on Figure 3.9-2 should be constructed of stucco siding. In addition, all bedroom windows of these lots from which train passages are visible should have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 36. Compliance with this measure shall be included on the building permit drawings for the review and approval of the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits. Disclosure statements should be provided to the future residents located within the 65 dB Ldn contour informing them of the presence of elevated noise levels during train passages, and that train passages routinely occur during nighttime hours. The form of the disclosure shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to the recording of the final maps. The disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner. Implementation of these noise mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.9-9. School noise levels at proposed residences on the project site. The noise levels generated from the playground would be near to or less than 55 dB. As a result, the impact of school playground noise to the proposed project would be less- than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.9-9. Disclosure statements should be provided to the future residents located adjacent to the school site informing them of the presence of elevated noise levels during outdoor recreation activities, including possible weekend usage of the playing fields. The form of the disclosure shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to the recording of the final maps. The disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner, Although the impact would be less-then-significant, implementation of this mitigation measure would further reduce the magnitude of the impact. Impact 3.9-10. Stormwater pored Purnp noise levels at proposed residences on the project site. Because the estimated range of pump noise levels is within compliance vvith the City of Oakley noise level standards, adverse noise impacts are not identified for this portion of the project. The stormvvater pond pump proposed for the project would have Cess-than-significant noise impacts to future Cypress Grove residents. Mitigation Measure 3.9-19. None required. 3.10 GEOLOGY Impact 3.10-1. Impact of Seismic activity on proposed developr-rent, Known active cr inactive faults intersecting the proposed project site `were not mapped or recognized hey the State of California, Hovi,iever, the Oalaey area is located near a. seismica#ly active zone, and earthquake-related groundshaking could be expected during the design life of structures constructed on the site. Additionally, the site is located approximately 5.0 miles from the Great Valley Fault, which is currently designated "inactive," but could cause significant groundshaking if an earthquake occurred. Because of the potential hazards to structures caused by an earthquake, the impact of seismic activity would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 3.10-1. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the City Building Official shall ensure that one- and/or two-story structures are properly designed, using steel and/or wood framing, in accordance with current UBC guidelines. Implementation of this mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.10-2. Loss of structural support clue to potential liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby loose, saturated, granular soil deposits lose a s significant portion of their shear strength due to excess pore water pressure buildup resulting from cyclic loading, such as that caused by an earthquake. The loose sandy soils encountered at depths of approximately 5-to-20 feet below existing site grade could undergo significant strength loss due to potential liquefaction. Therefore, the impact would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation pleasure 3.10-2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall incorporate the recommendations of a design level geotechnical report into the improvement plans. The following measures include, but are not limited to, the options available to reduce site liquefaction potential and/or adverse effects to structures located above potentially liquefiable soils. Remove and replace potentially liquefiable soils; Bensify potentially liquefiable soils with an in situ ground improvement technique such as deep dynamic compaction, vibro-compaction, vibro-replacement, compaction grouting, or other similar methods; Strengthen foundations (e.g., post-tensioned slab, reinforced mat or grid foundation, or other similar system) to resist excessive differential settlement associated with seismically-induced liquefaction; and Support the proposed structures on an engineered fill pad {minimum of 5 feet thick) in order to reduce differential settlement resulting from seis€-nically-induced liquefaction and post-seismic pore pressure dissipation.. The measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Implementation of these mitigation measures, identified by Kleinfelder, would mitigate potential impacts to a fess-than- significant level. Impact 3.10-3, Expansive sails within the proposed project area could heave or settle and cause damage to foundations. pavements, and ether structures constructed within the proposed project area. The near-surface clays of the project site are lour to moderately plastic and could exhibit a moderate shrink-swell (expansion) potential with variations in moisture content. 11' the shrink-swell potential is rated moderate to high, damage to buildings, roads, and other structures can occur. Therefore, expansive soils could have a acter7tially significant impact on the proposed project. F,t�ftigatlon M-ea:sure 3.10-3. Prior to approval of irnprove€-nent pians, the project propo€sent shall conduct a design level geotechnical study of the site's soil stability. The - _ - ... recommendations from the geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the design of roadway and infrastructure improvements as well as foundation and building design. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to a less- than-significant level. Impact 3.10-4. Increased soil erosion, wind and water erosion, and siltation of local drainage during and after construction from excavation and grading activities. This impact would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 3.14-4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the City Engineer, an erosion control plan that will utilize standard construction practices to limit the erosion effects during construction of the proposed project, Measures could include, but are not limited to. hydra-seeding; placement of erosion control measures within drainageways and ahead of drop inlets; the temporary lining (during construction activities) of drop inlets with "filter fabric" (a specific type of geotextile fabric); the placement of straw wattles along slope contours; directing subcontractors to a single designation "wash-out" location (as opposed to allowing them to wash-out in any location they desire); the use of siltation fences; and the use of sediment basins and dust palliatives. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.10-6. grading and import of Fill. Placement of fill on the site could increase erosion and sediments into the stormwater system. in addition, the transportation of fill to the site would involve a large number of truck trips. A large number of trucks in the vicinity of the project site could cause traffic/pedestrian conflicts. Therefore, the import of fill material would constitute a potentially significant impact. M tlaation Measure 3.10-5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval of the City 'Engineer. The project contractor shall submit a traffic control plan in compliance with the City of Oakley standards which ensures adequate emergency access and maintains circulation to neighboring properties during construction for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. The plan shall, include detour routes, appropriate signage, and construction personnel to facilitate the safe flow of traffic. 'Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less- than-significant level. Cumulative Impacts and hUtigation Measures impact 3,10-6. The proposed project wouid contribute to the continuing buildout of Oakley and surrounding areas, and would combine with existing and future developments to increase the potential for related geological impacts and hazards. However, potentially adverse environmental effects associated with seismic hazards, as well as those associated with geologic or soils constraints, topographic alteration, and erosion, are usually site-specific and generally would not combine with similar effects that could occur with other projects in Oakley. Furthermore, all projects would be required to comply with -the UBC and other applicable safety1 regulations. Consequently, the proposed pc"o ect �/,/ould generally not be affected by, nor would It affect, other development approved by the City of Oakley. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.10-6. None required, 3.11 HAZARDS impact 3.11-1. Development of the proposed project area may expose residents and construction workers to asbestos and lead materials. Because the existing on- site structures were all present on the project site prior to 1968, the potential exists for asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint to have been used in constructing the structures. Although the number of on-site structures is relatively small, the introduction of people to the site as a result of the development of the proposed project and the subsequent exposure of these people to asbestos and lead materials on the project site would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City for any on-site structures, the project proponent shall provide a site assessment which L determines whether any structures to be demolished contain asbestos and/or lead paint. If any structures contain asbestos, the application shall include an asbestos abatement plan consistent with local, state, and federal standards, subject to the City Building Official approval. Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for existing onsite structures, the project proponent shall provide a site assessment which determines whether any structures to be demolished contain lead-based paint, if such paint is -found, all loose and peeling paint shall be removed and disposed of by a licensed and certified lead paint removal contractor, in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.gulations. The demolition -contractor shall be informed that all paint on the buildings shall be considered as containing lead. The contractor shall take appropriate precautions to protect his/her workers, the surrounding community, and to dispose of construction waste containing lead paint in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations subject to the City Building Official approval. pproval. Implementation of these mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.11-2. An abandoned windmill well must be removed during development and may expose construction workers to hazardous materials. According to the environmental assessment, the well may not have been abandoned in accordance with Contra Costa County standards. Although the well was plugged at approximately 7 feet below ground surface, the well's depth is not know,). The groundwater level near the project site is approximately 8 feet and groundwater has seeped into the pipe. According to the environmental site assessment of the Williamson propefty, water that seeped into the pipe has petroleum sheen on it. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur to construction workers removing the well. Mitigation Measure 3.11-2. Prior to the removal of the remains of the "windmill" well on the Williamson property, the developer shall determine whether the well was abandoned in accordance with Contra Costa County standards. If the well was not abandoned in accordance with Contra Costa County standards, the developer shall obtain the necessary well destruction permits and rernove the well. A ietter from Contra Costa, Count,)" ind'IC;E,tting v,!Ith this measure shall be submi'dLed, to the C:'Iy .............__....... ....... Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Williamson Property. Implementation of this mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts to a less- than-significant level. Impact 3.11-3. Development can the proposed project site may expose residents or construction workers to past herbicide or pesticide applications. The proposed project area consists predominantly of vacant farmland. The Phase 11 site assessment of the Conco South Property conducted,by KC Engineering Company, involved 4 soil samples of the property to test for the presence of Organochlorine pesticides (DDE, DDD, DDT). Laboratory results indicated that low levels of DDE, DDD, and DDT are present in the soils of the subject property. According to KC Engineering, the levels encountered are well below the EPA's preliminary remediation goals for residential soils, and are therefore, not considered hazardous. Tests on the other properties showed the presence of pesticides on the property was negligible and therefore less- than-significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose residents to hazardous levels of pesticides and a less-than-significant impact would result. Mitigation Measure 3.11-3. Norte required. j Impact 3.11-4. Construction of additional residences near the Contra Costa Canal and stormwater detention pond could expose residents to safety hazard. Development of the proposed project would position additional residents near the Contra Costa Canal. However, the development, as proposed, would install a six-foot, chain-link fence at the property line to prohibit access. Therefore, the construction of new residences near the Contra Costa Canal would result in a less-than-significant impact. The proposed project would construct a water quality detention basin in the northeastern corner of the project site. Because it is possible that the surface water elevation of the basin could exceed the normal surface elevation of 2.0 feet during storm events, the potential public safety impacts related to the design of the detention basin would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 3.11-4. The project applicantiengineer shall submit a safety program for the proposed detention basins for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the approval of the improvement plans. Implementation of this mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts related to the public safety effects of the proposed detention basin to a less-than-significant level. 3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY impact 3.12-1. Exposure of futuire and adjacent residents to flood hazard. The southwestern corner of the project site along the edge of Marsh Creek and Cypress Read is within the 100-year f=ederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain. However, the Marsh Creek levee improvements and the construction of levees both north and east of the project site would remove the danger of the 100-year flood to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not place people or structures in danger of the 100-year flood, resulting in a impact. Mitigation Measurc 3J2-1. None required, Impact 3.12-2. Change in peak stormwater flows. Although the Cypress Grove project is expected to increase peak stormwater flows, the hydrologic setting of the site indicates that stormwater detention facilities used to avoid increases in peak discharge are not warranted. The stormwater pond is designed to contain the '100-year storm. The storm drain system, stormwater pond, and stormwater pump station and outfall designed for the proposed project would ensure that the change in peak stormwater flows resulting from the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.12-2. None required, Impact 3.12-3. Water quality in the Contra Costa Canal and Emerson Slough. The proximity of the waterway to proposed residential properties north of Cypress Road could potentially affect water quality, resulting in the loading of urban pollutants into increased stormwater runoff. The proposed pond at the Cypress Grove project was designed by Balance Hydrologics, inc. to be an effective overall BMP for the site, functioning as a water-quality wet pond. Ultimately, the stormwater management system is designed to adequately treat urban runoff generated by the project, and therefore the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on water quality in the Contra Costa Canal and Emerson Slough, Mitigation Measure 3.12-3. None required, Impact 3.12-4, Maintenance of stormwater pond. The stormwater pond has been designed to reduce overall maintenance needs. Routine maintenance activities that are required would be facilitated by the ease of access to the pond and surrounding areas. If not maintained properly, the detention basins could have an adverse effect on future residents in the proposed project. Future residents could be adversely affected by insect, wildlife, and/or- water quality issues. Therefore, the irnpacts of the water quality detention basin would be potentially significant to future residents. Mitigation Measure 3.12-4. Prior to Improvement Plan approvals for any of the three subdivisions, the project engineer shall develop D an Operation and Maintenance Manual, which. addresses sediment accumulation and identifies a stormwater pond monitoring schedule, which requires an annual inspection at the minimum. The Manual shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer. The Manual shall address all aspects of 'lie stormwater pond's maintenance. Calculations shall be rnade in I compliance with ABAG and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District standards to generate the erosion and settlement rates affecting the basin in order to determine the stormwater pond sediment accumulation rate and hence the frequency with which sediment needs to be removed from the stormwater pond. The calculations shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. The Operation and Maintenance Manual shall include the frequency* with which sediment shall be removed from the stormwater. pond. Irriplernen'tation of these mitigation measures would reduce the 'impact to a less-than-,significant level. Irnpact 3.12-5, Maintenance cf storm dram system. if not rnairtained properly, the storm drain system could have an adverse effect on the drainage patterns of the p-10ject site and the trea.'rrie'rit efficiency of the v�iater quality detention pond cup to it being heavi!y loaded ,lvith sediment. Therefore, the irniDacts of the storm d'iain system v'lould be potentially significant to future residents. Mitigation Measure 3.12-5, Prior to Improvement Plan approvals for any of the three subdivisions, the project engineer shah develop a storm drain system maintenance program. The maintenance program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer and include the plan for financing and maintenance of the storm drain system. The plan should include regular street sweeping and inlet and catch basin cleaning. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. Impact 3.12-6. Maintenance of levees surrounding the project. If not maintained properly, the levee system surrounding the project could cause significant flooding risks to people and structures in the Cypress Grove development. Therefore, the impacts of the levee system would be potentially significant to future residents and structures if not maintained properly. Mitigation Measure 3.12-6. Prior to Improvement Flan approvals for any of the three subdivisions, the project engineer shall develop a levee maintenance program. The maintenance program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer and include the plan for financing and maintenance of the levee system. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.12-7. Increased stormwater drainage into the existing drainage system. The proposed project would create impervious surfaces where none currently exist. The addition of impervious surfaces to the project site would increase the stormwater drainage downstream of the project site. The effect of the proposed project plus other development in the.project area may increase the stormwater drainage to overcome the existing drainage system and cause flooding downstrearn. Although the proposed project and buildout of the General Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the drainage area of which the project site is a part, the stormwater management system designed by Balance Hydrologics would contain increased flows resulting from the project and other development in the Cypress Corridor and would also redirect runoff from misting drainage systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on existing drainage systems. tMitigatlon Measure 3.12-7. None required. Impact 3.12-8. Eater Quality Downstream. Development of the proposed Cypress Grove project and buildout of the General Plan would increase the sediment load of area waterways. In addition, the stormwater runoff occurring in urbanized areas would contribute a higher amount of pollutants to adjoining channels. As such, water quality in the region, could be affected on a short-term and long-term basis. However, the project applicant has {proposed a design for the Cypress Corridor drainage area., which would prevent pollutants from entering the downstream channel. The proposed drainage plan would, construct a detention basin, which \,%lould filter out pollutants before the drainage enters Emerson S'louch, T I-Srefcre, the impact to v1�la.ter duality vt/ould be considered ..................... Bess-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.12-8. None required. 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Impact 3.13-1. Adequate water supply and delivery for new residents. The proposed project would result in an increased demand for domestic water. The Water Supply Assessment provided by the Diablo Water District states that adequate water exists within the DVVD and CCWD systems to provide service to the Cypress Grove project area. Therefore, the impact on water supply and delivery would be considered less-than-significan t Mitigation Measure 3.13-1. None required. Impact 3.13-2. Decrease in availability of land used for wastewater disposal. The fronhouse Sanitary District (ISD) provides wastewater service to the entire City of Oakley. ISD would provide wastewater service for the proposed project. Because the ISD has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project and because the project would be required to pay fees should additional service be needed (i.e., connections, plant expansion and maintenance), the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact on the wastewater system. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2. None required, Impact 3.13-3. Adequate ratio of law enforcement personnel to resiftnts. The Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report Table 15.3 shows that the Contra Costa County Sheriff's office determined that Oakley had a ratio of officers to population of 0.74 officers per 1,000 residents, Development of the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 1,968 persons, and result in a need for more law enforcement personnel. Therefore, the impact would be considered significant, Mitigation Measure 3,13-3, Prior to the issuance of building permits, theapplicant shall participate in the provision of-funding to maintain police services through a special police services tax similar to conditions placed on recent City subdivision approval, Implementation of this mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts to a less- thao-significant level. impact 3.13-4. Adequate ratio of fire department personnel to residents. The City of Oakley is provided fire protection by the Oakley/Knightsen Fire Protection District, The District currently has two fire stations; Station 93 serves the City of Oakley and Station 94 serves the City of Knightsen. Although Station 93 is well situated to meet the service needs of the City of Oakley until the year 2004, the proposed project would contribute to the growth of the City of Oakley, thereby making adequate future coverage of the citizens' fire protection needs difficult. The proposed project would have a Poteritially significant impact on fire protection personnel and/or equipment. FVI?tfgatlon, Measure 3.13-4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project propDrent shall pay his fair share of costs for neve fire protection facilities and services. lrnp� ennerta['I,on of this nnitigation measure would nnifigate potential impacts to a less- 1h 19 1 Impact 3.13-5. Number of enrolled students exceeding capacity. The four elementary schools in the Oakley Union Elementary School District are over capacity limits and the two middle schools are currently serving over 90 percent of their capacity. Implementation of the proposed project would add to the enrollment of the two existing school districts. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on the existing schools would be considered significant, Mitigation pleasure 3.13-5. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project proponent shall pay the appropriate statutory fees to the three existing school districts. Implementation of this mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts to a less- than-significant level. Impact 3.13-6. Adequate provision of parks and recreation space for new residents. The anticipated growth in the City population resulting from the development of the proposed project would determine the amount of park space proportional to the number of new residents. The standard requirement in the Oakley 2020 General Flan is six acres of parkland per 1,099 residents. The proposed project would meet the City requirement for open space and trail, but would not meet the City requirement for parks because the project would provide for approximately 7.18 acres of community/neighborhood park area instead of the required 9.84 acres for a population increase of 1,968.1. However, the City has agreed that the proposed 5.38 acres of trail corridors should count as community/neighborhood park at a rate of 50 percent, which would increase the total park contribution from 7.18 acres to 9.87 acres. As a result, the impact of the increased population on the parks ratio would be considered less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure 3.13-6. None required, Impact 3.13-7. teed for additional waste disposal/recycling services. Currently, the residents of the City of Oakley privately contract with Oakley Disposal Service for solid waste disposal and recycling services. Because the City is served by a private company and the new residents would pay fees for the waste service, the addition of neve residents would be accommodated by the new fees. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on solid waste disposal and recycling. Mitigation Measure 3.13-7. Nome required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation pleasures Impact 3.13-8. The proposed project, combined with future development in the City of Oakley, would increase the demand for additional public services and facilities. The proposed project would increase the demand for public services and facilities. The proposed project would not create cumulative impacts oil the public services. Typically, each project would pay for the services it requires which would fully mitigate the impacts on public services from the proposed project. Should the fees not be sufficient to fully mitigate the impacts generated by the development of the proposed project, the city should require the applicant to pay additional fees. Once the fees are fink/ Maid, cumulative impacts would not be expected to occur. Therefore, the .................. cumulative impact would be considered less-than-signfflcant, Mitigation Measure 3.13-8. None required. b. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant," These include: 1. (Agricultural Resources) Placing urban land uses within a primarily agricultural area, 2. (Air Quality) Long term impact associated with residential trip generated air emissions. 3. (Air Quality) Potential for emissions from adjacent agriculture operations that may affect residents. C. The Draft EIR also reviews project alternatives and identifies certain impacts associated with the alternatives as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant," The Reduced Intensity Development Alternative Project Unavoidable Impacts are as follows: 1 (Agricultural Resources' Placing urban land uses within a primarily agricultural area. 2. (Air Quality) Long term impact associated with residential trip generated air emissions. Because the overall number of residential units would be decreased, there would be a reduction of traffic circulation and, thus, vehicle emissions. 3. (Air Quality) Potential for emissions from adjacent agriculture operations that may affect residents. Because the overall number of residential units would be decreased, there would be a reduction of sensitive receptors exposed to adjacent agricultural operations. 668288. 2,DOC ....................................................... - _ f r i y M . { , , - z r t ,.F x { 7 '4 ; 7 .,.�, to 1 No -Row ✓ e>4 ", ✓ t :.'S v b Y < .,: , ,b,r".xS n Sf- .rA' t ,*<.. *t:'v Y " r r p k < t < - l `�,"�- xs 53 s ;'" c 9 r k «? ", k• .' +,,'a, ' } ,. ,.z M, -t'N"•'^s i{ ria Et w Mw ai, L r T = M' f 'J s r r 'i v t o- 'i } r: ,�r s y :tv' r F [ may, ;'-:, l w'3; rs' , F t' .w,sx F r 9 d { t [ > i?kf+ " sF,{ s t, t ttd i e k� fit. L t� f ', ,2 p r 1..t< ,� "S y .? a } Y.f ' 2 : e5; ,.f -x a "tt s .y &� M Y ah 111.1 , t < ,+` ? s- r i6 < t t"1 ," t Y'k 5` r4 .zo ,s c a,+c.3.xtd +Y -?.. ,+it x & r ''' {" v 'L ,` a Me "4 ! yg ,f +,' Ca 3,++Ts -- -,, k ?� �, V�ti ...< �.- "� i ". � ,r :` •i} ? .:c _Y kat? fa4 3' P R d lti4x s r Y�r '" ".. _ .y E r '" .v h.r r . ":a ra' e - '.%h,1 a r• 1 i'5t 4: - S r _ ati: y 'y : ,.gr y >r -f xr` 4_"www k x a,�y . ?r r4'.k ,� : - z• r -.>¢ "6: x .+ „ T z f {, ''' 10''u t� S.- "5} - . S 05 - t,bi •# .t 'fu+3` r .11 r z't �,, _"i « f ✓ i s"� a '� ei < . s_R". :fig �{ gra:=S,"21,;_ .t2 `�`xat v s �'ys?;s .c-tiv r a- '" q k a £ s :, F C :.., ,•. s < j,' { `i -r' i'x..,. , r� .S!'y# s.!• �'d ;�'� ; I:- k ,,, - - ,i: , �- .- . �,', '.. rw���'\ _,", f -.W. <?s k a t'^§ . ' t 4 z�2 - ii� < ,"T_AAA .:;�. _- 'I.;:, 4'Fr},v-56 ix ({___, __,F. �,.1'✓r�'.'tt ,+ k-��,:-,�:-��,:�-�w;- :�,.,�, -', ,,-�� 'X. I'll , ,,�-.;; " ..-1 - —�. tt 3rd \ ��..,� fxSp4� 1. _'. _4�� 1 1� MAJ , - ":�,,')�,_11 1. — _ .�__ Q "w - I v,.,K. �-,�,,"'�',�,;��'r,i�,kr�t�-".*-�',�,,,�','.&-,",IF7i�I ,.;P, �.�,��, c� _ ., I M�_�' " `� !� +d ax < ,}h 'y rya :r r �.-,a", ,:I 1— '` r:..._ y4 .Z<� {Y]��,�,;'i ,,v, a.w--1 - a '.;xr.[y�{-d ,4"`,;:„ en 7.a`J'z rt;. .e'k ;}� ..,' "t, `,%I °> "xr.md i "eE^ !,1w f:l iy z„ ,.' ,,c y P .�-k 4e* ,.0 y•S::., .< .c s< ::.,r fi o-s-. 'bw 4+'-�::*,}.2 ': xn' a. '�-3•^y, �`} k 'A a .' ,k � ' Ti ,: 3 F, !--,crY '"`}`rt t a r - -Y, o- F i,. :.f d ra`.. i~'x�frtc:. t ,^^r ,` ; :i x.'it rt"F,k v� .< 1�2}c ''i�i'y 5. ;�. t ' ``4. +, ,r.§v?,r; r-_,. "S'Yr `•_ 5� i; •,<^ >_ �. 3}v x,t x ;^r".. x "� :,,. k''s';: _`. ,-_> 4.'C'. _ ., < •.�. ,.,., .,v SS'y,.,�. n i L`: d. a",sk< : a :`t::r 'x,�;v>,rti r �... .3- ,��.''Bss:-� ,5 r t v .e °.i•r'�fi:: t as 1°�" _- , -,",' . $ r - ,w"? 2:.:.' o�f ki r. _-c'""t. re.. .fi wr`�a�.k'':, h3�at r ar r-.vt *5�.;.. Ths'; bc ,ti ` t-r ^u r �vys 2' i''• i= tM rt d 3a°§ <� 5f :'� $ s::,;�` _ C fi p# �, r, v..l,g ? �,k }" ice ,4 S y,? e +• a x .r :s m°s}£,j,.:yf't'sd-':.- 4 �`':.} A �uh,.t': ,•`,rr. •. t- •'', ',� '3x. h� sem. c ,,.c3'. `.£': ,�.,.r__.y.' •- Xr't T,` r -c3'd �f`1``2s' x` ,}..*« '+s`` x,,,c s � '�9`'„` i': s. "e;` n 3r, ,;.rs'ea a w x ns e' >, ,, x ":- ti cry x ^u. -.�',. r-'* J, t l.r k• . F>''a. .'4? 7 r S 1-- `r`: - Y +"-r ��, ,`v :�r-4e y'ti < _ -., x x r r�' lc's:." 1^:' �, y Z ",;p r!'c�'a.� `. s 3 # r, Kt x r.c r.. =. 4 ?,.-.,,..``" XY ri,'ll.+'�... +.X 1. ^ r ... r+; + 'n" }`i sr°k n?�. r s 3'`::� t x�, �...r `t d•e'3.�T:£•. ,, •..'. fa q xw„`n "h r�U ; x.�.,by s ',' d -3- .F;��+} :k”.�' �5A, � . i 3 t �, --xG z. L,Y y, ,^,. �' _ 3:y-.k .•s� 2 x �.-s t a ,'ti>T ,L4. ih ,i.f!'r':-k. "€ `,s ♦ Y*:; �, :1 },� : a ix,+•C < :- Y ,i ,�',`. I- �<-'•. . I ?t:t�'`'� to tCh.. -ta s,.•*.° . Y.,_ r a'•t >'' }''4 :.: & ft1 _`- ..., >"K`f :ii .p:o, ,v'�'„' 11 s .'.'" 4' a a J."'.. `v±� Y�,.rn,', tyP:�<mi a ss,xr.G-8t+. d`�.- a }.c f as ,F Si",r.^::;*•'`k_;,J__ ,: s�g ^' 5 .,">.: i '` '�.,ci, y3, k 'c ,:x,}„y`*:"? y. ..Spy ".::n"x*r -:?:«•V'y. c -c a. _, _-'�• ',...Fy 3 _ z£ :. „ -*sN-.3 t 'et:...: cJ -•,�` -3y '�` .�:_—' •s r :� Fx 3 � a'c }�,>s 3.qii �., ?/�.*. ."'i?,k:: 'fi t- ,< _..s � :. •�,.xx a..,;.. r `c"x:'`.L+'.' r ,c s'« F 'moi rt•4 pit'Y .a- r?.J3; T ",;"" r,r}s ,., - '.S.t`. •` x, i•,;: .n. *"'-.,:,:"' ">4s , +- /s3z..4 i':.,. s 7..+,rv`.:.C'.. '+ 'r:rr 4$K^ J' SIS aat ry `<•�`h,+- t..." y;,z'4*c r .. ,yr, V-#� -5r' s, t '..'rm ':t:+i.'S ,A, 6" uz' ,.:,rs 7 r;,,+t. 3`,G>.. ,.£a c :^r:. r +e'X5"r{ +r°',�' , a ,f;€:,y,�r�2> .xtx'` x,V,: };'. •"',s c, � :`t;*, °� = ,� -' ��' .r i%r rx�- N:, t' ` _'9 ,,;r .. ' '- s-t s•, i .v '�,-+�R t�¢. `. rte-.•S `„�...",•-1-,--` M.,�w '� .,, -�z r . �, .., .:fix' r t's- r ^txZ G r-,0 �_= Fy. .:.`!e fro. " k ._ C<. ,,2� >i�'�. r' � -2,...•t x§,}s`:.>x €. .:,;•_!N' ,:, �;r<ry,.a-k;- ;;"w.v'=,° '{ .:sy i"'< `,,4 5-< }' fir' ';<' ,t'+ xy 1�''. "A ", taa� ,^3 a ,k ,t e:.h¢r-✓ f r.', F s - `t a fi h Y tii�.,a £'1.q x "-a•5`fit A •k..,-P S" `L ,t 3 x '..f'- >`y �. -y,'"_,,.-Y', e;;T - t x , 4 y v' �:' �' t4i��. 71_ .� �. .,.. '.•-r'� : yF ,Y q`A'>.I ..Ft.n,`N'� • *L'�'.,�m :st„c �'tb' ).,r�, *w: x ', V , ,"^- 5...� p"�' y`k a..a -., v.. nt.,'`�`+,Y : y. z w£. } "S i:.: F &,{•,.n y_,+: is '� t_..X,'`.�r:'�¢i}m .i rk U +t.4,},5 k i.d , uz;: :'S,- EJ : tiF h Y-c. r� rry Y ",�. } 4 f A :s'S hif h3 ,.',.,£`"+� b -. _'+F.^Y kue a `-5.. .� •: w,.D� s°^'.',`c S `r,,za �n: •. 3•"� -"a�.y-;; *Y s e. :y,�• .c,'a,;. K, x w t. k:'^ ` S �w•Y^ ^ r+,•ice^` 'Ta n ..].}}`2 �'' ,, i•.a.v- f .y r r.:.cfx ,,,P 4. FL ,� &} .+h`.; Y't :4f*'.'�ar r.:,r- .,Y'� w G: '. s7Fm y` ^y. 2. <, 'r F'..y, ... a t s ya 54.:r q J'r4 `:� s :s•w...h;�'x 55,x- ,.<,.F -'u=.> rt -... 'J�,:.-v�,: 4, 't5 'i v? .c .g,Al :" s' "' r"',: -:.< t�' i.-' "t- -"' E ,.,+'.: <' h ..✓-_{" ^$S.'-:* `sem f`' r.: �2"?.,y,aJ,•�+- ':� a .;3� s.� $" .. - rr ''` �..2'r>-F. :'a. S,y :st n�.111", ,,, <_ rr% ,'?.h,�^tr.n'T': ' a �:'^ rd. ;y. i�^•4,/' F x ,d.c.7' ,t•:, '"..tom'.' �`,' -,tea.", s°�,._`- w x. ., ;kms `cty, :A Y-'" .0:. .r ,y',,t,F ,.. ,: s; ,3.: .6 {kb, -•r" :<� k. �.:-v" , Y:.s•2.F`,k•s� ":,�'`i .,6Y' t „s'- -SL.,.:. `..;., r": :-,Y# +5',' .. :c t'3 .c, .a <. t-.:;-c.�<k' " ".: .,, '?":rv �:y, Km ,-9#`"` ,,.a'i•',a - "", :. , _,:4'.k£x. 4 a,+'•r s•kL•:_yr s; ,:a£"'tt .$,r,€„+' a =t r3'.4 a, x;,af. r ' <','+ ,E ,_'} {.:::;� ..1t..:.:a `. �;..;r^. ,.,'v ,,,.,n '.-s,. :*,z'....r ?`S" '.�'r.... ,� ,f ar➢s>':"G r it`.tx- I'-,a :* `•#r_1;:1 �- s. .N .,..; —,- �r,u, `�:s-. ;. sS .,U��r er.4 �rrrs.,s K- t. i -+?r� .. ,i?`,. -:' 3c:.. ''•G.c:fi- "> S s,,, r�kk:<;"� ... =•dy ' ,`''�" o ;X$..a vv,. y,:.k x c?:,i o,:(°G••.:�da- rr ./c.:+ ' ..'z ' `x' t-::,,. z ..-'- ,:A-}. ::," �:. .xr a r'-�'�'„ ,,.�g,�k, kr�`* .,. ;:*.#� ,'s?� -,¢'y {' '" f 'a,t�^" h , - p sA.;'� 4+ryy f+�u f ... t} i N..gi`. 3a,w: ,s„ ..., z f...j a...,, y' ? ,,v.. +` :., ,, x .•- ti Lfi zx, ait. x .� , ;x F:;: Fi r• Rr c",,m:.. '•"r -Wit•.^`e :;x,5:5131 ..,,s,.L r2"�" `m " :c' - Y " '`'•£ �, p .. , -v - -'r ,max <roe. r• i rr< s,+. ,:'�'.. F xe r'�'•_ Es' <1'; '. 4 � .'"'''-y tk.- ,,2»,.. `° .Y 4 s< � -r 3.. ...a'`*Q y - r .l,f' ,Y - z °s. 'k -1.v'"'k4£:, c-rtat'.� ,'4a•. !4 5 ..i t s:':' i ", 4v 5' Y.tiY .S:a:a,, ` g`... } .s w'�,,,x k.. r_. >ta,.:°?s ..•. .. r+, }?y. R• ?...-•;,,,c ..,c sx}/,t g. -,,'# Y<' , ,,^. }iYi''.".v v a?r t kms..,:v^ :. y§+'e;-'"F. ,+^,�x, ',.'h+ ;`,4yr-?.3 ::'5.. *,a°#r',r r # :a-.s *: b �,• 1. Nt''S <t S r yu 4` p .?S, ro"y's,."2� .,d tx,•'k. ti,'.} < ^a. ``=G 7g:: '�.s-"}..e,v .k .�..f.+.�r:,- ,t f :G?Y F N;+�':, r•2; ' ax i -�,y.," a. z'i a., Y .>'n ar-..rr' .•<.-;,`i s:- -c 5' 3p. r "<j....� '#yy"+ +h.�'„, 'fz+ k *;i"``+q�F:'.'..,r^ -'iP., r »-e'"...Y 'y .-,: .+. { -r •. -; .,�„ 'sem.. t _r 11.114't.... {;"as' -:• -„ w3` .i s-F`. k.,� �- m iz .•� 7a`'il`-i tr# 4. 'k -`s'- x. <s�•.r - `x'•elrC-`s- ,•+ ' :"'" ii f,.":,s s S 8,..,,^a*^4^S .a.v "p,ra,...,r _ :. N 'k."-as 1° i r;g. h- ."..,� ',.5, _-, ? "S F 3 s�.,- ,r :�'�' k F't x r r.C c .-•,^• y*e, #:.` 1 -.?:,+.x3,t,*�y,�+,ter�.r£. `z£ '§•''s z�'°r;-?L"«, " '`%.;:'7 s}L t ''.`^-^v, _. ?,..-'L! hq ay„•""•�t-yri�.,,'rk:$.l`e •S-; r7. ,€' aS3`• -'.s':: 'k +,.: .::a'. fi x•a S „36 C r r '.a,'.t +a8 rr '{> _,! E,. r'.�,` v .p;�,�e 1. .,.•q..•... to•:,,y-' ,.., "Y` •€., s'X` ,�''�` ry r r ' +�>m ar +. �. -s'. � v.. } r x a,r rx;?, 'w ".;. - Si4.v. '.s,,, -, xi•, wa`;i .cka r �u w „3 .. 'a a :a .�.:, rs _.ssX x r _�.'`' :1• i:k: x x 5 = ;c-ae ks`. sr.¢i> x�} ✓> � ;^3 G f<.C. :u^'�iE. �..#• x '� x{ Y+k�`..�,`'''`'<:.=.+•€ 4n:: C -"`.3Si`3.. 'rte <r, ... r.^ } :._eva` r. 5 +,..,,:}., t f 3.3fi-..r ,amu r ,:,, Y' ,.+„ :`d r�,Y'• ..,., , n:a K: -�" ,�; ..,v, fir. ..a 'Er?x4 :-e s.' �,fi ;k...rN. a. ,�,...fi'' f 3 .. R :<>.h - a > ••.rr 's ;tr;. ' � ,lg v',.,: ,,;. ., `>"' +�s,.v: ,.mss,: 2-' .T.:.rr.. i. a++>t:S.^.. a. - ...: }y-};'.. 5'-, .: '.. 'x 4',}.t- ,v,`.. ,,A,.,y'4',.;, i s�` , 11 ,i 'rr'�m"Yr> ap,� '^ y '�'"y •m! £'k?,++. } a - #''Y~~`'.::< xf, •5+, ,fa rte s f 3FA �'. o- 7 4 { s�• v.... , t �aC<,§ �•.' o J .S«,qft. '� i f k� a. �1 .,,' �»f' m. t •o sv�i R-''t`U'+, ' ,+?f."s �,'`S`.: v '''ts,�5^e "y''% �-, F % +�• � gj i T h 2 _ "•'t`$ S ,rt.�r ,� +.SY -�. r s- FT'" •�,� ' = s- f+ 'wsa i ,v ;a ✓ r'-1 L - <moi„• •t-- -:, ".f :'•, $ r z: 4r. x.,,ppi.`Trs€a y�� 3� 'y ;}`.y.'-'a Y+ Y "K ,kn,�Y rrr:. l x Y� P Y : ,� , 9',,�.¢ :.', Y 6�' Al.."-i+`Y.• H "Tf {? 6 ' .•.,' : ��,,,,,,� w >' r �'.'.;ivrgi.,, Y �x ; ',`,r,{.° 4,i,..:q.'p"1."se ¢• .;.. . Y` �ger-%v`' x� s, < sem" d• K. ',."�.:$,t«.' - y.: f,-'.c5;.; �i ,fir "_�}r°5. �.t 5•k,? {_: ;> '..s. :4,:=F.', up: .u' -� ��, '`'x , kms"' �}� :.-. a �,;,...,.�*s• i4k -�,t1. I-K ,..,£ .,,�"Y . / k,s < t „r �?. F' as b Y'£�, tK.;. X.M $S:-,r ox, ?t; �.,'y-. - .s ax, ,,.}`.. ,-. ,"7-. ,"'-+,L„ �`v.,. tom: wf. « t c ? ` ;x�e x ,. errs ,s < s _ r 3 a ;< .y .x•.-..s.; .,...:"'". .-+.•c ..i-'^x a, 'i"``.ro lr�'G :=f �..,...s:,,,t ':,*,..a"'.�,,�.,t ,'`S :;rf t-;ya2-.fp��3,'�"„.l,.j,�.,� ""`d,+,;.L.. sd5't$�#v +ct - ,va.,.,: '..Y 'c t 'F. '§i C-" ',o. %S '' z- r .1'y£- < 'yU v e?.ri' r. �•,Y,' ^''.:.. ,r''•`�•�fi b,:'`^x"'2', r:Y,t. S1 '.. :2":,- .-}C' X-.- c: 3} --.7.,�. r.a• _; .r:: v, f''.'" ti '�o Y'},`#�' xF. ,•.t .+."_ 1 _.Yr: ,G^r. .<:.m ....r, c> •'+c * " C';-. i3,:✓'-0.Ya',,Sd v 4 - v `.,r*` f ..7. •,�"+.F ':`,1::.r�. .R-".. -,v,. u ""':tf''` a 5-�.."' ?i.SYM Z5 a'S `:<-.- v !,3 y t'S{:�''� ;.%},'Y.- r •,+. .;,L,r-�h' f 5w - - a ,Vim.. ',i 3I� u'n� '"`x,�<,n•+�.a;t'`r~<'` '.Z ..• k^ -• !ati•,i 'a�£ - a fi - I. _:;.c:Sc+,*. .> ".+ .,., fi�yg.. s .'•{,.. ,r,r Jz.:,:"i+ 4.'.ers:." ., � 'Ep ? ,:p.k s, x'. a: ;,r` - •:...•+• .- ,., rs,.'•�Pc. a ""zkSer - •y., a i. -i! ';k a _.. .,,•'ia�+„ 3'�N - {.,r ,'->,r- >r ,sA... '"� "y," .. .7 .x ,,;' . ag. a.,:a a, �, r £ r 5��. ,_ I _�. r �yf s.r. . a:. Via, } �,t fit'• is ky'_:,e,•sxC',' :. ,. , i+ia,,sx-.. ;rt;' •-ra r"-: H' dv.: ;<.: F..< : .'. �rE,=.. . $..•;•v .",�' .'�-5 't.'': 'o;. ?s ;fie,...`=,�r :.a'• a.- fi.-r .5.tz:4 �:; ,. :-+xs+.;y,a" .,'x L ,."i.; ..;c�" ;: �._:3:r?''... :,�' dca - ,T .,1�#,.;,,',e: x.�',<:t t�? s '.n-tiff. g,S' �; r`'.,+e. '°: "�S""a,;,: 5. :r,,,:. ..,'•'. ,,n3•. s`r'- i�.- ,.3W. �--',,i- €. � +3; ;at;-�i--,-•. ^Yj c2E. r : 3'-.--. ''".`4`r iz'5:..., G_. v_ s' ''n'� `r` t Y'ti "d, $' .. '3i - ,i-/ `. :,• v -, >lh .°. 5:,S L„•}T"'.. , ,_-�. +ctr .;cry .., 7rr +y°•• y'".Ri:.,>F1 #.'k , $*'' ,,. x,:�C4. ':.vx`•,7 r , -,� - 'f *r2 y^�'v..,:T > : 'x ,' `~r � � ;§`:, 'aP", `' -, * ,.... - S,c-.'A .- w�,•-�i"a t."� .�-.S� �,':}`?3I'll. �.£,:{H+C �,t���,�( 's � :E-,*: dYc„vP, .ia-y'.?°` ,,-+''v •c�.'`_ - :• T`r ,a. ' 'sq. rr'.,^.�U. ,. I ' aY Y. .F._..a_L3A `-`: u`..__'>`^,.+E3z��A�LL+ R�:-..z,. �+ ,.,�•th a`��•^.i'":»'S w..:ge r?.; ro° ° ,-,•, 3'" �" ?5::•v µ•,S { 3'Ams s} "' :4i r ::�,ea yr,.. _ 4 „ a ? _ �G;:s,;}` 3 s �i. c a i -1 .,:. r��+,r,�- v,,. .,vY.�-.1� {w,: �k';'_-R;, �VoOr••4-a` '. u..t' "`���'iy:,' ,> y�'-'�'-; ?'; �.7§`.c,;.4•:.�'''_#. Y,.,.rsy i .'•�":�. ._1 4"L. �;,, , �i ?; �'ti�,?'; ,vv��,, % f :s pfF+'ti,% .,.,SR•d g,,Yk,,r't' '.:X'd `>�M •;��a o +G+,V4 :�- sy. d r.< � -.Y .y-1 ."`.•�. -±-,�+. `F -r ,:s. .1,., `'`5 �',Y' -.1., r'+5G5^ :r :ae,a.?r; .`3 ,nyi}..E,, ,ixa� :°xsy``^"?� time $. }rF,tt.,3R yg,.S• '•.s. k{t tY.' s, ' gxg:.<,rif,rfi ,'-' :'.•3,'i. �� X"."'�.`..,b` Jr�,� «fa:x �4:3".: `- ``?,si •ts. t. :u 3�`{a�;r,t+�`R94 :,ar�c,�',�c. u..s �. w x _.. •,v�y,;• y2: sf.. -. b �.•�',Uczoa t`+`s ., . , x � ,= ::Fnp� tp . >` uk� { 10 <?r. .• ni ` +�'` �`` "ti< ii?y AFE R a`x 'Hid? ,;, r, s. a' r:,, :L,. 9 r >`3 ,fir .`3,m �a '",r+,:!.tNM r'a t ^._'.:'' ,. ":rr'�:A 'Ko- ,T:, -.; -# '`�a...,.sv,•y-'�kv:'k ;, yJ'. rn , ,•ryv :ro:,a,?': '',7j 2 '*tx"'"` sQ�>_.. r `E• L '. ,;33'i•- <'1«".G.` *kr` v'r zS• �cX.eti.' , rs. •*°i� ' p ��i{ig'' r v ,s. i z „ice 5a .,> 4 '' �•'Y"' °P-a .:ter ''`r'"O, j,-i� #S� v-,a-- ,�'yb" 'wp:•fa n'%"R,r .sv'.;.`'`g r z•F,':,. S. .,fiY,. '"y } `..rx `'' .':>` `i- s," s#Si+,1R+x, s'k-°', ':.5-�''+'§�k., a ,�k' �a'" "` .3 _ `� xb."S 5• c '�. y•,„tit..; -�•ao-Sw .0{?�,:f , '',y!`• ',�y` i? k ak-; 't, ,. .. .,,.'�', ?• 5"y §k >. �; rk-r,p� a^'vx,yr' « -,< :+ ug S -•ta�zP -�.,, : ' fix;. r_- •Y.-' 4 Ju ," �. ° i'" ,..n y' :•�t ,,, t;`. ..-_,-a�*d3'�".:-> j - `'y....�r+' r ''"fi}, rn �£w' bk �.i'#? ,y :z n .+YYIr> r: • ' 7- ;. -'1 Y '�'� 4 y} < y, c ..4 f-t.. �5-'r" ``ry•v*'sF ✓,gin. d,,, 4 '2.f.,, /.� 5 Yw : is v..: �. r s:•sw,•7'4. ML'its y:.S+rR:x`. . ,+:`' •SAS,''-s •,.;�„<,."s .. +t}' .x;: F�r.,x,,,a :P "` 'Lt's.;% :S-, • ," 1, _'-� ,, 4"` r>.�^ „ +�,.. x., `�'::. v`li .s .` ?�' <.:�.2- s,S: a.'.• ^h}i,.'�.°a ¢' ' '>`R n r� z,,?5• ka,. v,:.v ra z".'i. -,s i.w,.:R #; ter.' i' R?;. . ..t -4-T--ME{ .c,$yi'° y,iag't ..:: a. ,i.r.. r - x n tri'° ` '�'- T• .,. . xa•,r'. I. + •a•• .✓^� ,`f ,<cxr'•s, .h.aSyyr•r'. s},-` s.3.y.. ",,,. ..:Y. { {.. F'' :,; va,r ` `..' 1 "•r. ,,,.?c,���'-.`, i -G :�•.;t:ti`..4: ;i c,: 5 .: •,`vFa,.x. ''vt se- `r , ?`..r�8, • �! � r �+-K >.°F r}, y{- ` # yr4 .< f.. ry� t;+.. z••.. a._.v� Vic,: rt` im s i s S.K a _ .;Y1 ;- < u x� _s:- i y?g•,. .{1 '•: •. a ..., h ,, -ysK,., ....•.n".°'�,e '`; i r'$ti�' e>.< ce �,•. an� S;k.-. r`3 , ...g4� - � .xx. ?:: .yt� ,. �,_. r' ',{!>,.�a.- - u :Y+,# `'> -f- „ r •.':.=..?fi�``t 'Y'L 3: '+. ;r + t.-: „•ErS. rV ,A -,5�.s z ."t;":-E'..,?. ,¢ � ,� d, x ': nr .. : �,'s,�.'u�,� .ti .,:x L•y - v-4 •�k 4�' 4 �r a ,R}..a.F'i' •'�i ;'S "2,,- t y. ., •p' x'�-�,,._^5 : ��r-.-,. '"ZY,�•y, ' ' g'*.','r- x,f.. xr` .;..{• i r f".'-� y ,$ ,i or,: :-#x, -':#r`°; �`� a-.,. ,`• *,,'� v.>ro=.� ? w,,X'.., .. i.; :,'+r,',tr ,;F; <".t:!r":,_. > F ^�§,'{c '� .s'' .t.�v -*-. .:- 4'^ "i,,, .may,.•- + £ •'e ",:,... .,v-_' S :. '-_ yah•, 4-h.,-.,, .. n. K...,cr4 yh;: 1, .:'<.^•az. x2:'FL>: :'...;::• ate" �'4 ° q .'''�i.:'��y`,-,,,. s,::, '%'. £ .. <r t �;i3'> .,.,-.;�,�r ir.+��. h ,.;,g�,'_ht-:�, rz'i •:�. q4` :. ,>.,.. s .x,:... .�'Y€�.t.f; z £..h� ,fi `k„`>`,.:.'- �•N". -r '�,+.p,'X •g' _, .3%v'.;. g. d h. ,a•:r.s Sx.. ..e' d a -.+t';.y, £v..:s:r.,r'Y.rri'.yr.:s. , .tpt,rc.. -.?.•,,„ .. ;,,m�,_-a� •': 0 �u��;�r`,:y F'�,;,:. ?s a t Rte"'-.,v'r, "1`' •Grp.•^:`"'t`&. � Y ,P '+�..1 i y v x"`Y „rrr�..G 3?' },�` a,'i :,r.�. ,ycba,� s n r •ry`, .`> si.• x; As .3 zes,'CY'�,' w,ti:, <' '3t..^'�' `:���'' x� " ?..r .� :�;:i,•2'"* :,.e x€. r i,,P:r- u.r �rye'i?y?.< 'ri- .{y ., -o:ti?.t ta.�,,.-.te. z5W.1.1—,A1.. ,^ ,,.i{,, s r ,:_-,k'�' '• x '.•n� .z.`. .t vrtPr.•'�r.. ...• ;' .. 4„S.x.,,r rs r L,Ar:5: •`{,�+�. :s; a °v .' ,r'R-aS ._._7,,91'.1,;:;@ -1, �,4, ..sf'�• :<. :,.,s�3.y#.. a�iY` �u�':'::z,ih�' _% .:a'E. `r,rt,:? F^�'w3 ;`;'. >. _ is:A .a ra ,ap.v':�ir-a ysr. N: ,_ns, -k*. >- „3c•` ` « -: M 'Ss �,;'t? R :'�Z�'dr ... a ��`nh?... :. ,a•:s': R�.' •c`* '.''�i• :..+C,s � ~e'+ ',:.t•� ,r•.:Rex, ,"a:, a` IN �r t},..::: x'4o- 11 �' :`.r$_ `..�. .� ,• ,.^ ..`a.. C, ,x;:`:'�'iY': { ,•x..-.. .i 4: ?£ .3 .kms`. $� - 'v- -y\p �L;;i fY-•, 1;' `. si-, #" fi r+i`T,x "i4",••, p ,.� :.' .w< 5. t;{: ^. ,t �*Y,�h'$ s s, +, fi1i` ;^ �4011,111r....H«,...:.§,iy,"+(g- — . � hn ..t_ f, ;c'- t.w,. =, r;,� -n,.- .sF' 's3.}2. �i �e'��irJx �y{ •>�5. a0, y�yr. ;7;3 g�•3'yG..: t.ry,,,.+A,_.'tom v' 'S: e>. F.fy1-"% ! .l.yk• .,f.awa��r hs.+Yv r' i'O sf, .:�.J- . '5:, ' ,'._ : N � ,?:'A Iry } >,l?-•1'�i4.'rx ,4.E,`r r-.: ,x.r:. x" .....c"f:Vis+ ;A.t'`ir.<'' •' 4'S_'«rx t�°'*:,i'1? 3F ..y1 r" v f' ,�.: La., ::'.�?? _�,..•.y.;;r.*re e,}y;•,w„-'r ,!F. :'ej: , t ,y��,.,, ;a- Y"'`,.,4: c.,,+n, id _J. $'{:y'� / 5,5✓r._ fi x i;: {i•;.�2`:3 ` .d v' 4t :_ .x. .6 Y }'a+5" ' ,i Z,'.rw'M. d ¢,�-&. �>k, 'b^ i::3+�..},F'" .,ryk'{� �J ,d �?y,.f �F'Y i ._ J < ,"t„ � '5�..d'"G'# :�'r y ', ,y�'Y" r� IWA"U Fr s? .fYx.. c •,xby. }. .:...:, �x:a 7.s1 �,,�;X Y .: ��',s:.,`-i. .-'b`-.. '�.a TAT .. a:`1 : ,7�<r STk -.t!t ..+*' ..11 - as[�R'F xk v% yak <&..- 'rf- ',.-`tyJ,"'" `"`K au,,�, ,}x`3i x:•cr5 �-: i-}'p,i :tw�r.S.t' -x `W :`§.'w�''• '•4" ,,r'.,.,t�?Nr:^ :s, �•.5• `G ,.<:.R � '3: wt' - ^- : ,r•r:^'�"�.k'. .t: Kr {�, 5h. x"!..,.;;aa: i`,�.:,r- �':. } }c,f. %,� ,x -a�.k. s.' s 'dr+'t; vvti +^ oi. -. ^ ;. matt.:�. . ?: „✓,'. +yw.,5,,,,;.,'i•^ ,yee.7,4,y-{>„i.... ,.Y`` ;Y+�•'• .3'..: r.`,,- �. ? �"r. .,5-. i} iv s <` e'{' ,'.'s+ k' `-^- 4 a'f .; 't ,+.Mt; ,aK,a t. i• i:, x�: s•Cis $ :5 -'t,, j ? `,."• l,f` N r "'3.,"yG+?�^ +a, <-, '''„{ "%-ii -,'' .., i'. .. ^"; .ski•3',t•{`''+r`q• -•,' 'Y '+�<. ..i'h ,m,.k 9 "y, s T�?r ,. f cu :+"` .4i. t •- - '# k r' i <,K, .. �'S Xf4: +`t', .�i° 'Y F,,,: .w,' of �`' .z,. a: tis!>F. ,:''s" _v,� 3 Y ,+- >..i �.., �.. "_-`.+l c dao . kTa',,� :;"' :.syr.Y+�. x, wr .t£� "Y '�4._;.-,^, s a'•, G Fx••:2"..f.x'r, �n+ x.•3°�"'k t`" 5`.. 'k$,.A `. .$'a "R-Y`';ps„'4°`i:�. }���gb ��, ,* ,,�'sy x;tv'-a.. r.��S:y?s, �,d ,, ,;ic3 r ,' ^: , a+'..�:. ,}`x' -'+' rs `�^' 3 X 4�'< •::;, .x, ,��` : „ ... ,x �n "xC,h+3- � „>< �.�^ t .4 § r-5 tk,>;+. X^ ', r°R.,:==, t 4x,�:•.e r,�� - $ rYx -�:.:' X/,fit>v 3 t: _: .Ft, � a ; h.`�c,-Y,fi,^ .; t ;1s ciyr,.& (°'''.r,xo- Y.nw. `+'.,yr r`.i+,, 4 .> x. ''V'' 'iL.N 4 �-�.' c.. `} .y,,.. r Y `,.k a ,.,;ck,a;. 'y,: ' ;+'i``k' zE,.. yra..:�+. <fr, Law ,5` J-§J•,.r ,y� :"hfrx,},yM,,' '*e Y¢s, ,;,, ...,ate x tf xff �33A •X ypfv £••?� I a a. „ "`t �' '��'` p:=' •i'J• Y'' �n 4'i.: T h '„�'e e'^1'.•�' 2•i4q..y< l4 .., ," S Y ar' f,YC ri� F '>. }' �2.f}P ,.yF ,� M. `r: . aF r .'q"t° .:a ?-'tvxy .,,'rr..t^K : „ 4�"' `� ,p.... $�. 1. £a'•°:J�n ,F. C - G :�-.�n� :,:�.e� �'3�`3r w-i r�.Y..is �`'+.+5. `� � `�*'" k .; tk".'S• +�-.{' ?G r:.;r e N"G z ' ,3r 3n „�„�'}" :. >-'- '_' .•: y`�<`.� W +T.z't *.`y;. c } :f i 'n. - :. r � z; k,. '1: '"�Y<..4 x k:y n n z.:.;§ ,f x'� ""att � . t D..;k'4 .x t ,�z"4� +,:R v '¢,•4 ;,�� >:• ".s. :+ rt„Z,,_! .��riA"�I •�}-3^,�:��s""sz�r"x. a,`as �2�.»r .r �:r .t v:.�a4 �'k o:r�.-�.a t'�x, Y:, �:' tcz *, ,: �. r l. - .. �y�;t L t }` .L.:,,-1t }. F-a.'`N2•,y.xC s as+' *,,i: +e,-„sS s,{ e ,t�.§+F, .i t.. �J•''• F ;;L §-r• '” ir} P.: x. s ?.art°.s •”, 7- .. ,-?•�*--r£s'" ,,, 15,_.x.. 1 '.'¢ .-`'y` e'S,' ,ti?n-a x£-.s�&"5•u s.F ra �' .,a,�3<7c y .fi'��", z r p: e� A a .:•'r •'y2. - x i a� Lt"u�a "" L� ° ','<- ,' ,1. "yt' br �,A, xafi: �F^' :rvv r =i k x✓Rt` u ,"rr' �t.. , ty r•• ,�. S s i *. _ 'eY7^! "',r,+,�rs:,; < "',xA v`�`w'ewj*"` RY x,, ,,�,.i, •+s- .g5: �,:::•3.' ` irS 'd .v+,. • y a, :vyir n.a „r .¢ is ,•+vap' y ,p .yF�Y•°a•y}P�:- ,34? �Sa, rr^.., ., .cT y-sR, ;. `<S_wm :uhs x1. .'�:�.��� {x '. `::.£uric" ^'k"r -:.. ,,fi' . ,q re:'� . `"v' `^ .;'i n:2 .. ��,}}• y 'mows I ^x6r' .� =v. •v v vj4 3 �.•6t � � gl.±1w e `i21�.s°-'��. .,,•, ,'•r ,' ''` '' s '.{ '� q tisS. ' �2 i,.�}', `;,xTr E -.._ ..: ...4., ,, z-. :x'.; ,+,f'x '.:Cr'. ,,.-wY<'��:"� r #ri }c�`. e+ tY+' "-4'*';k'.'ki�' ^k `g°?^S. _',''k"r?.'a'4-,rsE •v`a x.• .:-a:' f fix.. , �`,. t - S^` w +y`. ta'� ,.'xfl, y ... ,- � Q f 1,«'�CA 2�7 l�? `i Ti"E,qft§` .A F VI � s k C 2 F �` � r ;-: 1_1 x .; ' r"�<2 ; as J'{t"'&, .:.,, a,k '.r _ ,-' i ?Y,_kS, _.1:-✓ -r, K.. � r ,4"+„ q4:5 a$"�• v1 - � 'f� #x r..n t J I •; '" ..t >.i •'is'x%.-'n''. .:: .`•,:3-vY '•:S f r,:'"c'^;w �v. z:,,;". n S';,;. �• r' o--d`#�,ey�y' f�' ';, $• :, ,``' . '`�' ..::... ,Y••. ; ", X.4. s?'''c+, y, -R,.�..fw`,t.m+•r:`a..,^?,:, FY u. '-'x`•?- `•a'y, a'za.+-_r.k a '. +r-Afr. �<2 '.3 'k Pi_'y"„s" 11-P Me rr.._+' . ..y.- ,t<si±' �2`..3•fi 6.:. b .a : `.: ,,-y ,. $da. c ;k k`S :' t 5+.,,�c•• ,A:7. ;+ra r-: S4a' ,La a u ,.:... ,: a� r%':,-, � �c :3. :, 5 •."d. 3.., '� -....�r'`&?'a; Y,�v §'.:s.,: ��.+�.,. - t'�': y,.`v @, ..,'�;'•,•i.:�, f,:.y,,-�'A F q`6r.:d la {.x,,a`i;..i°f'%+p �{..' �. '. -k �`,✓ • ^'1+,; `A*✓,`.:4):! 'k�.-,�q '$ ":::r _5-`''r+S - ,�1* r'-.f -k 4 ` �k. v.= .x sC ,�'^-... .•:,.! �`';,: '. ,- -'... 'b..;r.,,z.te�'.^�.,: ;" e .1"r g .`:.,ri••a:'��. �+cS �..-,•9,.,? ,,zdt` ...,r -.,x..: +. .<, k�''3 �iefi AR:..,i' '4''.ri�t rr ..c.-..u, f.... fav k" f-ru':p,•f y..-..v'"' - f g�`. .�x,:•,as• '<<, '• .,�`1n > -..n '3• .aa'i,x,,. +.,t, :.d t ..-#�?.:.v ?,�,i �>q�,G'3� '�` �i.: ,w f` i3 F :z•'� � ',,M t }:'�,a,J�. � {. i;h`e �'... ^•t �'tx'.-�x�, � b4•r.�h+ 41 t4 ,f:?�i�3. �'r7• -,>._�Y`�C" ,Z.�. F,,k:- ,�a,,, >x " t , ,.. .3^s�' 2'k`%7`� .; ., .. ,.rk`. ? .r" -s, :8• ;,'�c.-� , t:. t-mtr �a�_a y c., xz,f t. �? _�" ,x,, <k. nor ,r.. ..'�&&... �i,y'�`" ana �,.0 f#•2.t3ne4�";Y & 'vr.; Re. a` 3:; +x''`,.a„�L• y,y.•i'<`'"":�n�,:; �., -� �:,;• '�<�} �^c S.,�' s�_ 'a'`"-:�-....,¢ ��j>�4F,' '�? : 3•z`�'<"3�'_ s�.^z" i^ 4 n�'t � c ,�.:'.« ^r" r€. � w .,�' w; ^i'?s �� � rx� ,-s•�� , sp, �.�. �a �" ;ys`� ��r- `�"' �a"^z�����.-,..> r,�.i'' ..-� t�,x, ��,}.,,-,��'':a� '�z� t ,,a �-+,i{�'§.5 4'_ E., ,..ar: ".er^-r�:;isa, '�s*r : ,�a. r�,i��. ..,{b::."- �'�2:�.}� ,.• , x�xt„" �u' +,.. ..�} a•<"�C�yi ,+..;rr-., �," ��'-a'r�fi �sC..'', ^t- �}5..•i i _r x•,=: ,.�vJ"�'i ,,-i"��...ri.�.a,r� '=x' s`� �? " s,r�'h�F��.aLa �`5�,i4'.�gR �.ndk '•T'v��Ft rte - `s�n'� z.X'*, 2`r;,., f 2 mi:{•: >.�r .i-:' � �mia r��Ai.�> >y X.,j � ,s� '� ;s -`�, � z i a'"7 {r "'- as :,"3-,. �3w� +• -..t•s 3� x � �r r•�T 5 s sr k,a§'''r� ,�;;f��,a,,Psb'� tit',�•.n..5ai.�::i.'.a„ '•�-�;:�'�,.�:�+': ....i.YWx..rJ:,.u.r.�'Lk'S�''€aa.»s•c,�.a...._;-a�•,.,+,..,.�.:`.rr,..:v.z:rt�,��'aria.�.ca.^.r: w�C_�?a..:,zaa:�.�i'a'<w,. c:..,$L5a„aa:-s,�..<,+k•`.�s4e-;..�ee�s..�i::�.x�.r`'.[n•-§s�:L.� ,is��u. .z.S;r.,.re•.;c s�.w ..��'s.?,£ i TABLE OF CONTENTS RECEIVED MAY 2 8 2003 Contra Costa County Flood Control And Water Conservation District i, 1 " �I 1 t �;i DR,4F'r EIR CY,PREss GRovE Ma Y 2003 TABU OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 4..:J 1. INTRODUCTION,SCOPE OF EIR,EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CYPRESS GROVE 3.1 Introduction to the Analysis 3.1-1 3.2 Land use 3.2-1 '! 3.3 Agricultural Resources 3.3-1 ( 3.4 Aesthetics 3.4-1 3.5 Biological Resources 3.5-1 } 3.6 Cultural Resources 3.6-1 `3 3.7 Transportation and Circulation 3.7-1 3.8 Air Quality 3.8-1 i 3.5 Noise 3.9-1 3.10 Geology 3.10-1 3.11 Hazards 3.11-1 3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.12-1 3.13 Public Services and utilities 3.13-1 4. STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS k 4.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts 4-1 4.2 Cumulative Impacts 4-1 4.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Impacts 4-10 4.4 Significant and unavoidable 4-11 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5-1 6. EIR AUTHORS / PERSONS CONSULTED 6-1 7. REFERENCES 7-1 APPEr4mcES A. Notice of Preparation B. Comments on the Notice of Preparation C. Initial Study and Environmental Checklist D. TJKM Transportation Consultants' Traffic Impact Analysis,for the Cypress Grove Properties i DRAFT r IIS CYPRESS GRovE MAY2003 DIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-3 2-2 Project Location Map 2-4 2-3 The Williamson Property(Subdivision 8680) 2-8 2-4 Conco North Property(Subdivision 8679) 2-9 2-5 The Conco South Property(Subdivision 8678) 2-10 2-6 The Courtyards at Cypress Grove Multi-Family Development 2-11 2-7 The Courtyards at Cypress Grove Multi-Family Development Landscape Plan 2-12 2-8 Cypress Road Exhibit 2-18 3.2-1 Special Planning Areas 3.2-2 3.2-2 Land Use Designations and Zoning 3.2-3 3.3-1 Soil Types at the Cypress Grove Site, City of Oakley 3.3-6 3.4-1 Existing Conditions(site photos) 3.4-3 3.5-1 Site and Vicinity 3.5-2 3.5-2 Proposed Development and Project Infrastructure 3.5-4 3.5-3 Vegetative Communities 3,5-5 3.5-4 CNDDB 3.5-15 3.7-1 Existing Turning Movement Volumes 3.7-3 3.7-2 Approved Projects 3.7-6 3.9-1 Cypress Grove Property Development Vicinity 3.9-8 3.9-2 Cypress Grove Property Noise and Vibration Measurement Sites 3.9-9 3.9-3 Cypress Grove Property Noise Barrier Locations 3.9-21 3.12-1 Regional Location Map 3.12-2 3.12-2 Vicinity Map and Subbasin Location Map 3.12-3 3.12-3 Soils as the Cypress Grove Project Site, City of Oakley 3.12-6 3.12-4 FEMA Flood Plain Boundaries, Cypress Grove Project 3.12-7 3.12-5 Levee Exhibit, Cypress Grove 3.12-13 3.12-6 Proposed Cypress Grove Storm System 3.12-15 3.12-7 Proposed Pump and Pipeline to Emerson Slough 3.12-16 3.12-8 Proposed Outfall Structure to Emerson Slough 3.12-17 3.12-9 Plan and Section of Stormwater Pond 3.12-18 3.12-100utfall Hydrology 3.12-20 ii DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo vE MAY 200:3 3.13-1 Water Infrastructure 3.13-23 3.13-2 Wastewater€nf`rastructure 3.13-25 1-� r-, k �.3 't k i t 4 i i:j j t._...) I 2ii DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRO vE MA Y 20103 i LIST OF TABLES s TABLE PAGE { 1-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-16 2-1 Lint Mix Summary of the Courtyards at Cypress Grove Multi-Family Development 2-7 2-2 Roadway Infrastructure,Cypress Grove Development Plan 2-17 3.3-1 Soil Capability Classification 33-2 3.3-2 Storie Index Rating System 3.3.3 3.3-3 On-site Soil Capability Classification and Storie Index Rating 3.3-7 3.5-la Listed and Special Status Species Potentially Occurring within 5 miles of the Project Site 3.5-9 3.5-1b Listed and Special Status Species Potentially Occurring within the Project Project Area 3.5-16 3.7-1 Existing Conditions--Intersection LOS 3.7-4 3.7-2 Approved Project Trip Generation 3.7-5 3.7-3 Intersection LOS, Existing Plus Approved Conditions 3.7-8 3.7-4 Level of Service Description 3.7-13 3.7-5 Project Trip Generation 3.7-13 3.7-6 Baseline Plus Project Conditions LOS-Main Street(SR-4) 3.7-15 3.7-7 Baseline Plus Project Conditions LOS-Cypress Road 3.7-16 3.7-8 Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Year 2025 Without Project 3.7-20 3.7-9 Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Year 2025 With Project 3.7-21 3.7-10 Peak Hour Intersection LOS-Year 2025 With Project 3.7-24 3.8-1 Air Quality Data Summary for Bethel Island(1999-2001) 3.8-2 3.8-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.8-4 3.8-3 Permanent Regional Emissions 3.8-9 3.8-4 Worst-Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Selected Intersections (PPM) 3.8-10 3.9-1 Acoustical Terminology 3.9-2 3.9-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Results: Cypress Grove Property Site--June 8, 2001 3.9-4 3.9-3 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs 3.9-6 3.9-4 Existing Traffic Data, Noise Levels and Distances to Contours 3.9-7 3.9-5 Railroad Noise Measurement Results 150 Feet from RR Tracks--August 3-6, 2000 3.9-10 3.9-6 Vibration Measurement Results, 50 Feet From BNSF Tracks-June 19, 2001 3.9-11 3.9-7 General Human and Structural Responses to Vibration Levels 3.9-14 3.9-8 Predicted Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases 3.9-16 3.9-9 Construction Equipment Noise 3.9-17 3.9-10 Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels at the First Row of Outdoor Activitv Areas 3.9-20 iv i DRAFT EI CYPREssGRo vE MAY2003 With Varying Barrier Heights 3.9-11 Predicted Future Railroad Noise Levels at the First Row of Outdoor Activity 3.9-23 Areas With Varying Barrier Heights 3.11-1 General Hazardous Material Categories and Hazard Nature 3.11-4 3.13-1 CCWD Water Contractual Sources 3.13-3 3.13-2 CCWD Current and Projected Firm Water Supplies 3.13-4 r 3.13-3 DWD Summary of Projected Water Demands(mgd) 3.13-9 :i 3.13-4a Projected Enrollment and Capacity: Liberty Union High School District 3.13-12 3.13-4b Recent Physical-Resident Student Population Changes by Region 3.13-12 3.13-5 Oakley Park Facilities Inventory 3.13-14 ° r_,3 s � i i a v j INTRODUCTION, Scop E OF EXECUTIVESUMMARY �IR, AND Fµ r i DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE 1 AllAY 2003 1 . INTRODUCTION, SCOFF, AND SUMMARY OF EIR i' INTRODUCTION The Cypress Grove Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) as amended. The City of Oakley is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Cypress Grove project evaluated herein and has the principal responsibility for approving the project. As required by Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR will (a) inform public agency decision-makers, and the public generally, of the significant environmental effects of the project, (b) identify possible ways to minimize the significant adverse environmental effects, and (c) describe reasonable and feasible project alternatives which reduce environmental effects. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information that may be presented to the agency. trv- PROJECT BACKGROUND Prior to the city's incorporation in 1999, Contra Costa County was responsible for planning and land use in the City of Oakley. Such activities were guided by the 1996 Contra Costa County General Plan. Upon incorporation, the City of Oakley adopted the County General plan as the City's General plan. The City of Oakley has recently adopted its own General Plan—The Oakley 2020 General flan (2002). As part of the General Plan Update, the City prepared an Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report. An Environmental Impact Report {EIR} for the General Plan was adopted concurrently with the General Plan. The Background Report is used in this Draft EIR as a source `i for descriptive text and not for policy or General Plan determinations. The Cypress Grove project site consists of approximately 147 acres of primarily vacant land. The site currently contains a residence and associated outbuildings, and surrounds a 33-acre existing middle school and future elementary school site. The site lies within the Cypress Corridor, comprised of the northeastern portion of the City of Oakley, east of Marsh Creek, south of the Delta, and west of Jersey Island Road (see Chapter 2, Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, Regional and project Location Map). The project site is bordered to the north by the Contra Costa Nater District Canal; on the south by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) i ! railroad and single-family homes; on the west by Marsh Creek; and on the east by undeveloped farmland. Development of the proposed project would create a visual gateway into the Cypress Corridor that would set the tone for future development in that area, establishing standards and promoting continuity of design. The Oakley City Council and planning Commission held several meetings to address planning concerns for the Cypress Grove area. In addition, a community design charette was held to obtain t the views, concerns, and ideas of community members. The proposed project, conceived and i developed by three builders in corroboration with City officials, was thus partnered with E....? CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION, SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE ,✓IAr 2003 community members to develop comprehensive planning and development standards reflecting the City's vision as expressed in the Cypress Corridor Design Charette. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Three developers: Western Pacific Housing; KB Home South Bay, Inc.; and Pacific Communities of Idaho, LLC (Pacific Communities) plan to develop the project site. The development would include 637 residential units, with 541 single-family units developed by Western Pacific Housing and KB Horne South Bay, Inc., and 96 multi-family units developed by Pacific Communities, LLC. Western Pacific Housing would develop the Williamson property. The Williamson property, known as Subdivision 8680, would contain 240 single-family units (see Figure 2-3). KB Home South Bay, Inc. would develop the Conco property north of Cypress Road. The Conco North Property, known as Subdivision 8679, would contain 201 single-family units (see Figure 2- 4). Western Pacific Housing and Pacific Communities would develop the Conco property south of Cypress Road known as Subdivision 8678 (see Figure 2-5 and 2-6). The Conco South Property would be developed as two parcels with the western portion planned for 96 multi-family units built by Pacific Communities LLC and the eastern portion planned for 100 single-family detached units built by Western Pacific Housing. An internal roadway and park amenity would separate the western multi-family community from the eastern single-family community. The Williamson Property, the Conco North Property, and the eastern portion of the Conco South Property are designated in the Oakley 2020 General Plan as Single Family Residential, High Density (SH). The western portion of the Conco South Property is designated as Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH). The proposed project is consistent with the Oakley 2020 General Plan land use designations. PURPOSE of THE EIR As provided in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15021, public agencies are charged with the duty to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. The public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives,including economic, environmental, and social issues. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term project refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378ja]). With respect to the proposed Cypress Grove Project, the City has determined that the proposed development is a project within the definition of CEQA, which has the potential for resulting in significant environmental effects. The EIR is an informational document that apprises decision-makers and the general public of the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project. An EIR identifies possible means CHAPTER I - INTRODUCT?ON. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY of EIR 1 - 2 i DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200 3 to minimize the significant effects and describe a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the project. The lead agency, which is the City of Oakley for this project, is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the application. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. TYPE OF Docu vIENT ` j The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This Draft EIR has been prepared as a Project level EIA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 1 S 161. This type of analysis examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. A Project level EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development of the project. The EIR should examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. EIR PF ocES5 xg The EIR process begins with the decision by the lead agency to prepare an EIR, either during a preliminary review of a project or at the conclusion of an initial study. Once the decision is made to prepare an EIR, the lead agency sends a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to appropriate government agencies, and when required, to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) in the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which will ensure that responsible State agencies reply within the required time. The SCH assigns an identification number to the project, which then becomes the identification number for all subsequent environmental documents on the project. Applicable agencies have 30 days to respond to the NOP, indicating, at a minimum, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures they wish to have explored in the Draft EIR and whether the agency will be a responsible agency or a trustee agency for the project. As soon as the Draft EIR is completed, a notice of completion is filed with the OPR and public notice is published to inform interested parties that a Draft EIR is available for agency and/or public review and providing information regarding location of drafts and any public meetings or hearings that are scheduled. The Draft EIR is circulated for a period of 45 days, during which time reviewers may make comments. The lead agency must evaluate and respond to comments in writing, describing the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised and explaining in detail the reasons for not accepting any specific comments concerning major environmental issues. When comments received result in the addition of significant new information to an EIR, after public notice is given, the revised EIR or affected chapters must be recirculated for another public review period with related comments and responses. Once the lead agency is satisfied that the EIR has adequately addressed the pertinent issues in compliance with CEQA, a Final EIR will be prepared, which is made available for review by the public or commenting agencies. Before approving a project, the lead agency shall certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and has been presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency and has been reviewed and considered by that body, and that the Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. CIHAPTER 3 — iNTRODUCTION. SCOPE. AND SUMMARY OF EIR 1 -3 DRAFT`EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2OC3 i An Initial Study was prepared to focus the scope of the Cypress Grove Draft EIR. An initial Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Draft EIR was released December 18, 2002 for a 30-day review. In' addition, a public scoping meeting was held on January 9, 2002. A second NOP was released iJ January 17, 2003 and circulated for a 30-day review period (Appendix A). The second NOP was based upon the revised application including the submittal of Tentative Maps and Design Review. Comments provided by the public and public agencies in response to both Notices of Preparation were received by the City of Oakley and are provided in Appendix B. The Cypress Grove Draft EIR will be circulated for a 45-day public review period. Comments received during the comment period and the public hearings will be addressed in the Final EIR. The Oakley Planning Commission and City Council, in accordance with CEQA, will review the Draft EIR and Final EIR prior to certification of the EIR (which consists of both the Draft EIR and Final EIR). Upon any project approval, written findings of fact for each significant environmental impact identified in the EIR will be prepared by the lead agency to: • Find that the Proposed Project has been changed to avoid or substantially lessen its significant impacts; • Determine whether any changes to the Proposed Project necessary to avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts are within another agency's jurisdiction, and find that such changes have been or should be adopted by such other agency;and/or • Find that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible any mitigation measures or project alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts. The findings of fact prepared by the lead agency must be based on substantial evidence in the administrative record and must include an explanation that bridges the gap between evidence in the record and the conclusions required by CEQA. Based on these findings,the lead agency may also prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Statement) as part of the project approval process. If the decision-making body elects to proceed with a project that would have unavoidable significant impacts, then a statement explaining the decision to balance the benefits of the project against unavoidable environmental impacts must be prepared. SCOPE OF THE DRAFT EIR State CEQA Guidelines § IS 126.2(a) states, in pertinent part: An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published,or where no notice of preparation is published,at the time environmental analysis is commenced. Pursuant to these guidelines, the scope of this Draft EIR includes specific issues and concerns identified as potentially significant. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project concluded CHAPTER 'I — !NTRODUCT!ON. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR 1 -4 DRAF7"EIR CYPRESS GRo v- MA)'2003 that several environmental issues would result in a less-than-significant impact. The complete text of the Initial Study is contained in Appendix C. Resources identified for study in this Draft EIR include: j + Land use, I 0 Agricultural resources, Aesthetics, • Biological resources, Cultural resources, * Traffic, • Air duality, Noise, • Geology, + Hazards, Hydrology and water duality, and * Public services and utilities. ! The evaluation of effects is presented on a resource-by-resource basis in Subchapters 3.2 through 3.13. Each subchapter is divided into four sections: Introduction, Environmental Setting, Regulatory Contexts, and Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impacts that are determined to be significant in Chapter 3, and for which no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level, are identified as significant and unavoidable. Chapter 4-in the Draft EIR presents a discussion and comprehensive list ` of all significant and unavoidable impacts identified in Chapter 3, COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION The City of Oakley received nine comment letters on the first Notice of Preparation for the Cypress Grove Draft EIR. A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix E of this Draft EIR. The letters were authored by representatives of state and local agencies and other interested parties: t • Brown,Jerry—Con a Costa W titer District • Chavez, Linda J. P. --East Bay Re4onal 'ark District ' + DOens, Paul R. —Contra Costa County,Flood Control &Water Conservations Di +► Haslip,Jim-Oakley_Ele nmentary Union School District • Joung, Katie Shulte--State_of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research +� Pilas-Treadway, Debbie—NatygAmerican Heritage Commission Ryan, Richard S. —Contra Costa County Fie Protection District • Wehrmei.ster, Tina—City of Antioch, Cgmmuwit Development -J * Willoughby, Steve—Pacific Gas and Electric Company,8 Idiag and Land Ser,iggs CHAPTER 1 -- INTRODUCTION. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR i � 5 DRAFT Elf; CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 The following letters were received following the close of the 30-day comment period. • Finney,Jean C. R. for Randell H. Iwasaki—California Department of Transportation • Thorne, K. for Leigh Jordan--California Historical Resources Information S sy tiern The City of Oakley received 5 comment letters on the revised NOP. A copy of each letter is i provided in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. The letters were authored by representatives of state and local agencies and other interested parties: • Grattidge, Brian—State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research • Brown,Jerry—Contra Costa Water District • Cook, Barbara J. —Department of Toxic Substances Control • Sable, Timothy C.—Department of Transportation • Yeraka, Mike--Diablo Water District The following list, categorized by issue, summarizes the concerns in these letters: Siologi �cal Concerns related to: — Resources • Protection of special status species (cf. Chapter 3.5) Cultural Concerns related to: Resources • The proper investigation into the likelihood that cultural resources (cf. Chapter 3.6) could be present at the project site • Implementation of proper mitigation measures in the event such resources are disclosed by either the investigation or site development activities Transl2ortation Issues concerning the following needs: and Circulation: . Widening of Cypress Road (cf. Chapter 3.7) • Pedestrian walkway tie into the underpass at RR crossing and desirability of fencing in that area • Access for Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(CCCFCWCD)maintenance vehicles onto property owned by the CCCFCWCD • Parking on proposed road on west side of school site • Perimeter fencing of school property with pedestrian access and gate and driveway for maintenance and fire vehicle access • Signalization of school entrance • Speed deterrent along road at east side of school property • Consideration of impacts to regional transportation systems including SR-4 and arterial commute routes through Antioch: East 18th Street, Lone Tree Way, Hillcrest Avenue, Deer Valley Road, Somersville Road, and Buchanan Road CHAPT ER ? — INTRODUCTION. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR 1 -6 DRAF7"EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200.3 GeoiquConcerns regarding the following: (cf— Chapter 3.10) w Potential for liquefaction • Need for a geotechnical study (to be reviewed by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)) * Effects of potential canal levee failure on project Hazards: Concerns regarding public safety: (cf. Chapter 3.11) r Barriers between the development and the canal and other water collection and detention structure 0 Potential presence of agricultural chemicals in the soil of the project site Hvdrolog„y and Concerns regarding: Water Quality: s Feasibility and adequacy of detention basin, storm drain system, and (cf. Chapter 3.12) downstream facilities • Proper elimination and abandonment of temporary storm drain connection to Marsh Creek from the middle school • Permits for work in public rights-of-way • Project effects on the Contra Costa Canal Public Services Consideration of the following issues: and Utilities: s Adequate infrastructure and reliable water supply for fire protection (cf. Chapter 3.13) * General water supply, sewer system, solid waste disposal, and utilities • Existing unapproved trail connection to Marsh Creek (illegal ' encroachment onto CCCFCWCD right-of-way) + Blending of open space park into school property a Mitigation of increased public use of school grounds and associated costs + Access to the Contra Costa Canal by the Contra Costa Water District(CCWD) Cumulative Concerns regarding: Innpacts: Relationship of the project to other known or proposed projects and (c f. Chapter 4A) their cumulative effects ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR The Cypress Grove Draft EIR is organized into the following sections: Chapter 1 --Introduction,Scope,and Summary of EIR Provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the Draft EIR and the review and certification process, as well as summaries of the chapters included in the Draft EIR and summaries of the environmental resources that would be impacted by the project. r Chapter 2--Project Description Provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, background information, major objectives, and technical characteristics. 1 CHAPTER 1 -- INTRODUCTION. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF SIR 1 -7 DRAF —EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 Chapter 3—Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Contains a project-level analysis of environmental issue areas. The subsection for each environmental issue contains an introduction and description of the setting of the project site, identifies impacts and recommends appropriate mitigation measures. -i Chapter 4—Statutorily Required Sections Provides discussions required by CEQA regarding impacts that would result from the proposed project, including a summary of cumulative impacts,potential growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible changes to the environment. Chapter 5—Alternatives Analysis Describes the alternatives to the proposed project, their respective environmental effects, and a determination of the environmentally superior alternative. Chapter 6—ETR Authors / Persons Consulted Lists report authors who provided technical assistance in the preparation and review of the Draft EIR. Chapter 7--References Provides bibliographic information for all references and resources cited. Appendices Includes the NOP, responses to the NOP, the Initial Study and additional technical information. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the areas affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. For these areas, this Draft EIR discusses the mitigation measures that could be implemented by the City of Oakley to reduce potential adverse impacts to a level that is considered less-than-significant. An impact that remains significant after mitigation is considered an unavoidable adverse impact of the proposed project. The mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR will form the basis of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Following are the technical environmental issues addressed in this Draft EIR. Land Use In the Land Use subchapter, this Draft EIR evaluates the consistency of the proposed project with the City of Oakley's adopted plans and policies, including the Oakley 2020 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use subchapter further assesses the development of the proposed project in relationship to agricultural lands and the compatibility with adjacent residential and non- residential land uses. The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would be inconsistent with surrounding agricultural land uses and therefore would cause a significant impact. Residences along the northern and eastern - CHAPTER "s -- INTRODUCTION. SCOPE,AND SUMMARY OF EIR i L74AFr EIR CYPREss GRovE MAY 2003 border of the project site would be adjacent to agricultural uses. The residences could be affected by Pesticide spraying, dust from plowing the fields, and noise from farming equipment. However, appropriate mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the project would require a change in zoning to be consistent with the Oakley2020 General Plan. However, no impact would occur if the City Council approves the rezoning. Agricultural Resources The Cypress Grove Draft EIR summarizes the status of the existing agricultural resources of the site 4 1 and in the areas surrounding the City of Oakley using the current state model and data, including identification of any Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the project site. Any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use, Williamson Act, or right-to. farm ordinances applicable to the project site are also identified. The analysis further includes a discussion regarding conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Following the setting discussion, this subchapter identifies thresholds of significance applicable to the proposed project, Uincluding the loss of prime farmland. Impacts are measured against the thresholds of significance, and appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring strategies are identified, consistent with the policies of the City of Oakley. The Draft EIR found that the conversion of Prime Farmland would be a less-than-significant { impact. However, the Draft EIR found that the land-use conflicts created as a result of the I placement of urban uses within a primarily agricultural area would constitute significant and unavoidable impacts. Aesthetics The Cypress Grove Draft EIR summarizes existing regional and project-area aesthetic resources and -visual settings. Aesthetic resources issues----effects on scenic vistas, trees, historic buildings, scenic highways, existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding areas, and light and glare----arising from the urbanization of farmland are included. The Draft EIR analyzes the existing setting, defines thresholds of significance, identifies impacts, and prescribes mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. The Draft EIR found that a change in the project site from a rural to urban environment would constitute a permanent alteration to the existing visual character of the site. However, the site has ' been designated for development in the Oakley 2020 General Plan. The applicant has submitted "J Design Guidelines and requests approval of Design Review by the City for all structures, which would ensure that the proposed project would comply with applicable General Plan policies. x: s Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than-significant. In addition, the introduction of neighborhood and park lighting could adversely impact neighboring proernes and therefore cause potentially significant impacts. However, implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of light and glare to a less-than-significant level. Biological Resources v... The Cypress Grove Draft EIR describes the setting and details the potential impacts on plant communities, wildlife, and wetlands, giving particular consideration to possible adverse effects on CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR 1 - 9 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 rare, endangered, candidate, sensitive, and special-status species with potential to exist on the project site. The Biological Resources subchapter of the Draft EIR analyzes the existing biological setting, defines thresholds of significance, identifies impacts, and prescribes mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. The Draft EIR found that the development of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to many special-status species including but not limited to the curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle, California red-legged frog, giant garter snake, northwestern pond turtle, Swainson's hawk, western burrowing owl, and various plants. In addition, outfall construction and widening of the Marsh Creek bridge would have potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and sensitive communities. However, implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would reduce all potentially significant biological impacts caused by the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. Cultural Resources The Cultural Resources subchapter describes the setting and details the potential impacts to historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. This subchapter of the Draft EIR analyzes the existing setting with respect to possible historical, cultural, and paleontological resources, defines thresholds of significance, identifies impacts, and prescribes mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. The Draft EIR found that historic or prehistoric resources are not known or anticipated to be present on project site. However, the possibility that unknown resources would be unearthed during site grading cannot be eliminated; therefore, the project could result in significant impacts to cultural resources. Appropriate mitigation measures would reduce any impacts to a less-than- significant level. Transportation and Circulation The Transportation and Circulation analysis describes existing traffic conditions, traffic conditions resulting from inclusion of already approved projects, traffic conditions resulting from addition of traffic produced by the project to existing traffic and traffic from approved projects, and cumulative traffic conditions as projected for the year 2025. The analysis includes the definition of standards of significance, identification of impacts, and prescription of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. The Transportation and Circulation subchapter further summarizes the existing and planned regional and local transportation network as well as existing and future traffic conditions. Traffic loads and capacity of street systems, including level of service standards for critical street segments and intersections, are described. The discussion addresses potential traffic effects associated with increases in volumes and changes in the nature of traffic and circulation patterns, as well as any hazards related to design features. The traffic analysis for the project focuses on project- related impacts at the following intersections: • Main Street(SR-4)/Rose Avenue • Main Street(SR-4)/Cypress Road • Main Street(SR-4)/Laurel Road CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTiON. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR 1 - 10 GRAFT EIR CYPREss GRo vE j MAY 2003 • Main Street(SR-4)/Almond Tree Circle + Main Street(SR-4)/Bernard Road • Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue • Cypress Road/Prank Hengel Way + Cypress Road/Street A i . Cypress Road/Machado Lane Emergency access, transit, and bicycle facilities are also discussed. The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would cause potentially significant traffic impacts at the intersections of Cypress Road and Main Street, Street A, Frank Hengel Way, and the railroad crossing. However, mitigation measures such as the widening of Cypress Road and its appropriate signalization would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the proposed project would create a demand for public transit that could not be currently met and therefore potentially significant impacts to public transit would occur. However, appropriate mitigation measures such as the inclusion of bus stops along Cypress Road would reduce the impacts to a less- than-significant level. 4` Air Quality The Air Quality subchapter of this Draft EIR summarizes the regional air quality setting including climate and topography, ambient air duality, and regulatory context. The subchapter discusses the potential effects associated with changes in air quality, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, cumulative emissions and long-term effects, as well as impacts from the adjacent farm uses. The subchapter analyzes the existing setting with respect to air quality, defines thresholds of significance, identifies impacts, and prescribes mitigation measures and monitoring 1 strategies. The content of this subchapter is derived from the report of air quality specialists Ballanti &Associates, who performed an air-quality study and analysis. { The Draft EIR found that construction activities from the proposed project would cause potentially significant impacts to sensitive receptors in the area, which could be reduced to a less-than- significant level. In addition, the increased amount of residential trips created by project residents would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air duality. Furthermore, the Draft EIR found that adjacent agricultural operation emissions could cause significant and unavoidable impacts -� to sensitive receptors in the project ect site.P Y Noise '`' The Noise subchapter for this Draft EIR analyzes the existing setting, defines thresholds of significance, identifies impacts, and stipulates mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. The noise analysis is based on a report prepared. by Bollard & Brennan, acoustical specialists, who conducted a noise study for the proposed project. This subchapter describes the setting with respect to regional and local noise characteristics, identifies relevant regulatory information, identifies changes in ambient noise characteristics and the effects on sensitive receptors and potential effects of existing noise source generators. This subchapter also analyzes the vibrations CRAFTER 1 — INTRODUCTION. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR 1 - 1 'I DRAFT ER C-..YRRESS GRD VF' MAY2003 associated with the adjacent railroad tracks and the potential impacts to future residential development. The Draft EIR found that significant impacts would be incurred to residences -o- f the proposed project as a result of traffic noise levels and construction-generated noise levels. In addition, the Draft EIR concluded that the BNSF railroad noise would exceed the interior noise level standards for all residences to be built on the project site and the exterior noise level standard for residences south of Cypress Road. The Draft EIR identifies appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce all of the noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Geology The Geology subchapter describes the geological setting and details the potential effects from earthquakes, landslides, liquefaction, and expansive soils. Further, this subchapter identifies any unique geological features within the project site and analyzes the existing geological setting, defines thresholds of significance, identifies impacts, and prescribes mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. The Draft EIR found that potentially significant impacts would be incurred to the proposed project as a result of seismic activity, liquefaction, and expansive soils. However, these impacts could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through proper geotechnical design. In addition, the Draft EIR found that the proposed project would potentially increase the erosion of topsoil and dirt-fill material used as part of the project. Appropriate mitigation measures would also reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Hazards The Hazards subchapter of the Draft EIR describes the setting from the standpoint of safety issues and details any existing hazardous materials or conditions found on site as well as the potential for any unknown hazardous materials or conditions to be present there. In this subchapter, the existing setting is analyzed, thresholds of significance are defiled, impacts are identified, and mitigation measures and monitoring strategies are prescribed. The Draft EER found that potentially significant impacts could occur to residents of the project from the following hazards: asbestos and an abandoned windmill well. The Draft EIR identifies appropriate mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The stormwater pond to be constructed for the project's drainage system would also pose potential hazards to human safety. However, appropriate mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels. The project site has trace amounts of Organochlorine pesticides; however, the levels do not exceed acceptable standards and the impact is less-than-significant. Hydrology and Water Quality The Hydrology and Water Quality subchapter of the Draft EIR describes the setting and evaluates the project's water characteristics with respect to recharge, surface flows, flooding, and associated quality of water in and around the project site. The Hydrology and Water Quality Chapter is largely based on the Hydrology Analysis conducted by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. The Hydrology CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR 1 - 12 _i 7 DRAFT Elf? CYPRESS GRovE MAY2003 subchapter analyzes the existing setting, defines thresholds of significance, identifies impacts, and prescribes mitigation and monitoring strategies. The Draft EIR found that the stormwater management system designed by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. constructed as part of the project, would adequately treat the stormwater runoff through its use of a stormwater pond and pump station. The stormwater management system would also adequately contain peak stormwater flows, and therefore stormwater runoff would pose no significant effects to the proposed project or surrounding area. The Hydrology Report stated that a portion of the project site is located in the 100-year floodplain; however, improvements would be made to the Marsh Creek levee as part of the proposed project, which would reduce the danger of the project being flooded. In addition, a levee would be constructed along the northern and eastern boundary of the project site, which would reduce the danger of the project being flooded by high waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The stormwater pond, storm drain system, and levees surrounding the project site would have potentially significant impacts to water duality and drainage if not maintained properly. The Draft EIR requires the implementation of a storm drain system and levee maintenance program that would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. LA public Services and Utilities The Public Services and Utilities subchapter summarizes setting information and identifies the potential new demand for services on water supply, stormwater drainage, sewage systems, solid waste disposal, roads, law enforcement, fire protection, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, electric power, natural gas, and the telephone system. On-site as well as off-site infrastructure facilities are considered in this analysis. The Draft EIR found that the maximum projected water demand associated with Cypress Grove is + estimated to be approximately 124 million gallons per year. The Diablo Water District(DWD)has enough water to support this demand and therefore no significant impacts would result. Significant effects to other public facilities would be caused in the areas of law enforcement, fire protection, and school facilities. The proposed project would increase the population of Oakley, thereby further offsetting the ratio of law enforcement officers and fire protection personnel to Oakley residents. In addition, the project would cause increased demand on existing school facilities. Mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Cumulative Impacts s ; An analysis of the cumulative impacts of the project is undertaken and discussed at the end of each subchapter of the Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15130 (b) states that an adequate cumulative impact discussion in an EIR must contain either 1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, or 2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. All of the subchapters in this Draft EIR evaluate cumulative impacts with respect to the buildout of the Oakley 2020 General Plan except for the Transportation and Circulation chapter, which evaluates cumulative impacts in respect to both a list of future projects and General Plan buildout. The ; r CHAPTER 1 -- INTRODUCTION. SCOPE. AND SUMMARY OF �.1R 1 - 13 GRAFT EIR C'YPREss GROVE MAY 2003 cumulative impacts generated by the proposed project are summarized in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. `1 The Draft EIR found that the proposed project would contribute to the cumulative change in the visual character of the region and that this impact would be si tdfi'cant id unavoidable.The Draft EIR also found cumulative traffic,impacts.,associated with the following'intersections: Caress Road/Main Street, Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue, Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Way, and Cypress Road/Street A. However, these impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures. The remaining cumulative impacts generated by the proposed project are all less-than-significant and are explained in detail in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR. CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR 1 - 14 G7.z?AF7 FIR CYPRESS GRO vE NIR Y 3Gt73 SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA Section IS 126.6 directs that an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially reduce any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The following summarizes the alternatives, which are evaluated in this Draft EIR. A complete analysis of alternatives is provided in Chapter 5. No Project/No Development Alternative The No Project/No Development Alternative would allow the continued existence of the Cypress Grove project site in its current agricultural state. Although this alternative would not meet the project objectives, nor be consistent with the Oakley 20320 General Plan, CEQA requires the alternative to be analyzed. r � The No Project/No Development Alternative would have less impacts on the existing setting compared to the proposed project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts that the proposed project would generate related to urban/agricultural interface issues and air quality. However, it should be noted that drainage from, the site currently flows into the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) Canal, thereby potentially impacting the water quality of the Canal. The proposed project would reduce potential impacts to the Canal's water quality by redirecting drainage from the Canal into Emerson Slough. Because the No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in the development of the site, it would not achieve the project's objectives. , a y Reduced Intensity Development Alternative The Reduced Intensity Development Alternative (RID) would still develop the project site, but it would do so in accordance with the Low Density Residential Designation,which identifies a density A range of 1.0 to 2.9 dwelling units per gross acre for single-family residences and 7.3 to 11.9 dwelling units per gross acre for multiple-family residences. The RID alternative is assumed to result in a fifty-percent reduction in the number of dwelling units,bringing the total units from 637 to 319. The impacts of the RID as compared to the proposed project are listed under the Environmentally Superior Alternative below. The RID Alternative would be inconsistent with the land use designation in the Oakley 2020 General Plan. ;., Environmentally Superior Alternative � 1 - Designating a superior alternative depends largely upon which environmental effects one considers most important. Other factors of importance include urban design, economics, social factors, and 3 fiscal considerations. For this project, the environmentally superior alternative would be the Reduced Intensity Development Alternative (RID). Under this alternative, impacts to Aesthetics, Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, and Hazards would be reduced compared to 1 the proposed project. But impacts would still occur with respect to Land Use, Agriculture, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Geology. The increased flexibility of a Reduced Intensity design would allow preservation of environmentally sensitive areas. CHAPTER 1 -°-INTRODUCTION. SCOPE, AND SUMMARY OF EIR 1 - 15 UID4. • . d , • 0 tu ?I ty.. q 7 y G� � V h � �� •� � � f i� y fi � .,� n�..v O,•.p� OV q �n � 7 � ..sa > CS dy w Cs O `u O O w' fi '•� i � O Oz 1 O C ZZ y O Owl 7 j O• ii 1 CL o �' 'b� r of Iz u fi cz � ,,, E-. � C C}� u CJ C s" C L? 4:.,� is C, •� •� 'fi � (.� �+ G fv a � L � � y to � w C �) Q U U U O t) J y c w ? U }� 0 7 to _0 U 3 n {Yj rri c» cri tri Z � o eu ;� t w t •qty � �' �°' �S'• �' ',� � � o t t, C!� ° tin �•� to e t o> Ia os f rm CD z z z z Rt Obi ril ts 4w 4 IL C() M 0 rA LLJ :t4 —v 46 ci 41 u Lr) I Lr) .............................. ................................ .............. ................................ ........................................... s..z b t N ° -Z Cl. ILL- ty:.':� � rw a.i W Cy �• � '� N W � � �, '� '�.` �w l., .��+ d py � �. W C-M` C N ..i � CS � �•M1 ""' o? Wb C.. `J {„' L•+ �} "LY Lj' � _^ v W � g ..0 y Vj C r q C O ✓% d � rW.a dY � 'L' � � i15 61 CS F] r evTS 13 �t'1 '� "� "� � r9 ''' 'IS�•a yam`} •�`S CS W u CJ ; p�j C". O1 CS`W fil TZ y � � 0 it is u � 3 `Gn 0 LIJ C� d ' Cc: aw o O eci a °�ti `oma 3 1 I w w ° tr" tz I:XD -,Z� 4 w v 3 wo ° 'c d d .c a--r r- � -Z .., i C� M Z4 v, s `s ° tz v a av d = v t t w Cl. f 1�7 m b OV v h C " c� C2 L A •' a d CP c' Di ti � ri., � V ,.,[ C C w a 'b w ,.Ly "-• •,,a � Lx. d O � GJ Q.."O t� y� 4: —• ; r 0 tom„ G ; C z O tUs Ln z c ;.IJ c tv e w i o C � o i y l� i a T' '�- 11i "" `" �y -� m � .,a m o.s «.: n to •y }} I I � ca +-ti ate, �, � �oy •U �., u Ca. fY .°'...., cn C ,.II >✓ 'wa w C oma u cwi, Y V C'+ ty � w � ai t5 � LL1 ey ••L, w O ,� c,; � tD � spa.. � m� .�, '� °' � `.c' °' .« a � C ,,, u .�, -� `�"� U•7 � , C d w G w C •:-4 GY it t3 v t �` w' � M rh i ca r- uj 41 C L 17 7 ~ M ta. v i i i i w v i "C ..p N � `b b U Ch .0 �w O t✓J 4. W � 56 C rj .b CJ +a G tl b v `'' ^•v y v, "b " CS O y v " " "u b y vy, b In � q,� m o � "'� `" «p a. eC. „C ..0 "� o d > �'b d v � .y d •,,.\ d i v y C `� -4 b .0 : cUj obi „� C Q ��•. '� tlV" r C.. b y y $ ..n cn 8 Li S 1-0 U -o f N . M � (Y) t <f rti„ �.. c a ('S za- �y rye. p � d c»„�1�d. � .u, •LL::.. -,^. u ra cu �� `�" .�., d .�+ R'S 9F � rV .•w q ..C"v V" aiw: CS ..t+'fi �" C � [�., � tl} h `w; ✓. � �` U � � .� � � k `^r � � 6`; "b � �y7 � ",� b •Y � � u ,Ei qui, _ �~� � � ." ..'"�' c,,,s '+� � a �.."�,+ � d "d '� � � •rte � a. � � � d U a,y CS 'qr+' .i C C. 4 �." ."9 "Ca d W .Vwr N 6 �.` . Li� R$ C u d .� a d y iy ,6 4 O d d Ir y p +u C.7 �„ LL $� � d .d U C "' i., 5✓7 v W G � c, s„ p +. d � d M t` S.' � •� 4 V d ,L5 �t1 4 4 '�' C'S p� y"'o py CY sa t,,C_7 � •d`7^ "w � II ,ivIZ CSW }- �:::' .. V 4» U iv'• L .. no 'b *•C �.' sr *' �`" b p„ 6 +a wti '""„ •+"a «C." �a N �,• d b rdw d d C 'r+ ". � � 'b � y �s � t,,,� p"' p � s� � � t'y u � p "� � "•, tl � *•' ,r., CJ C tow o t= s v , ca u II � 92 Ile 2 I I LJ i UT %' � (t --ul u u N Y' t Ei w as CS ;� •.. (y � w `y +�.> t,�tl,_ "� `b '� �> Cb ,C, v 'y j I b � � � � � •.s � d � �,".. O b b P �"C,,, b l 5 y ice. C +`S C y b v •II O O "" LL. y, ti v C b. '� L4 m f—. sy O CQ bEz C b w O• '� b y y p p bO.. i, 'ems„ ••,`... o �� C�.1,. b tl C i r -.C.� 0 U toll .� r d � w 4 u l C u � o i 7 �N i •�1 r. • lin T3w ytivv� ^� eti w tom, G v 7a { '��` r� C.' � � ova CS � N p y1 y"ti. ".`� y., y n `.�, ""a G a b'"C3W y � � "O-, '�"'""."•.+ Cf +.+ .y n s.� •'C "'ci }n � O `� t} V7 u `�%i C,y +� w .may O � �� • ty- t.. w w ',••\ � � o� O i \}t M s w.K j { � V l � `" q � � u � •� � "b � .� o � ••� moo_ � � � y � v� , i CS .•�„ w •V ',.�- Ct ^ui �"„ CS +�b C LZ C `s QM y epi a n, v C ti 4 0 at1,3 C CC r7 y y y b �• „ .a Li- go L'� ��ry��,. o�'�i u a u C � •p� .moi � � cd.� �o � y Y.. C. ,�a ".0 ? C +C•� i �I � rdi ".C7 �.. 5'" p ��, wbi Cp _t� �`� p -'�`S ice, rz ted zi wv ' `' ° c L7 cry c ocz o y y b a b - U; 3 ri 4d oc� Q tj c I z ' U i i v I` a I! 3 � <r tzw It i t 1-' �' lal � -� °,,' C�.y cs �; � o :> �.. �., ,., � � ,,, "� � •may � � ta t4 Va �Y. VVI •a '� +� " y ."�- 'CS �+ V'1 �""� a G , �`LJ` "� .. G. � +.> V to •7. ..L: a ", -...' � .>• s- ro? "'1'� „� ^r,� •+, "C7 a .�.. a .x +�.� �,,, C. ti.. .tz •^. 'vs a 'n 02 V �.1 "'CS c�...y L"' O a 91 ° ' "'"' p C7 CS .a y ....� yam, V C v • `�••� '43 cl— VA 0-4 C ' � O d tJ'1 tom- � •'�' O N �i <J •« q .+� O ..� V G. •� .ts c.� '�., ni w ¢tea � � " • `f- U 1 1 is � Y s.+ w c, �c 11 �C 7 ta. Upj m OD 4i � � � u V y ti W C1 y„ ".\ it "� 4 v c 3 rs y CO o v © c _ t. C t1 C7 � u b � y ,,,,� y •� ..p� w � � � .... Ln C "C7 G a p O tl C `O•'. .� i its rA. Q CL :3 ILI +�• r� "ts w -a ., tai nCi b `� c 11 y 0, y `� ,. =t-6 t3 r+ a1 42 a, t o o cb 3 v 4.A ,�,,,� yC O -S y °�. LOi a y u C "b oft \�FC G ..• C Cfzm "'"� v cS d 1•"� Cr Q +�.' ..f +G • ! ! "v"'1 tom. a0.� �' b t.`. '3 ,� ;" rn (J a � C rt Li v IZ s C J rr CL \ � E Z ,5 fl 7 i z Lu cz 6 r tt - '' -`l +> C3 +: Cl "TZ v LL tj a v, .'rL O 6 �„�-.� O b nn O *--• aha 4 w "i7 i Y � e�C tz.,, L7 v �3 —, 'v, C tn > d .d "G w6i1•1 " ��• C 4 a u y ..0 O G �" +s .0 til LL. 13 CL td ut _ v w 2 u d ` 3 i LQ I o cz v5 ti cz C �,� � b� y C � •� ,,,,. � +tea p} ^��.. C d u' ,.,d � ,� L'� ! j � yeti. y w `d cy yC„ Q, as E c y p dC" tll C3 `�L'. v „•R.' 'CJ •: y �` d'" C Gt. m b C J �� •� � -� .ate � �a � � �~� � � p, '� o � o � � o� � cz Vii+ " � d O v C � .� 3 v °� .�G"7`.ti •" Q, `y vv, -[ "'"' a �' a ri b U vti try .^ RI O � � y C .ZrZ cry Ln ,a N Q. o j LLJ � `ot I CA i 0 a � C :J to C/S 1; Ln `1 v � t 8- G. tuD z rz C O t.� 4G 13 u a O� is ..a o p $ w mz Kir o� u i'•3„ d cOi p„ O obi " a t y rry k. a " ° •y a rs ' c til 5y,� wr.. tm Gy " -C a v y (',� 4 4J e.;.,,3 r.J `w, .`S ea •(a' r"�' 4 +LJ S.' "'� +a "17 a y t: II �.. 1E.ZZ _O �Y b 4 y� •ty G u Q„� CJ CS t� "'CS �n C �4 Vi t1s S.s G c.y +. s,y iS„ tS s•� p„ �, C7 LA v zI p tr li a W C i { L;j 1 tA G7 Q «. L 4 .a to ° v v o a b C j d o ,oma C Q7 y � � •� b-[ � m ori �q � pyi y y �d � � � � m � bJ b C" p ,,, cx•, y " •t,C CV ^� y o ,.� `^ 3 C v , y C- ^°may' n a LLJ 4 y ,.d � a�.1 C "b C„) Ci „A � .•C tfii D � � y;a � `f� a !i 0 Co 0 o b d to� y d A o ai C I I LZ. it �i �. � � � � � � ,,��� O ab.� N ,� •C � O � t C v� 42 • "G fi,,. C4S d w y Lt, u u ¢� ..�.. •u v; z o ✓, v y C C > o u a y y bi °�' y �, C.: C`1 , O L ..oc ,p r u O rot ' U ti !L Q c; 77 v � v c •Rs c� � � c Lh m � •� x O u O Jm� IM � � tri�` �ti s " �` `s' a `.ry � � � •� . � n o � � c���.� cxa '` O r N � O O 'O uNi lw � L5 � •w w.. «"'. _ IC5 It IA 57. ri. O C'17 a O N °c. �' t r1 """`^"•.. '.fl `"" �"' Q C7J "C3 m « i C U w tly N fl c9 i.a, �" "SS .. r oy "' '". c'3 •G7 "' O C+ G }.. '." t} U1 pi '�.' `'� •y �✓ O " .,�, ..�"+ cl :3 � �a�i Cq O '� � w FL � �C V 'N `p� `'a (� ir fl} �•• ':i is «O c? °) o�S .' t7 O Q 53., �+ O .Y -;7-n WA 0 7 On v; o� y "Z Joll .tp d v t y -vim, o � C o z"p`> ++ � � C 4 ", a C � C a ;`'' a CS •� c a v e v a h c e o Ei °' O •«-� Lam,, �«.,3 4 "b � � � v �' v � `O +•. C � +.� °.:/: tritj «� a`3 R,. v v ,,,� v C v +,•� +., ••4 3 �- .•, u '1.� v ti n h L a a as � �„` � � «:•� o� O O'J w .,' ;"�. '{,t`` t„,,,� C +:a •5. � CS„ cul ;./_ � ozz two t , , a Gtl u L� C y p w vrz p+r ..0�, � vim, `'' �° � Cy, y ,`��, ..� O 0 u rV O ,,,p .a•r, u � vy r", `' ... c) tl. H � � y w u �? t o aA C v o ti C i � s C3 = ry i j pOt4 4a c o n iA In .� � `� � y ..L �' +•> � � ?� sem.. � O) t^'.� (y `� !J > �y .ems.. 'T„aY.' }� sa.. o"i '� "n .h 'ca d � a d .� � w � w ,.� ° �• `G •� w � o v ..-• tis c�ti..7 .,s .w � �'# '4 � � w n � � � "'ci • Sj C� tl rr tt�� d 13 "� ...a C3 .•. w ,6sti U q „�"' � v � � q ,,; �tiY1 � M ``"'"s � as b '� � ,:, •°' v. N UM 4�0VI �y Yds '...•� ,aa ,� Z,y+ �v, V: b \ •^rw fy+ �� 2 � t5 wl 1..1:5 LM • �; cJ1 11 � 7 U v� a � M y� � I •° c� V n � „� of � �-` .,, � � n E`• u .o .� � '�., v a n tl C7 y � :.^, y tl u O :y C O O � 16. E L. v o u n aCj c y n o n y c u b c w v of b t/S tr CSW ; •.. kU :3 � m "� -•-• *' " o y `� C, v � " �.. � is c tl n y 6 tl O C C 0 y , c v �.a�` I i1 Q LS.. O C u y (� cz yat 1b. � ) pt G C r y u C y Cs u y, z < ..q �n ed M M aS u � v G Ln LJ .�l v ;✓ <1 � u i � f _ rn n �� 1f ;m � t 1 cr >fl v v tZ n Cg � `� � �, c,_,s� � � � yrs �' � '� "� .�«� � � ✓; .li. 4l ya °' civ w 1 y v Q 41 KI 44 t; kVj t� { 14 1 M ;. s LIJ w LL a, rz ti -14 to -Z vz t Tp .4z -jz C4. -k O r- v 9z -0 Z: Sy to tv rz, ty, -5z cz LU E3 t- 16, cz ........................... ........................ ....................... .................... .............- ,5 -r r+•.c it w TZ IM f"!e � O � � ,,w... til cn v. t,.. :,r, p„ �"' .-Cj •C �� .-+ � O .t '-+ of c...y � � J � .,,.. � � 1c..� � "� ..• n Ly v U p w 0 _r Y � w c� v •�� � � (�, v Cr ,V �•n t t i �, i iL C z" LL y LQ d -Az ,a o b a ori ti sY to ti rz -C u kti. �r d Cy -•y sy y w`C,, ry � i~ "--, C V C 4� fit! •� '�" �'a. iS„ d �'r n. b � u b � .W � „tib ¢� C tL o tv kl =' I 0 U c c,., O ait --i S l tz Itlto rz Y•� {��.rtll ..�..� ('� V !Q C.� .�y �' C�. t'ni J O rn m rY's C..,• w "'"^7 V N N tal ,`''''•y tl CSN ..a r u w IM y V p �1- m y .� "'� ^� � �� •v � > �' � � .� � d w`may, n 'a^ ell t....+; S• .G � p �y c� s.; � �, a N y�y v � �u '� cy ,� v � � c;,, v� •,� � „> C.Xw w.1� "� � t7 O La.. � moi. r.. � � „� .y "c3 SSS w 'C v w, u �.+ C � +i «. >"ti � •++ � ..., „C?yi 'r j d «': O� o`�i C]•° Cl q . m i].• '�`' tl iy'`""� i `ni 1^" C4 7G b 'J � v cd 01 ems, Il w to G. On t tib.. G l o Y c.� r-, u: ............. LL [It Cr tz Z3 -ZI iz C5 n U CQ— I-Ij G 4i ::z Y3 -zj Q— c: 4G cz tiz, i u 43 rz .M M M rr h op y En ............................................. ............ .............................. ..................... .....................- t c CLto "'�„� tl � �O w �� •K � � .�, p„�i.a a`�.+ p�",,, r`in gyp.. ci cz �� ",;�' � C � � � � 4-"S`•.y a w. .�': � � � of �, q � �' ~G` C en vcs p y or y w, d '" -Z `' o ami ....,� -:; C n"' ti to O 4.4 t3 . tA 00 fa CS t4 sV 1 11 4 51 yU � r• m IL Lool ' M13 14) Ll 4s Ei CZca c, _ a2 r p -4: � = = -E --z trD tayS to ra- "tj -�s r- Z3 2 tn A,. %) Jz a rL CL C: c rnIt .20 15 CL w U cn C4. w U U Or 0 Ln CJ < w co —1 rn C6 09 ............................. ............... ................................ ............. c Cr ycr- y G lh [7J W fy u v q O p O fit+ � � G w, ��'='7 W � � � `� "`'n r°� �'•`1 GG.. d '14O d vi tA CIA 1 tt7 � y .� "" q """ v G. v ,r, m ,y • L� �✓,��9 � 'C:. yq'^ "y`'°' -'"as � Citi. � rq,.. W� y � �' � � i � "� ' c • • O r � UA � 1 IM" a == a n t a j c..A t 1 '' 1 � c LAN y es ,ti� y '� f"w (.� O aur a�'1. •ris .� " C~i ti s.. y yl 1 i � o I -L1 v C.1. fJ v d � •� rC •.ei j ��" �` 42 10 v y +s C Lij d ; w v sem. y ° ci •v < ILI 'n ev +RS 4., �.. -.ate'"�r�j o s� la 4r '•"' y V L7 c� •"'jy, b Z7 �V z �• LS f"'r ''y"e y 0 �" `1 4j Li a � f+ 7 C .y,i d ".. .i—i chi •.`~', lI.,�_ � i..,l�•y • " �5�„ .�..moi U LD o 'w t z yrj � n 1 fi o Ur x U � s o -r� v v � Ij .� z tz e r r •_ r N Ci Si � � �, its � � ',� � 4 � �,., � ,�, .., ..µ,• e oy. w 'v .•• � cs.. o oS t, °' t 1 tn w S �^y 14 00 ta tY'i '.�+ w• "A ++n r .6 ro a t-AZn w p ` � r�/a � °•' W � � � � ,•"ter,, 1'� o w un ,0 en, t 1 t ............ ...... z z 7z LC Rz� ti -.4 t —,j ZrI z -jz at ta, %) IV w 4j to t3 %) cn Ut fc) -2� W4 0 ......... 4e. ZT—' > C1 C� to 44 t (� y •'�' O ,'a-,� a 0 Wd CA Y,p' ii V a � ..� y d cyy "f� *may C U a cn tl -n �:+ G u � .. �y `�''' '�• •O p h` p p `"' ate. «.. �""`"� -a Vim' '0 1` �" ac�i q a y q ozca Ln ytiy .� u c3 s. G y +, mss, - u z m 1 .'w co rd a o �' �6a v L• l+ � .fin� �. cSr er, L.j ty) tp �5 Qz 3 lz� -ra tt G7 d E� 4n Cl L diz— Lli gz, tt =- CL cx� F3 CA- 44 it S Z6 Z4 Ld 4 2 ze C rz cz to > Owl Y- i .La S > t*n Lot I's ti tJ ,'� `r �� ¢ �t ,�„ � �•, c v obi µ h �•� � V 1 t..� N Y' � w .0 n> L*•� vs � 'a ,,,, � `ro ami � es ay u w u m ,� •ro ° °' '?� �, � � ctt cs ori � .� °� � c '� C �+ Ix c+1 wa v, CS .L' c1 C•) b Caw .« 4J W '..CSC. C y ry W as V Nom.. 4s :"'S".. to 11 i. t 1 t �y 1:6 "t ,�,, � ^ti •y W v/ •�, y rf "til � � M CSS M t5� M d lu IZ czi m G C4. Tz CL C.1 IS, II c a = Z3 ° CA. F� Z5 PR Ei a .,- ts 14) rz IZ, zz c. z6. tz 4) -1Z R. 4-d V C, 0 tt O O ........................... ......................... ................ .................................................... 'o cr ... C� � r,.r +•*-•;"�. cam., !•+ � •� tsu v ' ia 4t 4 tlto � a.a � Gia.. � C5 t} U G "•e' � � a.x •% W t.1'- 6 a ire ja C �" S C" "'CSS v v � ova " -� a CS d 45 ;tt WA Wl- Y Cd 11 ai U '� A 45 ob � •�y p., k., .•Q ,.+ � O v i cra d C:? M t ,9 LO r 3 .tz� C� CCS d .+.,^, w`''i � •� � �' � � '+.'� � kc^, C7 ,:� cn o ZZ ° LL Itt; "e'•• u y `C b .`«d .""t. w �p CUi O � to � •� .�„� +Na .� th w i • A. CS Cs t4'•. iy � � "Ct Z.7 SSS., O 4 '"C7 c ., � .0 tCZ3 , 4..Q Gz� •ws n b U cs II `w 1-7 i I � It7 os b V I tS t1 lu LL ra •w cz C ; f.1 rz C Ct --,, d ; 2 t4 4 b b "b o L let ) C7 d A,. `"s ♦ds w "+ C 11.I Q � T. a� I U W uta UG c.2 .5 e -81 t't M a..:f a R. y �. O bbJ' ....: •� � O "'bb U V ."� �.+ ,,,� � i :s b ri o � o CJ ? -'Z n 4 i CZtn b O :: .•b it "" t ,= <.l cz ZZ a UL". � I tY � "C O +^�.� V O � A ..r Ste. b,,, >`• C `M V: �l f V �M �-'• _ _ 1i t 1t Itm c l b � 4t O � � v •,� �°.v G ti� "TZ 1 .. �. l�il� `� }•..mac u d w G � .� ami $ � ('� � � �!- t'"""T b ..� "baa .y1-+ Ar.,' Yd ,� w lf1•-�� aG P Ce d14) 0 61 tot 6 Ate . Cy �fl. +a .fir 'on w 14 Ft.;.� `� 07 �`5 •'Ci � �' � 1+ ("r �CJ?' � ,..i....., Hyl � r 16. IzUA tA to ,� ca � CA I-C `�, u3 'qtr, ra OD U Ri d y u ty 61 d C? +a N O "b (,•` C d tj fz y V li fa.• c., C y •O ,ti,� ^'CS ay C to ", � y u � i C �•`" r,. � c...,,. C,� C rz 415 LL. a "u u w Cf ..ta rs a ,, -c ti '� sS a d u v u .I.J � i d v ccs c F " � y � �� 4> � � .r c C �,,, C C •�°, ..� i � o a � A.. c`6,. C f•'• � o a oci == -� �` � .��. `" i � .�'�, tj +�•' C obi +. C5 ., p s., v C ui C„ C a �.. of '� b ;,;.,� `c-... "C o ,�, «. •d •, of a � � � G i~ p '� '�. � C w C ate. y O p„ w, „� ,.,� � .� tcJ ,"f ".� -�'. ��., a�.x G•' t7� r rte.. FL spa y �." ��. �a.o "l.�' �v. 6S +�.� —� A.. d`�,(".' `a� � E" 4.j ry 4 s O od y a ` U 1 � ;t; y t 31 C C.l w o v C M M o CS} 47 " ocni � *,..a`'v: �' c "� ,.; � a ,;, e., o "�, '� •v..'""� ten. � � � � � t ° U :.� t 0 11 7 S tz t2-1) LL t-N LLJ Ln bIf LO CL LU U LU Ij b4 CL Cl) cr) ---------- _ CCN tip.`+ �",� y o 'cs oar ` J• VI r- Is *� °�' �r o5 jaz, � u cl- �d,.� fl.. N p„ tai? +�•> O - - m fn 1 c/S ti .a 11 v O N •'thy � ,� t,� ✓„ U •d � � C� � .". "`•+ y.1 R p {� 6; _ `� n> y, +� w m �+� 0.7 � � ".� edal y C? «d C W 7 it � v cs rry r.. r � r� LL, 4ol LL 0 .4w Li IL CL %) i r � 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION r- 4 § Lj 1 t t r . i DRAFT Elf', CYPRESS GROVE MA Y,c©03 i 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION t- f INTRODUCTION �..1 This section describes the components of the proposed Cypress Grove project, as well as the background, location,project objectives, and required public approvals for the proposed project. BACKGROUND Oakley General Plan r=l. Prior to incorporation of the City of Oakley, Contra Costa County was responsible for planning and land use in the Oakley community. The Contra Costa County General Plan was adopted in July T of 1996. After the City of Oakley was incorporated in 1999, the City adopted the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Subsequently, the City of Oakley embarked on a process to prepare and process a new General Plan to specifically serve the needs of the City. In December 2002, the City of Oakley adopted its own General Plan--The Oakley 2020 General Plan(2002). As part of the General Plan update,the City prepared an Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report. This report is used in this EIR as a source for descriptive text, and the new Oakley General Plan has been used for policy discussions. Cypress Corridor Planning Process On December 2, 2000, the Oakley City Council and Planning Commission conducted a J community design charette, providing a forum where members of the Oakley community came t.' together to help develop a vision for the Cypress Corridor and identify major development concepts and design principles that would guide future development and planning in the area. The primary vision concepts and design principles emerging from this workshop provide the foundation for the future planning and development of the Cypress Corridor and surrounding areas. The Cypress Grove project represents the efforts of three builders, working together with School District and City officials to develop, for the Cypress Grove area, comprehensive planning and development standards reflecting the city's vision as expressed in the Cypress Corridor Design Charette. The project consists of three separate properties being developed by three developers in a cooperative venture. The three properties are known as the Williamson property (Figure 2-3), the Conco North Property (Figure 2-4), and the Conco South Property (Figure 2-5). The properties surround the Oakley Union School District's 33-acre school site. The school site currently contains a middle school (Delta Vista Middle School) and construction of an elementary school on the site is planned for the future. The Williamson property is roughly L-shaped and is located adjacent to the school site's western and northern boundaries. The Conco North property lies adjacent to the CHAPTER 2—PROJEcT DESCRIPTION 2� 1 DRAFT FIR CYRREss GRovc MAY 2003 eastern boundaries of the school site and the Williamson property. The roughly square-shaped area formed by the school site, the Williamson property, and the Conco North property is situated adjacent to the north side of Cypress Road. The Conco South property lies on the south side of Cypress Road adjacent to the southern boundary of the Conco North property and a small portion f of the school site. >a PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project would develop an approximately 147-acre site located in the City of Oakley on the north and south sides of Cypress Road, east of State Route Four (SR-4) and west of Sellers Avenue (Figure 2-1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2-2, Project Location Map). The new development would surround the existing Delta Vista Middle School, the detention pond located immediately north of the school, and the elementary school site that is proposed for construction on a portion of the middle school property. The Contra Costa Water District Canal (CCWD Canal) segregates the project from farmlands to the north, and Marsh Creek forms the western boundary of the project site, separating undeveloped land from the project on the west. A Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) right-of-way runs through the southern limit of the project. The eastern edge of the project site is bordered by agricultural fields. A triangular section of land lies at the southwestern corner of the project site, which is designated by the General Plan for Multi-Family Residential, High Density development and is not included in this application. The site can also be located by City of Oakley Assessor Parcel Numbers: 037-192-017, 037-192- 013 &014,and 033-012-002 (see Figures 2-3 to 2-S). PROTECT OBJECTIVES The applicant proposes the Cypress Grove project to achieve the following objectives: (1) Create a gateway to the Cypress Corridor and establish a tone for all future development along the corridor. (2) Improve the Cypress Corridor access by widening the railroad crossing and bridge over Marsh Creek and signalizing the access to the new middle school and future elementary school. (3) Create a cohesive trail system by modifying the existing Marsh Creek undercrossing and pedestrian crossing at SR-4 and tying these modifications to the existing regional trail system, connecting the system to both school sites and the joint park facility. The trail would be routed adjacent to the new neighborhoods for easy access and planning for future expansion to the east. The trail would be designed as a multi-use trail. (4) Create a new area for community-wide sporting events. In addition, the recreational areas would tie the neighborhoods together to assure safe and adequate access for pedestrians,parking, and vehicular movement. (5) Provide guidelines to assure a consistent design theme evolves for the gateway and the individual neighborhoods. (6) Reflect the City's vision by applying the design concepts expressed in the Cypress Corridor Design Charette. CHAPTER 2 -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2- 2 DRA r EYR i C'YPRE-ss GROVE MAY 200• 127�' tion. _ i tit Caivinel F?d_ rxc€ae' sc I Wilbur Posrtt -.J v I f ( gt�r�a 'Sheldon: ante ,�idvra Rd Witton , {olano N 19 ;`'Clark burg" .- jElk Grove t o i C7iltard. Bat kta 1- , 7 'i' g ilVaimcsrt reeridalrarakli Vac vitlE •.�� I +f'1--s- ( ?' ; .rr "Y— .•...;, nG' _ 1 i :i aimoniton� 84,..' rtlarir " Point Pleasant ii Centrft +taine,Pratne r+�Qaisie a ip� Need' i 1mankas Caner rCordero JunctionC7zfor i �3 Twin C yes.: t �;+ '° 113 r-- tt33tt5 �ft3r�#;n ��� -QTravis Field >_ 1°ive I NO _ 1� -Orr R r ' uisun City oCreetl1 pyd �ok�Mne City D _ a envertan T-horntan ! ors3raia Nevi Ho ILanc4in _ v y .+" ••� :s. ; , a r ` .•'' .��;� 844•. 160' i_ /- •".._ ' ..- ...._ IoMOn ezuma S 14 t a /�C3E 1{NJ,. 12 CUrgon c Fes• linger birds Landingitlir ter K Lodi Juriction 12 ' Nen arsori ilia jt c ; €oia �Landi sy L A rmstrong rvf' wp c i.o. 5•••. s7"` "' i E3ahi 1, Sd Collinsville ^��2 �Emma bn tSdttI�ORa{7 rh£ rtltlez l ttt,5' 4ti :bMaltV b ,-.d�« a uJ !• atio` ,._ -° tttei fslai� i _ k Lame ciier~cy �i s wtictcsliuki'Landi rg C +.+. t„• k 6 t lt7> d Hit ,//�� �ro ��r Site lX '� "�, ".d '*�. -,•,' •rte t '�--•� ''1 L s L® 40rwobd Sfo:Ck ot1 � r easanttHtli * Clayton -t"• Lis �' — - �- o r' its•.�- ��✓ r'e�n"t�wood rruif 3 Mur. h - CSrteg�a ~ C :�btWaln`s�t'Greete 4 _> L'.. Ftteilt f l _ French Came t 'Orncia } r M Byron �_ _ _w- - t.• , mo a MatSh CreeK Rd �.s' Turrfe . i+loragaa An ars .w.C1 `• ? �'•""—'"""_.__�'rC1,—•.. + 13;*� . � ,Tassajara Ntante �. d ; an mon 5 Asa Mountain ouSe �'arfiLeanaro,Creek'` ;° Altamont. ��• Y} • = a.� �S n.Laandro �� Dubltnr �1 "� P J ; c rno 'Ca ylay- !dway �Lyot :., /ls tanct� Casatley Carbona e " x rci : .' C`'liverrtaore•'' 2C63sP ter: Banton _ lkare Wood ', 'i DaurntS�'r#7 3a t O ti '•• »y `32 rr s2 ° CarrteUrilan City Farn+ellno brir,,.'�r iSoiyo " \ "li .,wel ?a > 6 y ,..3,.. tet . (33 'rmont fo iio Rasery l d :, Saratarsco'f3a N work ' rt a nission Sari{IoKe F •' iiCSL'11Att�CbtAL PARK ' Figure 2-1 orrk 5 10 15 zo Regional Location Map 2„3 .............. ......... ................ ......-... DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 Figure 2-2 Project Location Map Contra Cost&Can&] If site School E.CYPRESS RD. Uj LU Of W LAUREL RD. CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 -4 ... ...... DRAFT Elr�'i CYprsss GRovs l MAY2003 j (7) Design each neighborhood with a distinct identity yet compatible with the overall design concept. The three developers and architects would work together to create a " 1 master planned community with a cross section of architectural styles. (8) Develop the project area buildout consistent with land uses and policies defined in the City of Oakley 2020 General Plan. r� PROJECT COMPONENTS r Three developers: Western Pacific Housing; KB Home South Bay, Inc.; and Pacific Communities l of Idaho, LLC (Pacific Communities) plan to develop the project site. The development would include 637 residential units, with 541 single-family units developed by Western Pacific Housing and KB Horne South Bay, Inc., and 96 multi-family units developed by Pacific Communities, LLC. I _ Western Pacific Housing would develop the Williamson property, known as Subdivision 8680, consisting of 240 single-family units (see Figure 2-3). ti KB Home South Bay, Inc. would develop the Conco property north of Cypress Road. The Conco North Property, known as Subdivision 8679, would contain 201 single-family units (see Figure 2- a-: Western Pacific Housing and Pacific Communities would develop the Conco property south of Cypress Road. This property would be developed as two parcels with the western portion planned for 96 multi-family units built by Pacific Communities and the eastern portion planned for 100 single-family detached units built by Western Pacific Housing. The Conco South Property is known as Subdivision 8678 (see Figure 2-5). An internal roadway and park amenity P would separate the western multi-family community from the eastern single-family community. Existing Land Use Designations The Williamson Property, the Conco North Property, and the eastern portion of the Conco South Property are designated in the Oakley 2020 General Plan as Single Family Residential, High Density (SH). The western portion of the Conco South Property is designated as Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH). The proposed project is consistent with the Oakley 2020 General Plan land use designations. The proposed project includes design guidelines for future development of the project site. In addition, the project application includes a Rezone from Agriculture(A2)and Heavy Agriculture (A3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) to be consistent with the General Plan designations. j Subdivision Descriptions Single Family Development The Williamson Property, designated as Subdivision 8680, proposes 240 lots with a minimum lot area of 5,098 square feet(SF), a maximum lot area of 9,379 SF, and an average lot area of 6,845 SF j (Figure 2-3). The lot areas are generally smaller in the southern portion of the Subdivision and steadily increase northward. Subdivision 8680 also includes one lot for a park (Parcel A; 5.19 ac), and two lots totaling 5 acres designated for Open Space and Trail. A public access trail would be 1 CHAPTER 2— PROJECT DESCRIF T ION 2- 5 GRAFT EI CYPRESS GROVE 14A 2003 built behind the lots on the subdivision beneath the Contra Costa Canal and would provide access to the existing Marsh Creek Trail. The trail would be constructed on an earthen levee (approximately 10 feet in height) that is to be constructed as part of the flood protection for the t proposed project. The Conco North Property, designated as Subdivision 8679, proposes 201 lots with a minimum lot area of 5,147 SF, a maximum lot area of 8,441, and an average lot area of 6,389 SF (Figure 2-4). Similar to the adjacent Subdivision 8680, lot areas are generally smaller in the southern portion of the Subdivision and steadily increase northward. Subdivision 8679 also includes one lot for a water quality basin (Parcel A; 5.44 ac), and 8 parcels totaling 3.33 acres for trails and landscaping amenities. A trail would be built around the water quality basin that would allow residents to enjoy its scenic qualities. A trail would also be built behind the lots on this subdivision that would connect to the trail that is to be built on Subdivision 8680. As in Subdivision 8680, the trail would be built on top of the levee that is to be constructed beneath the Contra Costa Canal as part of the project. Another levee, approximately 10 feet in height, would be constructed along Sellers Avenue to provide protection from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, which has a 100-year flood elevation of 7 feet above mean sea level. The eastern portion of the Conco South Property, designated as Subdivision 8678, contains 100 lots with a minimum lot area of 5,988 SF, a maximum lot area of 12,756, and an average lot area of 6,723 SF (Figure 2-5). The largest lot areas in the Subdivision are located at its extreme north and south boundaries. The remaining lot sizes throughout the Subdivision are consistently around 6,300 SF except for a neighborhood in the southeastern portion of the Subdivision, which has lot areas of approximately 6,600 SF. Subdivision 8678 also includes four Parcels totaling 2.17 acres designated for a park., open space and trail amenities. Multi-Family Development The western portion of the Conco South Property contains a 96 unit multi-family development known as The Courtyards at Cypress Grove (Parcel A; 6.55 ac) (Figure 2-6). The multi-family development is bordered on the south by the BNSF Railroad; to the north by Cypress Road; to the east by a park.and `A' Street, both of which would be constructed as part of the project; and to the west by the off-site triangular portion of land mentioned previously. The multi-family development would be comprised of 9 buildings (8 housing buildings and 1 community building). The housing buildings are of two types, designated as building `A' and building `B'. The multi-family development would contain 4 `A' type buildings and 4 `B' type buildings (see Table 2-1). Building `A' is the larger of the two and would contain 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units (see Table 2-1). Building `B' contains 2 and 3 bedroom units only. The total square footage of the entire development, including the community building, would be 113,766 square feet (Table 2-1). In addition, the complex would have a total of 195 parking spaces (includes 6 handicapped spaces, 20 garages, and 77 covered carports). A preliminary landscape plan has been proposed for the multi-family development (Figure 2-7). The plan includes resources such as evergreen and deciduous trees, groundcover, shrubs, and vines to contribute to the overall aesthetics of the complex and to facilitate its consistency with surrounding land uses. In addition, the frontage of the complex that borders `A' Street and Cypress Road would also be landscaped so as to make the complex aesthetically pleasing to passing motorists. CHAPTER 2- PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-g DRAF7 EIr CYPREss GFro vE MAY X70.3 L° o m v7 ry +1Ll� ON ° € c� o ats m00 r, d (' 4� t p 4 04 �f� � J L7 et• ry cv C7 o as •w o G co a rot cwt .f m ry cra tlo cv js IN N If" N IN IN rd � op a tD cv CN rW cwt ; cc ca <14 r-; ca U tz CHANTER 2 — FPROjECT DESCRIPTION 2-7 0 W + N1t d kkM � t all lo 1111 LLI "tills I'll � � a i , e' P : ,�j ,u; +•a tF t fit, +i ,q... ......__......v...... _._._.....__X_..........._.. ..,1+.. _ '� W ..»._....., r. �. r .::;,: •1 ���/, ra�:f..5aY '.�{l.:-...:.-.„......ae•�wvr�' •ee � «;1r_riw4r�Ay��„!VMu�it`6ewnwrC+wl:�„"' w"•:.� �o .,�.... :: �...,, e ky�il!� f r yr./,,.3t ,ills x .; ..,... ":.7�C'""""w}� s• Rhr as, / !rx • .,.. �1 is. {�1• au ) .,s � i C ,a t ,. rr 11 ) k l ;,? .�rc«nwu,jewrau:N, •�ArUUw: '�:",�'3m'�l''i't siiiilYm+PR.;F evxM1 ki ibK"'PA'" °` ,671Y1gn Y]LYa V1067 yawa� �::: t N�iv iy:si,• �',� , ay' , uuuann Y71YM r;�ruuna r,1 r! jr1 r, a•.'ww� u'Srr{'71.�'yN rj ,rlr 41 1 t L ff`'W”' # + 4,w }xwms'44,' .sL •r ✓ t }`:+ ..,.�.aKs�.:.y�..,".r.'^""*.x"4+41"'"''" �:,�: ' �..,,,,.—....Mwa• Itrdu: is '{m"S.v�'r'}P'{� tP � �,m.N K w a rt i`IL,YW •--- 'w a Mt Y$ ismuaa tnxtc.a' M> II , i 1 (J1All X RM t nk AY GY AY a' A` qk �5 Y f t Y K k ( •, a�' s � ! KI Age �! ! �� �ll ay ,x x „j I��' 7 I I ;d 4 ai• K$ �, Y$� "rt �u[utY ae. Y¢ i� .ta«aktxs p� �� j E s. i } u3N PC It {{ q # Y k K k k K Y M K Y �y Y Q` XR Y I i w ,x I I t l I a5 si g let I1't t #�i dE y k K Y k t I ! , M K k k R K Y k ! - K K Y B'i +� a a9 It ai, Hi all 6i ! ai 4 �! G�, � � t isit' j s;M Ri 4 tE" a3 til , + 'k a .. " "G✓ all `.,r ry ,%ur„`�.'s" .... `�•�'Wi li ,l It } kt 4 art9 N� x9 a3 k,i at�sti ..-,•. ��{c III i` ,1 1 I I "GJ` i f t kk k k M ► k" K ............ ..... x ... ._ _ .. a ; I ' ......... ... Ma yy "�E�,L# 7 A� Y Y Y Y Y Y ► K ...... ....... .... r. � ....» t .. I� al al as I a I *It a# 1I7II ,� it At _ w a!`j� a� ret,E a!� as n� / Jg. t k M k tEy a a� a� ai my a� aS i 't 1 1 ....,7. _.............. z � � i A , .a�{;><2 �;� � x� � a�g any a{�� x�► �Y x�t a�� x� k�f a� ,,� � f ;F# .,. ,;stv 'iia .... �.� t ,�. - , , va s I ,s I rrt un ,..I�., i• , t 7 g '�f Y 4 l Y M Vi K sit Y Y` C` F` a SF R •'� }, ` S t....2.. l ''u ti Y... �/ t . } i i I { t s Iib `�' � st� i...t+�• < ���,' E 7 ,••�,.•,l y I x x . x Ar � , ai fij k ui �» i ti /` s tYi , x.. ,:�•+i\ I#"a;i} �� 5 t \'� . . S Nk IM V #i 1 '77 '•, t 1 1 { .. ci u ;4r^•r E nil 8 p Nj k .._ f t} + t� t Yn j• {, I ;J°,' �� ,t Y, >3 •..'� /�, \ �`YYY �T - } YM, Ip.+Y .mi'.,'�u'.rwubibY.Y.A.Y tlkMr• • r .n f: ''� i'x'0. u.ui.i. •.�i { arI w�''"L� rti.a\la5 ».S t'» `s 00 N ...,._....... '..n i'!: ..' .,^..... ......:".9dttvnslipani:on!t^;::`.f+• ;,;'� ,1 tal �(kil'1d7 J r ' ..�...................... f u /3181610 SUM V1600 VHiN00 o i coo Y W ear ........................ ...:-........:...._ ........... .........................................._....,_._....".....".,......._...............la��:.,.,�;..__.__.,._.. .,:_.,"..._...._e,.aM1...,:�,v._..•._..�.�.; � l _,_ .................._w_............. : _)u,z�st•T.a,..�nm s .. �lp �n. � L � :YdYt9Wir!Ww Iwarri¢,N „y V b0 I^"*•"."`""`..... :� ....—�".^�,^^^R _ t'" 9 Td�NV,f 11 lezras.s abj to K m k rol 3� k a s Owly K K ~rot k 3 q¢¢ afa > h g $ .n i zi yr pa .nr or ae [r $ G ga' ,♦ B; `�!M ' N $ $ U CO177 �., 19 ling I �g" � w K 1 k7�a ty�7y+ I f eat" I Fe. 1t a s. *kv-:,4b '': l K .at I I d o.e bto 111 y B s wa .au nay n✓a .NI i't 9 3 it ! I to 7 $ r N r a 5! t# j w 0 .n,K *at t nogto IN • 7 �)n ....� Y # ®■■!I■��ltll f K ea w 1 I t..$fit.�•', t1 R S 'd rtl gg 1 , i� aat K o �.�„�;•,.;,t',�;' ;yt� I 1! �; � k �R 535 ...tij... -1�'I \�. ...•••'_'-"`"`•.. 0!, we K k tK U. kt I,,1 ffi 3 g iC : � i nx Y, .y ! �•i .R •`i .a N .t ,r vl IN K 1 aid rot rot .nw .wt K .ant K I ` int fp, rol ml 3. K Kg KK l K �j J ffLlllll 7< _ h K ,nol p E � rot.K va, K 1 � y ant "�� � � p $ p $ �i $ 4 p p .om rot wl tat .. __. JlI.,N Kay.. neR .w,K gg g K K v K h # k rss J ........... hlY < # < < $ tl K a 4 ,t K .ow y, tK K a Ka k Qd� R pl It R J ; f k yp iY [at d[ai .lt 'ttu Li F K K K K' �?e K[d p{ 1 �' r p a Y Y 1a; $ # $,ffi# $ fi x $ •1, [II K Aat Fa. ,e • d i R Ror r b g $ K K r day -:ee r, K .ta b eu. at sd, N Kd K sat xat K.wl5,•1 e s $ std R wa $ $ k oJd .,at K wa d0. Fafn♦ l y;,',,,• !i ! �, ffi •ie K - K - K Fm ,roe K wa a: ;1 K Lot gat fFF rn lot to E. nt xm lot 1, b,Aut �` J '' i I � $ ffi i � $ t3}� ,• O $I anue Iii apwn x J I ` .u. �1 C l�auce tv, 3;II r iflgal9 v a h lrf MIS Y. K a1s $ s I gR # J ( i 1 '" .cot sol nN Fnt K CCrr R K"{ p 5 R �!f YW-l,t•' I ��!it1! .eat K V. a Yt ,, : `d' $ �I $ wa k 3 $ all K y Fad A [nt �4 { q 1 ++ .rot �6 �!{ay�.y�7}� ./,�p y�p •b )� 'li� � dt. l I:Nyf K : 'Q NK � HK k H k Y■ � Vi $ �� N� $ M4dY� I a dol .rot Ia n, ,A [o, •i o. 1 666 nF= '..1t .wt K K K A '. fl $ �g $ . b �h•` 1 Sol K K .roles df dal J dd `t a' •W ,t [o, 'J ,Lot } v t 2/4 { [01 K K .It.i! •` `FE .�5.''.,.•�� � 1l !i i •ro` ,ca, '` ,d .0 [at 1 � �`1 `: M1 �!.,,\•, �I 1 ',i i �K K K d'n K K $ '*� $ F !ppp to q R �• K da. A. .rs i oat K ! p +A•ue N art.71 4 91 t 1 of Y 1 ,Lal Fnt Yd ` t t• �' µK K K Fal to co, y y gi y to Fo. K b N Q $ i y 5 p y�' � ,d K k mILI I� t. :..•.-.`._... dols f l i Aa,~'e k L' 1fl9MLB:d k f 1 Fot'j ,dn ei pati .: .. it �p " , ..•............... 11 " w -...QVf77t 99$5iLt9 — ����.��bbbybb i0 Mt.dt _ •�• ■ 00 � U � cif � o v! 0 N1 All Ilii Y s s •:::+�.». �e:..;:ws:_ xrP 1 «____. ti• - _ •: sr3axE' 1fE,ax.Ea tr1,, r l Af AA Ae AN Ai � .41 .4f i .af e s i ,ax ,. Ai A � As ..A.� A A t•� � r 4, g �5 a � � � ..r-it ot5t �5v sig f AA Af At Ai Af At i AN f 0 �' ,� R ,fflfRL7.5.CL •� y .Z�SI!}.6',f}. �p � �� �' � {t �:.,` '���raa?� IN h i Ae A4 AP As As As Ai ,ts ss Y,te Fi 1 r fit. f, a a h a a a a a IN na It a a p a A 'i �,y% wt a S pP 7P 4a R EO Y 4s Y � � ({W F4 ,A4 Af A4 AN A0 A. A0 of M} It { p (( }u J I I { as a a a p q a baaa �a ffia �a :na a xr 1 n CAI . gg W AN Ai Af •., F 2 d .,�1 tq 3 Ae Af Al At Af A0 tt • _.y... � Af At AN AN Af A9 A0 As IN IN k N IN a. It h a IN a a a m a A a k a �r � �•�1..... ...,1. ,�,�»_. � • � �� � xti � �� � �� � a� � N� � ��� W�� w� ��� �.� �x� � �� � �� � �� ���� s�� �� � �a �� ���.�.�:;�:*„`..,fir Ai X40 Al A4 AA .46 A0 02 Af .0A AN As Ai ,41 1 ,■Y5� t' AN At js a a a a a a a �� a a a a a a a a a a a t - fry �g s s g AP PO A0 A0 A4 AN A0 sy ,tl0 A0 A0 AN .0i Ae A0 11x1 i� AN of 1 'tyy Ae ,w A4 .si i .p .ICY if {(If AN .01 A0 A0 AN As �•” 1{ Gf , y _ - --------------:_ - _- --------------- ";' --- k a� �,_., 1,0 ,u, , E rad 5.. p� i i l i '" � \{#,{(. ,.. j}F 4f'{%ir�tb �j�,•+n7 � rJ✓ {.� ���4k�.,,�r.'. � lis!'i1 -•����� f y�y � y .. ����,+ 17.���.1��{t4. L '" •v"E",.,, 1 ...,..�".µ�µ.. /(kky {t, },� C....a:..�� .l} .��r (} j'ui'ai� �� �•.. �t`n 'u�°,' (�---' 4.} � u� 10 ty� 't� 51�8�6 a Ih i4 f� 1 Y ''JF. }Ci e�S �:��'��` ``ryi ``�� I,.��R�� -�'ui• •_.��`� �..�V l.,i $ ��" �!.% uf.) :� � '1 f;�` lGf, ( xi M . ffZi33 if 33 ! �k 1 : , i r t{ � .,.+• W,/,s /J j••..� I t f 1 w.f i 1� r �":_L. � !.'�.i -•IJ)`"`.'� �+J,..5 ,%fir�;;.'.. �.q.�;,'i• E t E E e I: 371 3tln1J31MJtlr 153M OtdloYd AS©1H5ItlAd03 EUlWO11M ynln UOBBJO OponeU DUD140W oyop! Op OJOIOJ+` bIUJOf11D0 l liH�L1r/ — S1Li BC7 "-31M 1�}11 1C> 1I 1� wn,anwOw,aw dams,o aaxnu ar.Ixw.W—xY aaauw•coax mo—191, {eoZ) xor t S9£$ DLIh'p`.:,odwoN mwrum xarmaaxa.wv aY wv xxY m wurawa U00—19111 (90L) 41nO5 anUWAV 41Z I, — £l a xnw mzwYxumm on'auOcar ow w u+dawY .w.u1aaeaa xY v wwa aalwwn.w crwlaYo Yr..rxo aw �� ���� x ��� d M d� aan �� � �� sa � � x 1 prte.a � Xa yd µ r— R,n.A D 5 '•'W Jd 2�5' T, rM roQ m �$ LL II!1 1 § E III f ogawG I t , I i ! I {c. to N 1! I W , n !1S I I I d%flGi Q I rrc I I 7• Y 'g t 11 I ! t o I I + 2r 9 YY ( ON Y 4Q'11i I c ly t c. C1 d 1 m waiku,ulrorlwrs T Y m SF , i D � ( ,Orcn�m?Ylr a ! 1 �� OOFp tr1a0 'm rvtvv_m i� PY (�e m+ UUrrtnCfU +ry # rn I $ a •b r { n h6 I Y ti t, U t y•4, i $+ F �ku' �`� 4p q � � p, ro � �yy r m ;� � � k � E rt rvnmrrmrt-- 5 Ypy�, y�j{a[9QL1 yaa J M% S T .0 K Y W U @ ImJIS YILL YI K O It C� l U(+JU rG `ly +'"'" JA N?�1 e D ............ U11 3dn1:*111K38V ISU 31113vd Aa(a)1H0kfAd0:) 6uJw3XM 400 U06aJO DPDAaU OuNuOLU 040PI OPDJO103 o1ujopjG3 _L0231 ldV �d_.WQW"a,1.Q awww cuu MW3 a.- Ul&"'W'. mo-191, (Roz) xal t99C9 0qopf 'od-ON tZoo-M, (QGZ) 14;nos an-snv oil Gjnjoqj!qoAV IsoM 31J!3Dd -Lv sa�iv),i,,?snoD �Hi CYPPESS ROAD fes" W �)r i k �� r t ` �� a Saw Is 01 4' A- 1z V®alt; N 'N is gi ifl L I 1h v. I14 HH1mjj'H1 1,-11 �1�, 111!n "N' ti M E10 DRAFT EIR CYPRE55 GROVE NIR Y 2003 Architecture Descriptions Subdivision 8678 results in the creation of lots for the construction of 100 homes (Briarwood) The proposed residences consist of four floor pians with three elevations each. The floor plans include one and two-story models with approximately 2,140; 2,588; 2,698; and 2,918 square feet each. Subdivision 8679 results in the creation of lots for the construction of 201 homes. The subdivision includes a combination of larger and smaller lot sizes with a different product for each. The proposed residential design for the smaller lots consists of five floor plans with three elevations each. The floor plans include one and two-story models with approximately 1,725; 2,292; 2,587; 2,592; and 2,865 square feet. The design for the homes on the larger lots also includes five floor plans with three elevations each. The models include one and two-story, with approximately 2,171; 2,865; 3,165; 3,305; and 3,674 square feet each. j a Subdivision 8680 results in the creation of lots for the construction of 24-0 homes. The subdivision rl includes a combination of larger and smaller lot sizes with a different product for each. The proposed residential design for the smaller lots (Wildrose) consists of four floor plans with three 4---j elevations each. The floor plans include one and two-story models with approximately 1,901; 2,134; 2,53.5, and 2,310 square feet. The design for the homes on the larger lots (Brookstone) includes three floor plans with three elevations each. The models include one and two-story, with approximately 2,735; 2,859; and 3,001 square feet each. Building materials for the homes to be constructed in Subdivisions 8678, 8579, 8680 would include but not be limited to a combination of wood siding and stucco with brick and stone accents. Some of the homes would be given flat shingle and Mediterranean style tile roofs. The proposed multi-family development (Courtyards at Cypress Grove) includes 96 units developed in nixie buildings, including a community building. The units contain a combination of one, two, and three bedrooms ranging from approximately 7S0 to 1,350 square feet each. The nine buildings that mare up the multi-family development all have composition shingle roofs (Elk Prestique raised class A) and vinyl windows (Figure 2-8). The roofs of all the buildings have triangular pitches and some roofs have chimneys, all of which have approved spark arrestors. The maximum height of the `A' buildings is 38 feet, and the maximum height of the `B' buildings is 36 feet. The maximum height of the community building is 24 feet. Both Hardplank Straight Edge shingle panel and Hardplank 8-inch smooth lap siding make up the rear texture of the 8 housing buildings, while the front of the buildings would have a smooth painted texture. i Infrastructure Plans The primary infrastructure systems would be sized to meet demands created by buildout of the proposed project. Some infrastructure has been upgraded to accommodate future growth anticipated in the City's General flan and General Plan EIR(e.g., roadway design, drainage, etc.). The infrastructure systems that would be constructed as a part of the Cypress Grove project include storm drainage,wastewater,water supply, roadways, and a system of parks and trails. CHAPTER 2— PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-13 CYPRESS GPO VE MAY.2003 i Storm Drain The design of the stormwater management facilities for the project were developed by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. to manage stormwater flooding within the development and to provide for the treatment of runoff to prevent degradation of water quality in the Delta. r The design of the stormwater management facilities for the project has been developed to control peak stormwater flows, improve the quality of the stormwater runoff before it is discharged from the site, and to protect the homes from flooding during large storm events. The storm drain system includes both on -and off-site components. The system would collect runoff from the project and Delta Vista Middle School in a series of conventional gravity mains that would convey stormwater flows to an onsite stormwater pond located in the northeastern portion of the project site. A surface water elevation of 2.0 feet would be maintained in the stormwater pond via a pump station located immediately north of the pond. As mentioned above, in addition to controlling peak flows, the stormwater pond would serve as a-water quality pond, allowing solids in stormwater runoff to settle_to the basin bottom, consistent with state best management practice (BMP) requirements. Pond water would be pumped from the stormwater pond via a 36"main to an off-site 36"outfall at Emerson Slough(see Figure 3.12-7). The outfall structure is designed to accommodate the proposdd project stormwater flows and anticipated future stormwater needs within four (4) 36-inch pipes. All four of the pipes would be installed during construction of the Cypress Grove project. The outfall structure would be a modified Contra Costa County Standard CD.50i outfall. Each outfall pipe would serve a distinct area within the drainage shed. (see Chapter 3.12, Figure 3.12-10). The Cypress Grove project is located in Area 1 and requires only one of the four pipes for its storm drainage needs. The remaining three pipes would terminate at the southern edge of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) property. Construction of the outfall structure would eliminate the need for additional future connections to Emerson Slough as the drainage area is further developed pursuant to the City of Oakley General Plan. Future development served by the other three outfalls would be required to design a pond and pump system similar to the Cypress Grove project that would restrict flow volumes and velocities at Emerson Slough. The maximum discharge volume from each area would not exceed 3S cubic feet per second (cfs) at Emerson Slough. This equates to a discharge velocity of approximately S feet per second(fps). Consequently, during a large storm event, the maximum impact at the slough would occur when each of the four pipes discharges 35 cfs. Although a total flow of 140 cfs would be entering Emerson Slough, the velocity would still be limited to 5 fps. However, at the time of construction of the Cypress Grove project, only the pipe serving Area 1 would have the potential to discharge 3S cfs at the outfall. The stormwater management system would protect the subdivision from large storm events within the watershed; however, it is also necessary to protect the homes from outside flood sources. The Marsh Creek watershed (approximate 38.3 square miles) is conveyed to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta via Marsh Creek, which flows adjacent to the western edge of the project. In order to provide adequate freeboard protection from this flow, the existing Marsh Creek levee would be raised approximately 3 feet from the railroad tracks to the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) raw water canal in order to meet FEMA and Contra Costa County requirements. CHAPTER 2 — PROJECT DESCRIP ION 2-14 DRAFT EIR CYPREss CRo vs } MAY 2003 i The site is also subject to inundation risks from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta itself, which has a 100-year flood elevation of 7 feet above mean sea level. In order to protect the homes from this flood risk,a levee system would be built along the northern boundary, south of the existing CCWD levee, and along Sellers Avenue, from the CCWD canal to Cypress Road, The levee would be built to an elevation of 10 feet above mean sea level to protect against a flood elevation of 7 feet with an t additional 3 feet of freeboard. The remainder of the project perimeter, including Cypress Road is higher than elevation 10 and would not require further levied flood protection. Wastewater The Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) is responsible for provision of services to the entire Cypress Corridor area and would provide wastewater service to the project site. ISD is the successor to the former Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 15 and the Oakley-Bethel Island Wastewater 4 Management Authority, which merged and reorganized as ISD in 1992. ISD owns and operates the wastewater collection, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for the City of Oakley, unincorporated eastern Contra Costa County communities including Bethel Island, and the area in- between. ISD staff is currently updating its wastewater master plan, for which all components of x the wastewater treatment facilities are being evaluated. This plan is intended to develop sufficient wastewater system facilities to accommodate its entire jurisdiction--of which Cypress Corridor is only one part—at buildout of the General flan. The wastewater system is composed of collection, treatment, and disposal sub-systems. Currently, properties connected to the system on Cypress Road pump their sewage to the treatment plant through an existing 14" force main in Cypress Road. The force main connects to an existing 18"gravity main in SR 4 that flows to the treatment plant. The existing 14"force main size is adequate for the proposed project's capacity and future upstream development -within the ISD service area. Water The Diablo Water District maintains the existing water supply and infrastructure in the City of Oakley and has provided a Water Supply Assessment indicating that adequate supply exists to serve the proposed development. The Diablo Water District is a water retailer and is provided water by CCWD, a water wholesaler. Water mains for the Cypress Grove project would be constructed in accordance with Diablo Water District's master plan and dedicated to the District upon completion. To serve the project area, a 20 to 24-inch water main would be constructed in Cypress Road from the west edge of the Delta Vista Middle School site to the eastern boundary of the ^} project area. An additional 16 to 20-inch water main would connect the main in Cypress Road to the main in Laurel Road to the south. This line would be constructed south along the western edge of the project entrance to Subdivision 8678 until it reaches the BNSF railroad. The line would then be constructed parallel to the railroad track(outside of the railroad right-of-way)for approximately 650 feet to the southeast where the main would be bored and jacked under the railroad tracks. The 16 to 20-inch main would then extend south adjacent to the existing detention basin to its connection with the existing 16" main in Laurel Road, providing a looped system. The Cypress- Laurel water loop may be constructed as part of the previously approved Cypress Lakes development to the east. However, this project assumes the construction of the water loop with or CHAPTER 2 -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-15 DRAFT E/.R CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2007.3 without the development of the Cypress Lakes project. All local and collector roads would have 8" or 12"mains to serve the project site. The Cypress Grove project site is located within the boundaries of CCWD Service Area A, as well as within the boundaries of the Diablo Water District (D W D) and.the Los Vaqueros Project(LVP) Planning Area for receiving LVP water duality benefits. The major portion of the project site located north of East Cypress Road was annexed to the Central Valley Project (CVP) Contractual Service Area in December 2002. However, 'the final CEQA documentation and other environmental information, including evidence of compliance with ESA and other federal regulations will need to be completed for the Cypress Grove Project and coordinated through CCWD for submission to the Bureau of Reclamation as an inclusion application. The project proponent and CCWD would initiate ESA compliance through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Roadways Roadway infrastructure would be constructed to meet the needs of new residential neighborhoods and provide access to this portion of Oakley. Street widths would be designed in accordance with traffic studies completed for the project as well as the Oakley 2020 General Plan(see Table 2-2). Cypress Road would be improved from SR 4 to the eastern boundary of the project (see Figure 2- 8). The intersection at SR 4 would be modified from its current rural configuration to a more urban, pedestrian friendly intersection with median islands and shorter pedestrian crossing distances. Turning movements would be improved and the existing signal would be modified to accommodate these changes. Cypress Road would be widened to provide two lanes in each direction, shoulders, and a median island with turn pockets where appropriate. This would include a widening of the existing bridge at Marsh Creek as well as a widening and modification of the existing railroad crossing and signal. New traffic signals would be constructed at the project entrance to Subdivision 8680 (Cypress Road/Street A) and the school entrance at Frank Hengel Way, which also serves as the project entrances to Subdivisions 8678 & 8679. A new pedestrian actuated signal would be constructed where the East Bay Regional Parks District Trail along Marsh Creek intersects Cypress Road. i CHAPTER G -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-16 DRAFT ElR CYF'RES.S GRo vE T«ble s_z Roadway Infrastructure C rens Grove Develo mens Plan Mo; D n 10'north side 15'north side Cypress Road 13S' 64' 16' 6'++ trail 20'south side south side Typical Project Entry 80' 4.0$ 10' S'each side 10' each side Typical Local Road 56' 36' S'each side S'each side 00 Typical Collector in Trail 64, S'each side 7'each side Corridor O 9 Parks and Trails A trail system would be constructed to connect the parks and neighborhoods to the regional trail along .Marsh Creek as well as the future improvements in the Cypress Corridor. The proposed project would improve the existing Marsh Creek Trail undercrossing at the BNSF railroad, construct trails along the north and south sides of Cypress Road, reconstruct the existing Marsh Creek Trail along the project boundary, construct a trail and landscape corridor along the northern edge of the project and provide safe pedestrian circulation to and from the school. The trail system is designed to be extended by future projects to connect to the 50 acre City park planned at the north end of Sellers Avenue, the future commercial center at Sellers Avenue and Cypress Road as well as easy pedestrian access by future subdivisions to the existing school site. The park system would consist of two parks located in the neighborhoods of Cypress Grove that would service the needs of the Cypress Grove Community as well as the citizens of Oakley. A 1.99 ac. neighborhood park would be located south of Cypress Road that would serve Subdivision 8678 , i { i � i CHAPTER 2 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.17 ............ ....... ....... ... ... ..... ........... ....... ............ ........ . .......... co j.......... .............. 00 LEI ir Z) 04 con U3 ........... mp, If If ................. I LI .L Id !Tl If LL L J —MUT7 . .............. T ........... ........... tt ................. lid Ln A ZIP, 14 If 151 Nv J 1L___ 1 1 Mal Ag 5V VI s i i 3. 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS ijr a 1 . \ 'I DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo vs MA r.2003 as well as the multi-family development. The neighborhood park would include the following potential uses: + Tot play area, • Open play areas, • Path system, and • Picnic area with tables,trash receptacles,benches, etc. The community park would be located north of Cypress Road, would consist of 5.19 acres, and would be developed adjacent to the north side of the existing school site. This site would provide the City of Oakley with the following potential uses: Pedestrian circulation system, +� Play area for ages 1 through 6, w Play area for ages 6 through 12, Soccer and/or baseball fields, + Group and individual picnic areas, * Benches, trash receptacles, drinking fountain, etc., and « Site for possible future restrooms. REQUIRED PUBLIC APPROVALS The proposed project requires the following discretionary actions by the Oakley City Council: Adoption of a Rezone from Agriculture (A2) and Heavy Agriculture (A3) to Planned Unit District (P-1), approval of a Final Development Plan pursuant to the combined final development plan provisions of Section 84-66.1206 of the zoning ordinance; • Approval of a Parcel Map dividing 32.36 acres (ac.) into two parcels, creating a 6.55 ac. parcel for multi-family development and a 25.81 ac. parcel for single family development (Subdivision 8678); • Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8678) to subdivide 32.36 acres into 100 single family lots (23.61 ac.), one lot for multi-family development(Parcel A; 6.55 ac.), and four parcels totaling 2.20 acres for park and open space and trails; • Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8679) to subdivide 49.95 acres into 201 single family lots (43.56 acres), one lot for a stormwater pond (Parcel A; 5.05 ac.), and 4 lots i totaling 1.34 acres for Open Space and Trails; + Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8680) to subdivide 64.80 acres into 240 single family lots (54.95 ac.), one lot for a park (Parcel A; 5.19 ac.), and four lots totaling 4.66 acres for Open Space and Trails; Approval of Design Review of 100 homes in Subdivision 8678, consisting of four floor i plans with three elevations each, ranging from 2,100 to 3,000 square feet; + Approval of Design Review of 201 homes in Subdivision 8679 consisting of five floor plans with three elevations each,ranging from 1,725 to 3674 square feet on large lots; CHAPTER 2 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-19 DR4 F7 ECR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2✓03 Approval of Design Review of 240 homes in Subdivision 8680, consisting of four floor plans with three elevations each, ranging from 1,900 to 2,600 square feet on the smaller lots, and three floor plans with three elevations each, ranging from 2,700 to 3,100 square ( { feet on the larger lots; and ? • Approval of Design Review of 96 multi-family units developed in nine buildings, including a community building with units ranging from one to three bedrooms each. i This EIR is also intended to serve as the environmental document by which the following agencies would rely upon to ensure compliance with CEQA when carrying out actions potentially required of them by the proposed project. The agencies and their associated actions potentially required by the proposed project are listed below; • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Section 404 permit • California Central Valley Water Quality Control Board — 401 Water Quality Certification • Diablo Water District—off-site water line • California Department of Fish and Game — A Streambed Alteration Agreement, pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. l • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - Approval of the inclusion application I i' CHAPTER 2 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-2d _......... . - _.... - �I j 1..Jj 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT of CYPRESS GROVE 1 i i,..a b DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE 3. 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS INTI.aDUCTION j S Chapter 3 analyzes the potential impacts of the Cypress Grove project on a range of environmental t issue areas. Sections 3.2 through 3.13 describe the focus of the analysis, references and other data 4 sources for the analysis,the environmental setting as it relates to the specific issue, project-specific impacts and mitigations measures, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project for each issue area. The format of each of these sections is described below. DETEPWINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE �<3 Linder CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment(Public Resources Code § 21068). The Guidelines implementing CEQA direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. The specific criteria for determining .. the significance of a particular impact are identified within the impact discussion in each section, and are consistent with significance criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. INITIAL STUDY The Initial Study (see Appendix C) prepared for the Cypress Grove project as a part of this EIR includes a detailed environmental checklist addressing a range of technical environmental issues. For each technical environmental issue, the Initial Study identifies the level of impact for the proposed project. The Initial Study identifies the environmental effects as either"no impact,""less- than-significant,""potentially significant with mitigation incorporated,"and"potentially significant." The Initial Study provided the following conclusions: The proposed project had no impact on the following environmental issue: • Mineral Resources: Mineral resources were not identified within the project area. The proposed project resulted in the following less-than-significant impacts which did not require mitigation: f + Population and Housing: The proposed project includes plans to build 637 residential units. The proposed project would not change the existing land use designations of the site. An impact is considered significant if the project would induce substantial growth that is inconsistent with the approved land use plan for the area. The proposed project is within the projected growth of the city. Therefore, mitigation measures are not required as the population and housing impact is less-than-significant. +� Recreation: The proposed project includes plans for a community facility, a five-acre and a two-acre park, a cohesive trail system, and a trailhead at the project's gateway CHAPTER 3.1 -- IN';RODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS CRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 providing access to the delta for the entire city. Buildout of these comprehensive plans would augment the city's recreational facilities and would not create a significant adverse impact. ! All remaining issues were identified in the Initial Study as potentially significant and are discussed in this Draft EIR. ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS DRAFT EIR The Initial Study identified environmental impacts as potentially significant and required further analysis. This EIR provides the additional analysis necessary to address the technical environmental impacts not fully resolved in the Initial Study. Consistent with the conclusions of the Initial Study, the following environmental issues are addressed in this chapter of the Draft EIR: • land use; • agricultural resources; • aesthetics; • biological resources; • cultural resources; • transportation and circulation; • air quality; • noise; • geology; • hazards; • hydrology and water quality; and • public services and utilities. SECTION FORMAT Each section in Chapter 3 addressing a specific environmental issue begins with an introduction describing the purpose of the section. The introduction is followed by a description of the project's environmental setting as it pertains to that particular issue. The setting description is followed by the regulatory context and the impacts and mitigation measures discussion. The impacts and mitigation measures discussion contains the significance criteria, followed by the methods of analysis. The impact and mitigation measures discussion includes impact statements prefaced by a number in bold-faced type. An explanation of each impact and an analysis of its significance follow each impact statement. All mitigation measures pertinent to each individual impact follow directly after the impact statement (see below). The degree of relief provided by identified mitigation measures is also evaluated. An example of the format is shown below: CHAPTER INTRODUC I-ION TO THE ANALYSIS 3. 1-2 ©RAFT OR CYPRESS GpovE MAY2003 j 3.x--1 Statement of impact Discussion of impact for the proposed project in paragraph format. Statement of level of signzficance of impact prior to mitigation is included at the end of each impact discussion. Mitigation Measure(s) Statement of level of significance after the mitigation is included immediately preceding mitigation measures. 3.x-I(a) Recommended mitigation measure(s)presented in italics and numbered in 1 consecutive order. 3.x-l(b) Mitigation pleasure Ii ii {{�� Ll Y r� t., i 1y, CHAPTER 3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS i 3. 1-3 7 [..l,9AFT EI TT CYPRESS GRovE MAY 200.3 3.2 LAND USE _t INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the existing land use setting of the project site and the adjacent area, including the identification of existing land uses and current general plan policies and zoning designations. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines states that "an EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project...and shall discuss any .1' inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans." The following describes the existing land uses of the project site as well as the existing plans and policies that guide the development of the project site. Existing Land Use and Designations Y The project site is located in the Cypress Corridor Special Planning Area, which encompasses approximately 2,371 acres of land located both north and south of Cypress Road (Figure 3.2-1). { The Cypress Corridor Special Planning Area is envisioned as a primarily residential area with supporting commercial and public uses (Oakley 2020 General flan, p. 2-23). The General Plan describes Special Planning Areas as distinct geographic areas within and surrounding the City of Oakley that merit special consideration. Special Planning Areas are established to identify opportunities and constraints unique to each planning area and to provide further direction regarding the City's expectations for development in these areas. The Cypress Grove project occupies only a portion of the Cypress Corridor Special Planning Area. The proposed project site has been divided into three areas. The Williamson Property (APN 037- 192-017)is north of Cypress Road and east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) Railroad. To the east of the Williamson Property is the Conco North Property (APNs 037- 192-013 and 1337-192-014). The Conco South Property (APN 033-012-002) is south of Cypress Road. The project site largely consists of vacant fallow farmland, The Conco North property has the remains of what appears to be a residential structure, consisting of a building pad and some A- debris. The Williamson Property has an abandoned methane gas well and a windmill well on the ._ property. The Williamson Property, the Conco North Property, and the eastern portion of the Conco South y Property are designated in the Oakley 2020 General Plan as Single Family Residential, High Density(SH) (see Figure 3.2-2, Existing Land Use Designations). The General Plan defines the SH land use as follows: ILA r � CHAP'T'ER 3,2--- LAND USE 3.2 -1 DRAFT EIR CYPPEss GRo vs MAY2003 Single Family Residential, High Densijy�(SH). The purpose of the Single-Family Residential, High Density (SH) Land Use Designation is to provide for moderately dense single-family residential development that is consistent with suburban uses. This designation will allow for a higher density suburban neighborhood with smaller lots that are commonly seen in traditional urban and suburban neighborhoods within Oakley. This designation allows a minimum of 3.8 and a maximum of 5.5 units per gross acre. Parcel sizes range from approximately 6,000 to 8,600 square feet. Population density would normally range between 12 to 18 persons per acre. Primary land uses include detached single-family homes and accessory structures. Secondary uses may include home occupations, small residential care and childcare facilities, churches and other places of worship, and other uses and structures incidental to the primary use. Also, in specified areas of the City with conventional zoning, attached single-family units may be allowed. The western portion of the Conco South Property is designated as Multi-Family Residential, High Density(MH). The MH land use is defined as: i Multiple-Family Residential, High I7ensit; (MH): The purpose of the Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH) Land Use Designation is to provide affordable and rental residential units, and to maximize urban residential space. This designation allows for a typical apartment-style building or a condominium complex. This designation allows a minimum of 9.6 dwelling units and a maximum of 16.7 dwelling units per gross acre. Expected population density would normally range between 20 to 36 persons per acre. Appropriate primary land uses include attached single-family residences (such as duplexes and duets), multiple-family residences (such as condominiums, town houses, apartments, and mobile home parks), and accessory structures normally auxiliary to the primary uses. Secondary uses may include home occupations, group care and/or childcare facilities, and private schools. Existing Zoning i' When the City of Oakley incorporated in 1999, it adopted the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance, which will remain in effect until the City of Oakley adopts its own zoning ordinance. The Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report' lists the zoning classifications that are currently used within the City of Oakley(see Background Report; Table 2-2). Current zoning for the project site is as follows: the Williamson property is currently zoned General Agriculture (A-2); and the Conco North and Conco South properties are zoned Heavy Agriculture (A-3) (see Figure 3.2-2, Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations and Zoning). In the General Agriculture Zone, the following uses are permitted: CHAPTER 3.2— L ..NL, USE 3.2 -4 _. ..........................................................................................................................................................._........._.. DRAFT EIR Cy, RESs GRovE MAY 2003 (1} All types of agriculture,including general farming,horticulture, floriculture, nurseries and greenhouses, mushroom rooms, dairying, livestock production, fur farms, poultry raising, animal breeding, aviaries, apiaries,forestry, and similar agricultural uses; (2) Other agricultural uses, including the erection and maintenance of sheds, warehouses, granaries, dehydration plants,hullers,fruit and vegetable packing plants, and agricultural (3) cold storage plants on parcels at least ten. acres in size and buildings for the storage of agricultural products and equipment; (4) A stand not exceeding two hundred square feet for sale of agricultural products grown on r- the premises. The stand shall be set back at least twenty-five feet from the front property i line; (S) A detached single-family dwelling on each parcel and the accessory structures and uses normally auxiliary to it; (6) Foster home or family care home operated by a public agency, or by a private agency which has obtained state or local approval (license) for the proposed operation, where not more than six minors reside on the premises with not more than two supervisory persons; and 1 l (7) A family day care home where care,protection and supervision of twelve or fewer children in the provider's own home are provided for periods of less than twenty-four hours per is day, while the parents or guardians are away. i..�a In the Heavy Agriculture Zone, all uses from the General Agriculture Zone, except a detached single family dwelling, (use (4) above) are permitted. Additionally, the "residence of the owner, owners,lessee, or lessor of the land on which the use is conducted"is permitted. The project application includes a request to redesignate the properties in the project site from the existing zoning designations to Planned Unit District (P-1). The City of Oakley Zoning Ordinance states the following intent and purpose of the P-1 Planned Unit District zoning: A large-scale integrated development or a general plan special area of concern provides an opportunity for, and requires cohesive design when flexible regulations are applied; whereas the application of conventional regulation, designed primarily for individual lot development, to a large-scale development or special area may create a monotonous and inappropriate neighborhood. The planned unit district is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in required adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general welfare. These standards shall be observed withoutunduly inhibiting the advantages of large-scale site or special area planning. The P-1 district permits any land use permitted in an approved focal development plan, consistent L_J with the general plan. The applicant has submitted the Cypress Grove Design Guidelines and Tentative Maps, which serve as the final development plan for the P-1 zoning district. The Design Guidelines address the permitted uses, development standards, landscaping, and public improvements associated with the development of the proposed Cypress Grove project. CHAPTER 3.2--- LAND USE 3.2-5 DRAFT EIR. CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 Surrounding Land Uses The proposed project site surrounds the existing Delta Vista Middle School and a proposed elementary school. The school is north.of Cypress Road on Frank Hengel Way. North of the project site is the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) Canal. A dairy operation is j located beyond the CCWD Canal. However, the diary has recently been sold and after June 30, 2003, cattle will no longer be present on the site. The fields to the north of the project site are used to support the dairy. Therefore,the fields will no longer be used for the dairy; instead the fields are proposed to become part of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (Oakley 2020 General Plan, p. 6-27). The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a cooperative effort of 18 state and federal agencies with regulatory and management responsibilities in the San Francisco Bay/San Joaquin River Bay-Delta to develop and implement a long-term plan to restore ecosystem health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. The objective of this collaborative planning process is to identify comprehensive solutions to the problems of ecosystem quality, water supply reliability, water quality, and Delta levee and channel integrity (www.calfed.water.ca.gov, March 2003). The area north of the project site has been designated in the Oakley General Plan as Delta Recreation(DR): (DR) Delta Recreation: This land use designation encompasses the lowlands of the San Joaquin Delta along the City's northern edge. Most of the land designated Delta Recreation is currently within the 100-year flood plain as mapped by FEMA, which means the area is subject to periodic flooding. The potential for flooding on lands designated Delta Recreation is due to the possibility that bay and river waters will overtop existing levees during periods of storms. It is also possible that portions of earthen levees may fail entirely during storms or earthquakes, resulting in flooding of low-lying areas. The effects of subsidence and high tides coincident with major storms may increase the danger of flooding. Due to the proximity of the Delta, these lands have substantial recreational value and offer important opportunities for public access to the Oakley waterfront. Agriculture and wildlife habitat are also considered appropriate uses of these areas. For example, lands designated Delta Recreation are an important component of the Pacific Flyway. The area east of the project site has been designated in the Oakley General Plan as Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH) and both Single Family Residential, Medium Density (SM) and Single Family Residential, High Density(SH). The General flan describes SM as: Single Family Residential, Medium DensitytSM): The purpose of the Single-Family Residential, Medium Density (SM) Land Use Designation is to accommodate moderate density, single-family residential development. These neighborhoods will more closely resemble a typical suburban development with spacious yards and little resemblance to a rural neighborhood. CHAPTER 3.2--- LAND USE 3.2 -6 GRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE r. MAY 2003 This designation allows for a minimum of 2.3 dwelling units and a maximum of 3.8 dwelling units per acre, with parcel sizes ranging from 8,604 to 14,040 square feet. Population density generally ranges from 8 to 12 persons per acre. Primary permitted land uses include detached single-family homes and `accessory structures. Secondary uses may include home occupations, small residential care and childcare facilities, churches and other places of worship, and other uses and structures incidental to the primary use. Currently, the area east of the project site is agricultural land that is farmed to support the nearby dairy that has recently been sold. Although the farmland to the east of the project site would no longer support the dairy, agricultural operations may persist. However, the area east of the project site would eventually be developed as planned in the Oakley 2420 General Plan. Future development would be consistent with the Single-Family Residential, Medium and High Density land use designations for the site. Approximately 2.25 miles to the east of the project site is the Cypress Lake Subdivision in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The Cypress Lake Subdivision is a 685.9 acre planned development area that includes 1,330 residential units, a golf course, a clubhouse, a river boat storage area, a day care center, a school site, a fire station, and a beach park. Marsh Creek is west of the project site with the railroad tracks and State Route 4(SR 4)beyond the creek. The lands west of Marsh Creek are owned by Ironhouse Sanitary District and are designated as Public and Semi-Public(PS). The General.Plan states that PS is. i <l Public and Sgmi-Publzc_4PS) Numerous public, semi-public and private facilities are required to serve the needs of the community. These uses support government, civic, i cultural, health, education, and infrastructure aspects of the City. Public and Semi-Public facilities should be located in a manner that best serves the community's interests, allows for adequate access by bus,bicycle, or foot to minimize trip generation and provides for access by all residents, where appropriate. This designation includes properties owned by public agencies such as libraries, fire stations, public transportation corridors, and schools, as well as privately owned transportation and utility corridors such as railroads, and power transmission lines. In specific locations, such as downtown Oakley, mixed use projects may be determined consistent with this designation. z to A wide variety of public and private uses are allowed with this General Plan category. However, construction of private commercial uses willl be limited to uses related to the public or semi-public activity. Residential subdivision of this designation is not allowed. F South of the project site is residential development and agricultural fields designated in the General } Plan as Agricultural Lands(AL). The BNSF railroad tracks represent the southwest boundary of the project site. The land to the southwest beyond the railroad tracks is designated in the General Plan as Commercial(CO). CO is defined in the General Plan as. t _t CHAPTER 3.2 --- LAND USE 3.2-7 GRAF EIR CYPRESS Gpo vE MAY2003 Commercial(CO2 This designation allows for a broad range of commercial uses typically found adjacent to residential neighborhoods and downtowns, including retail and service facilities, and limited office uses. Through sensitive design, commercial uses can be located near single-family residences with minimal disruption or impact. Typical uses include grocery and convenience stores, salons, professional offices, restaurants, drugstores, dry cleaners, post office facilities,banks, and other uses of similar character and impacts. The parcels within the triangular area formed by the railroad tracks to the southwest, Cypress Road to the north and the western boundary of the project's Conco South property to the east are not part of the proposed project. The parcels have the following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 033-012- 004, 033-012-005, 033-012-007, 033-012-008, and 033-012-009. The parcels are partially developed with rural residential uses. The land use designation of these parcels is Multi-Family Residential, High Density. REGULATORY CONTEXT The Urban Limit Line The Contra Costa County General Plan includes an urban Limit Line (TILL)that was established in 1990 by the voters of Contra Costa County. The GILL has been adopted by the City of Oakley and is discussed in the Oakley 2020 General Plan (p. 6-8). The ULL has two purposes: (1) to ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural, open space and other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated during the term of the General Plan, and(2)to facilitate the enforcement of the County 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. Properties located outside the ULL may not obtain General Plan Amendments that would redesigate them for an urban land use. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard requires that at least 65 percent of all land outside the TILL shall be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non- urban uses. The standard operates on a countywide basis and includes urban and non-urban uses within cities as well as the unincorporated areas. The project site is within the Urban Limit Line. The following applicable goals and policies are from the Oakley 2020 General Plan:2 General Land Use: Goal 2.1: Guide development in a manner that creates a balanced and desirable community that maintains and enhances the character and best qualities of Oakley. Policy 2.1.2 Consider the fiscal impacts of development in order to ensure the City has adequate financial resources to fund community projects and programs. Policy 2.1.3: Promote commercial and residential development that supports the small town character of Oakley. Key elements include scale of buildings, landscaped open areas within projects and safe and accessible multi-use trails. Policy 2.1.5 Preserve open space areas, of varying scales and uses, both within development projects and at the City's boundary. Policy 2.1.7 Assure that all development in the City pays for its fair share of the cost of necessary public service and facilities. CHAPTER 3.2— LAND USE 3.2 -8 DRAFT ECR CYPREss GRdve' MAY 240.3 i Policy 2.1.8 Avoid Development that results in land use incompatibility. Specifically, avoid locating sensitive uses (residential) adjacent to existing potentially objectionable uses and avoid locating potentially objectionable uses adjacent to sensitive uses. Residential• d Goal 2.2 Create new residential developments and reinforce existing neighborhoods to reflect the high quality of life in Oakley. f Policy 2.2.1 Recognize Oakley's predominantly single family residential character and distinctive dualities in planning and development decisions. Policy2.2.2 Require that new development be generally consistent with the scale, appearance, and small town character of Oakley. Policy 2.2.3 Protect existing residential areas from intrusion of incompatible land uses and rj disTuptive traffic to the extent reasonably possible. J Policy 2..2.4 Promote, in areas where different land uses abut one another, land use compatibility by utilizing buffering techniques such as landscaping, setbacks, screening and,where necessary,construction of sound walls. l Policy 2.2.5 Promote the transition from higher density centers to lower densities at City boundaries. Where high density residential is directly adjacent to love density residential or agricultural uses,buffers should be provided. Policy 2.2.7 Consider modified development standards for large-lot development that reflects the rural nature of the development.This may include reducing or eliminating the need for traditional sidewalks, street lighting or other subdivision improvements. If the absence of such improvements will not result in conflicts with adjacent land uses and treats to the public health, safety and welfare. Policy 2.2.8 Preserve the limited areas planned for multi-family residential development and discourage General Plan amendments and rezoning of such areas or other uses. Policy 2.2.9 Consider the cumulative effects of development on community facilities and 1 services, such as transportation and schools,throughout the planning process. Policy 2.2.1f1 Require the establishment of lighting and landscaping districts, as appropriate, for new residential developments. Policy.2.2.13 Restrict or require increased setbacks for residential development proposed and adjacent to industrially or agriculturally designated or developed land to minimize conflicts. '3 Policy 2.2.14 All residential development should be required to construct and dedicate to the City and pay impact and other fees that represent their respective fair share of necessary public services and.facilities. Open baac,e: Goal.2.6 Ensure that open space areas are properly managed and designed to both conserve ' natural resources, as well as enhance the community's character and provide i passive recreational opportunities. i Vii, CHAP ER 3.2~ LAND 1..15E 3.2-9 DRAFT Eta CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 Policy 2.6.2 Development shall not be permitted on lands designated by FEMA as flood-prone until a risk assessment and other technical studies have been prepared and have shown that the risk is acceptable. Policy 2.6.3 All approved entitlements and ministerial permits shall conform to the requirements of the Floodplain Management Ordinance which are incorporated into this General Plan by reference. Policy 2.6.4 All entitlements shall include conditions of approval that require a "flood-prone area"notification statement be included in the deeds for all affected properties, and recorded on the face of all subdivision maps, along with the specific elevations that will be required of all new building pads and habitable floors. Policy 2.6.7 Create new wildlife habitat areas in appropriate locations, which may serve multiple purposes of natural resource preservation and passive recreation, as feasible. Trails: Goal 2.7 Provide a system of multi-use trails that connects residential districts, employment centers and natural areas, throughout Oakley, including the Delta. Policy 2.7.1 The City will promote a comprehensive trail program throughout the Oakley community and give preference to developments that incorporate the design of the trails and associated open space into their design. Community Character and Design: Goal 2.8 Encourage projects exhibiting excellent design and sensitivity to the community, while preserving the community character of the City of Oakley. Policy 2.8.5 Sidewalks and bicycle lanes of sufficient width should be included in major street improvement programs wherever feasible. Policy 2.8.7 Residential neighborhoods and adjoining land uses should be connected by streets and multiuse trails, as appropriate. Fragmentation of neighborhoods is strongly discouraged. Policy 2.8.11Monument or similar signs should be provided at appropriate gateways to residential districts, commercial areas, or other significant landmarks. Signage and Monumentation: Goal 2.9 Establish a sense of entry at Oakley's boundaries, to enhance individual identity of Oakley's neighborhoods and to establish unified design themes throughout the City. Policy 2.9.1 Pursue the construction of community entry monuments at key locations, including but not limited to: Highway 4/Main Street immediately east of Highway 160; Neroly Road and Empire Avenue; Neroly Road and O'Hara Avenue; Highway 4 and Delta Road; and, Cypress Avenue at a location to be determined. CHAPTER 3.2— LAND USE 3.2-10 N DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 Policy 2.9,2 Require the construction of project monumentation to clearly identify the location and entry to major residential and commercial development projects, as deemed R; appropriate. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES i Standards of Significance I A land use impact may be considered significant if any potential effects of the following conditions, or potential thereof, would result with the proposed project's implementation: s results in a land use which is inconsistent with existing city plans and policies; or 0 results in a substantial potential for conflict as a result of incompatible land uses. Method of Analysis Potential land use conflicts associated with the project could result from the agricultural-residential p + interface. Agricultural production can be adversely affected as a result of restrictions on pesticide, herbicide and fungicide use, trespassing and pilferage, increased personal injury liability as a result of trespassers hurting themselves, and littering of fields. Conversely, adjacent agricultural land uses may result in a number of nuisances and perceived hazards, such as concern over pesticide, herbicide and fungicide use on adjacent properties, odors, dust, and slow moving vehicles. All these potential land use interface conflicts can individually or cumulatively decrease the efficiency of farming operations which can cause production costs to rise and make farming operation less appealing. Issues related to loss of agricultural land or interference with agricultural operations will be addressed in Chapter 3.3, Agricultural Resources. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures F � 3.2-1 The proposed project may be incompatible with surrounding land uses. The determination of compatibility of land uses typically relies on a general discussion of the types of adjacent uses to a proposed project and whether any sensitive receptors exist either on the adjacent properties or associated with the proposed project. Incompatibilities typically exist when uses such as residences, parks, churches, and schools are located adjacent to more disruptive uses such as heavy industrial, major transportation corridors, and regional commercial centers where noise and traffic levels may be high. The identification of incompatible uses occurs if one land use is anticipated to be disruptive of i the existing or planned use of an adjacent property. Approval of the proposed project would result in the development of residential neighborhoods adjacent to a middle school and agricultural fields. The residential uses would be compatible with the middle school and the future elementary school. Such schools are typically used during the day when fewer sensitive receptors are present. -. Middle school and elementary school facilities have little nighttime activity. Typically, schools are integrated into residential neighborhoods because the proximity of schools to CHA -rER 3.2-- LAND USE 3.2-11 DRAFT 11,R CYPRESS GROl/c MAY 200.3 residences allows children to walk to school. Land use compatibility impacts are not anticipated between the project and the school site. Issues related to noise from schools are addressed in Chapter 3.9 Noise. i Residences along the northern and eastern border,of the project site'bvould be adjacent to agricultural uses. Both the fields to the north(across the Contra Costa Canal) and adjacent to the east are used to support the dairy operation located northeast of the project. The fields produce grains and other foodstuffs for the cows at the dairy. The residences could be affected by pesticide spraying, dust from plowing the fields, and noise from farming equipment. The properties could also be impacted from the odors from the dairy operation. While each of these issues is addressed in subsequent chapters of this EIR, the combined impacts from the farming operations on the residential uses would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact from the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. 3.2-1 The Applicant(s)shall notify prospective buyers in writing, prior to purchase, about existing and on-going agriculture activities in the immediate area in the form of a disclosure statement'. The notifications shall disclose that the City of Oakley is an agricultural area subject to ground and aerial applications of chemicals and early morning or nighttime farm operations which may create noise, dust, et cetera. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to recording f nal maps. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner. 3.2-2 The proposed project would change the existing zoning. The project site is currently zoned General Agriculture (A-2) and Heavy Agriculture (A-3). The proposed project would change the zoning to Planned Unit District (P-1). The proposed zoning is inconsistent with the existing zoning. By state law the zoning must be consistent with the recently adopted Oakley 2020 General Plan. The rezone of the project site from A-2 and A-3 to P-1 with the uses proposed in the project would make the project site consistent with the recently adopted Oakley 2020 General Plan land use designations. The project site has been designated for development (SH and MH) by the city in the General Plan. The areas adjacent to the project site are also designated for development. The proposed P-1 zoning allowing for residential development would be consistent with the city's goals for the Cypress Corridor Special Planning Area. Should the City Council approve the zoning change, the project would be consistent with the General Plan and no impact would occur. A change in zoning is a discretionary action of the City Council and would be necessary prior to any other project approvals. Mitigation Measure None required. CHAP-rER 3.2 — LAND USE 3.2 -12 DRAM"EIR CYPRESS GROVE N1AY,2003 3.2-3 Consistency with the General Plan. The City of Oakley has recently adopted the Oakley 2020 General Plan (General Plan). The general Plan land use designations for the project site are "consistent with those required for the development of the proposed project. The Williamson Property, Conco North Property, and the eastern portion of the Conco South Property are designated Single Family Residential, High Density (SH), and the western portion of the Conco South Property is designated as Multi-Family Residential, High Density(MH). The General Plan specifies that the Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH) designation allows a minimum of 9.6 dwelling units and a maximum of 16.7 dwelling units (du) per gross acre (ac). The Multi-Family site of the proposed project would have 14.65 du/ac. In addition, the General Plan specifies that the Single Family Residential, High Density (SH) designation allows a minimum of 3.8 and a maximum of S.S units per gross acre. The single family areas of the proposed project include Subdivision 8679, 8680,and the eastern portion of 8678, which would have densities of 4.03, 3.72, and 3.87 du/ac, respectively. Although the dwelling unit density of 3.72 du/ac for Subdivision 8680 would be slightly below the minimum allowed for the SH designation, a density of 3.72 is within substantial compliance of the densities allowed for the (SH) designation under the Oakley 2020 General Plan. The existing environmental setting surrounding the project site includes: agriculturall lands to the north and east which are farmed to support the recently sold dairy located northeast of the project; residential housing to the south; and undeveloped land to the west which is owned and utilized by the Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD). In terms of future planned uses according to the Oakley 2020 General Plan for the nearby farmland, the farmland to the north is proposed to become part of the CALFED Bay-Delta.Program and the farmland to the east is planned for development consistent with the following designations: Multi- Family Residential, High Density (MH), Single Family Residential, High(SH) and Medium Density (SM). In addition, the undeveloped lands to the west of the project site are designated Public (PS) which allows for development. The development of the proposed project would be consistent with the City's vision for the area. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to General Plan consistency. Mitigation Measure None required. a Cumulative Impacts 3.2-4 The purposed project and all other projects in the Oakley area would i increase the intensity of land uses in the region. The proposed Cypress Grove project, along with all known projects such as development } of the remaining Cypress Corridor and the Cypress Lakes project, would change the intensity of land uses in the , City's Planning Area. In particular, this cumulative development scenario would increase development in the eastern portion of the city, and CHAPTER 3.2-- LAND USE 3.2 -13 DRAFT FIR CYPREss GRovE MAY2©U3 provide additional housing, employment, shopping, and recreational opportunities. The Cypress Grove project includes a Final Development Plan, which regulate permitted uses, development density,building heights, site and building design,transportation demand and neighborhood protection. In addition, all developments proposed and constructed within 1, the city are reviewed for consistency with citywide land.use controls anddevelopment standards during the course of the project review and,-approVal process. Given the land use controls,and,development standards presently in use within the City of Oakley and the consistency of the project with the land uses and densities in the General Plan, cumulative land use impacts would be minimized to a level that is considered to be less-than- significant. ess--than_signfcant. .Mitigation Measure Drone required. Endnotes F Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report, City of Oakley,September 2001. 2 Oakley 2020 General Plan,City of Oakley,August 30,2002. CHAPTER 3.2— LAND USE 3.2-14 r r or t 3.3 AGRICULTURAL. RESOURCES j f y f t ,i f � � :,, � ,. i; ;� ,. �; �. ��.. �. ., ,. . ,.,� j DRAF-T EIR CYPREss GRo vE MAY 2003 '7 3.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section summarizes the status of the existing agricultural resources on the site and in the areas surrounding the City of Oakley. Using the current state model and data, this chapter will identify prime/unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance,and any conflicts with existing zoning for agriculture use. Further, the analysis will include a discussion regarding conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The chapter will identify thresholds of significance applicable to the proposed project including the loss of prime farmland. Possible impacts will be measured against r: the thresholds of significance and appropriate mitigation measures will be proposed which are consistent with the policies of the city. r ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING f. a: The proposed project is divided into three areas: 1) the Williamson Property (APN 037-112-017), located north of Cypress Road and east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company (BNSF)railroad; 2)the Conco North Property(APNs 037-112-013 and 037-192-014), located just east of the Williamson Property, and 3) the Conco South Property (APN 033-012-002), located south of Cypress Road, below the Conco North Property. A small triangular portion of land located immediately west of the Conco South Property, north of the BNSF Railroad, and south of Cypress Road, is outside the project area. (APNs 033-012-004, 033-012-005; 033-012-007, 033- 012-008, and 033-012-009). Farmland Classifications The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) uses two systems to determine a soil's agricultural productivity: the Soil Capability Classification and the Storie Index Rating System. The "prime" soil classification of both systems indicates the absence of soil limitation, which if present, would require the application of management techniques (e.g., drainage, leveling, special fertilizing practices) to enhance production. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, part of the Division of land Resource Protection, California Department of Conservation,uses the information from the USDA f and the NRCS to create maps illustrating the types of farmland in the area. 1 Soil Capability Clasacation The Soil Capability Classification System takes into consideration soil limitations, the risk of damage when soils are used, and the way in which soils respond to treatment. Capability classes range from Class I soils, which have few limitations for agriculture, to Class VIII soils, which are unsuitable for agriculture. Generally, as the rating of the capability classification system increases, CHAPTER 3.3 —AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES i 3.3-1 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 the yields and profits are difficult to obtain. A general description of soil classification, as defined by the NRCS,is provided in Table 3.3-1, Soil Capability Classification. Table 3.3-1 Soil Ca abili Classification I Soils have few limitations that restrict their use. II Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants, or that require E special conservation practices. iIII Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require conservation ractices, or both. IV i Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants; require very careful management,_or both. V Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations; impractical to remove that limit their use largely toilasture or range, woodland, or wdlife habitat. VI Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and I limit their use lar ely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. VII Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that E restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. ! VIII Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plants 3 and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife habitat, or water supply or to aesthetic purposes. Source:USDA Soil Conservation Service,Soil Surveyof Contra Costa Conn , 1977. ' Storie Index Rating System The Storie Index Rating system ranks soil characteristics according to their suitability for agriculture from Grade I soils (80 to 100 rating), which have few or no limitations for agricultural production to Grade 6 soils (less than 10), which are not suitable for agriculture. Under this system, soils deemed less than prime can.function as prime soils when limitations such as poor drainage, slopes, or soil nutrient deficiencies are partially or entirely removed. The six grades, ranges in index rating, and definition of the grades, as defined by the NRCS, are provided below in Table 3.3-2, Storie Index Rating System. CHAPTER 3.3--AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3 -2 i 1 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 Table 3.3-2 Storie Index Rahn stem € —excellent SO through 100 Soils are well suited to intensive use forg'rowing`irrigated crops that are climatically suited to the region. 2—Goad 60 through 79. Sails are goad agricultural sails, although they may not be so desirable as Grade 1 because of moderately coarse, coarse, or gravelly surface soil texture; somewhat less permeable subsoil; lower plant available water holding capacity,fair fertility;less well drained conditions, or slight to moderate flood hazards, all acting separately or in combination. 3—pair 40 through 59 Soils are only fairly well suited to general agriculture use t71 and are limited in their use because of moderate slopes; @ moderate soils depths; less permeable subsoil; fine, moderately.fine or gravelly surface soil textures;poor C drainage; moderate flood hazards; or fair to poor fertility levels, all acting alone or in combination. 4—Poor 20 through 39 Soils are poorly suited. They are severely limited in their agricultural potential because of shallow soil depths; less permeable subsoil; steeper slope;or more clayey or gravelly surface soil texture than Grade 3 soils, as well as poor drainage;greater flood hazards; hummocky micro- relief; salinity; or poor fertility levels, all acting alone or in combination. 1 5 —Very Poor 10 through 19 Soils are very poorly suited for agriculture, are seldom cultivated and are more commonly used for range, pasture, or woodland. 6--Nonagriculture Less and 10 Soils are not suited for agriculture at all due to very severe to extreme physical limitations, or because of urbanization. Source:USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Contra Costa Coun , 1977. Farmland L4=in„g and Monitoring Program The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (PMMA) was established in 1982 to continue the Important Farmland mapping efforts begun in 1975 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sail Conservation Service (USDA-SCS). The intent of the USDA-SCS was to produce agriculture maps based on soil quality and land use across the nation. As part of the nationwide agricultural land use mapping effort, the USDA-SCS developed a series of definitions known as Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) criteria. The LIM criteria classified the land's suitability for agricultural production; suitability included both the physical and chemical characteristics of soils and the actual land use. Important Farmland Maps are derived from the USDA-SCS soil survey maps using the LIM criteria. CHAPTER 3.3—AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ,I 3.3 -3 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE Mit Y 2003 Since 1980, the State of California has assisted the USDA-SCS with completing its mapping in the state. The FMMP was created within the State Department of Conservation (DOC)to carry on the mapping activity on a continuing basis, and with a greater level of detail. The DOC applied a greater level of detail by modifying the LIM criteria for use in California. The LIM criteria in California utilizes the SCS and Storie Index Rating systems, but also considers physical conditions such as dependable water supply for agricultural production, soil temperature range, depth of the ground water table, flooding potential, rock fragment content and rooting depth. Important Farmland Maps for California are compiled using the modified LIM criteria(as described above) and current land use information. The minimum mapping unit is 10 acres unless otherwise specified. Units of land smaller than 10 acres are incorporated into surrounding classifications. The Important Farmland Maps identify seven agriculture-related categories: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance (statewide farmland), unique farmland, farmland of local importance(local farmland), grazing land, urban and built-up land (urban land), and other land. Each is summarized below, based on A Guide to Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (1998), prepared by the Department of Conservation. Prime Farmland: Prime farmland is land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain the long-term production of agricultural crops. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. The land must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at some time during the two update cycles (a cycle is equivalent to Z years)prior to the mapping date of 1998 (or since 1994). Statewide Farmland: Farmland of Statewide Importance is land similar to prime farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or with less ability to hold and store moisture. The land must have been used for the production or irrigated crops at sometime during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date (or since 1994). Unique Farmland: Unique farmland is land of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards, as found in some climatic zones in California. The land must have been cultivated at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date(or since 1994). Local Farmland: Farmland of local importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county's Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee. Sacramento County local farmland includes lands which do not qualify as Prime, Statewide, or Unique designation, but are currently irrigated crops or pasture or non-irrigated crops; lands that would meet the CHAPTER 3.3—AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.3-4 i 5 DRAF7-EIR CYPREss GRo vE Prime or Statewide designation and have been improved for irrigation, but are now idle; and lands that currently support confined livestock,poultry operations and aquaculture. Grazing Land: Grazing land is land onwhich the existing ve etition, whether' grown naturally or through..znanageznent, is suited to the grazing of livestock. The minimum mapping unit for this category is 40 acres. t Urban Land; Urban and built-up land is occupied with structures with a building density of at least one unit to one-half acre. uses may include but are not limited to, residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration purposes, railroad yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, water control structures, and - other development purposes. Highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities are mapped as part of this unit,if they are €` part of a surrounding urban area. a Other Land: Other land is land that is not included in any other mapping categories. The following uses are generally included: rural development, brush timber, government land, strip mines, borrow pits, and a variety of other rural land uses. Project Site Characteristics The project site consists mostly of vacant fallow farmland. The Williamson Property has been used for agricultural purposes since at least the 1950s, with crop rotations of grains and limited tomato cultivation along Marsh Creek.' The Conco North property has been cultivated in row crops in the j past, but by the early 1990s, the farming on the property had ceased. The Conco South Property is identified as being used for agricultural purposes from at least 1958 to 1994. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California published by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1.977), refers to the near-surface soils within the majority of the project area as belonging to the Sycamore silty clay loam. (So) soil series (see Figure 3.3-1). The near surface soils in the southwestern and northeastern portions of the project area are referred as belonging to the Delhi (DaC) soil series.'The soil capability classification(SCS)and Storie Index Rating (SIR) and grade for each of these soils is presented in Table 3.3-3. Due to the high SCS and SIR rating of the Sycamore soil series, the project site is considered Prime Farmland. The DOC 4 identified the Sycamore silty clay loam as soils that "meet the criteria for Prime Farmland as outlined in the I.I.S. Department of Agriculture's Land Inventory and Monitoring Project......° . CHAPTER 3.3-AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES I 3.3 -5 GR,.F*r EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200.E " A } i Wr�� �` • �'�� ._ #� .tee �..�T,�;: I ♦� S �k�y \, Figure 3.3-1 Soil types at the Cypress Grove site,City of Oakieyr Nott that the majority of the site is covered in Sycamore silty clay, .-.,_ loam(So)with the entire remainder in Delhi sand(DaC)and a small j1 (n area Sorrento silty clay loam(Sm). The project watershed I boundary is shown also.base map courtesy of CHG. L i CHAPTER 3.3 —AGRICULTURAL_RESOURCES 3.3 -6 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE r MA Y 2003 . 3 Table 3.3-3 Ors-site Sail Ca abilitv Classification and Storie Index Rating S carnore sit clay loam(So) I 90 1 Delhi sand(€)aC) III 36 3 Source:USDA Soil Conservation Service,Soil Survey of Contra.Costa:CounpL, 1977,. In addition, the Conga Costa County important Farmland Map (2000) identified the majority of the project area as Prime Farmland. ,. REGULATORY CONTEXT General flan The following applicable goals and policies are from the Oakley 2020 General Plan:6 �..;.� Goal 6.1 Allow agriculture to'continue as a viable use of land that reflects the community's origins and minimizes conflicts between agricultural and urban uses. Policy 6.1.1 Participate in regional programs that promote the long-term viability of agricultural operations within the city. Policy 6.1.2 Reduce the negative impacts resulting from urban uses and neighboring agricultural uses in close proximity. Policy 6.1.4 Incorporate parks, open space and trails between urban and agricultural uses to provide buffer and transition between uses. � IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards Of Significance Only those thresholds of significance that are applicable to the proposed project are presented below. A project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would. • Convert Prime Farmland, Important Farmland, or Unique Farmland to non- agricultural use; • Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use; • 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 • Any change in existing land uses which would conflict with adjacent agricultural use. CHAPTER 3.3—AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES d 3.3 -7 DP FT EIR, CYPRESS GRovE MAY 2003 Method of Analysis This section utilized the following resources to assess the impacts of the project: the Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report, the Oakley 2020 General Plan, the'Oakley'2020 General Plan EIR, and the Soil Survey for Contra Costa County. This section would apply the standards of significance to the existing setting to the potential setting after implementation of the proposed project. If the proposed project has a significant impact on the environment, this section would then propose mitigation measures, if feasible, which would reduce the impact. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 The proposed project would convert Prime Farmland to urban uses. The project site comprises approximately 147 acres. The majority of this acreage is considered Prime Farmland by the DOC. The proposed project would convert the Prime Farmland to urban uses. Major portions of the Williamson property and Conco North Property are identified as Prime Farmland areas by the Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map (2000). The two properties are designated in the Oakley 2020 General Plan as Single Family Residential, High Density (SH). The General Plan SH land use designation for the project site is consistent with the dwelling unit densities proposed for the project. The residential development of the northern properties would result in the loss of Prime Farmland. The Conco South Property is designated in the Oakley 2020 General Plan as both Multi- Family Residential, High Density (MH)(western portion of Conco South Property) and Single Family Residential, High Density (SH)(eastern portion of Conco South Property). The Conco South Property has portions of it identified by the Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map as Prime Farmland. The residential development of the Conco South Property would result in the loss of Prime Farmland. The certified Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR states that the General Plan accommodates agriculture while providing for the balanced needs of the City (General Plan DEIR, p. 3- 77). The General Plan states that the City of Oakley through its General Plan is primarily completing the urbanization of the area as originally intended by Contra Costa County. Sixty-five (65) percent of the County is protected as undeveloped. The Oakley Planning Area falls in the thirty-five (35) percent that is designated for development. In addition, agricultural resources are currently fragmented and commercial agriculture is substantially compromised. The EIR found that the incremental environmental effect of the General Plan on agriculture is less-than-significant. Therefore, in accordance with the findings of the certified Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR, the loss of Prime Farmland acreage due to the development of the proposed project would be considered a less-than-significant impact. CHAPTER 3.3--AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES t 3.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION , I } ' j i F' f �f r 1 1 ' i i DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo vE MA Y 2003 1 3.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION i INTRODUCTION €'l This section describes the existing and future setting for transportation and circulation both with ' and without the proposed project. The analysis provides information on local roadway networks, levels of service, and the potential effects associated with increases in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed project. Information in this section is based upon a traffic impact analysis prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants' (see Appendix D). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Cypress Grove encompasses approximately 147 acres, east of State Route 4(SR-4), extending both north and south of Cypress Road in the City of Oakley. The site is proposed for residential development consisting of 541 single-family homes and 96 multi-family units. The development to the north of Cypress Road would surround the newly constructed Delta Vista Middle School (see Chapter 2 Figure 2-2 Project Location Map)• Cypress Road would provide primary access to the development. Implementation of the project would increase vehicular traffic in the area, which could adversely ` affect the operation of street systems, particularly at intersection locations. A complete understanding of the existing traffic conditions is necessary before determining the potential impacts of the project. A discussion of the existing street system conditions in the project study area is provided below. Existing Conditions TJKM studied several existing roadways in the vicinity of the project site. Following are descriptions of the roadways studied: State Route 4 (SR-4)IMain Street, Cypress Road, Laurel Road, Rose Avenue, and Sellers Avenue. i State Route 4 (SR-4)/Main Street is a two-lane major arterial that carries approximately 24,300 vehicles per day. Main Street is the only major north-south transportation corridor in the vicinity of the project that provides direct access from Oakley to the greater Bay Area to the west and a link between Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County to the east. Mixed residential commercial and agricultural uses characterize the lands along both sides of SR-4 between Rose Avenue and Laurel Road. Maximum speeds posted on SR-4 in the project vicinity are: 35 miles per hour(mph) west of Rose Avenue, 45 mph between Rose and Bernard Road, and 40 mph south of Bernard Road. . i CHAPTER 3.7 —TRANSPORTATION ANIS CIRCULATION 3.7 -1 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 i Cypress Road is an east-west, two-lane residential arterial west of SR-4 and a two-lane rural road east of SR-4. The posted speed limit on Cypress Road is 50 mph east of SR-4 in the vicinity of the f project site. Laurel Road is an east-west two-lane residential collector street with residential and vacant land on both sides. The posted speed on Laurel Road is 45 mph. Laurel Road lies approximately one-half mile south of the project site, parallel to Cypress Road. Rose Avenue is a north-south, two-lane residential street, with a 30-mph posted speed limit, located approximately one mile west of the project site. Sellers Avenue is a north-south, two-lane rural road, approximately one-half mile east of the project site,with residential lots south of Cypress Road and farmlands to the north. Land Use The project site consists of fallow land. The lands to the east are primarily farmlands. The Contra Costa Canal borders the project on the north, and beyond the canal is farmland. Marsh Creek separates the project from undeveloped land on its west side. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) railroad track runs through the southern limit of the site with partially developed residential land on the southwest. Transit Sendice Tri-Delta Transit provides transit service in the area, providing three lines connecting Brentwood and the Pittsburg/Bay Point Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. Tri-Delta Transit Route 391 operates during the commute hours on weekdays and Route 392 operates on weekends only. Both routes travel through local streets in Brentwood, Oakley, and Antioch. Route 300 is an express route on SR-4 with only four stops between Brentwood and the BART station. In the vicinity of the project, all three lines have bus stops located at the Main Street (SR-4)/Cypress Road intersection just to the southwest of the project site. However, service is not currently provided on Cypress Road east of SR-4/Main Street. Railroad Crossing Railroad tracks cross Cypress Road at grade approximately 630 feet east of Main Street and 455 feet west of the proposed project's Street A. On May 30, 2001 TJKM observed only one train during the morning peak hour and three trains during the evening peak hour crossing at Cypress Road. The morning peak hour train caused 42 seconds of delay and an eastbound queue of four vehicles on Cypress Road. The evening peak hour trains caused a maximum delay of 99 seconds and an eastbound queue of 18 vehicles. CHAPTER 3.7 -TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULALION 3.7 -2 N vs .f", d C7 LL cs tv R y r= 1 C to C 0 c`n 1t t0$)&9 ` ¢1 r a> �'S! )6Z �` 1C- LL) tl `m as r (L);t C m "" „f—Z99)OL4 a r.2 .F- $ v ill► 93)as i ��� 4s)L6 is �T `Lsc)ss �j a�i� 06)11L gg `v a� II f at vJ 94) 19tr-�► +y (959)vee =7 aar2 b l�—►1 r: p } SAV SH3""SS 'NI flnVHOdw 0 cc cc tL r. d CO M 'ISN" cc \ c �,1 ,��i•r tZ8)L49 \ tU a� ILLS)099- '3AV SSOU LS i i 141, \ V (6z912"5t'9 0 1�{O LZ i m E � 4...e' VINTAGE PKWY. { t v O cis a) c z to as 2 LU C6 tit ' � vow 3.7.3 DRA1=T E1R CYPREss GRo rE MAY2003 Intersections z TJKM Transportation Consultants conducted turning movement counts for nine intersections,near the proposed project on April 4, 2001 (see Figure 3.7-1).. It should be noted that study intersections 5 and 6 are not included on Figure 3.7-1 because they did not exist at the time that traffic counts were conducted by TJKM. However, traffic volumes for intersections 5 and 6 are included in all of the traffic impact analyses. Based upon these counts, TJKM categorized each intersection using standard level-of-service designations (see Table 3.7-4). All intersections are currently operating at LOS A. The one-way stop-controlled intersection of Main Street/Rose Avenue, though operating at LOS A overall, operates at LOS E and F for the stop-controlled movement (northbound Rose Avenue) during the AM and PM pear hours respectively. The traffic from residential side streets such as Rose Avenue must often wait at the corner for long periods of time before an opportunity arises for them to enter the faster-moving traffic on a major roadway. The Main Street/Rose Avenue intersection currently does not meet Caltrans' peak hour signal warrant. Approximately 50 vehicles on Rose Avenue approach Main Street during the peak hour. A minimum of 100 vehicles is required to meet the signal warrant. Table 3.7-1 summarizes the conditions existing on April 4, 2001 at the intersections evaluated. Table 3.7-1 i Existing Conditions-Intersection LOS { A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Control (I) LOS 0) LOS Main Street/Rose Ave. One-way 1.4 A 1.6 A STOP i (40.1) (E) (79.4) (F Main Street/Cypress Rd. Signal 0.40 A 0.47 A Main Street/Laurel Rd. Signal 0.46 A 0.44 A -Cypress Road/Sellers Ave. Si al 0.31 A 0.37 A I Frank Hen el Way/C ress Rd. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Street A/C ress Rd."I n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Main Street/Almond Tree Lane One-way 0.5 A 0.2 A STOP (10.7) (C) (12.5) (C) Main Street/Bernard Road One-way 0.2 A 0.1 A E STOP (11.1) (C) (7.4) (B) Cypress Road/Machado Lane One-way 0.1 A 0.1 A STOP (7.7) i (B) (10.3) (C) (1) Average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignalized intersections and volume to capacity(V/C)ratio for signalized intersections. j (2) Street A at Cypress Road does not exist under this scenario. {x) Average stopped delay for the minor movement in seconds per vehicle. Source:Traffic Impact Analysis,TJKM page 7 i CHAPTER 3.7 —TRANSPORTA`ICN AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -4 { DRAFT EIR CYRREss GRo vs - MAY 2003 I Baseline Conditions In order to provide a more accurate forecast of the impact of the Cypress Grove Project on traffic in the area, in addition to a discussion of existing conditions and existing-plus-project conditions as r required by CEQA, it is helpful to also describe the traffic volumes resulting from the addition of already approved projects located within the City of Oakley to the existing traffic volumes. The adjusted data, prepared by TJKM, constitutes a baseline from which the effects of the Cypress Grove project"will be measured. The baseline represents the condition that is forecast to exist once ` already approved projects are completed and fully occupied. All impacts from the proposed project will be compared to this baseline. 3. Approved projects consist of developments that are either under construction, are built but unoccupied or partially occupied, or that are unbuilt but have final development plan approval from r the City. The City identified the following ten approved projects for inclusion in this analysis (see Figure 3.7-2). 1) Subdivision 7797 6) Subdivision 7658 2) Subdivision 6963 7) Subdivision 7630 3) Subdivision 7689 8) Subdivision 7662 4) Subdivision 6968 9) Cypress Lakes I 5) Subdivision 8403 10) Middle/Elementary School The trip generation rates for the approved projects (see Table 3.7-2) were derived based on information contained in Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation j Engineers. Table 3.7-2 Approved Project Trip Generation Daily A.M Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour i l s use Size(2) Rate Tris Rate In:Out in Out Toto] Rate In:Out In Out Total l ,l Tract 7797 98 9.57 938 0.75 25:75 18 55 74 1.01 64:36 63 36 99 Tract 6963 197 9.57 1,885 0.75 25:75 37 111 148 1.01 64:36 127 72 I99 Tract 7689 225 9.S7 2,153 0.7S 25:75 42 127 169 1.01 64:36 145 82 227 Tract 6968 42 9.57 402 0.75 25:75 8 24 32 1.01 64:36 27 ' 15 42 Tract 84.03 74 9.57 708 0.75 25:75 14 42 56 1.01 64:36 48 27 75 1 Tract 7658 44 9.57 421 0.75 f 25:75 8 25 33 1.01 64:36 28 16 44 . # Tract 7630 127 9.57 1,215 0.75 25:75 24 71 95 1.01 64:36 82 46 128 I Tract 7662 25I 9.57 j 2,402 0.75 25.75 47 141 188 1.01 64:36 162 91 254 Cypress 11330 n/a 12,017 n/a n/a 268 580 848 n/a n/a 740 451 1,191 ? Lake(') Middle 800 n/a n/a 1,06 53:47 449 399 848 0.97 47:53 365 411 776 School Elementary 700 n/a n/a 0.99 54:46 374 319 1 594 0.90 46:54 250 290 5540 Total 1,289 L.1,894 3,085 1 1 2,037 1,537 1 3,575 Notes: (1) Traffic generation taken from Cypress Lake EIR Traffic Impact Study,Abrams Associates (2) Size is indicated in number of dwelling units for tracts and students for schools. j CHAPTER 3.7-TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -5 LDRAF7"E/Fz CYPRESS GRo vE i 14AY2005 1 1 x N l � { f l- „yR A �r -4, w, i OF 'fir�We— ' zzy� irwirs. �� .'zMlTk ;".Zzl, r -'e .;k�i 3 F} M, IT U "A `^N TM h3 u fides tP2 � "4 �f tis u a2 CO isE 2 Qai ! o Ei g Ail `! LAJ ............ V CHAPTER 3.7 —TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULAT ION 3.7 -6 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo vE.` MAY 200.E { .both schools are considered as approved projects and their trip generation rates are based on 1 observations conducted by TJKM of other similar schools in the East Bay. Distributions for approved residential projects are based on existing commute patterns. Railroad Crossing The approved projects are expected to generate 833 eastbound trips on Cypress Road during the evening peak hour. Using a peak hour factor of 0.90, the eastbound queue waiting for a train to cross Cypress Road in 99 seconds (maximum delay observed under existing condition) would increase the number of vehicles waiting by approximately 25. Therefore, the eastbound queue at the track is expected to increase to 43 vehicles, with 16 stopped on Cypress Road and 27 on Main Street. If the railroad gates arms were down for 42 seconds during the morning peak hour, the westbound and eastbound queue would be expected to be 18 and 11 vehicles, respectively. These queues are based on a 0.90 peak hour factor, and should not extend to the adjacent intersections. €-J Intersection Level of Service With the addition of the approved project traffic to existing traffic volumes, all of the study intersections are projected to continue to operate at LCIS A, B or C, which are acceptable levels of service. Similar to existing conditions, the intersection of Main Street / Rose Avenue is expected to operate acceptably overall, but the minor street Rose Avenue is expected to operate unacceptably during the peak hours. Because this intersection is not expected to meet Caltrans' peak hour signal warrant, it is recommended that the City continue to monitor this intersection for any unanticipated delay. The results of the levels of service analysis for this scenario are given in Table 3.7-3. Detailed level-of-service calculations are contained in Appendix D ofTJKM's Traffic Impact Analysis located in Appendix D of this EIR. REGULATORY CONTEXT Existing policies, laws and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are summarized below. State The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over state highways. Therefore, Caltrans controls all construction, modification, and maintenance of state highways, such as SR-4. Any improvements to SR-4 would require Caltrans' approval. Contra Costa County Transportation Authority The Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA)serves as the Congestion Management Agency l .i (CMA) for Contra Costa County. CCTA adopted the county's first Congestion Management CHAPTER 3.7—TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -7 DRA) EIR, CYPRESS GROVE A4AY 2003 Program (CMP) in October 1991. The most recent CMP, referred to as the 2001 CMP Update, represents the fifth biennial update that the Authority has prepared. 3 Table 3.7-3 Intersection Levels of Service-Existing Conditions Plus Approved Projects AM Peak Hr. PM Peak Hr. AM Peak Hr. PM Peak Hr. Intersection Control (1) LOS (1) ! Los (1) Los (1) LOS Main St./Rose Ave. I One-way 1.40 A 1.60 A ; 6.50 A 12.30 C STOP (40.10) (E 79.40 F A20) ' F ; A20 F i Main St./Cypress Rd. Signal 0'40 A 0.47 A 0.94 E i 1.01 F [0.791 [C] [0.701 [B] Main St./Laurel Rd. Si nal 0.46 A 0.44 A 0.75 C 0.71 C Cypress Rd./Sellers Ave. Si nal 0.31 A 0.37 A 0.78 j C 0.86 ? D n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.9$ E 0.78 C Street A/Cypress Rd. Signal j (�� 10.731 [C] [0.411 [A] ' Street B/C ress Rd. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Main St./Almond Tree Cir One-way 0.5 A 0.2 A 0.7 A 0.3 A I STOP i (10.7) (C) 1 (12.5) i (C) (1$.4) (C) (25.8) (L3) Main St./Bernard Rd. TOPv ! (111) (C) ( 041 A 0.2 A 0.1 A (B) (17.1) (C) (12.7) (C) Cypress Rd./Machado Ln. One-way 0.1 A I 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.2 A STOP (7.7) (B) I (10.3) (C} (22.9) (D) 60.7 (F (1) Average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignalized intersections and volume to capacity (V/C) ratio for signalized intersections. (2)The intersection of Street B at Cypress Road does not exist under this scenario. (X)Average stopped delay for minor movements in seconds per vehicle [XI Mitigated V/C ratio and LOS Source:Traffic Impact Analysis,T)KM Consultants p. 15 Measure C The overall goal of the CCTA Growth Management Program (GMP)called for in Measure C-1988 is to "achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the establishment of performance standards." Using a formula based on road miles and population, CCTA allocates 18 percent of the sales tax revenues it receives to local jurisdictions that comply with GMP requirements. Oakley participates in the Measure C program as a member of the TRANSPLAN subregional transportation planning committee, which consists of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County. Local General Plan Policies The Transportation and Circulation Element included in the General Plan is prepared pursuant to Section 65302(b) of the California Government Code, and has been a mandatory component of local General Plans since 1955. The Transportation and Circulation Element is required to address CHAPTER 3.7 -TRANSPORTATION AND 'CIRCULATION 3.7 -8 CYPRESS GRo vE MAY2003 l the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and other local utilities and facilities. Furthermore, the Transportation and Circulation Element must be public consistent with the other elements of the General Plan, accommodating future travel demand and contributing to, rather than inhibiting, the attainment of desired land use patterns in the Land Use q; Element. l;;1 The General Plan identifies several roadway and transit goals and policies that have been adopted to {' ensure that the transportation system of the city will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the city and provide for the transport of ': goods and services within the City. The following applicable goals and policies are from the Oakley 2020 General Plan:' fp' Roadwa;and Transit Goals: Goal 3.1 Provide an efficient and balanced transportation system. Policy 3.1.1 Strive to maintain Level of Service D as the minimum acceptable service standard for intersections during peak periods (except those facilities y identified as Routes of Regional Significance). Policy 3.1.2 For those facilities identified as Routes of Regional Significance, maintain the minimum acceptable service standards specified in the East County Action Plan Final 2000 Update, or future Action Plan updates as adopted. Policy 3.1.3 Keep roadway facilities in optimal condition. Policy 3.1.5 Encourage a multi-modal circulation system that supports non-automobile travel. Policy 3.1.5 Address future roadway needs through both new road construction and management of existing and planned roadway capacity. Policy 3.1.8 Mitigate conflicts between new roadway improvements and existing rural roadways when the identified conflicts threaten public health, safety and welfare. Bicycles and Pedestrians: Goal 3.2 Promote and encourage walking and bicycling. 1:4 Policy 3.2.1 Provide maximum opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian circulation on J existing and new roadway facilities. Policy 3.2.2 Enhance opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian activity in new public and private development projects. Policy 3.2.3 Create a bicycle and pedestrian system that provides connections throughout Oakley and with neighboring areas, and serves both recreational and commuter users. CHAPTER 3.7-TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION i-J 3.7 -9 DRAF-r EIR CYPRESS'GROVE MAY,2003 Public Transportation. Goal 3.3 Provide adequate, convenient, and affordable public transportation, r Policy 3.3.1 Design new roadways and facilities to accommodate public transit. Policv 3.3.2 Ensure that new public and private development supports public transit. Policv 3.3.3 Encourage transit providers to improve transit routes, frequency, and level of service to adequately serve the mobility needs of Oakley residents, including those dependent on public transit. Neighborhood Traffic Management: Goal 3.4 Minimize the intrusion of through traffic on residential streets. Policy 3.4.1 Direct non-local traffic onto collector streets and arterials. Policy 3.4.2 Maintain traffic speeds and volumes on neighborhood streets consistent with residential land uses. Policy 3.4.3 Provide adequate capacity on collector and arterial streets to accommodate travel within.the City. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance A traffic impact would be significant if any of the following conditions, or potential thereof, would result from implementation of the proposed project. • Substantially increased traffic volumes in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; • Decline in LOS to unacceptable Level E or lower at key intersections; • Failure of any street or portion of a street to meet accepted safety and design standards or guidelines; • Failure to include alternative circulation and access scenarios, including bicycle, pedestrian, or public transit in the project design. Method of Analysis TJKM Transportation Consultants (TJKM) conducted a Traffic Impact Analysis for the Cypress Grove Project. The analysis performed by TJKM is intended to quantify the traffic impacts of the project and to address the circulation and roadway improvements needed to mitigate these impacts. The analysis, summarized herein, addresses traffic conditions occurring during the morning and evening peak hours, and the area studied encompasses all of the major intersections that would be affected by the proposed project. The analysis considers the project's impacts on current traffic conditions as well as conditions occurring in the future under the Oakley General Plan. CHAPTER 3.7 -TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 .10 ....................................................................................................................................._ _ _ DRAE7 EIR CYPRESS GROVE r ] MAY2003 Intersections Studied Intersections, the "nodes" that connect and interconnect all individual roadway segments of the system, are the critical element of the transportation network in assuringadequate capacity, minimizing delays, and maximizing safety. The following intersections were studied by TJKM for project-related impacts: ' 1) Main Street(SR-4)/Rose Avenue 2) Main Street(SR-4)/Cypress Road 3) Main Street(SR-4)/Laurel Road 4) Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue 5) Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Way 6) Cypress Road/Street A (It should be noted that `Street A' in this chapter is the same street that is denoted `Street B' in the Traffic Study prepared by TJKM) r, s 7) Main Street(SR-4)/Almond Tree Lane 8) Main Street(SR-4)/Bernard Road 9) Cypress Road/Machado Lane 1 Levels of Service Evaluations Levels of service at each of the intersections studied were evaluated to demonstrate how the proposed project would impact the transportation and circulation system.Three near-term and two long-term cumulative scenarios were considered: + Existing Conditions—The current (2001) traffic volumes and roadway conditions were evaluated. 0 Existing-Plus-Approved-Projects Conditions—This scenario evaluates conditions that would result when adding traffic generated by already approved projects that might affect the study intersections to existing traffic conditions. • Existing-Plus-Approved-Plus-Project Conditions — This scenario begins with the conditions determined for the existing-plus-approved-projects scenario and adds traffic that would be generated by the proposed Cypress Grove Project. • Year 2025 Conditions — Future traffic conditions at the study intersections were projected based on "Eastern Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model" developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA). + Year 2025 Plus Project Conditions—This scenario begins with the conditions determined for the year 2025 conditions above and adds traffic that would be generated by the proposed Cypress Grove Project. Already approved projects consist of developments that are either under construction, are completed but fully or partially unoccupied, or that are not yet built but have final development- plan approval from the City (see discussion of baseline conditions in the Environmental Setting section and Figure 3.7-2). The methodology used assumes that all approved projects are completed and fully occupied in the year 2025 traffic scenarios. d CHAPTER 3.7—TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -11 DRAFT'E.1R. CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 Trip Generation T Trip generation is defined as the number of one-way vehicle trips produced by a particular land use i. or study site. Trips generated by the Cypress Grove Project were estimated using the rates contained in Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution is the process of determining in what proportion vehicle trips will travel between different locations within a traffic study area. Trip assignment is the allocation of vehicle trips to available routes (local streets)between locations in the traffic study area. Traffic was distributed to the roadway system manually based on existing travel patterns. Future traffic generated by approved and buildout developments was distributed and assigned to the local street system using the "Eastern Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model," which takes into account lik=ely peak- hour route choices. Roadway Improvements Assumptions Based on information provided to TJKM by the City and the data contained in the East County Travel Demand Model, the long-term scenarios considered major improvements to the traffic network including a SR-4 bypass, a major diagonal arterial connecting Cypress Road and Laurel Road between Main Street (SR-4) and Sellers Avenue, and the possible alternative to the proposed diagonal arterial by making improvements to Sellers Avenue between Cypress Road and Laurel Road, and Laurel Road between Sellers Avenue and SR-4. The Year 2425 analyses were prepared based on the assumption that key roadway improvements in the study area will be partially or fully completed as planned. Intersection CQacitv Analysis The level of service (LOS) measurement is a qualitative description of traffic operating conditions for intersections and roadways. Levels of service describe these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations ranging from A to F, which are defined in Table 3.7-4 below. The LOS measurement that is used to determine the significance of any impacts a project might have on traffic and circulation is an intersection's overall LOS. Separate methodologies are used to determine levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections. Signalized Intersections The operating conditions at the signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization Method adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Peak-hour intersection conditions are reported as volume-to-capacity(V/C)ratios with corresponding LOS. CHAPTER 3.-'i --TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCUL.A T lON 3.7 -12 __ _.............................................................I'll.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo vE N MAY2003 a Unsignalized Intersections r The operating conditions at the unsignalized study intersections were evaluated using the method contained in Chapter 10 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This meths d calculates the average ? delay at the intersection, as well as the highest minor movement delay, with corresponding levels of service. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix B of TJKM Transportation Consultants' Traffic Impact Analysis for the West Cypress Properties(sic) (see Appendix D). Table 3.7-4 Level of Service Description 1 A ' Represents a free flow. Individual users are unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. B Stable flow,but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. C Stable flow,but marks the beginning of the range of flow in which that operation of individual users _ becomes si if`acantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. D i Represents high-density,..but stable flow. E Represents operating condition at or near the capacity level. P Represents forced or breakdown flow. j Source:Highway Capactty Manual Special Report 209,Transportation Research Board. 1985. Trip generation—Cypress Grove Project 1 The proposed development is expected to generate 5,909 daily trips, 462 during morning peak hour and 617 during the evening peak hour. Table 3.7-5 illustrates the estimated trip generation ,f for the proposed project. Table 3.7-5 i.: Project Trip Generation _ Dail A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Use Size Rate Trips Rate In:out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Single 547 9.57 5,273 0.75 25:75 103 310 413 1.01 64:36 357 200 557 fan-dl du ulti- 96 family du 6.63 636 0.51 16:84 8 41 49 0.62 67:33 40 20 60 Total 5,909 111351 462 397 220 617 q ' du=dwelling unit t' ? Source:Traffic impact Analysis,TJKM pa e 16 i :I CHAPTER 3.7—TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -13 DRAFT EIR C'YRREss GRc fF MIA Y200 Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.7-1 Development of the proposed project would result in increased traffic volumes at Main Street(SR-4) intersections... Main StreetlLaurel Road The LOS at Main Street's intersection with Laurel Road would remain unchanged, operating at the acceptable LOS C. Refer to Table 3.7-5 for details of Main Street intersections studied. Main Street/Rose Avenue Although the LOS would drop from A to C during morning and from C to D during evening peak hour traffic at Main Street and Rose Avenue, the overall LOS would remain acceptable. However, the minor movement on northbound Rose Avenue would continue to operate unacceptably at LOS F. The Project would not contribute any traffic to the minor movement and the intersection would not be expected to meet Caltrans' peak hour signal warrant. However, the city should continue to monitor the intersection for higher than normal accident rates. Main StreetlCypress Road The intersection at Main Street and Cypress Road, would continue to operate unacceptably with LOS at morning peak hour degrading from E to F, and evening peak hour LOS remaining at F. Main Street lAlmond Tree Lane and Bernard Road The intersections of Almond Tree Lane and Bernard Road with Main Street would continue to operate at overall LOS A during morning and evening peak hours. However, the LOS for the minor movement on Almond Tree Lane is expected to be unacceptable at LOS E during the evening peak hour. The Project would not contribute any traffic to the minor movement and the intersection would not meet Caltrans' peak hour signal warrant. The intersections of Main Street and Laurel Road, Rose Avenue, Almond `free Lane, and Bernard Road would continue to operate at overall acceptable levels of service with implementation of the proposed project. The combined effect of the already approved projects and the Cypress Grove Project on traffic volumes at the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection, however, would result in a potentially significant impact. Cf-HARTcR 3.7 —7RANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 .14 ..................................................................._ _ _ _ _................................................................................................................................................................................._ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ _.................................................................................................. _ _ .................... ... _. __ __ _ _ __ _ _ . ..... ...... _ __ i DRAFT EIR CYPREss GRo vE MAY2003 as well as the multi-family development. The neighborhood park would include the following potential uses: Tot play area, + Open play areas, r^ * Path system, and + Picnic area with tables, trash receptacles,benches, etc. The community park would be located north of Cypress Road, would consist of 5.19 acres, and would be developed adjacent to the north side of the existing school site. This site would provide the City of Oakley with the following potential uses: * Pedestrian circulation system, '1 + Play area for ages 1 through 6, J + Play area for ages 6 through 12, r� Soccer and/or baseball fields, • Group and individual picnic areas, * Benches, trash receptacles, drinking fountain, etc., and 1 • Site for possible future restrooms. RBrQY3IRED PUBLIC APPROVALS J The proposed project requires the following discretionary actions by the Oakley City Council: * Adoption of a Rezone from Agriculture (A2) and Heavy Agriculture (A3) to Planned Unit District (P-1), approval of a Final Development Plan pursuant to the combined final development plan provisions of Section 84-66.1206 of the zoning ordinance; S * Approval of a Parcel Map dividing 32.36 acres (ac.) into two parcels, creating a 6.55 ac. parcel for multi-family development and a 25.81 ac. parcel for single family development (Subdivision 8678); * Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8678) to subdivide 32.36 acres into 100 single family lots (23.61 ac.), one lot for multi-family development(Parcel A; 6.55 ac.), and four parcels totaling 2.20 acres for park and open space and trails; h + Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8679) to subdivide 49.95 acres into 201 single family lots (43.56 acres), one lot for a stormwater pond (Parcel A; 5.05 ac.), and 4 lots totaling 1.34 acres for Open Space and Trails; * Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8680) to subdivide 64.80 acres into 240 single family lots (54.95 ac.), one lot for a park (Parcel A; 5.19 ac.), and four lots totaling 4.66 acres for Open Space and Trails; w. * Approval of Design Review of 100 homes in Subdivision 8678, consisting of four floor y plans with three elevations each, ranging from 2,100 to 3,000 square feet; ` + Approval of Design Review of 201 homes in Subdivision 8679 consisting of five floor plans with three elevations each, ranging from 1,725 to 3674 square feet on large lots; `l CHAPTER 2--- PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-19 DRAFT OR CYPRESS,GROVE MAY 2003 • Approval of Design Review of 240 homes in Subdivision 8680, consisting of four floor , plans with three elevations each, ranging from 1,900 to 2,600 square feet on the smaller lots, and three floor plans with three elevations each, ranging from 2,700 to 3,100 square feet on the larger lots; and • Approval of Design Review of 96 multi-family units developed in nine buildings, including a community building with units ranging from one to three bedrooms each. 1 This EIR is also intended to serve as the environmental document by which the following agencies would rely upon to ensure compliance with CEQA when carrying out actions potentially required of them by the proposed project. The agencies and their associated actions potentially required by the proposed project are listed below: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Section 404 permit • California Central Valley Water Quality Control Board — 401 Water Quality Certification • Diablo Water District—off'-site water line • California Department of Fish and Game — A Streambed Alteration Agreement, pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation-Approval of the inclusion application CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-20 - _.._.. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................_._.._..................__.. .... ........._. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ { y r. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT o.F CYPRESS GROVE k. Y �1 t � ?'1 'r 1 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo vE Mei Y 2003 4 Table 3.7-6 Baseline Plus Project Conditions LOS-Main Street. SR-4 Existing Plus Approved Existing Plus Appr®ved,Plus Project A.M. Peak Hr.__ P.M. Peak Hr, :A.M.:Peak Hr. ` P.M.Peak Hr. j. Intersection . SDLOS (Y) LOS (1) LCIS ftp LOS $ Main/Rose 6.5 A 12.3 C 13.3 C 23.2 D unsi alized >120 F _(x120)__(F) >120 F >120 F Main/Cypress 0.94 E 1.01 F 1.06 F 1.24 F [0.79] [C1 10.701 IB] I0.821 [D] I0.84-I IDI Main/Laurel 0.75 C 0.71 C 0.80 C 0.77 C Main/Almond Tree 0.7 A 0.3 A 0.8 A 0.3 A Lane (18.4) (C) (25.8) (D) (22.1) (D) _(34.9 E Main/Bernard 0.2 A0.1 A 0.3 A 0.1 A (17.1) (C) (12.7) (C) (20.1) (D) (15.8) (C) - (1) SO = Stopped delay: average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignalized intersections and volume-to-capacity(V/C)ratio for signalized intersections. (X) Average stopped delay for minor movements in seconds per vehicle ` [XJ Mitigated V/C ratio and LOS g Source:Traffic Impact Analysis,TJKM page 21 r' Mitiaa '421 Measure implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.7-1 The applicant f developer shall restripe the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection as follows: i • The northbound approach shall be restriped with one 1�ft-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane; • The striping shall be indicated on the improvements plans submitted to the city Engineerfor review and approval prior to initiating roadway improvements, + The striping shall be completed prior to occupancy of any residential units (other than the model home complex(es,). 3.7-2 Development of the Cypress Grove project has the potential to increase ;> traffic at the intersections of Cypress Road with Sellers Avenue and Machado Larne. Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue The intersection of Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue would not be adversely affected with the addition of project-generated traffic. The LOS would remain at C and D for morning and evening peak hours respectively(see Table 3.7-7). t CHAPTER 3.7 -TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1 3.7 -15 DRA1 , E'JR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200.3 Cypress Road/Machado Lane The Cypress Road/Machado Lane intersection would continue to operate at an overall acceptable LOS A, both morning and evening; however, the minor movement at this ' intersection is expected to operate unacceptably during the peak hours (see Table 3.7-7). The Project would not be expected to contribute any traffic to the minor movement and the intersection would not meet Caltrans' peak hour signal warrant. Although the proposed project would increase traffic volumes at the Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue and Machado Lane intersections, they would continue to operate at overall acceptable levels of service. Therefore, the impacts would be considered to be less-than- significant. Mitigation Measures) None required. Table 3.7-7 Baseline Plus Project Conditions LOS-Cypress Read j Existing Plus Approved Existing Plus Approved Plus Project A.M. Peak Hr. P.M. Peak Hr ( A.M.Peak Hr. P.M.Peak Hr. Intersection (1) LOS (1) LOS (1) 1 LOS (1) LOS s C ress/sellers . 0.78 C .086 D 1 .079 C .087 D Frank Hengel 0.98 E 0.78 C 1.09 F 0.89 D Way/Cypress [0.731 [C] 1 10.41] [A] [0.86] [D] [0.51] ' [A] I Frank Hengel 1.09 F 0.89 i D Way/Cypress n/a n/a i n/a n/a [0.861 [Dj [O.5ij [A] (no left out at St. B) ! ' ! St.A/Cypress t n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.96 E 0.89 D ! (si aiized) E [.051] [Al [0.451 [A] St. A /Cypress i I n/a n/a I n/a n/a 5.7 B 2.0 1 A (I-waysto ) 106.3 F 47.1 , E St.A /Cypress I 2.6 A 1.1 i A (no left out/1-way n/a n/a n/a n/a (55.6) (F) (16.1) ; (C) stop) Cypress /Machado 0.1 A it 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A (22.9) (D 1 60.7 F 37.1 E 66.3 (I) Average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignalized intersections and V/C ratio for signalized intersections (2) The intersection of Cypress Road/Street A does not exist under the Existing plus Approved scenario. (X) Average stopped delay for minor movements in seconds per vehicle [X] Mitigated V/C ratio and LCIS Source:Traffic lm act Analysis,TJKM page 21 CHAPT_R 3.7 -TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -16 t DRAFT EIR Cy,-RES'S GRo vE MAY200,E 3.7_3 Development of the Cypress Grove Project has the potential to substantially impact Cypress Road at the intersection of Frank Hengel Drive. Cypress Road would provide access to the project via;two 'new 'roadways The first roadway would be known as Street A and would be located north of Cypress lRoad on the ```'I west side of the existing middle school see impact 3.7-4 below The second roadway i::j � � P )� y would also be known as Street A and would be located south of Cypress Road, providing access to the Conco South. Property. This street would connect to the existing Frank y Hengel Way on the north side of Cypress Road. The proposed project would widen and extend Frank Hengel Drive into the project area. With traffic from the proposed project, the Street A, Frank Hengel Drive / Cypress Road intersection would operate at unacceptable LCIS of F during the morning peak hour (see Table 3.7-7). Therefore, the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road / Street A, Frank Hengel Drive. I'vtitigatign Measures .4 Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- i,;l than-significant level. €- 3.7-3 Prior to initiating roadway construction, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer,`for review and approval, plans for the widening�r,f Cypress Road between Main Street/SR-4 and Sellers Avenue to provide one additional through Iane in both the eastbound and the westbound directions. The Cypress Road widening shall be complete prior to occupancy of the residential units (except the model home complex(es)). I 3.7-4 Development of the Cypress Grove Project has the potential to impact Cypress Road at the intersection of Street A (west of Delta Vista Middle School) created by the project. The intersection of Cypress Road and Street A, which would be constructed as part of the proposed project, was evaluated with three scenarios: I) Signalized intersection, 2) One-way stop controlled intersection(traffic on Street A would stop), and 3) Right-tarn in/right-turn out/left-tarn in movements only. r~ �x Linder the.first scenario with a signalized intersection, the intersection would operate with an LOS E and D for morning and evening peak hours respectively(see Table 3.7-7 above). The second scenario, a one-way stop on Street A, yields an unacceptable level of service (LOS F and E) for the minor street left-turn movement on Cypress Road during the a.m. and p.m.peak hour. i "A { CHAP'T'ER 3.7—TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7-17 DRAFT EIS; CYPREss GRO vir MAY 200.3 The third scenario would restrict left-turn out movements and provide the intersection with an LOS A for both morning and evening peak hours, respectively. However, as with m4 the second scenario, this scenario yields an unacceptable level of service for the minor street left-turn movement on Cypress Road. In this instance the unacceptable condition (LOS F) would occur only duringthe.,mornrning peak hour. Refer`to'Table 3.7-7 above for further details. Overall, the level of service is acceptable at Cypress Road/Street A when it is not signalized. Although the Cypress Road/Street A intersection would operate unacceptably upon signalization,the Traffic Study(p. 37)identifies the signalization of the intersection as a mitigation measure. The intersection impacts would be mitigated once Cypress Road is widened in the project area to include one additional through lane each for the eastbound and westbound directions (see Chapter 2.0, Project Description, Figure 2-8). Without the planned improvements to Cypress Road already included in the project plans, the impact on the Street A/Cypress Road intersection would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. 3.7-4(a) Project applicantldeveloper shall fund the signalization of the Cypress RoadlStreet A intersection. Prior to issuance of building permits, the signal at the Cypress RoadlStreet A intersection shall be installed and operational and approved by the City engineer. 3.7-4(b) Implementation of mitigation measure 3.7-3. 3.7-5 The project could result in impacts to the Railroad Crossing on Cypress Road. The proposed project is expected to generate 363 eastbound trips on Cypress Road during the evening peak hour. Using the same assumptions for the railroad crossing on Cypress Road under the baseline condition, which includes both existing traffic and traffic expected to be generated by already approved projects in the vicinity, approximately 11 vehicles would be added to the queue by the project, for a total of 54 vehicles waiting at the crossing. Without the planned widening (see mitigation measure 3.7-3), Cypress Road would have only one eastbound lane between Main Street and the crossing, and the queue overflow would be about 38 vehicles. However, if Cypress Road is widened to two eastbound lanes as planned, the queue on Main Street would be reduced to about 22 vehicles. Even with the reduced overflow at 22 vehicles, a potentially significant impact would result from the proposed project to the railroad crossing on Cypress Road. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. CHAPTER 3.7 -TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -18 DRAF7"EIR CYP'RE'SS'GRovE "l Mei Y 2 0©.3 3.7-5(a) The applicant shall reconstruct the Main StreetICypress Road intersection as follows. • As described in mitigation measure 3.7-3. • To provide approximately 600 feet of storage on Main Street for the southbound left-turn and northbound right-turn movements. • Interconnect all signals. The improvements shall be indicated on the improvement plans for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to initiating roadway construction. The improvements shall be completed prior to the occupancy of any residential units (except for model complex(es)). 3.7-5(b) Implement mitigation measure 3.7-1. 3.7-6 The project could create a need for expanded access to public transit. ,r. The project area is currently provided transit service by Tri-Delta Transit. Goal 3.3 of the Oakley 2020 General Plan is designed to ensure that new public and private development provides adequate, convenient, and affordable public transportation(Oakley 2020 General Plan, p. 3-4). The proposed project would increase demand for public transit service. The proposed roadway improvements are designed to meet minimum City of Oakley standards, which could accommodate transit services. Tri-Delta Transit, after reviewing the Final Development Plan, indicated that the proposed project could be served in the future if bus stops and/or shelters are provided in the designs. Without bus stops or shelters, Tri-Delta Transit may not be able to provide service to the project area. The lack of service to the project area would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact from the proposed project to a less-than-signfcant level. 3.7-6 The project proponent shall include bus stops on both sides of Cypress Aoad near the main entrance into the development. The f nal design and location of these bus stops are subject to the approval of the Oakley City Engineer and Tri-Delta Transit. 4 ,I Cumulative Impacts L ; j Year 2025 Without Project Scenario Year 2025 traffic conditions are based on the "East County Travel Demand Model." The levels of service at the study intersections were evaluated based on the projected turning movement volumes presented in the Model. Traffic trips from the proposed project were added to the year 2025 ! volumes to determine the intersection levels of service for"Year 2025 plus Project"scenario. i CHAPTER 3.7—TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -19 DRAFT E'IR CYPRESs GRovE MAY2003 i Traffic generated by the Cypress Grove development must be compared to Year 2025 Without Project condition in the year 2025 to determine the impact created by the proposed project. The results of the Year 2025 No Project levels of service are summarized in Table 3.7-8. Under the No Project condition, assumptions were made as to transportation improvements. Based on the information provided by the City and the data contained in the East County Travel Demand Model, the long-term scenarios considered major improvements to the traffic network including the SR-4 Bypass and a major diagonal arterial connecting Cypress Road and Laurel Road between Main Street and Sellers Avenue. Table 3.7-8 Peak Hour Intersection LOS--Year 2025 Without Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M.Peak flour Future Lane Mitigated Future Lane i Mitigated Configuration Con ' uration Intersection V/C I LOS V/C I LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Dia on al Arterial Main St/Rose Ave 0.52 A -- -- 0.48 A -- -- Main St/Cypress Rd 0.85 D -- -- j 0.85 D -- _- Main St/laurel Rd 0.76 C -- -- 0.64 BCypress Rd/Sellers Ave 1.51 F 0.81 D 1.33 F 0.79 C Frank Hen el Wy/C ress Rd 1.11 F 0.81 D 0.76 C 0.40 A ! Street A /Cypress Rd") ; n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nla n/a ; n/a Main St/Almond Tree Ln I 0.5 A j 0.2 A (7.3) (B) (7.2) (B) Main St/Bernard Rd 0.2 A _ _ 0.1 A (8.6) (B) (4.8) (A) 0.2 A _ _ 0.2 A I Cypress Rd/Machado Ln 71.6 F 79.1 (F) o i Sellers Avenue Arterial ? C ress Rd/Sellers Ave 1.371 F 1.39 F 0.75 C i 0.$3 ! D (1) The intersection of Street A and Cypress Road does not exist under this scenario ; (X) Average stopped delay for southbound Street A V/C Volume to capacity for signalized intersections LOS Level of service Source:Traffic Impact Analysis,TJKM page 27 The City may also consider an alternative to the proposed diagonal arterial by making improvements to Sellers Avenue between Cypress Road and Laurel Road, and Laurel Road between Sellers Avenue and SR-4. Cypress Road, between Main Street (SR-4)and Sellers Avenue; would be widened to four lanes and the intersection of Main Street and Rose Avenue is assumed to be signalized. As indicated in the table, one intersection would not exist under this scenario, six of the remaining eight intersections studied would operate at acceptable levels of service, and two would operate at unacceptable levels, even without the project. CHAPTER 3.7 -TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -20 i DRAF-r EIR CYPREss GRo vE MAY 2003 'i Year 2025 With Project Scenario The Plus-Project levels of service are summarized in Table 3.7-9. Assuming completion of the Table 3.7-9 k Pear Hour Intersection LOS--Year 2025 With Project A,M. Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Future Lane Mitigated Future Lane Mitigated I Configuration Con . uration Intersection (1) LOS I (I} LOS (I) Los {I} LOS Diagonal Arterial Main St/Rose Ave. 0.53 A -- -- 0.49 A -- -_ Main St/C ress Rd. 0.89 D 0.89 D 1.03 F 0.76 C Main St/Laurel Rd. 0.82 D -- -- 0.66 B i -- -- v Cypress Rd/Sellers Ave. 1.55 F 0.82 D 1.37 F i 0.81 D Cypress Rd/Frank Hengel 1.21 F 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.47 A Wa Cypress Rd/ Frank Hengel Way 1.23 F 0.87 D 0.86 D 0.47 A (no left out at Street B) ,.. Cypress Rd/Street A 1,05 F 0.56 A 0.84 D 0.42 A (ss lized) _ Cypress Rd/Street A 52.1 F 52.1 F 6.4 A 6.4 A (1-way sto ) >120l- >120 >120 F >120 F Cypress Rd/Street A 2.2 A 0.6 A 0.6 A 0.6 A (no left out) 62.7 F (28.3) (D) (11.6) (C) (11.6) (C) Main St/Almond Tree Ln .05 A i 0.2 A ` (10.0) (B) (9.7) (B) Main St/Bernard Rd 0.2 A r 0.1 A _ a (10.6) (B) (5.9) (B) Cypress Rd/Machado Ln 03 A 0.2 A r 789 46.1 Sellers Avenue Arterial i C ress Rd/Sellers Ave. 1.60I F 1.62 F ! 0.78 C 0.84- (1) .84(1) Average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignahzed intersections and volume to capacity(V/C)ratio for signalized intersections. (X) Average stopped delay for southbound Street A LOS Level of service Source.Traffic Impact Anal sis,TJKM Eage 30 proposed transportation network improvements, six of the ten intersections are projected to operate at overall acceptable levels of service in the Year 2025 With.-Project analysis. The following l intersections would degrade to unacceptable levels of service With the traffic growth estimated by the year 2025: + Main Street/Cypress Road • Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue(Both arterial options) + Frank.Hengel Way/Cypress Road • Street A /Cypress Road CHAPTER 3.7-TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 4 .; 3.7 -21 DRAFT Eft; CYPRESS Gpo vE MAY2003 3.7-7 The project would result in cumulative impacts to the intersection at Main 'TI Street/Cypress Road Under the year 2025 with project conditions, the intersection of Main Street and Cypress Road would operate at LCIS D during the morning peak hour and a LOS F during the evening peak hour. The volume to capacity ratio would increase from 0.85 to 1.03 for the evening peak hour, creating an unacceptable LOS F (see Table 3.7-9). The degradation of the intersection from an LOS D to an LOS F during the evening peak hour is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures would minimize impacts to the intersection and change the LOS P to an LOS C during the evening peak hour. Refer to Table 3.7-9 for a level of service analysis with and without mitigation. 3.7-7(a) Implement mitigation measure 3.7-1. 3.7-7(b) Applicant shall be responsible for the project's fair share of the cost to restripe the Main Street southbound approach with two l f-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through and right-turn lane. The project's fair share funding shall be submitted as determined by the City Engineer prior to the recording of final maps. 3.7-8 Cumulative impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue. The signalized intersection of Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F with the proposed project. (see Tables 3.7-8 and 3.7-9). Therefore, the project would have a significant impact to the intersection of Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would provide an acceptable LOS to the intersection; therefore reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.7-8 Prior to approval offxnal maps, the project proponent shall pay a fair-share portion as determined by the City Engineer for transportation and circulation improvements, which shall include one of the following, depending upon which arterial alternative the city chooses to implement: Diagonal Arterial Alternative a. Construction of one left-turn lane, one through lane (already exists), and one right-turn lane for the northbound approach; left-turn lane, one through lane (already exists), and two right-turn lanes for the southbound approach; two CHAPTER 3.7 —TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -22 i CYPRESS GRo v'E '( MAY 2003 i le t-turn lanes(one already exists), two through lanes(one already exists), and one right-turn lane for the eastbound approach; one left-turn lane (already exists), two through lanes(one already exists), and one right-torn lane`for the westbound approach. Sellers Avenue Arterial Alternative b. Construction of one left-turn lane, two through lanes(one already exists), and one right-turn lane for the northbound approach; one 10-turn lane, two through lanes(one already exists), and one right-turn lane for the southbound approach; one I fc-turn lane(already exists), one through lane(already exists), and one shared through and right-turn lane for the eastbound approach; one left-turn lane (already exists), one through lane (already exists), and one t' shared through and right-turn lane for the westbound approach. 3.7-9 Cumulative impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road and Frank Hengel r Drive. Under the year 2025 conditions, the intersection of Cypress Road and Frank Hengel Way i operates at a LOS F and C during the morning and evening peak hours respectively without the project, and at LOS F and D during the morning and evening peak hours respectively with the project. The impact from project-generated traffic would result in a decreased LOS during the evening peak hour in addition to creating an unacceptable LOS F in the morning peak hour. The additional congestion and LOS degradation to the intersection of Cypress Road and Frank Hengel Way is considered a sign f cant°impact. i Mitigation easure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would provide an acceptable LOS to the intersection; therefore reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.7-9 Prior to initiating roadway construction, the Applicant IDeveloper shall submit to the City .Engineer for review and approval improvement plans including plans for signalizing the intersection and providing one shared left, through, and right-tum lane for the northbound approach;one shared left and through lane, and one right- turn lane for the southbound approach; one left-tum lane (already exists), one through lane (already exists), and one shared through lane for the eastbound approach; one left-turn lane, two through lanes(one already exists), and one right- turn lane(already exists)for the westbound direction. 3.7-10 Cumulative impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road and Street A. Under the Year 2025 Without Project conditions, the intersection of Cypress Road and Street A would not exist. Street A would be constructed only under the purposed project to provide access to the site. As discussed in Impact 3.7-4, three different control scenarios were analyzed for this intersection: 1) signalized intersection, 2) one-way stop CHAPTER 3.7—TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7-23 DRA r EIR CYPRESS GROVE XIAY 2003 i controlled intersection (traffic on Street B would stop), and 3) one-way stop with right- turn in/right-turn out/left-turn in movements only. In the year 2025 with project j conditions, the three scenarios were again analyzed with the results shown below in Table 3.7-10. .7 <t i Table 3.7-10 i Peak Hour Intersection LOS—Year 2025 With Project i i A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Future Lane Mitigated Future Lane Mitigated Configuration Con ' oration i Intersection (1) LOS (1) LOS (1) LOS (1) LOS Cypress Rd/Street A 1.05 F 0.56 A 0.84 D 0.42 A signalized Cypress Rd/Street A 52.1 I F I 52.1 F 3 6.4 A 6.4 A 1-wa sto >120 s F ; >12b j F >120F >120 F Cypress Rd/Street A ` 2.2 A ( 0.6 ! A 0.6 A i 0.6 A no left out 62.7 F I (28.3) i (D) (11.5) (C) (11.6) i (C) (1) Average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignalized intersections and volume to capacity(V/C)ratio I for signalized intersections. E (X) Average stopped delay for southbound Street A LOS Level of service (X)Average stopped delay for southbound Street A. Source;Traffic Impact Analysis,TJKM page 30 • Scenario one (signalized intersection): With a signalized intersection,the morning peak hour fails to meet an acceptable LOS white the evening peak hour meets the acceptable LOS with a D. • Scenario two (one-way stop controlled intersection): With a one-way stop controlled intersection, both the morning and evening peak hours operate at an LOS F with an average stop delay of 120 seconds. • Scenario three (right-turn in/right-turn out/left-turn in movements only): With left turns prohibited from Street A to Cypress Road, the morning peak hour would receive an LOS F and the evening peak hour would be a LOS C. The average stop delay for the morning peak hour would be approximately 63 seconds compared to the 12 second delay during the evening peak hour. Under each of the three scenarios, at least one of the morning or evening peak hour LOS fails to operate at an acceptable level. Due to cumulative impacts caused by the proposed project, traffic operations at Cypress Road and Street A would result in a significant impact. Mitigation Measures) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would provide an acceptable LOS to the intersection; therefore reducing the impact to a fess-than-significant level. CHAP 7 ER 3.7 —TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -24 _.. URAFr SIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 3.7-I0 Prior to initiating roadway construction, the Applicant IDeveloper shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval improvement plans showing plans for providing one left-tum and one right-tum lane for the southbound approach; one left-turn lane and two through lanes (one already exists}for the eastbound approach; one through Iane(already exists)and one shared through and right-turn lane for the westbound approach. I Endnotes 1 Traffic Impact Analysis For the West Cypress Properties,in the City of Oakley,TJKM Transportation Consultants, October 16,2001. z Oakley 2020 General Plan, City of Oakley,August 30,2002. t i t v. t i F 1 l j 1 S CHAPTER 3.7--TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.7 -25 i R ............................... ........................................................................... 3.8 AIR QUALITY i .i 3 i I LJ j i `j ......... i { DRAFT EIR CYt'RESS GROVE MAY 2003 3. 3 AIR QUALITY INTRODUCTION ,. The Air Quality section describes the effects of the Cypress Grove project on local and regional air quality. The section includes a discussion of the existing air quality; construction-related air quality impacts resulting from grading and equipment emissions; direct and 'indirect emissions associated with the project; the impacts of these emissions on both the local and regional scale; and mitigation measures warranted to reduce or eliminate any identified significant impacts. The section is based on an air duality impact analysis provided by Donald Ballanti, C.C.M. (Ballanti Analysis)'(c f. Appendix D). Information for the Air Quality section was also drawn from the Cypress Grove P Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines),' the Oakley 2020 General flan Background Report,' the e � Centra Costa County (CCC) General Plan'and the CCC Draft Environmental Impact Report,'and the Oakley 2020 General Planand its associated EIR.' ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING t The following setting information provides an overview of the existing air duality in the Cypress Grove area, located within the Oakley City Limits, in eastern Contra Costa County. In addition, the regulatory agencies and required permits associated with air quality are described. � 1 Existing Conditions z j Oakley is located on the south side of the San Joaquin River Delta, east of the Carquinez Straits. The location between the greater Bay Area and the Central Valley greatly influences the climate and air quality of the area. The city is located at the eastern boundary of the San Francisco Bay Area j Air Basin. Oakley is located west of San Joaquin County, which represents part of the neighboring San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Oakley 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 -.l low. The 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. However, several major stationary sources exist in upwind cities that can influence local air duality, and the project's location downwind of the greater Bay Area also means that pollutants from other areas are transported to the area. Ambient Air Quality Standards Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board f (ARB)have established ambient air quality standards covering a wide variety of common pollutants. .r CHAPTER TER 3.8--AIR QUALITY 3.8-1 URAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. a The Federal standards are divided into primary standards, which are designed to protect the public health, and secondary standards, which are designed to protect the public welfare. California State standards for air quality tend to be more stringent than the Federal standards. j 4 i Local Air Quality Monitoring The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act require all areas of California to be classified as attainment,non-attainment, or unclassified as to their status with regard to the national and/or State Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has for many years operated a multi-pollutant monitoring site in nearby Bethel Island. Table 3.8-1 shows historical occurrences of pollutant levels exceeding the state/federal ambient air quality standards for the three-year period (1999-2001). The number of days that each standard was exceeded is shown. Table 3.8-1 Air Quality Data Summary for Bethel Island (1999-2001 ! «r 9 TIM O s ,fid ti*' %1"M I-Hour 5 1. 3 Ozone(O,) -- 1-Hour 1 0 1 — 8-Hour S 1 2 a'P'*, RL� �1 � -''° ,: 3i •y'_,'3ysEri -.. `kz � t t Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)' 1-Hour — 0 0 0 NX l +'' ,.ISO, Respirable Particulate Matter 24-Hour — 6 1 3 I (PMJ - 24-Hour 0 0 0 I Combined State/Federal 2 Measurement based on sampling one day in six.To estimate actual days standard exceeded. i 3. Data Source:Bay Area Air Quality Management District Web Site,www.baagmd.gov,July 29,2002 and California Air Resources Board Web Site,www.arb.ca.gov 4. Data Source:California Air Resources Board Web Site,www.arb.ca.gov Ozone Ozone is the most prevalent of a class of photochemical oxidants formed in the urban atmosphere. The creation of ozone is a result of a complex chemical reaction between reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in the presence of sunshine. Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not released directly into the atmosphere from any sources. Factories, automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels are the major sources of ozone precursors. The health effects of ozone are difficulty breathing, lung tissue damage, and eye irritation. CHAPTER 3.8—AIR QUAL.i T Y 3.8-2 DRAFT E"IR CYPREss Gr o vE Particulate Matter Respirable particulate matter(expressed as PM,,)consists of solid and liquid particles of dust, soot, aerosols, and other matter,which are small enough to remain suspended in the air for a long period of title. A portion of the particulate matter in the air is due to natural sources such"as wind blown dust and pollen. Man-made sources include combustion;automobiles, field burning, factories, and road dust. A portion of the particulate matter in the atmosphere is also a result of photochemical processes. The effects of high concentrations of PM,o on humans include increased respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Carbon?blonde I Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless,poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon.-based fuels such as gasoline, oil, and wood. When CO enters the body, the CO combines with chemicals in the body, which prevents blood from carrying oxygen to cells, tissues, and f_ organs. Symptoms of exposure to CO can include problems with vision, reduced alertness, and general reduction"in mental and physical functions. Exposure to CO can result in chest pain, ` headaches, and reduced mental alertness.' � i Nitr aen Oxide Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are produced from burning fuels, including gasoline and coal. Nitrogen oxides react with ROG (found in paints and solvents) to form smog, which can harm health, damage the environment, and cause poor visibility. Additionally, NOx emissions are a major component of acid rain.. Health effects related to NOx include lung irritation and lung damage. Sulfur Dioxide i Sulfur dioxides (SO,) are colorless gases and constitute a major element of pollution in the atmosphere. SO, is commonly produced by fossil fuel combustion. In the atmosphere, SOZ is usually oxidized by ozone and hydrogen peroxide to form sulfur trioxide(a secondary pollutant). If SO,is present during condensation, acid rain may occur. REGULATORY CONTEXT { Air duality is monitored through the efforts of various Federal, State, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly and individually to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for regulating and improving the air quality within the Oakley area are discussed below. CHAPTER 3.8-AIR QUALITY 3.8-3 GRAFT cIR CYPRESS GRo vE MAY2003 Air Pollutants and Ambient Air Quality Standards Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards represent the safest levels for each contaminant, according to the various thresholds of each pollutant for causing adverse health effects. The standards cover what are called"criteria"pollutants because health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Although the State and Federal ambient standards were developed independently, with differing purposes and methods, both processes shared an attempt to avoid health-related effects. As a result, some differences between Federal and State standards are known to exist, as illustrated in Table 3.8-2. Table 3.8-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ..�s, .. k '".•� ©zone 1-Hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM ,gyp 8-Hour 0.]08 PP}M ,-y—''; yp "10"`%.. .-F Annual Average 0.053 PPM Nitrogen Diazide — 1-Hour 0.25 PPM 1'£M� � kq ;�C.',k r •'a G �Y"34.C8 AY � � g � � s � s a Annual Average 50 ug/m' 30 ug/mi PM10 24-Hour 150 Pg/m, 50 ug/m, r 3ua v � r43 $ Nig PPM=Parts-ger-Million pg/m3=Micrograms-per-Cubic Meter Dara Source:Bay Area Air Quality Management District Web Site,www.baaqmd.govj Environmental Protection Agency The EPA is responsible for enforcement of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA has adopted policies requiring States to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIP) that demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. After a review of the SIP, the EPA will further classify non-attainment areas according to a District's projected date of attainment. Districts that project attainment of standards in 3-5 years would be classified as near- term non-attainment, whereas Districts that cannot meet standards within 5 years would be classified as long-term non-attainment. For an area to be classified as near-term non-attainment, the District would be required to demonstrate that pollutant reductions of 3-percent-per-year are obtainable and that maintenance of standards could occur for 10 years. In 1997, the EPA adopted new national air quality standards for ground-level ozone and for fine particulate matter (PM,$). These standards determined that the existing 1-hour ozone standard of CHAPTER 3.8—AIR QUALITY 3.8-4 DRA r EIR CYPREss GRovE r It AY 200 0.12 parts-per-million (PPM) would be phased out and replaced by an 8-hour standard of 0A8 PPM. New national standards for fine particulate matter (diameter 2.5 microns or less) were established for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The established PM,0 standards were retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with: the standards.were revised, Implementation of the new ozone and Particulate Matter standards was decayed by alaiuit. On May 14, 1999 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision ruling that the Clean Air Act as applied in setting the new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter was unconstitutional and an improper delegation of legislative,authority to the Environmental Protection Agency, clearing the way for implementation of the new standards. Luring the interim period, the California Clean Air Resources Board developed recommended designations for California air basins, proposing that Sacramento County be designated as non- attainment for the new 8-hour ozone standard. Designations for PM,., have not been made, however, a minimum 3-year monitoring period is required to determine designations. r'I California Clean Air Act The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that air quality plans be prepared for areas of the State that have not met State air duality standards for ozone, CO, NOX, and SO,. Among other requirements of the CCAA, the plans must include a wide range of implementable control measures, which often include transportation control measures and performance standards. In !i order to implement the transportation-related provisions of the CCAA, local air pollution control districts have been granted explicit authority to adopt and implement transportation controls. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The Bay Area Air Quality Management.District(BAAQMD)has permitting authority for stationary air pollutant sources in the region and operates a total of seven air monitoring sites within Contra Costa County. City of Oakley General Plan � i The following applicable goals and policies are from the Oakley 2020 General Plan: Goal 6.2 Maintain or improve air duality in the City of Oakley. Policy 6.2.1 Support the principles of reducing air pollutants through land use, transportation,and energy use planning. Policy 6.2.2 Encourage transportation modes that minimize contaminant emissions l from motor vehicle use. s Policy 6.2.3 Interpret and implement the General Plan to be consistent with the regional Bay Area Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), as periodically updated. Policy 6.2.4 Ensure location and design of development projects so as to conserve air quality and minimize direct and indirect emissions of air contaminants. j Policy 6.2.5 Encourage air quality improvement through educational outreach programs,such as Spare the Air Day. CHAPTER 3.8—AIR QUALITY 3.8-5 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GF?OVE MAY2003 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance -z The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines state that a project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors), exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the .elderly, the acutely and/or chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes,hospitals, and medical clinics. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines" determined that an air quality impact would be considered significant if it would: • Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts-per-million(ppm)averaged over eight hours, or 20 ppm for one hour; • Generate criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the BAAQMD annual or daily thresholds. The current thresholds are 15 tons/year or 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases(ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) or PM,,. Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact; • Have the potential to expose members of the public to objectionable odors; or • Have the potential to expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants. Method of Analysis Donald Ballanti prepared an air quality report for the proposed project(Air Quality Impact Analysis For the Proposed Cypress Grove Project, City of Oakley), and the following information outlines the methods of analysis in the report. CHAPTER 3.8-AIR QUALITY GRAFT EIR CrRREss GRovE MAY2003 ( Mob le Source Emissions CALINE-4 Modeling r For the proposed Cypress Grave project, eight-hour concentrations were obtained from the one- hour output of the CALINE-4 model using a persistence factor of 03.7. The CALINE-4 air quality model employs a mixing zone concept to characterize pollutant dispersion over the roadway. Given source strength, meteorology, site geometry, and site characteristics, the model predicts pollutant concentrations for receptors located within 150 meters of the roadway. The CALINE-4 jmodel allows a roadway to be broken into multiple that can vary in traffic volume, emission rates, height, width, and so on. A screening-level form of the CALINE-4 program was used to predict concentrations. Normalized concentrations for each roadway size (2 lanes, 4 lanes, et jcetera) are adjusted for the two-way traffic volume and emission factor. Calculations were made for a receptor at a corner of the intersection located at the curb. Emission factors were derived from the California Air Resources Board EMFC7-G computer program (based on a 20031 vehicle ry. mix.) New Vehicle Travel Ernissions Estimates of regional emissions generated by project traffic were made using a program called 1, URBEMIS-7G, and assuming a year 2005 vehicle mix. This program estimates the emissions that result from various land use development projects. The Cypress Grove project required an estimate based on single-family and multi-family residential uses. Stationary Source Emissions Indirect air duality impacts related to land use were evaluated considering the types of surrounding land uses, distances between air pollution sources and receptors, and prevailing wind direction at the site. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Construction-Related Emissions Construction activities such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-waterbase paints, thinners, some insulating materials, and caulking -' materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gasses for a short time after its application. Construction dust could affect local air quality during implementation of the proposed project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere and disturbed. CHAPTER 3.8—AIS; QUALITY 3.8-7 DRAFT EIR CYPREss GRC7✓E NIA;'2003 The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM,, downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties and sensitive receptors. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. _ Mitigation Measures} Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level: 3.8-1 The applicant shall provide measures to reduce emissions caused during construction activities by implementing the following dust control measures: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, • Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least twofeet offreeboard; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites, • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; • Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways, and • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 3.8-2 Residential Trip Generation Air Emissions Will Exceed Acceptable Threshold. Implementation of the proposed project would include 541 single-family homes and 96 multi-family dwelling units. The addition of these units into the City of Oakley would increase the number of people within the city limits. As population would increase, the number of vehicular trips to and from the project area would rise as well. According to Table 3.8-3, as a result of the increased vehicular trips, NOx would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 80 pounds-per-day. Therefore, the increased emissions resulting from trips generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. CHAPTER 3.8-AiR QUALITY 3.8-8 ©RAF r EIR GYP'REss GRo vE MAY 2003 "Fable 3.8-3 Permanent Regional Emissions � a Reactive O} anis Gasses 77.0 PPD " 80PP6, 96.25% � PM10 S 2.6 PFD 801.0 PPD 65.75°la PPD=Pounds-per-Day r Data Source.Wand Anal ' C Omber 2001 I Mitigation Measure.U) The Ballanti Analysis notes that the following mitigation measures have been identified by the BAAQMID for reducing vehicle emissions from residential projects, but notes that many of these measures are predicated on the availability of substantial transit service. As l the site is suburban in nature„ and has only limited transit service available, some of these measures are not feasible at this time. • Provide bicycle lanes, sidewalks andlor paths, connecting project residences to adjacent schools, parks, the nearest transit stop, and nearby commercial areas. Comment: These features have been included in the plans of the proposed project. • Provide satellite tele-commute center within or near the development. Comment: This is a land-use issue that is not under the control of the developer. • Provide secure and conveniently placed bicycle parking and storage facilities at parks and other facilities. Comment: These measures will be implemented as parks are designed. • Implement feasible travel demand management (7 DM) measures,jor a project of this type. This would include a ride-matching program, coordination with regional ride-sharing organizations, provision etransit information, and provision of shuttle service to major destinations such as the '_J Pittsburg BART station. Comment: This measure is not feasible for the proposed project, but would be a measure that could be taken by the City and for which the project would be required to participate. I Because feasible project-specific mitigation measures are not available at this time to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. 3 CHAPTER 3.8—AIR QUALITY 3.8-9 GRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 3.8-3 Generation of CO Operations-Related Emissions Near a Congested Intersection or School Sites The operation of the proposed project would generate vehicle trips and contribute to vehicle travel and congestion at study intersections. Carbon Monoxide concentrations that would be experienced at each of the receptors are presented in Table 3.8-4, CALINE4 output reports are presented in Appendix E. As indicated in Table 3.8-2, both the federal and State 8-hour standard for CO is 9.0 PPM, and the 1-hour standard varies; the federal 1-hour standard is 35 PPM, and the State standard is 20 PPM. Based on the CALINE4 air quality modeling analysis, under all development scenarios analyzed, the CO concentrations at sensitive receptors would be lower than all CO air quality standards. In addition to increased vehicular traffic at intersections, operation of the proposed project would generate vehicle trips and contribute to travel in the vicinity of the existing middle school and future elementary school site. However, a high concentration of CO constitutes a localized effect and requires a substantial number of vehicles experiencing significant delays. Although without mitigation, intersections in the vicinity of the school site would be expected to operate at below acceptable traffic levels of service, the Air Quality Analysis predicts that CO concentrations would yet remain below the CO air quality standards, at 4.5 and 4.3 PPM for the 1-hour and 8-hour measurement respectively (see Table 3.8-4). These levels would be significantly lower than the most stringent standards of 20 and 9 for the 1-hour and 8-hour measurement respectively. Therefore,this impact of the proposed project on study intersections and existing (and future) school sites would be considered less-than-significant. Table 3.8-4 Worst-Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Selected Intersections PPM 0:1 Main Street-Rose Avenue 4.6 3.4 4.8 3.5 5.2 3.8 �w�aii $*e`+'�� pr 4� .v.` Main Street-Laurel Road 4.4 3.2 4.7 3.5 4.9 3.6 ki,14*rS' �axe `CypressRaa 3 40 a xy ` n NOS,, > Cypress Road- -Road A - - 3.6 2.7 4.5 3.3 SSS RZ3t .F �1�ad` Most Stringent Standard 20.0 9.4 i 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 Data Source.Miami Analysis®Oruber 2001 CHAPTER 3.8-A[R QUALITY 3.8-10 I DRAFT EIR CYPREJS GRovE MAY2003 Miti ation Measurels) None required. 3.8-4 Emissions From Adjacent Agriculture Operations The project site is surrounded by fields to the north(across the Centra Costa Canal) and to the east that have most recently been used to support the dairy operation to the northeast, which has recently been sold. The agricultural Melds to the north would become part of the CALFED Fay-Delta Program (see Chapter 3.2, Land Use,p. 3.2-7). The agricultural fields j to the east would also no longer support the dairy; however, the property owner may continue agricultural operations on the property. The location of the proposed project would create the potential for exposure to emissions from farm operations to the east. Residences along the eastern borders of the project site would be adjacent to agricultural ? uses. The residences could be affected by pesticide spraying and dust from plowing the fields. The General Plan designates the area east of the project site as Single-Family Residential, High Density (SII) and Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH). Therefore, the urban/agricultural interface that exists along the eastern boundary of the project site is only temporary. However, because the existing setting is agricultural, and because the project includes the development of homes adjacent to the existing agricultural operations, sensitive receptors would periodically be subjected to dust and pesticides emanating from the agricultural operations. Therefore, the project would have a significant impact to residents. IVlitigtion Me Asure(s) Implementation of the mitigation measure listed below would reduce the magnitude of this impact by ensuring that potential residents would be aware of the exposure to emissions and odors from the adjacent fields. However, measures are not available to eliminate these impacts. Therefore, the impact would retrain significant and unavoidable. 3.8-4 1mplernent Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ,4 3.8-5 Cumulative Impacts to Regional Air Quality } .,,U The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines states that the evaluation of a project's cumulative impacts should be based on an analysis of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and the local general plan with the regional air quality plan (BAAQvfD, p. 51). The Oakley 2020 General flan EIR concludes that the implementation of the proposed Oakley 2020 General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts on regional air quality. The General Plan EIR states that the Oakley 2020 General Plan would have less-than-significant impacts on air quality if it satisfies an analysis of consistency with regional air quality plans and policies (Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR, p. 3-59). The evaluation of consistency relies on 1) a comparison of plan-related population growth, and a CHAPTER 3.8--AIR QUALITY 3.8-11 DRAFT EIR CYPRE5S GRollE MAY 2003 2) a review of travel growth and transportation control with the projections and policies used in the most recently adopted regional Clean Air Plan (CAP) (Proposed Final 2000 Clean Air Plan, December 6, 20000). The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR explains that the { air quality and traffic General Plan policies and programs demonstrate an effort on the dart of the City of Oakley to implement all feasible measures; and would result in the Oakley 2020 General Plan being consistent with regional;air quality plans and policies (Oakley 2020 EIR, p. 3-59-60). Therefore, because the Oakley 2020 General Plan would be consistent with regional air quality pians and policies and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Endnotes ' Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Proposed Cypress Grave Project, City of Oakley © October 2001, by Donald Ballanti,Certified Consulting Meteorologist. 2 Cypress Grove Design Guidelines(Design Guidelines)C December,2001 }Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report(Oakley GP Background)C September,2001 `Adopted from the Contra Costa County General Plan C 1996 s Contra Costa County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report(County GP EIR)Cc September, 1990 s Oakley 2020 General Plan,City of Oakley,September,2002. Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Oakley,September,2002. 8 C.I.S.Environmental Protection Agency website(httpJ/www,gpa.g�v) 9 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 0 1996,Bay Area Air Quality Management District(revised Chi 1999). CHAPTER 3.8—AIR QUALITY 3.8-12 i { r y i 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION L_; ' J i. L i f I DRaF-r EIR CYPREss GRovE I 3.9 NOISE AND VIBRATION INTRODUCTION This section discusses the existing noise and vibration environment in the project vicinity, and identifies potential impacts and mitigation measures related to development of Cypress Grove (project) in the City of Oakley, California. Specifically, this section analyzes potential noise and vibration impacts, due to and upon development of the project, relative to applicable noise criteria and to the existing ambient noise environment. This noise chapter is based upon a noise analysis #.. prepared by Bollard&Brennan, Inc. ENVIRC?NMENTAL.SETTING T Acoustical,Terminology Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz(Hz). Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals of pressure), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to the reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels(dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by the A-weighing network. A strong correlation exists between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives noise. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are expressed in terms of A-weighted levels. Table 3.9-1 contains definitions of acoustical terminology used in this section. CHAPTER 3.9 — NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 -i DRAFT EI CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 Table 3.9-1 Acoustical Terminology goR:s. � Acoustics. The science of sound ' i to iri�ei� � se �* � ihdts a auscal �ctcsastscs'o£ girertpcersis rz 3 � «rse rdbe¢a`tAMtocatzoa in.�ay�es� e terga xaxezat" k Attenuation The reduction of noise. � x Z� arspre dlustrnenuud level zetdz to conriztons zl autxt .xy 3 ^5i �t a 4� � 1�,�9��}�'�� R�• M+,'R+. Y'in?p���t. ,�,Y ':: �` � 3�F."�� ?V°d� k�VY y���W��k 4 v1 5 Y, Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound. A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one-tenth of a Bell. t Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz. kl 3 aq as A" ; a rz , a aa 'i .as a � s.0 L,q Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level. e��t�'"".�3� � �� s� he ��t• Uot"X�k���S9t'$C�S3d�'���;���s" 112L�d�#"�'4 ,1 �r�. i3%`'�."�" �s �t`��Q�� ��, .�s ��: � '"1 ^#. ��,�.���""rr�'��'3's � ',�^*3'��� �.z �� a"`-�x i'��` 3 r 53 xx ur�'" r��"ii'�'��s������'����• � '; Loudness A subjective term for aa the sensation of the magnitude of sound. ' ;vw4 d gk.M.#A tir3yA �,s* 1 ; .K.vw , xa w, +rz �`� "ro1TICS a ..a:44" , 01 U61 " ,' IN �. z'x z0.kKgT r Threshold of The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally E Hearing considered to be Q dB for persons with perfect hearing. ; s X_6li?@ -atlw1t ' abC;v fi11ai'ea3e � g k i tee $�� ,;�� kk"aa r��,i• �• � �°r�. :�,.z., �"#�rj°v.A�'s,�.:�.�x� ,f,x+. ��' � '* s`?"�• F�� �, .,;''-�{',F � ,��` vF n. ,�' ,�a,'a;+ � > CHAPTER 3.9— NODE AND VIBRATION 3.9-2 DRAE7 EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200.x' Community noise is commonly described in terms of the "ambient" noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (L¢s); which° corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound levelcontaining the same total energy as a time- varying signal over a given time period, usually one hour. The Lxq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, L,,., and shows very good correlation with community response to r: noise. The Tray-night Average Level (La,.)is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day,with a +103 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:010 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24- hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. Tj s1, Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. Although vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person's perception to F the vibration would depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system that is vibrating. Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for y vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities. For this project, vibration is a concern a during the passage of trains on the nearby tracks. A detailed analysis of railroad-related vibration levels is contained in this report. Existing Land Uses In The Project Vicinity Existing land uses in the project vicinity consist of residences, agricultural fields, retail commercial, and a school. A Contra Costa Water District Canal segregates the project from farmlands to the north, and .Marsh Creek forms the western boundary of the project site, separating undeveloped land from the project on the west. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) ;= Railroad right-of--way runs through the southern limit of the project with partially developed residential area on the southwest side and the project on the northeast. Agricultural lands both north and east of the project site are currently in agricultural production and are used to grow grain `--t crops, which support a nearby dairy operation.. The dairy operation is located on the north side of the Contra Costa Canal adjacent to the northeast corner of the Emerson property,which lies on the eastern border of the portion of the project site known as the Coneo Northproperty. ; i F CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-3 DRAFT FIR CYPRESS GRo vE M iAY 2003 Existing Noise And Vibration Environment In The Project Vicinity ;i The existing ambient noise environment in the immediate project vicinity is mostly defined by traffic on State Route 4 (Main Street) and Cypress Road, by onsite activities gat the Delta Vista Middle School (which the project site surrounds); and by railroad operations on the BNSF railroad tracks. The only identified potentially significant source of vibration in the project vicinity was railroad operations on the BNSF tracks. To quantify existing noise and vibration levels in the project vicinity, both noise and vibration surveys were conducted on and near the project site. The following sections describe those measurement procedures and results. General Ambient Noise Level Survey A short-term ambient noise survey was conducted at three sites in the immediate project vicinity during daytime hours on June 8, 2001 (see Table 3.9-2). A Larson Davis Laboratories(LDL)Model 824 precision integrating sound level meter was used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meter was calibrated before and after use with an LDL Model CA200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type i sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). The noise level meter was programmed to record the maximum and average noise level at each site during the survey. The maximum value, denoted L,represents the highest noise level measured. The average value, denoted L,Q, represents the energy average of all of the noise received by the sound level meter microphone during the monitoring period. The ambient noise level measurement results are provided in Table 3.9-2. Table 3.9-2 Ambient Noise Monitoring Results Cypress Grove Property Site-June 8,2001 E r$ ya �a `kWIN 3 "a. { dt o-e r. ..s -v Mir 1 150 feet from RR/Cypress Intersection 58 72 „ 6 <' w 3 North-central portion of project site 46 66 Source. Bollard&Brennan,Inc.Note that no train passages occurred during the noise survey.Railroad noise was monitored independent from these general ambient samples and is discussed later in this section. CHARTER 3.9-- NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 -4 ............................... ............................................................................... ........................................................................................ DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2f.03 The ambient noise survey results indicate that the measured daytime ambient noise levels at the project site are fairly typical of urban areas affected primarily by nearby traffic noise sources(when trains are not present). A specific assessment of existing and future, project and no-project traffic noise levels is provided later in this section, as is a separate evaluation of railroad noise. Exi_ ing Traffic Nome Environment r Predictions of noise levels due to traffic were based on the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108). The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed., roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly L,,, values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict noise levels in terms of La,,, the daytime and nighttime distribution of traffic must be included in the computations. j Traffic volumes were obtained from TJKM Transportation Consultants in the form of peak [ morning and afternoon hour intersection movements (see Table 3.9-3). The morning peak hour traffic volumes were compiled into segment volumes and converted to daily traffic volumes using a factor of 10. Truck usage on the local area roadways was estimated from published Caltrans traffic counts and Bollard&Brennan, Inc. site observations. Table 3.9-4 shows the predicted existing traffic noise levels in terms of the Day/Night Average Level descriptor (L jJ at a standardized distance of 100 feet from the centerlines of the existing project-area roadways for existing conditions, as well as distances to existing traffic noise contours. The extent to which existing land uses in the project vicinity are affected by existing traffic noise depends on their respective proximity to the roadways and their individual sensitivity to noise. F stinZ Railroad Noise_Enyir ninent The BNSF railroad tracks form the southern boundary of much of the project site, as shown by Figure 3.9-1. Observations of railroad activity at the project site indicate that railroad warning horns are used as trains approach the crossing of Cypress Road. To quantify railroad noise exposure at the project site, Bollard& Brennan, Inc. utilized continuous noise level measurement data recently collected for the Delta Pointe project, which is located directly opposite the railroad tracks from the southern portion of the Cypress Grove project site. Those measurements were conducted over a 4-day period adjacent to the project site. The noise measurement site, which is shown on Figure 3.9-2, was approximately 150 feet from the railroad tracks. 4. CHAPTER 3. — NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.�-5 DRAFT El R CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200.3 i i Table 3.9-3 F ; FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs } Cypress Grove-Oakley,California e ° West 17980 19780 19690 19940 4 North 0 0 0 0 v Nkl31 NO <:iC West 6290 7050 5870 6240 NO41 to," North North 17730 19570 19120 19790 West 8160 8290 13200 14370 North 17490 18970 10680 12550 (West 13440 13890 30990 32540 24 AM % nm�M t a North 720 810 21640 22070 � x To .. .. z.... , I West 15250 17980 25230 27720 ,�y� r }k "l Or WNW scs�. �" md'," � ,k x"'` �'xx�,, North 12400 14620 12300 14520 M# r' k'� PMx Source: TJKM and Bollard&Brennan,Inc. Notes: Day/Night distribution for all roadway segments was assumed to be 83%! 17% Truck usage for all roadway sregments was assumed to be 3%medium and 6%heavy on Highway 4. Vehicle speeds for all segments were assumed to be 45 mph. ADT computed as a.m.peak hour* 10. CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 -6 DRA-r EIR CYPRESS GR0 vE MAY 2003 Table 3.9-4 ! Existing Traffic Data, Noise Levels and Distances to Contours' :1 ! Cypress Grove Project—Oakley California .a West 68.0 73 158 341 1. Main& Rase ! North 0.0 0 0 0- r _ t .,,.:x�Ys,..g- ., % ! West 61.6 28 S9 128 2. Main& Cypress „ g � �. ��, .. ` F,M"A... � `.x' 9 , I s g .., . North 67.9 73 157> 337 .,R .'S,F...�.�3?� ,.�3y�, +353 a._w�1�."�h•�d,� �et .R�':.t> West 62.7 33 71` 152 3. Main&Laurel �� r : �� s ,#+ ey North 67.9 72 155 334 West X64.9 46 98 212 t m. !4. Sellers Sc Cypress North 52.2 6 14 30 f West 65.4 50 107230 I 5. Cypress @Q Site ,f -� a�.-�>*� i,..�ia �r`�5 a�i�..�`,"L. .. �5���,��rtr�•W Y�.,� ^S' k\.`� t,���."�,�.W.'�y�.f I"€,�'� k��b�ti `�-5.; r�d��l'•"y�z3 Access North 64.5 43 »93 201 sfiri 1. Intersections are mapped at Figure 3.7-3 in Transportation and Circulation section. Source:FHW.i-RD-77-108 with inputs from TJK41(a.m.peak hour*10)and Bollard&Brennan.Distances to traffic noise contours are measured in feet from the centerlines of the roadways. { FA "I CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-7 ARAE,FI R CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 a 7 i 1 Figure 3.9-1 Cypress Grave Property-Development Vicinity Contra Costa Canal r( .Site School I / E.CYPRESS RD. w a '� \.\ Uj LAUREL RD. CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-8 ©RAFT ElR CYPRESS GRovE MAY 2003 Figure 3.9-2 Cypress Grove Property Noise Measurement Sites Vibration Measurement Site I TITtom # I 70 dB Ldn I E R/R Contour i k I I tug I E i 11 60 dB Ldn Cypress Road Traffic �.flil�iMi Mf/1/i ir1 P1� rua;r naws ■aARKRr4taxa ■, 1 C I C7� 0' 65 dB Ldn 1 F Contour 6 CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-9 ©RAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo lE MAY2003 A Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL)Model 820 precision integrating sound level meter was used for the railroad noise measurements. The meter was calibrated before and after use with an LDL Model CA-200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The Equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National. Standards Institute (ANSI) for precision sound level measurement systems. The purposes of the noise level measurements were to determine the approximate number of daily railroad operations on these tracks, to quantify typical sound exposure levels (SEL) for railroad passages, and to calculate railroad noise levels in terms of day/night average levels, L,,,,, as required by City of Oakley Noise Policies. The results of the noise measurements are shown in Table 3.9-5, which also shows the computed Ld„ for each of the four complete 24-hour periods monitored and the energy-average of those Ld„ values.-A detailed analysis of the single-event data indicated that an average of 30 trains per day passed by on these railroad tracks. In addition, the railroad operations were essentially randomly distributed throughout the day and nighttime hours. The approximate distance to the 7Q dB Ld„ railroad noise contour was computed from the measurement results as being 150 feet, as shown in Table 3.9-5. Table 3.9-5 Railroad Noise Measurement Results 150 feet from RR Tracks-August 3-6, 2000 8-3-00 32 99 71 �sr2 '3 � � � z � t� � esu f {8-5-00 25 100 71 .x ,' <zY', � <r 4 <.,�:...A a``*;`+' s 5.-s:`.i .9, Averages 29 }yy} 99 q� 70 dB � 3fii{XN '.4" ? Fr."r y✓ .+ G.4 <l- ri .ti`•A°, m ...'?.. K..._ ' ;•'P i" '. ,i"" .< . Notes. 1. The noise level measurement site is shown on Figure 3.9-2. ne site was approximately 154 feet from the railroad cracks. 2. The number of apparent railroad operations was estimated from an analysis of single-event noise level data collected over the 4-day monitoring period.Events were considered to be railroad operations if they met criteria for event duration,maximum level,and SEL. Existing Railroad Vibration Environment The only identified source of potentially significant vibration levels at the project site was the BNSF Railroad. Railroad vibration levels were quantified by conducting vibration measurements of 6 train passages at the project site on June 19, 2001. The vibration monitoring location is identified in Table 3.9-6. CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.J -10 I, DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRovE MAY2©03 a The vibration measurements consisted of peak particle velocity sampling at a distance of approximately 50 feet from the railroad tracks. The train passages consisted of five freight trains and one Amtrak. The trains ranged from 1 to 8 locomotives and from to 80 cars., The measurements were conducted using a Larson-Davis Laboratories Model HVM-100 Vibration Analyzer with a PCB Electronics Model 3S3BS1 ICP Vibration Transducer. The test system is a Type I instrument designed for use in assessing vibration as perceived by human beings, and meets the full requirements of ISO 8041:1990(E). Atmospheric conditions present during the tests were within the operating parameters of the instrument. The results of the vibration measurements are shown in Table 3.9-6. Table 3.9-6 Vibration Measurement Results J 50 feet from BNSF Tracks-June 19,2001 12:40 1:23 8 80 0.097 r sp1 " v io j 13:00 0:56 4� 25 0.064 01, 5 � 171011 N�'a ',+ s ¢ 13:40 0:29 4 27 0.101 �' Source:Bollard t4�.r�rennon,Inc. Existing School Noise Environment The Delta Vista Middle School was not in session during the time of this study; therefore, ambient { noise level data could not be directly measured for this facility. However, extensive noise level data exists which pertains to the noise generation of elementary school playgrounds. Existing data was used to generally quantify the likely school playground noise emissions for this project. Extensive playground noise level data collected by Ballard& Brennan, Inc. in recent years indicate that average noise levels associated with playground usage can be expected to range from 55 to 60 dB Le, at a distance of approximately 100 feet from the central play area. Maximum noise levels associated with playground usage can be expected to be approximately 7S dB L.,. at a distance of 100 feet from the central play area. . b CHAPTER 3.9-- NOISE AND VIBRATION j 3.9-11 �+..[ /may{, °' = Ori.9-1 1 DPA Fr EiR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 Existing_Agricultural Noise Environment A dairy operation is located beyond the CCWD Canal. However, the diary has recently been sold and after June 30, 2003 cattle will no longer be present on the site. The fieldsto the north of the project site are used to support the dairy. Therefore, the fields will no longer be used for the dairy; instead the fields are proposed to become part of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (Oakley 2020 General Plan,p. 6-27). Currently, the area east of the project site is agricultural land that is farmed to support the recently sold dairy. Although the farmland to the east of the project site would no longer support the dairy, agricultural operations may persist. However, the area east of the project site would eventually be developed as planned in the Oakley 2020 General Plan. Future development would be consistent with the Single-Family Residential, Medium and High Density land use designations for the site. In addition, agricultural operations are periodic in nature and therefore noise generated by agricultural activities east of the project site are not considered permanent noise sources. REGULATORY CONTEXT To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging noise levels, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the State have established standards and ordinances to control noise. The General Plan Noise Element and CEQA provide standards regarding noise levels for uses relevant to the proposed project. The following provides a general overview of the existing regulations established by the City and CEQA. City of Oakley General Plan.Noise Element The City of Oakley has recently adopted a new General Plan Noise Element. The Noise Element establishes exterior and interior noise level standards of 65 and 45 dB L., respectively, for new residential developments affected by transportation noise sources such as traffic and railroad. For non-transportation noise sources, such as the adjacent school, the Noise Element establishes daytime and nighttime hourly average noise level standards of 55 and 45 dB LE., respectively. The following policies are from the Oakley 2020 General Plan: ` Goal 9.1 Protect residents from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise. Policy 9.1.8 Obtrusive, discretionary noise generated from residences, automobiles, commercial establishments, and/or industrial facilities should be minimized or prohibited. Policy 9.1.9 Activities associated with agricultural operations are recognized as noise sources, which may be considered annoying to some residents. These activities can occur during the daytime and nighttime hours. Activities include crop dusting, tractor operations, etc. The city will require that all CHAPTER 3.9- NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-12 _.._._........................................ ............................................................ DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE �r MAY 2003 new development of residential uses adjacent to agricultural uses provide full disclosure of potential noise sources to future residents. Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a significant impact would occur from the project if it were to 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; expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels as a result of the project site being located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or being located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. In practice, significant noise impacts are `. usually identified in CEQA analyses if the project would result in a perceptible ambient noise level {. increase, commonly considered to be 3 dB. Vibration Standards The General flan Noise Element does not contain specific policies pertaining to vibration levels. Because the project site is located adjacent to railroad tracks, the effects of railroad-induced vibration are considered in this analysis. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 3.9-7 indicates that the threshold for damage to structures ranges from 2 to 6 in/sec. One-half this minimum threshold, or 1 in/sec PPV is considered a safe criterion that would protect against architectural or structural damage. The general threshold at which human annoyance could occur is noted as 0.1 in/sec PPV(ESA, 1996). S i CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-13 DRAFT E!R CYPREsS GROVE MAY2a43 Table 3.9-7 General Human and Structural Responses to Vibration Levels , In"I WIN6.0(3 Structural damage to commercial structures Architectural damage 1.00 ',ten p,� Z. s a S.&✓ 3 :s,"'' 'd +T 4� � 4 7i�� 4 F �'31` � i» t 3 v y� €7eR a ,Ca General threshold of human perception 0.01 Sources. SurvgofEarih-borne Vibrations due toHHrighwav Constr !Qn and HNichwav Tragic.Caltrans 1976. Final Environmental 12:Eact Report:Richmond 7ransgoa Lotto.Orion Environmental Associates, 1990. Wecuv Pragres Avsafkl Vibration Mo itaring{ar Richm=_d,port. Wilson,lhrigg&✓lssociates, 1994 IMPACTS AND MITIGsATION MEASURES Standards of Significance For purposes of this EER, implementation of the project would result in significant noise and vibration impacts if the project would result in any of the following: + Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Oakley General Plan. Specifically, exterior and interior noise levels of 65 and 45 dB L,,,, respectively, for traffic and railroad noise, and an average level of 55 dB L.,for noise associated with the school playgrounds. • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. Specifically, impacts are considered significant if vibration levels within structures exceed 0.1 in/sec(ppv) during train passages. • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, defined as 3 dB. • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, defined as 3 dB. Method of Analysis Traffic Noise Sources To assess noise impacts arising from project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels are predicted at a representative distance for both existing and future, project CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VEBRATION 3.9-14 -T EIR DRAF CYPREss GRo vE MAY 2©03 and no-project conditions. Noise impacts are identified at existing noise-sensitive areas if the noise level increases that result from the project exceed the 3 dB significance threshold. r To describe existing and projected noise levels due to traff`ic,,the.Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RTS-77+108)was used-r-The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and. the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly L., values for free-flowing traffic conditions and is illustrated in Table 3.9-8. To predict traffic noise r levels in terms of Lam,, it is necessary to adjust the input volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic. Traffic volumes for existing and future conditions and scenarios were obtained from TJKM Transportation Consultants. Table 3.9-8 shows the predicted increases in traffic noise levels on the local roadway network for existing and future conditions, which would result from the project. These Tables are provided in terms of L,„at a standard distance of 100 feet from the centerlines of the project-area roadways. Railroad,Noise Source Railroad noise impacts were evaluated by overlaying the railroad noise footprint described the Setting section over the project site plan, as shown in Figure 3.9-2. Where residential uses are proposed within the 65 dB L&, railroad noise contour shown on that figure, noise impacts were identified. I I, f CHAPTER 3.9 — NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-15 DRA F7 Fri? CYPRES'S GRrovE MAY2003 Table 3.9-8 -71 Predicted Traffic Noise Levet and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases Cypress Grove Project,,-,Oaksey,California Main&Rose West 68.0 68.4 0.4 68.4 68.4 0.0 East 67.7 68.2 0.5 67.9 68.0 0.1 North 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 South 54.9 54.9 0.0 57.2 57.2 0.0 ain& West 61.6 62.1 0.5 61.3 61.6 0.3 ;Cypress East 65.2 66.2 1.0 67.2 67.8 0.6 i Noah 67.9 68.4 0.5 68.2 68.4 0.2 South 67.9 68.3 0.4 65.5 66.3 0.8 i Main& West 62.7 62.8 0.1 64.8 65.2 0.4 urel East 60.3 60.3 0.0 65.4 65.4 0.0 North 67.9 68.2 0.3 65.7 66.4 0.7 South 67.8 68.2 0.4 66.1 66.7 0.6 Seller& West 64.9 65.0 0.1 68.5 68.7 0.2 Cypress East 64.2 64.3 0.1 66.9 67.0 0.1 North 52.2 52.7 0.5 67.0 67.0 0.0 South 58.8 58.9 0.1 64.0 64.2 0.2 Cypress @a West 65.4 66.2 0.8 67.6 68.0 0.4 Site Access East 65.2 65.3 0.1 66.9 67.2 0.3 North 64.5 65.3 0.8 64.5 65.2 0,7 South 0.0 56.3 56.3 0.0 56.4 56.4 ource: Bollard&,Brennan,Inc.,FHWA RD-77-108 Traffic Noise Prediction Model&.DKS Associates Data. CHAPTER 3.9- NOISE AND VISRA T':ON 3.9-16 _.__.........................................................................._ i j DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE Construction Noise During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table'3.9.9, ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Pile driving actor ties would generate even higher noise levels. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and.are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. f`.. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration,and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours. f-1 Table 3.9-9 Construction Equipment Noise - to' .z� ,sax,.31' k# .bt '°"°v-z r ... . s..� tra,.�k'#2 ? z __ .�`< " �a�?''��e.a-`Si LI, Bulldozers 87 t Backhoe 85 Source:Environmental;J 'se Folluaga,Patrick R.Cunni 1977, Vibratiion Impact Assessment Methodology During Railroad Passages Table 3.9-6 indicates that measured vibration levels were approximately 0.1 inch per second peak particle velocity at the vibration measurement location (50 feet from the railroad tracks). Residences on the project site would be subject to vibration levels that would be lower than those shown in Table 3.9-6 because the vibration measurements recorded in the table were conducted 50 feet from the tracks and the residences located nearest to the tracks would be approximately 80 feet away. Vibration impacts are identified if vibration levels are predicted to exceed 0.1 in./sec. ppv. School Playground Noise Impact Assessmmnt Methodology In some areas of this development, residential backyards are proposed to abut playground areas of the Delta Vista Middle School. According to the project site plans,the nearest proposed residential hack yards are typically about 300 feet from center of the main outdoor playing field areas at the school (baseball diamonds, soccer fields, running track/football field). At that distance, average noise levels generated by those playground activities are predicted to be approximately 50 dB Ll�q or less based on a reference level of 60 dB L,,s at 140 feet. For this project, noise impacts are considered significant where residential outdoor activity areas are proposed in areas exposed to playground-related noise levels of 55 dB Leq or more. CHARTER 3.9 — NOISE AND VIBRATION r 3.9-17 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 Project-related increase in existing traffic noise levels. The project would generate increased traffic on the ,existing roadway network. The project-generated traffic is expected to result in traffic noise level increases over existing baseline levels ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 dB L,,,, on the existing project area roadways, as indicated by Table 3.9-8. It should be noted that the development of the proposed project would generate a noise level of 56.3 L,,,at the southern portion of the Cypress Road/Site Access intersection where none currently exists (see Table 3.9-8). A substantial increase in traffic noise levels is defined as 3 dB. Due to the relatively small number of trips, which are predicted to be generated by the proposed project when compared to existing traffic volumes, traffic noise level increases are predicted to be insignificant on all segments of the local roadway network evaluated in this analysis. Because the project-generated traffic would not cause significant ambient traffic noise level increases along the existing roadway network, this impact is considered to be less-than- significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 3.9-2 Future(cumulative)increase in traffic noise levels. The project would contribute to the cumulative future traffic noise environment along the roadways utilized by project traffic. The project-generated contribution to cumulative traffic noise levels is predicted to range from 0.0 to 0.8 dB Ld,,on the existing project area roadways, as indicated by Table 3.9-8. It should be noted that the development of the proposed project would generate a noise level of 56.4 L,"at the southern portion of the Cypress Road/Site Access intersection where none currently exists (see Table 3.9-8). A substantial increase in traffic noise levels is defined as 3 dB. Due to the relatively small number of trips, which are predicted to be generated by the proposed project when compared to cumulative traffic volumes without the project, traffic noise level increases are predicted to be insignificant on all segments of the local roadway network evaluated in this analysis. Because the project-generated traffic would not cause significant cumulative traffic noise level increases along the existing roadway network, this impact is considered to be less-than-signylicant. Mitigation Measures None required. 3.9-3 Construction noise. Activities associated with construction at the project site would result in elevated noise levels in the immediate area. Activities involved in construction typically generate CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9 -18 .............................. .............................���......................... ...................................... .............................................................. ....... ......... ......... ..................................................................................... DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE I maximum noise levels ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet, as indicated in Table 3.9-9. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. The sensitive receptors in the area include the students at Delta Vista Middle School and future occupants of the proposed project residences. The classrooms nearest the project site are separated from project construction areas by distances ranging from approximately 200 to 400 feet. At such distances, maximum noise levels associated with construction activities would be approximately 75 dB or less outside the classrooms, and about 50 dB L rax or less within the classroom. Because the normal voice level of a teacher within a classroom is at least 60 dB, speech interference or classroom interruption is not anticipated due to project-related construction activities. Therefore, construction noise impacts at the school area are predicted to be less-than- k` signcant. Should constriction activities occur outside the normal daytime hours, construction related noise could result in sleep interference at the residences constructed in the early t phases of this development. Therefore, noise levels generated from construction activities would have a potentially significant impact to future residents. 1 Miti�ration Measures Implementation of the following noise mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.9-3 Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of f 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through friday, and shall be prohibited on State and federal Holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified with prior written approval by the Community Development Director. f 3.9-4 Traffic noise levels at proposed residences on the project site. The 65 dB L.noise contour for Cypress Road is located approximately 160 feet from the centerline of Cypress Road. Because proposed residences would be located within the 65 dB L,„ contour, traffic noise levels would exceed the city's 65 dB Lin exterior noise level standard at some of the residences located nearer to Cypress Road. Therefore,traffic noise levels would have a significant impact on the proposed project. Mitiation Measures Implementation of the following noise mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-signfcant level. 3.9-4 A six-foot high noise barrier shall be constructed along the boundaries of the i residences proposed adjacent to Cypress Road, at the locations shown in figure 3.9- 3. Table 3.9-10 shows the predicted noise levelsJor barriers of various heights. The CHARTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION :i 3.9 -19 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GpovE MAY2003 Table shows that a barrier 6 feet in height (relative to building pad elevation) would be required to reduce future Cypress Road traffic noise levels to 65 dB La„ or > less at the nearest backyards proposed adjacent to that roadway. Barriers can take the form of earthen berms, solid walls, or a comb nation"of the'two Appropriate materials far noise walls include precast concrete or masonry block. Other materials may be acceptable provide they have a density of approximately 4 lbs per square foot. The design and location of the sound wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. Table 3.9-10 Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels at the First Row of Outdoor Activity Areas With Varying Barrier Heights Lots Adjacent to Cypress 0 68 i 6 63 i 7 62 i 8 61 9 60 10 59 1. Noise bar:iers can take the form eearthen berms,solid walls,or a combination of the two. j 3.9-5 Railroad-related vibration at proposed residences. Railroad passages near proposed residential uses on the project site would generate vibration levels similar to, but lower than, those indicated in Table 3.9-6. Residences on the project site would be subject to vibration levels that would be lower than those shown in Table 3.9-6 because the vibration measurements recorded in the table were conducted 50 feet from the tracks and the residences located nearest to the tracks would be approximately 80 feet away. Based on the data contained in Table 3.9-7, peak particle velocities associated with train passages are predicted to be both well below levels that would cause damage to structures, and below the recommended thresholds of annoyance. CHAPTER 3.9 — NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-20 ti DRAFT EIR C'YP'RESS GRC vE MAY 2003 Figure 3.9-3 Cypress Grove Property I ff;7 i i s f # # 1 f i 1 1 I f � � !t � I I ! ! r�-7 J Cypress Road # c Proposed or Recommended Barrier Locations 'CHAPTER 3. -- NOISE AND VIBRATION _ 3.9-21 L7RAF E/R CYPRESS G.z?D'✓E MAY 2003 Therefore, railroad related vibration would have a less-than-significant impact on the proposed project. Mitigation Measures None required. 3.9-6 Exterior railroad noise levels at proposed residences on the project site, north of Cypress Road. Table 3.9-5 shows that the 65 dB Ld,, BNSF Railroad noise contour is approximately 323 feet from the railroad tracks. Residences proposed within that distance would be located within the 65 dB Ld„ contour. However, the project site design is such that the front yards of the residences nearest to the railroad tracks on the north side of Cypress Road would face the tracks, with the backyards partially shielded by the residences. This shielding is estimated to reduce railroad noise exposure by approximately 5 dB at those residences. As a result of this shielding, backyard noise levels are predicted to be approximately 65 dB Ld,, due to railroad passages. The proposed noise barrier at the location shown on Figure 3.9-3 would serve to further reduce railroad noise levels at those nearest residences. Because railroad noise levels are not predicted to exceed 65 dB Ldp, within the backyards of the residents proposed on the north side of Cypress Road, the impact is considered less-than- significant. ess-than- slgnYfcant. Mitigation Measures None required. 3.9-7 Exterior railroad noise levels at proposed residences on the project site, south of Cypress Road. Table 3.9-5 shows that the 65 dB Ldn BNSF Railroad noise contour is approximately 323 feet from the railroad tracks. Residences proposed within that distance would be located within the 65 dB L& contour. At the residences on the south side of Cypress Road which are nearest to the railroad tracks, railroad noise exposure is predicted to exceed 65 dB Ldn within the backyard areas of those residences. Therefore, railroad noise levels would have a significant impact on the proposed project south of Cypress Road. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following noise mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.9-7 Noise barriers shall be constructed along the boundaries of the residences on the south side of Cypress .Road at the locations shown on Figure 3.9-3. Table 3.9-11 shows the predicted noise levels for barriers of various heights as a function of pad elevation relative to the railroad tracks and identifies that barriers of 8 to 10 feet relative to backyard elevation would be required to reduce future railroad noise levels to 65 dB Ld„ or less at the backyards located nearest to the tracks. Barriers CHAPTER 3.9 — NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-22 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRov-- r l MAY,2003 I can take the form of earthen berms, solid walls, or a combination of the two. Appropriate materials for noise walls include precast concrete or masonry block. Other materials may be acceptable provided that they have a density of approximately 4 lbs per sq,foot. The design and location of the sound wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits. f. Table 3.9-11 Predicted Future Railroad Noise Levels at the First Row of Outdoor Activity Areas With Varying Barrier Heights i E �,e a.. Residences South of Cypress 0 6 +2 7 r t +4- +6 4+6 g +8 9 +10 10 Now. • Barrier heights are specified relative to Pad elevation. • Noise barriers can take the form of earthen berms,solid walls,or a combination of the two. 3.9-8 Interior railroad noise levels at proposed residences on the project site, both north and south of Cypress Road. Figure 3.9-2 shows that several residences are proposed within the 65 dB La„ BNSF Railroad noise contour. At these proposed residences, interior noise levels could exceed the City's 45 dB Lar,interior noise level standard and/or the potential for sleep disturbance could be increased during train passages. Therefore, the BNSF Railroad would have a significant impact to the noise levels inside the residences of the proposed project. R._. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following noise mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.9-8(tt) Residences proposed within the 65 dB L j„contours shown on Figure 3.9-2 should be constructed of stucco siding. In addition, all bedroom windows of these lots from i;..� which train passages are visible should have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC)rating of 30. Compliance with this measure shall be included on the building CHAPi�R 3,9 -- NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-23 DRAFT EIR CYPRE55 GROVE MAY 2©G.3 permit drawings for the review and approval of the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits. _ i 3.9-$(b) Disclosure statements should be provided to the future residents located within the 65 dB L., contour informing them of the presence of elevated noise levels during train passages, and that train passages routinely occur during nighttime hours. The form of the disclosure shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to the recording of the final maps. The disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner. 3.9-9 School noise:levels at proposed residences on the project site. School playground noise has frequently been cited as a source of annoyance at residential communities. Average noise levels generated by routine playground activities at the school are not predicted to exceed the City of Oakley exterior noise level standard at the project site. As mentioned above, extensive playground noise level data collected by Bollard & Brennan, Inc. in recent years indicates that average noise levels associated with playground usage can be expected to range from 55 to 60 dB Ltq at a distance of approximately 100 feet from the central play area. Maximum noise levels associated with playground usage can be expected to be approximately 75 dB L,,„. at a distance of 100 feet from the central play area. Policy 9.1.2 of the Oakley 2020 General Plan states in part that "New development of noise-sensitive uses shall not be allowed where the noise level due to non- transportation noise sources will exceed the noise level standards of Table 9-1 as measured immediately within the property line of within a designated outdoor activity area [...]." Table 9-1 establishes the hourly standards for non-transportation noise sources, such as the adjacent school, at 55 and 45 dB L., during the daytime and nighttime respectively. The school playground areas would be located further than 100 feet from the residences; therefore, the noise levels generated from the playground would be near to or less than 55 dB. As a result, the impact of school playground noise to the proposed project would be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures Although the impact would be less-than-sign f cant, implementation of the following mitigation measure would further reduce the magnitude of the impact: 3.9-9 Disclosure statements should be provided to the future residents located adjacent to the school site informing them of the presence of elevated noise levels during outdoor recreation activities, including possible weekend usage of the playingfelds. The form of the disclosure shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to the recording of the final maps. The disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner. CHAPTER 3.9-- NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-24 I f DRAFT EIR CYPREss GR o vE MAY 2003 3.9-10 Stormwater pond pump noise levels at proposed residences on the project site. The project includes a stormwater pond pump approximately 50 feet from the nearest proposed residential lots within the Cypress Grove project area. Noise generated by t . pumping equipment varies depending on the horsepower of the pump and the speed range (rpm) at which it operates. For a broad range of pump speeds and frequencies, Bollard & Brennan, Inc. file data indicate that pump noise levels commonly range from 75 to 85 dB at a distance of 3 feet from the pump. Given a distance of 50 feet to the nearest residences, and an estimated 5-10 dB of shielding by the proposed pump station enclosure, the predicted range of pump-related noise levels at that closest residential lot is estimated to be approximately 45-55 dB Leq. Because the estimated range of pump noise levels is within compliance with the City of Oakley noise level standards, adverse noise impacts are not identified for this portion of the project. Nonetheless, routine maintenance of the pump station equipment should be scheduled during normal daytime hours. In addition,it would be prudent to provide disclosure statements to all prospective residents within 100 feet of l the pump station informing them of the potential for elevated ambient noise conditions . , during operation of the pump station equipment. The stormwater pond pump proposed for the project would have less-than-significant noise impacts to future Cypress Grove residents. Mitigatign Measures None required. Endnotes Oaklev 2020 General Plan,City of Oakley,August 30,2002. >,S i � s}} R :I CHAPTER 3.9— NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.9-25 `i -- 3` r } i,.} r . i 1 DRA1 r EIR CYPRESS GRO vE MAY200.3 71 3. 10 GEOLOGY i INTRODUCTION This section analyzes the effects of the proposed Cypress Grove project upon soils and geology s within the project area. Much of the analysis focuses on the potential for erosion of topsoil during construction and the effect that expansive soils would have on the proposed development. # Information in this chapter is drawn from the Cypress Grove Design Guidelines,'the Contra Costa County (CCC) General Plan, two geotechnical investigation reports prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc. V-1 (Kleinfelder Report) ' and KC Engineering Company (KC Engineering Report),' and the Oakley 2020 General Plan and its associated EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following background setting information focuses on the existing topography of the project site, the underlying bedrock, and site seismicity, as well as the general conditions and expansiveness of the on-site soils. Regional Geology Northern Contra Costa County is bordered on the west by the San Francisco Bay, on the north by ` the Carquinez Straits and Suisun Bay, and on the north and east by the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. A major part of the county lies within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of Central California. The easternmost part of the county, including the area around the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, is within the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Coast Ranges consist of smooth rolling hills and fairly rugged mountains ranging in elevation from near- sea level along San Francisco Bay and the San Joaquin Valley to 3,$49-feet at Mount Diablo. Folds, thrusts, and faults form a series of nearly parallel, northwest-trending ridges made up mostly of Tertiary age (2-to-65 millions years old), marine and non-marine shales, siltstones, sandstones, claystones, and conglomerates that strike roughly east-west and dip to the north. Bedrock is presumed to be the Franciscan Complex of Lipper Jurassic to Cretaceous age (6S-to-140 million v years old)that lies along the east side of the San Andreas Fault, located about 48 miles southwest of the site. Valleys between the ridges, including the Great Valley, -are filled with Quaternary }, alluvium on fans and flood plains. Ridges bordering the San Francisco and Suisun Bays are skirted LJ by terraces and alluvial fans that merge into the tidal flats adjacent to the bays. Project Site Geology The Kleinfelder Report observed that the project site is bound to the west by the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, and beyond by State Route 4 (SR-4) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway ` Company (BNSF) railroad; to the east by undeveloped land; and to the north by the Contra Costa Canal. The southern portion of the site (Conco South Property) is located just south of Cypress CHAPTER 3.10—GEOLOGY 3. 103-1 D;?AFr E1R CYPREss GRovE MAY 2U©.3 Road. The Delta Vista?Middle School and a future elementary school site occupy the middle of the project site. Topographically, the site is relatively level and covered with dense grass and scattered rodent holes. A house, two mobile trailers, a metal storage unit, and a barn are located in the 1 western potion of the site, along with numerous trees and several smaller buildings-that possibly served as tank-or pump-houses. A 3-to-4 foot difference in elevation occurs in an east/west direction across the northern portion of the site. An accumulation of debris (bricks and household items)is present in the northwestern portion of the site. A stockpile of Fill material resulting from grading operations on the adjacent school site to the east was located in the northeastern portion of the site. At the time of the field investigation, the near-surface soils were very soft due to rains. Soil Conditions The project site is situated on flatland deposits, which were formed by streams draining from the nearby mountains and foothills of the Diablo Range. Various authors have mapped the local geology of the site area. These maps differ in scale and detail but agree that the central portion of the site is underlain by unconsolidated Holocene (less-than-1(3,000 years old) alluvium (Qham), composed of moderately sorted, well-bedded sand, silt and clayey silt to depths of about 12 feet. The northwestern portion of the site is shown to be underlain at the surface by weakly consolidated Holocene alluvium (Qhsc) composed of well-sorted sands with interbedded clay and silt strata to depths of at least 25-feet. The southwestern portion of the site is shown to be underlain by weakly consolidated Pleistocene (10,000-to-1.6 million years old) alluvium (Qpa) consisting of poorly sorted irregularly interbedded clay, silt, sand, and gravel to depths of at least 150-feet. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California refers to the near-surface soils within a majority of the project area as belonging to the Sycamore (So) soil series. The near-surface soils in the southwestern and northeastern potions of the project area are referred as belonging to the Delhi (DaC) soil series. The Sycamore soil is described as silty clay alluvium with moderate-to-low strength and a moderate shrink-swell (expansion) potential. The Delhi soil is described as wind- modified sands with moderate strength and a low shrink-swell (expansion) potential. The subsurface soils encountered by the Kleinfelder field study consisted predominantly of soft-to- very stiff, moderately plastic silty and sandy clays extending to depths ranging from about 2-to-5.5 feet below existing ground surface. The subsurface soils are underlain by very loose-to-medium dense silty sands extending to the maximum depths explored, about 31-feet below the existing site grade. Soil tests indicated a moderate expansion potential (with increases in moisture content). A layer of stiff, moderately plastic sandy clay was encountered at a depth of approximately 15.5-feet below the existing site grade. At the time of the Kleinfelder field study, free groundwater was detected at shallow depths ranging from approximately 5-to-5.5 feet below the existing site grade. Approximately one year later, the KC Engineering Report observed similar conditions at depths of 7.5-feet. Groundwater elevations and soil moisture conditions within the project area vary depending on seasonal rainfall, irrigation practises, land use, and/or runoff conditions not apparent at the time of the field study. C.-HAPTER 3.10-GEOLOGY 3.10-2, J DRAF-T ElR CYPRESS GROVE MAY,200 3 Site Seismicity The KC Engineering Report observed that the site was not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Furthermore, known active or inactive faults intersecting the site were not mapped or recognized by the State of California. However, the report noted'that the site is located near an active seismic zone, and earthquake-related ground shaking should be expected to occur during the design life of the structures constructed on the site. The site is situated approximately 5.0 miles west of the Great Valley Fault, which would be capable of significant groundshaking. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) defines an active fault as one that has had surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. Currently, the CDMG designates the Great Valley Fault as inactive. The KC Engineering Report' found that the Greenville Fault Zone was the nearest known active fault, located approximately 11.6 miles to the west of the site. The potential magnitude of this fault was not considered equal to that of the inactive Great Valley Fault. REGULATORY CONTEXT i Existing policies, laws and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are summarized ' below. California Building Standards Code / Uniform Building Code Site development and design are regulated in the State of California by the California Building Standards Code (CBC), based on the federal Uniform Building Code (CIBC) and suited to the unique sensitivity of the state's geology and faultlines. CBC and[IBC regulations must be adhered to with regard to expansive soils, drainage, erosion, earthquake resistance, and required safety measures during on-site development. � j Geologic and soils conditions would also determine the proper installation of underground communications and utility lines. = i City of Oakley General Plan Goals, policies, laws, and regulations established in the Oakley 2020 General Plan are listed below (only as applicable): } Geology and Seismic Hazards: _J Goal 8.1 Protect human life, reduce the potential for serious injuries, and minimize } 1 the risk of property losses from the effects of earthquakes, including fault rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction - induced ground failure. Policy 8.1.1 Recognize that a severe earthquake hazard exists and reflect this recognition in the City's development review and other programs. Policy 8.1.2 Include a thorough evaluation of geologic-seismic and soils conditions at risk in all significant land use decisions (General Plan amendment, rezoning, etc., affecting 10 acres or more). CHAPTER 3.10—GEOLOGY 3.107-3 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRovE MAY2003 Policy 8.1.3 Require the design of structures for human occupancy for satisfactory performance under earthquake conditions. Policy 8.1.4 Prohibit the erection of critical structures and facilities whose loss would substantially affect the public safety or the provision of needed-services, in areas where there is a high risk of severe damage:"M 'the_%_event of an earthquake. Policy 8.1.6 ..Prohibit construction of structures for human occupancy, and structures whose loss would affect the public safety or the provision of needed services, within 50 feet of known active faults as referenced in the Alquist/Priolo Act. Policy 8.1.7 In areas where active or inactive earthquake faults have been identified, the location and/or design of any proposed buildings, facilities, or other development shall be modified to mitigate possible danger from fault rupture or creep. Policy 8.1.8 To the extent practicable, the construction of critical facilities, structures involving high occupancies, and public facilities should not be sited in areas identified as, or underlain by deposits classified as, having a high liquefaction potential. Policy 8.1.9 Any structures permitted in areas of high liquefaction potential shall be sited, designed and constructed to minimize the dangers from damage due to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Approval of public and private development projects shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which- 1) define and delineate potentially hazardous geologic and/or soils conditions, 2) recommend means of mitigating these adverse conditions; and 3)provide implementation of the mitigation measures. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance An impact on the geology of the Cypress Grove project would be considered significant if any of the following conditions would result from the proposed project implementation: • Exposure of people or structures to substantial, adverse effects as a result of strong groundshaking, seismic-related ground failure, liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, or lurch cracking; • Substantial erosion or unstable slope or soil conditions through alteration of topographic features, dewatering, or changes in drainage patterns; or • Exposure of people, structures, or infrastructure components to increased risk of injury or damage due to the presence of expansive soils, soil settlement/compaction, or other geotechnical constraints. CHARTER 3.10—GEOLOGY 3.10-4 ............................ ............................................... ................ E DRAFT Ell-,' CYPRESS GR011E Method of Analysis Analyses for this section were undertaken by both Kleinfelder Inc. (March 2000) and IAC Engineering Company (March 2001), and, in both erases, involved field testing and laboratory examination. Field staff explored subsurface conditions within the proposed building area by drilling four borings to depths ranging from. 11-to-31 feet below the present ground surface. Penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to (a) evaluate soil relative density or consistency, (b) obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsoils, and (c) to retain soil samples for laboratory testing. A lag of the borings was maintained and visually classified soils encountered according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil samples were packaged and sealed in the field to reduce moisture loss and disturbance, and returned to laboratories for further testing. The laboratory tests were performed in accordance with current ASTM standards on selected sail #` samplers to evaluate some of their physical and engineering characteristics and engineering properties. The testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture content, in-place density, plasticity, sieve analysis, and undrained shear strength of the materials encountered. L Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures r--� r 3.10-1 Impact of seismic activity on proposed development. Known active or inactive faults intersecting the proposed project site were not mapped or recognized by the State of California. However, the Oakley area is located near a seismically active zone, and earthquake-related groundshaking could be expected during the design life of structures constructed on the site. Additionally, the site is located approximately 5.0 miles from the Great Valley Fault, which is currently designated "inactive,"but could cause significant groundshalang if an earthquake occurred. Because of the potential hazards to structures caused by an earthquake, the impact of seismic activity would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures} Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-signff cont level: ` i s 3.10-1 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the City Building Official shall ensure that one- and l or two-story structures are properly designed, using steel and l or wood framing, in accordance with current UBC guidelines. 3.10-2 Loss of structural support due to potential liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby loose, saturated, granular soil deposits lose a significant portion of their shear strength due to excess pore water pressure buildup resulting from cyclic loading, such as that caused by an earthquake:. Among other effects, liquefaction can result in densification of such deposits (and hence settlements of overlying deposits) after an earthquake as excess pore water pressures are dissipated. The primary CHAPTER 3.10-p GEOLOGY DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY,2003 factors affecting liquefaction potential of a soil deposit include: (1) level and duration of seismic ground motions; (2) soil type and consistency; and(3) depth to groundwater. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated,loose, sandy soils. j As noted in the Kleinfelder Report, groundwater at the project site exists about 5-feet below the ground surface. As a result, the loose sandy soils encountered at depths of approximately 5-to-20'feet below existing site grade could undergo significant strength loss due to potential liquefaction. Surface manifestations of potential liquefaction(and resulting strength loss) could involve settling of the ground surface and partial bearing failure (resulting in excessive settlement)of structures supported on shallow foundations. Structural support related to the proposed project could be adversely affected by potential liquefaction within the project site. It should also be noted that CCWD has raised a concern regarding the potential for the canal to impact groundwater levels on the adjacent residential property. Therefore,the impact would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures identified by Kleinfelder would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level: 3.10-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer shall incorporate the recommendations of a design level geotechnical report into the improvement plans. The following measures include, but are not limited to, the options available to reduce site liquefaction potential and/or adverse effects to structures located above potentially liquefiable soils. • Remove and replace potentially liquefiable soils; • Dens fy potentially liquefiable soils with an in situ ground improvement technique such as deep dynamic compaction, vibro-compaction, vibro- replacement, compaction grouting, or other similar methods; . • Strengthen foundations (e.g., post-tensioned slab, reinforced mat or grid foundation, or other similar system) to resist excessive differential settlement associated with seismically-induced liquefaction; and • Support the proposed structures on an engineered fill pad(minimum of 5 feet thick) in order to reduce differential settlement resulting from seismically- induced liquefaction and post-seismic pore pressure dissipation. The measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3.10-3 Expansive soils within the proposed project area could heave or settle and cause damage to foundations, pavements, and other structures constructed within the proposed project area. The near-surface clays of the project site are low to moderately plastic and could exhibit a moderate shrink-swell (expansion) potential with variations in moisture content (Kleinfelder, p. 14). Shrink-swell potential can be described as the potential for volume change in a soil with a loss or gain in moisture. If the shrink-swell potential is rated CHAPTER 3.10-GEOLOGY ; .10-5 DRAFT EIR CYPRES.r-"CRovE MitY2003 moderate to high, damage to buildings, roads, and other structures can occur. Therefore, expansive soils could have a potentially significant impact on the proposed project. Mitigation Measures} Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level: 3.10-3 Prior to approval of improvement plans, the project proponent shall conduct a design level geotechnical study o`f'the site's soil stability. The recommendations from the geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the design of roadway and infrastructure improvements as well asfoundation and building design. 3.104 Increased soil erosion,wind and water erosion,and siltation of local drainage during and after construction from excavation and grading activities. ss During construction within the proposed project area, topsoil would be moved and graded. The removal and grading of topsoil would lead to the disturbance of the soil of the project site because they would not have as much connectivity to the ground as undisturbed soils. The disturbed soils are more likely to undergo erosion from a variety of sources, such as wind and water. Construction activities involve water, which may further erode the topsoil as the water moves across the ground, or precipitation may lead to soil erosion on the project site. Therefore,the impact would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level: 3.10-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit,for the review and approval of the City Engineer, an erosion control plan that will utilize standard construction practices to limit the erosion effects during construction of the J proposed project. Measures could include, but are not limited to: • Hydro-seeding; * Placement of erosion control measures within drainageways and ahead of drop inlets; • The temporary Iining(during construction activities) of drop inlets with rt filter fabric"(a specie type of geowaile f abric); The placement o,f`straw wattles along slope contours; € • Directing subcontractors to a single designation "wash-out" location (as opposed to allowing them to wash-out in any location they desire); • The use of siltation fences;and • The use of sediment basins and dust palliatives. } �. J CHAPTER 3.10--GEOLOGY 3.10-7 DRAFT EIP CYPRESS GROVE Ma Y 2003 3.10--5 Grading and Import of Fill. Some parts of the project site would require up to three feet of fill materials. The j placement of fill on the site could increase erosion and sediments into the stormwater a system. In addition, the transportation of fill to the site would involve a large number of truck trips. A large number of trucks in the vicinity of the project site could cause traffic/pedestrian conflicts. Therefore, the import of fill material would constitute a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-sigrucant level: 3.10-5(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval of the City Engineer. 3.10-5(b) The project contractor shall submit a traffic control plan in compliance with the City of Oakley standards which ensures adequate emergency access and maintains circulation to neighboring properties during construction for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. The plan shall include detour routes, appropriate signage, and construction personnel to facilitate the safe flow of traffic. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The continuing buildout of developments in the City of Oakley and surrounding areas would be expected to increase the need for surface grading and excavation and, consequently, increase the potential for impacts related to soil erosion, unforeseen hazards, and exposure of people and property to earthquakes. 3.10-6 The proposed project would contribute to the continuing buildout of Oaklev and surrounding areas, and would combine with existing and future developments to increase the potential for related geological impacts and hazards. The proposed project would increase the number of people and structures that could be exposed to potential effects related to seismic hazards. Development of the proposed project would also increase the number of structures that could be subject to the effects of shallow depth to rock or expansive soils. Site preparation would also result in temporary and permanent topographic changes that could affect erosion rates or patterns. However, potentially adverse environmental effects associated with seismic hazards, as well as those associated with geologic or soils constraints, topographic alteration, and erosion, are usually site-specific and generally would not combine with similar effects that could occur with other projects in Oakley. Furthermore, all projects would be required to comply with the LIBC and other applicable safety regulations. Consequently, the proposed project would generally not be affected by, nor would it affect, other development approved by the City of Oakley. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than-sign ficant. CHAPTER 3.10—GEOLOGY 3. 10-8 DRAFT EIR CYPREEss GRo vE MAY 2003 i Mitigation Measure(s) i None required. Endnotes i Cypress Grove Design Guidelines d December, 2001 by Western Pacific Housing, KB HOME South Bay, Inc., Schuler Homes Northern California,and Pacific Communities. 'Contra Costa County General Plan 0 1996 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed 60-acre Subdivision, East Cypress Road, Oakley, California (Kleinfelder Report)Q April 7,2000 by Kleinfelder,Inc. ` Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development, Cypress Road, Oakley, California for Schuler Homes(KC Engineering Report)0 March 30,2001 by KC Engineering Company. s Oakley 2020 General Plan,City of Oakley,August 30,2002. 6 Oaklev 2020 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, City Of Oakley, September, 2002. t G 7 The KC Engineering Report(p. 8)refers here to the"Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle." ` a Based upon KC Engineering Co.review of the Fault Activity Map of California C 1994,by Jennings. 4 "1 3 ' I CHAPTER 3.10—GEOLOGY 3. 10-9 i r 5 a f 1 3. 11 HAZARDS t,.? r ''I 1 i- i ,y j i 1 1 L/IlA ! LII S CYPRESS-GROVE MAY2003 J� 3. 1 1 HAZARDS L i — a a INTRODUCTION This section describes the existing setting, identifies any potential or possible hazardous materials on-site or as a result of the proposed project, and provides standards of significance and mitigation measures. This section is based on the Phase I environmental site assessments for the Conco South Property,the Conco North Property, and the Williamson Property, and the Phase II environmental j site assessments for the Williamson Property and the Conco South Property. It should be noted that cumulative impacts related to hazards are not addressed in this section. The Y definition of cumulative impacts includes the effects of the proposed project in conjunction with all other development in the area. Because other projects in the area are not anticipated to result in increased hazards-related issues, and because the Cypress Grove project is not contributing new sources of hazardous materials, a cumulative impact is not capable of being defined. Therefore, a Ll cumulative impact related to hazards does not exist. EN)(IRt' OMENTAL SETrIN Public health is potentially at risk wherever hazardous material are stored or used. A necessary distinction exists between the "hazard" of these materials and the acceptability of the "risk" they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard is any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material. When the risk of an activity is judged acceptable by society, in relation to perceived benefits, then the activity is judged to be safe. For example, ammonia is a common household chemical,which has been judged safe for use in our society. Although ammonia can be hazardous to health, irritating the eyes, respiratory tract and skin., and even causing bronchitis or pneumonia following severe exposures, the risk of such a severe exposure is believed to be love. Therefore, the use of household ammonia is thought to be a safe activity. Factors that can influence the health effects of exposure to hazardous materials include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a person's body) and the individual unique biological susceptibility. Existing Land uses The project site is primarily vacant farmland. The site has been used for row crops as recently as 1994. On the western half of the project site is an abandoned gas well and a windmill well. North V1 of Cypress Road on the eastern side of the project site are the remnants of a residential structure. k J CHAPTER 3,1 1 — HAZARDS ©Ra Fr EIR CYPRESS Gro vE MA Y 2003 The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) railroad borders the southwestern comer of the project site. According to the Oakley General Plan 2020 Background Report, a petroleum product pipeline is under the tracks. The Contra Costa Canal is the northern border of the project site and Marsh Creek is the western border. To the east are agricultural 'fields that produce grains and other crops for a dairy northeast of the project site. Potential Onsite Hazards Asbestos Containing Building Materials Structures constructed or remodeled between 1930 and 1981 have the potential to contain asbestos containing building materials. These materials can include, but are not limited to: resilient floor coverings, drywall joint compounds, acoustic ceiling tiles, piping insulation, electrical.insulation and fireproofing materials. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the Conco North Property, a residential structure existed on site prior to 1947. While only remnants of the house remain on the site, asbestos may contaminate the ground surrounding the site because the age of the house is not known nor is the manner of its demolition. The house existed prior to a government ban on asbestos containing building materials; therefore, these materials may be present onsite. mLe—iis An abandoned gas well exists on the Williamson Property. The gas well was abandoned in accordance with California Division of Oil and Gas requirements. According to the Division, further well abandonment activities are not required. The Williamson Property also has an abandoned windmill well on the project site. The windmill well has been plugged at 7 feet below ground surface (bgs). The only remnants of the well above ground are a pipe. The interior of the well casing is coated with oil (Mdaren/Hart, Inc., p. 14). The soil surrounding the well did not show signs of contamination. A record search did not reveal whether the well has been abandoned in accordance with County requirements. Pesticides As indicated before, the project site was primarily used for agricultural purposes. Farming on the project site occurred from at least 1958 to 1994. According to the U.S. EPA, pesticides are any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pests, such as insects, mice and other animals, unwanted plants (weeds), fungi, or microorganisms like bacteria and viruses. Most pesticides are not persistent and are dispersed through stormwater runoff. The most popular persistent pesticide, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)is generally not used for row crops. However, because pesticides were likely applied to the project site, these chemicals may still be in the sail or groundwater. Contra Costa Canal As noted above, the Contra Costa Canal borders the project on the north. Public access to the canal is prohibited along the project site by a chain link fence. CHAPTER 3. , 1 — HAZARDS 3.111 - 2 ...............................�00000000-........................ ........................... ........................................ .............................................................. ........................... ...... ................. .......................................... ............''I'll'',................... ...............I'll DFAFr EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 Surrounding Hazardous Materials The environmental site assessments listed the following potential sources of hazardous materials within a 1.25-mile radius of the project site: • SS Gas Food Liquor (Food Liquor No. 86), 101 Fast Cypress Avenue, Oakley,California—Located approximately 0.12 miles to the southwest and down- r-i gradient from the project site, this location has two underground storage tanks (UST). A leak was reported in February 1989. Soil was damaged but it was removed and treated. The case was closed in August 1995. The oversight agency for the site is the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Central galley Region. • Celoni service Station,440 West Cypress Road,Oakley,California.--Located 0.38 miles to the west of the project site, this location has one inactive GIST that has ;_. not suffered from any leaks. • Fernandez Auto Dismantlers, 6337 Brentwood Boulevard, Brentwood, F~ California—Located approximately 0.65 miles south of the project site, this site was reported as storing tires without proper permitting. • Cooks Battery Site, 138 Hill Avenue, Oakley, California--This site is located r 7 approximately 1.19 miles south of the project site. The oversight agency for this site is State of California, Department of Toxic Substance Control. The site was reported as having an annual work plan. Historic Topographic Maps and Aerial Photographic Site Features Aerial photographs have been taken of the project site since 1957. On the Conco North property, a house appears in 1957. The residence that appeared in the aerial photograph is no longer on the project site, though the remains of the residence exist. The Conco South property was used primarily for agricultural purposes. Two small structures are seen on the property in 1958, but disappear after 1982. On the Williamson property, a circular feature is seen in 1965 until 1982. The feature resembled other landscape features indicative of agricultural field activities and is not considered an environmental concern. { REGULATORY CONTEXT' The term hazardous substance refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. A material is defined as hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state or local regulatory agency or if'it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (CAL- EPA, DTSC) defines hazardous waste, as found in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b), as follows: 4 . . . its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infections characteristics: (I) cause, or Significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or # incapacitating reversible illness„ (2)pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health CHAPTER 3.1 1 — HAZARDS 3,1 1 -3 DRAFT"EIR CYPRESS GRovI; MAY 2✓03 or the environment, due to factors including, but not limited to, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment, when improperly treated,stored,transported,or disposed of,or otherwise managed. Table 3.11-1 lists general hazardous material categories and the nature of the.hazards associated 1 with the category. i Table 3.11-1 General Hazardous Material Cat oriel and Hazard Nature Compressed Gases Pressurized gases,liquefied gases,cryogenic gases,dissolved gases stored under pressure and can explode. Severe Poisons Substances that may cause death or injury at relatively low concentrations or significant health effects from chronic exposure at relatively low concentrations. I Moderate Poisons Substances that may cause death or injury at relatively low concentrations, or significant health effects from chronic exposure or harmful effects from acute exposure at higher concentrations. Water Reactives Materials that react violently with water to produce fire or toxic fumes E other than strong acids or bases. Oxidizers Materials that release oxygen or add to the intensity of a fire. Flammables Liquids or solids that readily burn and/or are difficult to extinguish. I Corrosives Materials that are strong acids or bases,will corrode skin or metal,and may react violently with water. Radioactives Materials that emit ionizing radiation. Biohazards Disease-producing living organisms or spores. Other Hazardous Materials Includes carcinogens,halogenated solvents,explosives and others. Source:Cal BPA Many agencies regulate hazardous substances. The following discussion contains a summary review of regulatory controls pertaining to hazardous substances, including federal, state and local laws and ordinances. .Federal Regulations Federal agencies that regulate hazardous materials include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the National Institute of Health (NTH). The following federal laws and guidelines govern hazardous materials. • Federal Water Pollution Control • Clean Air Act • Occupational Safety and Health Act + Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act + Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act • Guidelines for Carcinogens and Biohazards • Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III CHAPTER 3.1 1 — HAZARDS 3. 1 1 -4 DRAFT EIR CYPREss G'Ro vE F� MAY2003 + Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Safe Drinking Water Act Toxic Substances Control Act j Prior to August 1992, the principal agency,at the federal level regulating the generation, transport and disposal of hazardous waste was the EPA under the authority of the Resource Conservation and i Recovery Act (RCRA). As of August 1, 1992, however, the California Department of Toxic. Substance Control (DISC) was authorized to implement the State's hazardous waste management ' program for the EPA. The federal EPA continues to regulate hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA). State Regulations The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board establish rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous waste. Applicable state and local laws include the following: t • Public Safety/Fire Regulations/Building Codes s" • Hazardous Waste Control Law Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act • Air Toxics Hot Spots and Emissions Inventory Law • Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Within Cal-EPA, DISC has primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the state agency, for the management of hazardous materials and the generation, transport and disposal of hazardous waste under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law(HWCL). Local Regulations The following Oakley 2020 General Plan policies apply to hazardous materials for the project site:' Goal 8.3 Provide protection from hazards associated with the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous substances. 1 Policy 8.3.1 Hazardous waste releases from both private companies and public agencies shall be identified and eliminated. Policy 8.3.2 Storage of hazardous materials and wastes shall be strictly regulated. Policy 8.3.3 Secondary contaminant and periodic examination shall be required for all storage of toxic materials. i CHAPTER 3.9 1 - HAZARDS DRAFT EIR CYPREss Gti o vE A11aY2003 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance < I In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine if they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment.An EIR is required to focus on these effects and offer mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any significant impacts that are identified. The criteria, or standards, used to determine the significance of impacts may vary depending on the nature of the project. For the purposes of the EIR, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project could: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; 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; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; • Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Method of Analysis Site conditions and impact assessments for this chapter are based on the Phase € environmental site assessments for Conco South Property and Conco North Property and the Phase 11 environmental site assessments for the Williamson Property and the Conco South Property. All of the site surveys of the project site were conducted during 2000 to assess present site conditions, except the Phase II site assessment for the Conco South Property conducted during 2002. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 Development of the proposed project area may expose residents and construction workers to asbestos and lead materials. In 1978/79 the federal government banned nearly all uses of friable asbestos in building materials. Because the existing on-site structures (residence, storage shed/former living quarters and maintenance barn) were all present on the project site prior to 1968, the potential exists for asbestos-containing materials(ACIvMs)and lead-based paint to have been used in constructing the structures (Mclaren/Hart Inc.,p. 15). CHAPTER 3.1 1 - HAZARDS 3. 1 1 -6 i DRAB ESR CYPRESS GRovE f MAY 200 j Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) can include, but are not limited to: resilient floor coverings, drywall joint compounds, acoustic ceiling tiles, piping insulation, electrical insulation and fireproofing materials. Typically, exposure to lead from older vintage paint is possible when the paint is in poor condition or is being removed. In construction settings, workers could be exposed to airborne lead during renovation, maintenance or removal work. Lead-based paints were phased out of production in the early 1970s. The onsite buildings were constructed prior to the ban on lead-based paints and,therefore,may contain these materials. Although the number of on-site structures is relatively small, the introduction of people to the site as a result of the development of the proposed project and the subsequent exposure of these people to asbestos and lead materials on the project site would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level: 3.11-1(a) Prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City for any on-site structures, the project proponent shall provide a site assessment which determines whether any structures to be demolished contain asbestos andf or lead paint. f any structures contain asbestos, the application shall include an asbestos abatement plan consistent with local, state, and federal standards, subject to the City Building ficial E " approval. 3.11-1(b) Prior to the issuance of demolition permitsfor or existing onsite structures, the project proponent shall provide a site assessment which determines whether any structures to be demolished contain lead-based paint. such paint is found all loose and peeling } paint shall be removed and disposed of by a licensed and certified lead paint removal contractor, in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. The demolition contractor shall be informed that all paint on the buildings shall be considered as containing lead. The contractor shall take appropriate precautions to protect his/her workers, the surrounding community, and to dispose of construction waste containing lead paint in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations subject to the City Building Oficial approval. <.� 3.11-2 An abandoned windmill,well must be removed during development and may expose construction workers to hazardous materials. .w A pipe on the portion of the project site known as the Williamson property has been identified as the remains of an abandoned windmill well. According to the environmental assessment, the well may not have been abandoned in accordance with Contra Costa County standards. Although the well was plugged at approximately 7 feet below ground j surface, the well's depth is not known. The groundwater level near the project site is approximately 8 feet and groundwater has seeped into the pipe. According to the environmental site assessment of the Williamson property, water that seeped into the pipe CHAPTER 3.1 i -HAZARDS 3. 1 1 -7 DRAf-7 EIR CYp,gEs.s'GRo vE MA r 3403 has petroleum sheen on it. Therefore, a potentially sigrnfficant impact would occur to construction workers removing the well. Mitigation Measure(s).,, Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level: I .3.11-2 Prior to the removal of the remains of the "windmill" well on the Williamson property, the developer shall determine whether the well was abandoned in accordance with Contra Costa County standards. If the well was not abandoned in accordance with Contra Costa County standards, the developer shall obtain the necessary well destruction permits and remove the well. A letter from Contra Costa County indicating compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Williamson Property. 3.11.=3 Development on the proposed project site may expose residents or construction workers to past herbicide or pesticide applications. The proposed project area consists predominantly of vacant farmland. The Williamson Property is a parcel of approximately 65 acres of fallow agricultural land. The Williamson parcel has been used for agricultural purposes since at least the 1950s, with crop rotations of grains and limited tomato cultivation along Marsh Creek. Based on information obtained from the Williamson site reconnassaince conducted for the Phase I environmental site assessment by McLaren Hart, Inc., interviews with the prior owner and current tenant, and agricultural commissioner records, evidence was not found to suggest that pesticides have been stored or mixed on the Property and it appears that the latest pesticide applications would have occurred over 10 to 20 years ago.' Therefore, the Phase 11 environmental site assessment concluded that no further assessment for potential agricultural pesticide residue is warranted for the Williamson Property. The Conco South Property is a parcel of approximately 32 acres of vacant fields. The Phase I environmental site assessment conducted by KC Geotechnical Engineering for the Conco South Property,identified the property as being used for agricultural purposes from at least 1958 to 1994.3 The Phase I environmental site assessment recommended further environmental investigation to determine if any residual agricultural chemicals are present in the soil beneath the subject property. The Phase II site assessment conducted by KC Engineering Company, involved 4 soil samples of the Conco South Property to test for the presence of Organochlorine pesticides (DDE, DDD, DDT).' Laboratory results indicated that low levels of DDE, DDD, and DDT are present in the soils of the subject property. According to KC Engineering, the levels encountered are well below the EPA's preliminary remediation goals for residential soils, and are therefore, not considered hazardous. The Conco North Property is an approximately 50 acre parcel of undeveloped farmland. The farmland was previously used for row/forage crops; however, according to the site assessment performed by TERRASEARCH, the presence of pesticides on the subject property was found to be negligible and therefore less-than-significant. CHAP Eft 3.1 1 — HAZARDS 3. 1 1 -8 .. .._....................................................................................................................._ .................................................................................................................................................................... i DRAFT EIR CYPREss GRo vE _.� MAY2003 i Therefore, the proposed project would not expose residents to hazardous levels of pesticides and a less-than-signif lcant impact would result. Miti Zai'on Measure(s) None required. c i 3.12-4 Construction of additional residences near the Contra Costa Canal and stormwater detention pond could expose residents to safety hazard. Development of the proposed project would position additional residents near the Contra Costa Canal. Residents could be attracted to the canal, and access to the canal could present a drowning hazard. It should also be noted that the canal is bordered, in some Places,with public trails along the tops of levees. However,the development, as proposed, would install a six-foot, chain-link fence at the property line to prohibit access. Therefore, the construction of new residences near the Contra Costa Canal would result in a Iess-than- signcant impact. The proposed project would construct a eater quality detention basin in the northeastern corner of the project site. In addition to playing a key role in the stormwater management j strategy for the project site, the detention basin would serve as an visual and recreational amenity. The Hydrology Report for the project considered the issue of safety in the design of the pond (Balance Hydrologics, p. 13). The pump located immediately north of the basin would control the normal water surface elevation of the basin to 2.0 feet throughout c ; the year. In addition, the depth of the pond would be approximately 6.5 feet and is designed to contain the 200-year storm. However, because it is possible that the surface { water elevation of the basin could exceed the normal surface elevation of 2.0 feet during storm events, the potential public safety impacts related to the design of the detention basin would be considered potentially sign lcant. Mitigation Measure(() Implementation of the following mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts related to the public safety effects of the proposed detention basin to a less-than-significant level: 3.11-4 The project applicant lengineer shall submit a safety program for the proposed detention basins for the review and approval of the City .Engineer prior to the approval of the improvement plans. The safety program shall address the public safety concerns associated with the development of the basins including but not limited to bank stabilization and restricting public access to the basins. Endnotes ' Oakley 2020 General Plan, City of Oakley, August 30, 2002. 2 Phase I and Screening Level Phase II Environmental Assessment, Cypress Creek Project, Oakley California, McLaren/Hart, Inc. C May 25, 2000. CHAP`r-ER 3.1 1 — HAZARDS 3.1 1 -9 DRAF-T ER CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 3 Phase I Environmental Services For Proposed Residential Development South of Cypress Road, Oakley, Contra Costa County, KC Engineering Company Q March 15, 2001. Phase 11 Environmental Services For Proposed Residential Development South of Cypress Road, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California, KC Engineering Company(D September130,, 2002. CHARTER 3.1 1 — HAZARDS 3. 111 - 10 . ..................... ................ .................................. ................. ......_............. .................... ........I.......,........................................... .................. .......................... ..........................11.. ......... I 3. 12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY j - i } 1 , q i DRAF -EIR CYPf2ESS GROVE MAY 200..E 3. 1 2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY INTRODUCTION This section of the EIR describes existing drainage and water resources for the project site and the region, and evaluates potential impacts of the project with respect to flooding, surface water resources, and groundwater resources. The hydrology and water quality impact analysis is based on`� information drawn from the Cypress Grove Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines),' the Oakley 2020 General Plana and its associated EIR3, the Oakley 2024 General Plan Background Report, and a hydrological study, of the Cypress Corridor area(of which the proposed Cypress Grove project is a component)prepare y Balance Hydralogcs.4 f ENVIRONMENTAL SIWTTING i The following setting information provides an overview of the existing conditions of the drainage systems, water quality, as well as stormwater runoff in the Cypress Grove project site and drainage area. In addition, the regulatory agencies and permits associated with drainage and water quality are described. Drainage Area For the purposes of this analysis, this section identifies the Cypress Grove project site as well as the overall drainage area. The project site is located on 147 acres in the north-central portion of Contra Costa County,within the City of Oakley, and is bisected by Cypress Road(see Figure 3.12- 1, Regional Location Map). Furthermore, the project site is bordered on the west by Marsh Creek, on the east by undeveloped farmland property, on the north by the Contra Costa Canal, and on the south by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company(BNSF)railroad. The drainage area includes the project site and encompasses a total of S37 acres, ranging in elevation from 2S feet at the southern end to 3 feet on the northeast corner. The drainage area drains to the north, with a portion of the stormwater runoff draining into the Contra Costa Canal and a portion of the runoff draining into Emerson Slough through a culvert spanning over the Contra Costa Canal. Natural streams and creeks do not exist within the project site or drainage 4 area; all runoff travels through overland flow until intercepted by roads and developed drainage w ditches. Protect Site Drainage Patterns Existing stormwater runoff from the project area is currently routed to Marsh Creek or the Contra } Costa Canal as shown in Figure 3.12-2. Much of the site drains toward detention-areas,-,that were CHAPTER 3.12— HYDROLOGY ARID WATER QUALITY 3. 12-1 DRAF7-OF G"YPR,ESS GR0V,E MAY 200 3 ce } ' Vk w Ml- < 40 IVa d v hti »q` J. 40 has M, iS wta k .. , tp`. 'R; +a. A4f +`"�dyk• :. _ x FIGURE 3. 12-1 CHARTER 3.12--' HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3. 12-2 DRAFT E/R CYPRESs GRovs MAY2CJ03 + s s »�. w �., ° DL y Zw " rn M 7y� '"s rysF a�yy�` 1 �^ eiMM.MWW+ 1 y,� �M5 3,. III fsf II.' rws Hai ff"y+5� '� f �f I : v 011 10 J « + w . .. t` . % . 4l, ,s 4ifrs"iCIeVE;,� iRti&J�. a �.a - ..,....—,�».— �..___^:.' "'��.. �_...._...-�� -�e..xs�azm- I —•;„��s«.wr.,r�.��.+,wwwwneww n,;,.,�. ���'^K:+,..«.�" Balaiw Figure 3.12-2 Vicinity map and subbasin location map Hydr loj? s,Inc. Cypress Grove Project FIGURE 3.12-2 CHAP i Eft 3.12— HYC7RCLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3. 12-3 DRAF-r EIR CYPREss GRovE MAY 2003 built on the school property to the north of the school buildings where runoff collects and is pumped to Marsh Creek. The remainder of the site drains as sheetflow to a ditch along the toe of the Contra Costa Canal levee. This ditch is connected to the canal in several locations. Drainage to the north likely represented the historical pattern that was interrupted with the construction of the canal. The project site has been divided into five Subbasins by Balance Hydiologics,I Inc. (See Figure 3.12-2). Runoff from Subbasin I collects in a toe ditch along the southern side of the Contra Costa Canal. Flow from the ditch is ultimately intercepted by the Contra Costa Canal through two existing metal drain pipes. Subbasin 2 is the location of Delta Vista Middle School. The school storm drain system collects runoff from the school site, Cypress Road, and portions of Subbasins 1 i/ flow is conveyed to the north end of the school site where it enters Y-t&- and -3.-Yhee MIX_ (detention basin and is then pumped to Marsh Creel"unoff--frdiff -- -------------------------- jr4�1 portion of land located west of the Conco South Property, ponds south of Cypress Road and eventually makes its way north across the site. Subbasins 4 and S make up the Emerson Property and generally drain to the east and north,joining a ditch along Sellers Avenue, which flows north to join Emerson Slough just north of the Contra Costa Canal. The existing drainage patterns are problematic in at least two regards.- Flow from the site to Marsh Creek must, at least during floods,be discharged against relatively 1. high water surface elevations in the creek. In addition, runoff discharged to Marsh Creek can only exacerbate the existing flood potential along the lower reaches, which is a point of concern for the Contra Costa County Flood Control District. • The culverts connecting the site to the Contra Costa Canal were not intended to carry urban runoff. Staff from the Contra Costa Water District has expressed concern over potential water- quality if runoff from developed areas were to be allowed to directly discharge into the canal. In tandem, these two issues require the Cypress Grove project to drain to an alternative location Athan under the existing conditions. Project Site Characteristics Precipitation A review of the precipitation gauges in the vicinity of the project site was conducted which revealed a variety of gauges with both hourly and daily data. In addition, a precipitation analysis covering the entire county was developed by Contra Costa County Public Works Department. Their analysis provided information on both mean annual precipitation (MAP) and intensity-depth-duration- frequency data(IDF)for the 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year 24-hour storm events. From an analysis of the local precipitation gauges, their proximity to the site, and a review of the Contra Costa County data, the MAP was calculated to be(,/11.0,-inches per year. The total precipitation for the S-, 10-, 2S-, and 100-year storm events w"culated from the precipitation gauge data and the Contra Costa County IDF data. CHAPTER 3.12— HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3. 12-4 ........... ................................................... .......... ... .............. ................... ...................... ........................................................................ DRAB EER CYPREtSs GRovE MAY.2003 Soils Figure 3.12-3 illustrates the three primary soil types found within the watershed boundaries. The majority of the site (roughly 81 percent) is covered by the Sycamore Silty Clay Loam (So).The So soil is classified as soil group C under the Soil Conservation Service,(SCS) hydrologic.groupings, with an infiltration rate of between 0.2 and 0.6 inches/hour. The SCS hydrologic soil' coups divide a all soil types into,one of four"categories on the basis of potential to produce runoff. Type A soils have the lowest runoff potential and typically have high infiltration rates. Type D soils have the highest runoff potential and typically have low infiltration rates and /or are shallow. Several large areas of Delhi sand(DaC, approximately IS percent of the site) also exist. The DaC soil has a high infiltration rate of 6 to 20 inches/hour and is classified in soil group A. A small area at the southern boundary of the project area is covered with Sorrento Silty Clay Loam (Sm). The Sm soil is classified in soil group B, with an infiltration rate between 0.2 and 0.6 inches/hour. Groundwater ILJ Groundwater under the majority of the site stands at relatively high elevations, typically within five f to ten feet of the existing ground surface. Groundwater elevations along the northern edge of the . project have been found to persist at or above 2.0 feet (Balance Hydrologics, p. 9). Overall, the high groundwater elevations generally reflect the low-elevation topography at the site and the "1 proximity of Marsh Creek and the sloughs that feed into the Delta. ` i Flood Hazards Portions of the project site have been mapped as flood plain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2002). Figure 3.12-4 shows those areas impacted by the 100-year flood per the latest FEMA mapping taken from FEMA map panels 0607660355A and 0607660360A effective February 2, 2002 (Balance Hydrologics,p. 8). a s i z { EaJ i r .+ =_I CHAPTER .3. 12 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALMY 3. 12 `5 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 ax .+F i � /• 1� � 4/r �' t r � *r µ s t 1Z�'��•- �.a; � .��'�. t.i� t� � Asn� � �� �`�� I . I P 7 �'w Figure 3:'123 Soil types at the Cypress Grave site,City of Oakley ! c BNote that the majoft of the site is covered in Sycamore silty clay loam(So)with the entire remainder in Deihl sand(DaC)and a small area Sorrento silty clay loam(Sm). The project watershed boundary is shown also.Base map courtesy of CBG. i CHAP i ER 3.12 — HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3. 12-6 Dt,At r EIR CYRREss GR vE MAY.2003 i ti IZ I J Ar 21 1000 2.A �� Y�_ ' .,` •{ ~ t•.,ay �� i, d�� ..yob Y I r `�-t ,. Feet Post-project drainage iS• 1 r �, bt3u ndary r' H I r r I —�- Figure 3.12-4 FEMA flood plain boundaries, Cypress Grave project. ' Note that the project site Itself(generally the same as the e . watershed boundary shown)is mapper!as Zone A,with base hood determined.elevations not 060 0355A a d 0607"38 A effective effective February 2,2002. CHAPTER 3.12— HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3. 12-7 DRAB E IR CYPRESS GRo vE MAYG'003 As shown in Figure 3.12-4, the project does not lie within the FEMA-designated floodway, in which encroachments are not generally allowed. The floodway is restricted to the channel of Marsh Creek along the west side of the project. However, a lobe mapped as Zone A(100-year floodplain) { exists that stretches to the east from Marsh Creek into the project area. Flood elevations were not determined in this area by FEMA. Flooding in this area is predicted to occur`due to inadequate levee height along the right (east)bank of Marsh Creek at the BNSF Railroad crossing. This flood plain area reflects the high base flood elevations predicted for Marsh Creek along the west side of the project. The current FEMA mapping shows that the 100-year flood elevation in Marsh Creek just downstream of the railroad crossing is approximately 17.5 feet. The top of the right bank levee is lower than the flood elevation in Marsh Creek for a distance of roughly 100 feet at this point, suggesting that the project site is subject to flooding in the 100-year event. REGULATORY CONTEXT Existing policies, laws and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are surnmarized below. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) operates the National Flood Insurance Program, which issues maps of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), based on water surface elevations of the 1% (100-year) flood event. For any project that would result in a change to the designated 100-year floodplain, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is required to be issued by FEMA prior to the initiation of any construction activities. FEMA would issue CLOMRs to modify the elevations and/or boundaries of the Special Flood Hazard Areas (based on the 100- year flood event). FEMA requires assurance by the participating community that minimum floodplain management requirements are complied with,including minimum floor elevations above the "base flood," existing lands and structures or proposed structures are "reasonably safe from flooding,"and that all supporting analysis and documentation used to make that determination is on file and available upon request. The supporting hydraulic analysis and documentation includes new topographic data and certification by a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor. The floodplain areas are identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRMS)published by FEMA. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7 The design of the drainage system for the Cypress ear e o a Costa County Flood Control Standards manual developed the Contra Costa Water District. ntra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conserva on istrzct Stan provide guidance to the CHAPTER 3.12- HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3. 12.-13 DRAFT E!R CYPRESS GRovE MAY2003 development of flood control measures throughout the county, particularly for stormwater drainage and sedimentation issues regarding new development. City of Oakley General Plan The following lists the goals and policies related to hydrology and water quality for the project site, as identified in the Oakley 2020 General Plan: Drainage Facilities: Goal 4.10 Protect persons and property from the damaging impacts of flooding. Policy 4.10.1 Work cooperatively with Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CFCWCD)to ensure and enhance flood protection 4" in the City of Oakley. .;= Policy 4.10.2 Pursue and achieve compliance with all regional, State, and Federal regulations related to flood control, drainage, and water quality. Policy 4.10.3 Recognize the unique flooding constraints of the areas north and east of 'i J the Contra Costa Canal. Policy 4.10.4 Pursue responsible and adequate financing for implementation of the Drainage Plan. Policy 4.10.5 Improve and expand the functionality of Marsh Creek as a major drainage corridor. Policy 4.10.6 Develop new drainage facilities and/or improvements to existing facilities to provide additional recreational or environmental benefit, where possible. Policy 4.10.7 Land use planning and zoning should be the primary means for flood management in preference to structural improvements, where possible. Policy 4.10.8 Detention basins should be designed for multiple uses such as parks and playing fields when not used for holding water, where possible. Policy 4.10.9 Develop open bypass channels, detention basins, and all drainage facility rights of way as an asset to the development or adjacent neighborhood, e.g. as a secondary recreation use. Flood Hazards: { Goal 8.2 Protect public safety and minimize the risk to life and property from flooding. f Policy 8.2.1 Applications for development at urban or suburban densities in 100-year floodplain areas where there is a serious risk to life and property shall demonstrate appropriate solutions or be denied. Policy 8.2.2 In mainland areas along the creeks and bays affected by water backing up into the watercourse, it shall be demonstrated prior to development that adequate protection exists through levee protection or change of elevation. CHAPTER 3.12- HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.12 -9 DRAFT EIR CYPREss GRo vE MAY2003 Policy 8.2.3 Buildings in urban development near the shoreline of the Delta and in flood-prone areas shall be protected from flood dangers, including consideration of rising sea levels. Policy 8.2.4 Habitable areas of structures near the shoreline of the Delta and i:n 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. Policy 8.2.5 Rights-of-way for levees protecting inland areas from tidal flooding shall be sufficiently wide on the upland side to allow for future levee widening to support additional levee height. Policy 8.2.8 Development proposals near the shoreline of the Delta and within flood- prone areas shall be reviewed by the Flood Control District, as an advisory agency,prior to approval by the city. Subsidence: Policy 8.2.9 Development of lands subject to subsidence shall take into account and fully mitigate the potential impacts of flooding based on the best currently available techniques. Levee. Dam Failure}or Tsunami: Policy 8.2.12 In order to protect lives and property, intensive urban and suburban development shall not be permitted in reclaimed areas subject to 100-year flooding, unless flood protection in such areas is constructed. Typically, levees shall meet the standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, although `Dry levees' that supplement existing levees may be allowed at the discretion of the city. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance A hydrology or water quality impact would be significant if the proposed project were to: • Violate any water duality standards or waste discharge requirements; • 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 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, CHAPTER 3.12-- HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.12- 10 DRAFT E1R j CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 \ * 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; * Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; • Otherwise substantially degrade water duality; a * Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; * Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; * 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; or * Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding I from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. i Method of Analysis The information contained in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this EIR was derived from the following sources: t * project topographic and site maps provided by the applicant's engineer, Carlson Barbee and Gibson Inc.; * precipitation data and rainfall statistics data developed by Contra Costa County Public WorksDepartment; * soils data developed by the Soil Conservation Service, now the Natural Resources Conservation Service; * site visits to the project site and hydrology study by engineering staff from Balance Hydrologics, Inc.; and * groundwater data from geotechnical borings developed by Kleinfelder, Inc in 2000 and KC Engineering in 2001. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.12-1 Exposure of future and adjacent residents to flood hazard. The southwestern corner of the project site along the edge of Marsh Creek and Cypress 'I Road is within the 100-year Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain. This area has been designated Zone A by FEMA (see Figure 3.12-4). The top of the right bank levee of Marsh Creek is lower than the flood elevation in Marsh Creek for a distance of roughly 100 feet, suggesting that the project site is subject to flooding in the 100-year event. J The project includes improvements to the levee along the entire western boundary of the site between Cypress Road and the Contra Costa Canal. The prevailing flood study with the highest predicted base flood elevations will govern the design of the Marsh Creek CHAPTER 3.12— HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3. 12- j 1 DRAFTEIPi YPRE"SS GRC v MAY 2003 levees, as of early 2003 this would be the study prepared by Contra Costa County Flood Control District.(CCCFCD). The Mars_ h Creek levee improvements proposed as art of the project would result in a new levee width between Cypress Road and Contra p p l )'1' � t t vh Costa Canal ranging from 43 to 55 feet and a new height ranging from.approximately 16 to Ji 24 feet. The height of the levee after improvements would vary in order to achieve 3 feet of freeboard protection along the entire length of the levee between Cypress Road and the Contra Costa Canal. The levee improvements would require the re-establishment of the IjLeA Marsh Creek_ the top of the improved levee according to Bast Bay Regional ParksRD Regional District and-cit n standards--id--ould have"a idtli of 10 feet. Once the levee improvements are made, the project would file a request for a letter of map revision (LOMB)with FEMA to remove all of the project area from the mapped flood plain. In addition to the Marsh Creek levee improvements, the project would also be protected by a perimeter levee system around the north and east sides of the project area, tying into the higher grades of Cypress Road on the south. The east side levee would be constructed along Sellers Avenue, providing protection for the Cypress Grove project as well as lands further to the east. These perimeter levees would be constructed to protect against the base flood elevation of 10.0 feet caused by regional flooding in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (see Figure 3.12-5). Therefore, the top of the eastern and northern levee would be maintained at an elevation of 10.0 feet or higher at all times. In addition, both the eastern y t and northern levee would have a minimum.-width of 20 feet. The northern.-levee'-would contain a 1ca .. nail khat-vczeul ect/to the Mar reek_R Trail. The CCWD has raised a concern regarding potential levee failure of the adjacent Contra Costa canal. The canal contains drinking water supplied to the district. The portion of the canal adjacent to the site is earth-lined and has been in existence since the 1950s. Significant breaches of this levee have not occurred in the past. In addition, the CCWD has the ability to shut off the water supply at the nearby pump station #1. The CCWD canal levee failure would not be anticipated to result in a significant impact. In addition, the Marsh Creek levee improvements and the construction of levees both north and east of the project site would remove the danger of the 100-year flood to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not place people or structures in danger of the 100- year flood, resulting in a less-than-sign 1cant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Mone required. 3.12-2 Change in peak stormwater flows. Increases in peak stormwater flows are often a concern related to development. The concerns are often warranted if the development alters site hydrology to such an extent that peak flow rates are increased significantly and if the receiving waters are susceptible to impacts related to the increased flow. Although the Cypress Grove project is expected to increase peak stormwater flows, the hydrologic setting of the site indicates that stormwater detention facilities used to avoid a r increases in peak discharge are not warranted(Balance Hydrologics,p. 11), CHAPTER 3.12-HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUAUTY 3.12- 12 'i: •'h�I d t �:N tp :+ 1 c r J���, t t �"Y try`yy `� �+'� s�:,t}/ + y� , j �( �',. �A �r 4 ,. T 1 ' �d�R �.'�, (ry„��iG G.'.1 + � t{j � Y b Y �I'I,'{ , 1 I: iY• t t t rl•�S I t! \341 'I � yt J c 1 �t ift�Pr�`}�i5�> 4i? 7 r r �, •'! A' i ��i�s4,��.2�i�hi¢1��,� t FIF ��YYgkJ, ,'}}tlrt is 9• t r^""'��"liiddwwr�y 41 'C' +t�$,j} r,' t� � �p•T .�y'�� � I +}+tr ;.. t i.. s 13 ti�y(t{'I+, ,J 1+.; {,,,,,,�. N t t�...,� t i � t7 s t ': I 14y °-. ; .i�..`i 1 r rµ 1 t :A 1 � x f tt� 97(1 s r l 1' � !'�1 Ol �. .y wl. S .�,a. ""F,¢ ,t1F,';(ib..t7 }�''G.�.j}1;..k. t.J�r ';� ''ff i t 1'. .t cii1+ f •bk.. r 1 r...;ra+, i 1 'k v. y4 .:+}r 4,-.i �: It tk-,t..y'w rpt: x 11,. war I r ':i:N S 1 1 t: ..,i± '{�V p,' 1�H, t;is Y yy,,.r•• :+"k.f,! ,13. 4t .w•y�:�{+ ,r'�r{''t w .!', ,yk., ) Yk, I, xy ..v 1, �,t (��■ , .r. :Sv�.I :u .r w. r rN`�+-�_,�',ir .'6.1 -.p,.�.yl;,.. # ,� �'j.,•:eh lit�Mp'k,k`fY 1:..�Yr'r 4':!1!k;v,:¢r iy ! l:;J1 tr!'� �. �, '.J t'1'.�' Q #: } ',L '+ t' ;73 4�5C }aa,ytfFvf td,C}e, r��,akl,t pp�� 1.t- rl�� t L; � N�ry:? Pro. •I.YhG t '1t `�#.,tY;. 7 St,t✓4CV�, $tl>'ir�}�4,.,� i s.. �,i : {{ �11j Ki./ , 7,;�". }1i4 i,(�t„'{9� ti1-Y�J } �{S�t�- ',,J/� .Glt.0 'i:; 4�'Vi3:.,!}N�:�V4.. 1."'. I rS".rV, r i,J,t:r11!`�: � .�' �1 c. rl,�.t,'J P ,t�' I� 1f�%'(, ",G fi.. ,')'� ,w 4'; .P .)Yg1f, I.Y'4� ..F .� 1.. t rl't;.., y ..�;• ..•f..55,hfy1 .,) :t :.1. '�'� $../E'i., 1 r��,. ,� -� f i('�. P k .W',:.,.. {, ,..' � ':. .. I� ;,.N.P. ti:{xi�}.4�• I;,t..� 17�-Al:l 1. ,P'}, �r 1:�4,k,•.. i.,Sd,I:,�. { ><.+,.e.;h.,.}�. ."4P. S # r: ..',. :.,.(«, ..'.; ,.,. ' I�'.`"` ,.., '!f¢-�.�x�' ,{PI .. ,i..:t ,.. -,i; ',y.,• �, r., rty �:,,':,x.3^I l�le::,> tt}r 5,. w h- t' I F ,'�tpk�.. �U, ,9.r. � � i!!h �I�dk'�.1j •urt t.i..,,.,, lr p ;.t�..Pv.,* 1 t, 1::-„�;,.�`,j mr,.:: ..,..+E 'k�,rh+,: .Ptl•:; ��:a�,;Y-111 tJ Y.��,-rt � � ' ,f!'� ! 1 c : t� .",,l{{ #t.4r. Y�+lt�2, w M' J I � �.. � Nt.�4:E..�A �.'t �'J ''` � 2i f Q ,.;Y, }. � [' r).:, :,r 1t yi lhli rdr�g�, !'-� i..s+-.; i ir�:r�, 1 #Y ,(:'• 4yf,P'r..:u.� jr r i. i:+SF 1 1'{..:. ,},rq�riY,.�i^ '.I,w:.{tY'} �',I .. t..�' i .:...'�, '.:;:.• `�. r!at:. ad:4es;✓,.e' J „ a ��,� 1 l::+N3.. , :':.r..��...,.,. # tt5 tt:��,' j� �}i jy�f'v et I,r e '°r�>'l��W'ni"r I f.�,: 'tu rk+t��t.G. ,} a ,v `- ,k:,v 4c�stv,.J} r p .,r!� t�r,c !a :�: k �p.tV �d 'i .1+' r h tl!-��..rG.�'@ '�'t••a•a.G1 1'n'I"! �j,o 9,^�i',e4�ub Y r C, ,s'. _,:.. ::'.. .:' 'a`,t Nti�. el (�$. �fy P I': .. ;: a'R�'aC�Tf ;>✓ }i ,x ,1., d.y,� {, �,,.R'sY 1. �yt > �„x: d �,,ru 4+, a ,As t.. Y. �W. .lx.",�r•i t� ''� is�frrrdri,�'l(}' ?+,A,!LJ r} }F,1'4i,.N.: p.pj t;Tl.,, '� 'Mi; ':`I ftN1': },t,fit✓",r�17�'1 (�k^'y„1F CnS' y.�r,., {'kr. tf ...>t.„1. I, � 1 a ,1.,lY ,:x.,.,, i .�..�:':'ra rs'P �1k:�!'r to�It I. {!,`art y��j A:Yi+�:'. :t:'.� y < ^l..i,ti i,4r:�ka gg+r., ,y71t;,. .! o�.t 3"�.ak�. .rl9 r r'�bfp..r•�i rhj,�. Z,r,.(',�✓:,.;c'rfil:}. r d ;,.t '� I\i {r',:.r 1 / • ,(7�+� ",'�E4r' :�.ff,. tr ¢,Fi,r, W 3"+M ,-'fir ry',f t h�, t':.q ,i��r�S�a.a.. '`� nrssll�r,:w,N{. 7,�'t :i•�, 'N••••fi ,�., S '.ani'(,'¢' L? �}.t.. y �.+ .'.�' ;s�,j,#rf,+.�i�,7':�,:r5>t;�E�. A,1 I�{��;.' 1 k:N v��Y"h,r -,•�,:, tit �'.•ah`)•,�.1. �.? �t+74FG• �I... k1.a,�,a:. t:.4�rp P;.,,rl �` � �1� '::t� 'f.r .� ;, p 'i•:�r a c..s:,, F#Yt�l,},.,a N i}'., i�,. rp '� ';t � � '�q }QQ`,.d7,r. ..,,,.!!' r, ,,,.,4r ,,gg„t" :!k 'u:.-:X ...:f< f ::.Y- .trtrx'.1,1�tfi,: rw3, Y�t�k•{:�. �:::J.. ,.y�, SW." ...:... �.'{(.e7 �rV...0 r w.�<�G.•J7, tk.{''tn.1'1df_. b. .r} .kig'.: 5,. �•G"!n.�lk. r ri ,t.#.�4fy t+:.. t ,itM , ., ` ;.r,.:'. 1.. � Sr�ai: •:�.. } 1!.r, T ,ir„ L;Ee,4`t.4ry..:Y�� ra.P�; frj+,..t:; zp?, `[`^t} Y.. ''vh"ttlt tt i,:t,t'V. J,1�✓�:k fn :'1���S9C,,T�.�a. ✓'ts h,, • ,e� /.,. t.f}.3. ,i... �� 'g {.''r t i::;l:'fil(ti' '9 .�> ,i:•gr a r '�'t [ l.ialn s>,'i !�. '�{1 F 't:r•1:u�9., 4�)r! ,� y,�:r tp x. .if}ya r s� r,Vt ''a �. `�',.t}' IA:: .i' .i., },h}:4�#N'MS a';, �,1� Y �•,�'.. t}h r 4�s.a, ) it. r., n Ylti�r,.`. i� -�,� t{� a! I,:Y �VYt: I..F, }0.1.�e.: C 1��,1r:1' f .Li.� -tt�.d! i,5 Tlf...1.1�1ft.� I. ..t� n t.,}:C t ;: L .sf t '� .r !t! �I1J '}s.,:.�'� S:. , !I q, d•� `; Fm, YS,,,; +';+i s ,rkC ; eFr{n ? , ,.,13,t f1l ;.t pd t ��• { �k',: to tt�1( �y , !}-. f;,kiFiJ A!e2,?. I s. ..t? `. i`♦. 6 4.:kS}+ 1 ',r 7t t„';,.Yhr.?�! t ."d'ia.-,.;..4 yy .;I it+, ,..,"„ --.drJ ;y rtt .....i , `::+.� P,t'i;s �r,.:s ,! �df PrP i.cS� f:- rrtt! +4.;5 {°5.✓tt�� ..,rr� ,-!.P.,; ' `•;w-.,x, 1..::,. .N.Al 5 1.��tj. M; h.ly(�t,Ja {1 t.,',:,: 1,":':dk,��A,, H.J`J,, ;.r,:. ';....7.ma, }�:'. , i1 I� r..t`}11 ,4, i ,, tt '�a�i .� O' ,.;,>t i!, }.,, r�fr�.l; >ls±.:< ,;. ,r..,},M G';-.• 1.�,�4,,,., �: l4 , i.;,�: , r+4 � .,2d,t r a{ a „r inn,, .?^,� I;,I �; of J� Ott rta tb��Qtg t ih<: t' v: .G: '.v±�},, �.Crq,y��. rt 4,2' 1 ;:,' 1 ,�:ttt,l'i;��}}w..l �,•. s,,,Y�.r,.},y sh,a1?,{ r{. '!yt}v�. �.' :JJ? i'i R � .I*: l.; '? 4. t;M'z rt,r. t'.?k w,..J'fi .-� '� i.i:.k •n , np#t 1 :,, :tc"'Y`J � a -,t:7k!'1. ', t: a,:2�.. ( :;d;.:1.V;v.,Aa �f.;,. y 1y� .Iw > .!a: J,11... �t J�� n a. ��'• r A,.lgty,:. ,r Tiff: ra ?- Cpl tr•,,..•. {+ ,..,.. .' ..r ;:;jh st, .:r.:.a fJ+ .���•.,ce ,,:, ',r x.r' N't r.1J1 ,. :uS:.' ,t, .r,t11....p} '+`.u,S•t.#-a \p;,�1..';,1; 3 It. dUq;}.�' .p'.F�,,,; � ao . r{r,@.! t :..:.. :, . .:::,r,...: ..t1�..� tJk+. ...: s-,� t 4 ..F.L 'fit ,:r,:a .ri.v"e -,d•� i I �„ �ItY'x� i±` s:;a -:,!i:;;l v r �'tr. ;S �1? ..r. �5..1, ..,,t,1 cc�n ..n} t �'a". )) .d:, ,I}.,.. ,,fi t¢?t. . rY, �.. �;r, h. 15:, M ni..a„ ,•ay. ,st„ ...�k,i�r,�f:fl,.v.;p, l+,.. .r, 1;� f••, y ,1.,,.�, rS.4�.�,�;, O :. .'.i, � ,i.w�,�:;, ..}- �..:::: :? ,+-Ci4'1.�r,l,.yy„„.,• -f� .�' ,c,.,. .. ,5:`S v ...,h'} } :�:4C ib d u I P,Qs± � t; , 'i'-t'1i'r.r:§,.t i•t 'I,+e;'is,,.,..I,..r�v'4 a ,.ra.,,,. 1 Y , ';.`�. t.. I•:';b } ;,n..rr✓r"Fri}.'r::it! £ �t i'i,.Tw wink,'',:?31}� x''. d�,i�.t.`g,S, f { rv,r-�t I�,jt y?ie,h �1'! 4:.,y,. �I r 1 a l,.i'7 57 a:�•� V tr t.4...,,1. ,•,. � '.:�; y, , �}n„yhY�e:,�r ,,.rr •i ,?tr t l ;�! I�Y`k �to lS ',17 r r : , z Vin: t yr t r; rl� S� G �l,t 1 1 ,.;.;}r �'a 7.�^�'s�l'+'+•.I. �,; ..�1�'t':j. �':. I. }a�° i�!:t 4r:r ':}.e,+tt:cP 1� '^:tti ^l �rt:{,7:,4`yyC .�i'1Y�,;;::1 �t#�"�•r }..:y nk. ''.�; .„y "ri� f :y,.r'.�! r'tS,i3•M it �' 1tt t' IR�rP 7';:r4 > tr A+'S., £4}�,,YI. H. :d fa k, 4•�',s'* �}'' i. `r' N 1 � :a � '•:'sir d lr"t'!Y'P;, �:,t j,�r s,.1,,,I..w���.tNa.,},, ,.PI}'y7�fp ;n:,tl s::rr y 61[:, .,i e h „rb a.3•a t` i��;! F "N'" (j',}�; 't9F t f r(f.. r k .lf?•�y.}�TF.{xl.yr..:" •:}k'`�,r�W�g Fi'.nJ r•.S + i.1 �I7S f'(i t}� ,.. nr,... p �'.,f, � R -'�^„1''-+� �: t r:f�i et f,,tgq.�r!4'1 7�'r y,,,s'S s .��`;i rl ,^l t f> , +. .:,fiJ i .{-ax� ,S.,,Y�•�}1 fk,ktu,�:;, � C+ ,,+n 's,.,!' i� 1,--r'E: �i ;:C. fa ':s t .}.`i},'2:.,.nf�.;,f,�: :{b(r3.�t,i✓';�I 'Yrtb i,r,5 .w�a1 t-' '` Ittt I�.,,,r {{psi"I. i J' x '':•.t; .:, f ..;, �e'.ri1 _rrii �,"Il k�. 1,�fi}}dt s"!�u}I�'s,�F;;rr v'P:d�,�t7 4:k�ic lkr:rl�'yige IJ 11 .astl t.y ,Ir k��s..��1x r..4.t'�� raf?;e:rY PPb}r4! . s;4/`?�'., 't }, }:�r:..� P '..< t �,.,:,?}rys..�' +:p s 1,s,1�,;f'G r a it c�. G !';h+}+} t'C t i s.1J,.,,rf.rf }1jJ•1;r f i' 4v1'^t'✓r CV j xl''It�: .'... i 1... ' � ,1.':1q. ti2�i� �'/. !i!' tA�t;; + ,., '.: ..:G'`,j�,). yli'i, ut�h¢�.S"'u'� N'4:•FiJ')}S.It lly y/rlr�r.'; �a. ,r f...'- P{(w+ .:.J1 uJIt Y 7 p v .��iV�7Sr {t w; r�ty b'.t-'� O ' ,�� ._�• -� at, ',..� 4,;t.' 1 n hl t,1 t.,;p'11 2 fi�F T,s tl 1$$,,�.v.,s+:t1?! m s1,fY.i� ?°krr.. w. �,r y,,k r.�r Gt t..x!.k,. k il',,,�t: r.. �i' ,,'tj 4 Y t..{,r,fl,i; � �'�t I. ,yt.�:!: . v's+..r ..,',.:' i. ,. ,: I,�'ad t '.,:.,.+ ai,I, ,',.;5 :,:N,.. k"y7. ,s•$., C �?��n::,�..r'wv;.l� �f w..,.l`.a�n4°4!r. ,., 1t1s.7:a ti :.!::,v y,,,C,,yr.:d.r1.3.� f. ,,.: { �fsl„ t ;.,, •, �'. �:r,a ,;,n r r,,,k+:i.. ts'� .yxh47� f I �qF>J,,.6N. G,sf+,,.,, r. of 5 �, }t a4r N 11 N x �. „� �'� t 1 t:•:{.a ..riu .. ');, :I,fit t} t.}J.SEa,!.,t."Pr},}G•f!,y,;ir sr }vy ,+i -<5w a1!_il:v,,tftrt ,w;"rY. t� .s!`:`;llli ,it.'ItY^y'+,1 7� :. ,:;' -..'i .ul.., '•�. i :j: ';.: '. i" 7, 1�<:. 7 ''''i,_,)r IJ�tt :5. :.i�.tj:..J y�t�� �,,�+ i.vlr'd I u.t, „e ? ;r 4;}.✓}V4.r`r :,i s A dw; +'"f n1 i.. �t,ht:;;.�.'q:,!s., a -; ,,. : .,�i :. .. ..i , ,.:, 1 a..;r(P 1 r :�.t... 1�.:'1'1' s:' r'`-.,. 'ij.'�}{,'{n`S•t.��.a..S•Y(a{'$IrV�r ld.b i.:iy�,.s"u�Y, ts"t t.- E r }.(., s�IS.-j...�;�} t atr�( J+�c4 a,�M9' ��,. asK .�kt.. v5 IC,.u";,,.,r 3.f, x w,'�,.�,. ttE„ �, .,�y�r�.�,�dyrl�I;P rrrn ,'y.Y. I +i i�':?vt r.-, v/ ! s.,, F 1A t.}x.� j;1�•'k�h:�i iut 1`17.`ttr:,w I ,� bi� n£ttiS }ra, ,r, t, .,a k^;� f•SM r.a, r ,LN;,�, d.n :5Y x 1. }n s» 1� s. }., � 1,r. .Ea S .:t !'}}°' ,G t i ,.r+' i}.,f.•[ls :}"-, t arf: ..( � ,kit F� ,k' 4r, t rl C• t. } .I ;etn lNyy r�. ;?„t,1'dJsv{,< ._y p:y 1 lhji'..i M W i y! •t ki. ':'� s l a, t hf rd;, �'-,tt tk�� "a ?,i 3 �,F»:,i,yyXXtl, �I ..L�;.�E'v, rr 55 i s...tt„tti rl1 J3ic:,E � �wV,i t�r� ?.r �, r.. Ci iw>� , �I,y.r,1 "rV ,'�•. } r,:,ra I t }I;r t M:rx>i ltf�, �atly ;;r k S t ;r p}fp tu��+..1.!a� rT +','�� a""1R,liF}<A x, i;;a�hl t„�+t :1:} r 4.. .,r Sw t k.,aS i k.alt }f1� �;. `�, ;�fr,a'�ens't•;x,JA.,I L i..."fir. ;':�� r}! t: „k,.„tyythy.t.S. i `;:L7YS,(+^t ;1'i'4:1; ., ,:a; f ,' a t a.f } r ,., & a J” ,iia�h "s d£ 1 3P � t t� � t :� r t}.�^t�f x��° �y�'r 1•r,YiA� �� {Lr J'iJr#... ..7a i tJ •.•.t..9' 1 ,.f ,: I d t: rs'..,::,r ,>"">ri � •at ;.. y::� ,`',; +s :i.,:...< 1,.,�tctpp�.•:: t} ,. �d,,s�t Ys +;! ty t�S,.F� �.a t_! �'.. �1 �n; r�J�. .,i,t rte`bf Iv t ?�.,l, £� i” .} -E u 'fi i.t'i A P;•a h,!.,I:, st w,ti��:ilri;:r fl i t:01?4.. �r.�r. }r. :.1� �.�^L��3. '!t)�a it rtl I Ja.,�i� ,§,k, .•ks,.s•g�{ �t S'fY4`: i r fJ s rl. ,,.t : ,ff>F 1 q .:a:, 4a- 6:�,.Y'4ti ',•JC ii'� iSt,+.q,.t'� �Py:;w t.t,.4�'8'�1.+� u�4�4±tr <:C,�f,'�i 1 � 'ii`'"J�t i kIJ ! �1 r 9f;;,•.;t..a+� 1r A�3,a. ,!: S!Nd ,,.,r. �• i :i 14. 4r-:;1 l ±ly!} is};Y:,?rr sGnNr,>liCi��t"�Y '�N tr"i?75 tC�s .ti ,J,, i'y�t :a 7rJ ra t3`'�yy�t ppbr,f�'1k :S'�ir i ry k��1t rill l'� J7}r�. i� Jtr�ai7 F 4i X11.., raft'. ;i'�i f If �., 71f AirrPr.:�i{Ina yJiiiartttr }P°, �t1W:r, ttfii' itr IlrYt+<r:_di Ikl„ y,:i 1ptlrt�#� , Jt t�}z�f+•d i v.�' �i� t r...•/ y 'IST , 'i!w It'1} -:1 '''t �',J,14Pr *� .-t' :ifr� a S >t i n }t;9 �t,,fi a 1 i� s.�•�+IsA 1�rq�Y7} r�14 ut Iq�;Stc r},�tr +. Y 4 }i�! ,a n ��y�l 4 t i, ,;.;", � Y-t { .._T ,t� r !4 J.KIs a` '•a�'f (I}i.Py14��t1it}1��?`il Yfl i,�r,}y ^a�t �at..,l�•f, ..l",Cyt 1 ? ! IIiGI i}li� i r� •,t ! I'. I,.I I`d 1 L ✓ 16 ` Sr, ' , r.'. t i r a IJ , Itt.� t , , 6i t 1 tl X11 t: yt,t f' v r!+ tri `b �1'I�r+iti.,tSy f ,i-• 1 , I 4 t{t 1�'x£ I S iu w P. 1'p 41ti, yI f,}lt ". is y:' 1W { ittf I>I IBI}rt�ifl!�i.k hi +t Cy a st d tt 4 di t t i t i� i? i�dt t r,6 1 r o tl K� r '�� 1 '-se p�)p'4 id r p'E¢t¢'+ �}.f tJn` ,1�# 'aJt yv}.3RI.}�Qn~✓f5� Lr:�} irFfty"'�� (�Rrtd r4,'�:I+ I to it,trl � � ..:d' .,. t• (, ,'' .,:r:, -. ::. 4(..ti'.,a .15..�:4 atcl.r.,�J� '""' ,~ti a.i'$,.tl,'Mr aY.l.,f h3�;}�'t;:.:'finF r ty syA lwtt�t tl r.�t.,rq Ci�" ,.:.i Cc7 at.i:1' "; t �T r cC r'7 !.', .+:. t f.r�',i� ',;t.w-`41 .J T.,+t.,:}Sr!,' lil:h� r�r,:r} .x 4r lP+.Ir..j•Ir,..y ya:,F hli�.;a,..y9t p9,, i r{ '};�,r2u r7 ;"a it , b--12i ` ��S $ j� f. ��';- wr�.a.o..r.,.r, ,{....,:� ''t, t;• r :d1'1^,.. � ��}. �� f- ',i+{ e}�.,fLLi.✓✓ ,1+ 4f r. rir ti tli LG 9�,"s s�y,14�'r n.> �y.,i ti. �I .q) �9� f } ,. :T.�' P�i+'*x�•Iw:ii'avxr �a�F^'.',:t»rvl i�L�i.o''��''1 s r tr�Ir�t{ 1 :�t,:,:�' +'r"tT9r jk � �„1gSi?� h��"`h'�aaLt� F�. ji? t �� i !: , {{I' � 1 ,y.F..� s ', �».. �At f 4•. .1��a J r1 t.....�:,6�}J Nw •� �r t�r ti i Si�}}/��"�,j F�i S .,x tS !, { �y!{{ ql:.' ,r ark, '. P{yN'¢ {)� �1� r ¢s�' 71a t T•M'1 k�iy i t 1 t i.�`hfh ,: �' � � llaaat"� ' +xy r t, �., i �tr, v s° t�, ,t '% a I P LS dI": ,., tt rt I ,r? ��rl i y: } ° " `(pp�f i t + ih'�”?.rye i ,a t 1 � 'dl � P wr• +"N r � 71 y[ t:� �; , t�{'l 4 )., ty� arr S •rr�„j � r u4+1''�rr VS,S,y, '' ,µ r}'t a,4.m ��r1 � ` `f 11 e I ( Pr`t s h -t i r 1 1 its I t y , 1 r t¢ bY•lkF,��G r,} t t. :i i t, I } , k r d h'^rva♦rr�f,t, ryy...M�S !/ v !, V , r : � i }S t i y'w•ri+yF W,.,,ipnnlP'{,r�I tf , rqq �� t t x f1, k 9 'FL ✓, � r f'tW. ; 1 r 1 0 �1 rr1 �„� � y t .n i f �'Y.,1 + �f• YY yW b ;,., } t h C� i' ;:.`` �r�` ,: t _`�t� �,:�r�t',7a 1 i a _ ..:' �1 Y '+�`.+ }�4 t u1.1+11f : �� � 9, •�t �� ��i s 1� t y `+tr' W , k t t i s.'�—*g--+r^E`r Q ��•+ ':� rk, r ` ' "W q r� �y, }i �''' k!rry +e+`ywy .�! ^✓T1 V y �-4 6Sr I f l'i a, r ,, t.; �+ s ,tp� t`+t': f}�,F' + ,..1 P 1 +r'3 � •br � R rk� r+'• �. a1 r: 1 � � ' r.' t I 'v � r � vi �)»�� ( ��� � � h.��� '�r � `• i� tt� �� ,L ,M��/ .jl� -� + r ?•� (,,,,r.:i�.yJ' r r 1 y � 7 r r. t�11 .a�t t'Ytc � �S„'. Y h y' YL{ + �� '+ '�•.j�ia I y !� � i l i �: x I.•` Ct f •R'i rrt r 3 I i¢ i t�a�A�,� t 1 i. ::.� � rt I ,. » 't '.z,�k 1 ,t t+},a4'�.il t'iryt✓', I w 1.tt+y+t rriwh wo�'� i,_i Fs�t, 1",: 1 1 "r y,�t r- � t� �� '' � .� �•� .J i ;:% * �r�tzi q �ty� r I t a, 13 1 i .I� r s S I lifr t a 4t � sl 'Y — :,. {C Q.�: .i?, t, �.;; r ;': t - � r� tr t A 1 ^ f. Mr r t "'�.,Yy+•+�h.r: !7 I t t fi+,xi"' h it:1 • :, ��"i�, !. ,.t y;✓i t a�r {� �+ , f t ,.(fin ,r �h; 1 t}P �� y 1 � _ '' t �;,,i t h + i s ;. t ..�} o !•. oni kl JyrT'h`W wl I I 5 �,�t Ir 1�Ir: �t 1F e t -,''�A4tf lt�'�fn 1Q ,�{i Ir'1 iv: 3 I✓ " i 5 -i s a `�lr:: 12' ' I x ` I I >t k� fs i �'Itttiry.,� �.:�. �ja _' ��: : is t}t k'"�+ +1 , ,ry'wt'�a r IC r 'S 1± � "r x�•t,X+' tr l5t�k � ,\J a i ill 1 qrl 1 , r Py � 1 9 JY M^ d'a y +'��.. i, `) r`w!F r L, •.�,v�. it w i ;1 .` 1 � r1 'a�;•�`r�'rlr� p )k 7�le.�� �� � .;• i.:: ° 1, .;': ',:; �t ��f.5 .ir. .,..�` ra,t�1 t tPJ ', S'1ttP + it j" n.�' 1 1 I-:r ��1 �,��ti ` � t � ""- i }!� �.,'- .G `�� .'nl«4R�.. �` � • v ;ir al C, '}r iNsr Ctli 'j t }ra` 1 t� :` +c ��r r yyy'''�'' 'rflir�}�',{�.r v� } �tr�hk r I}+tJ i ('.'1 ' f'Yi r; 7�,i 1..: � '�.� wln{,3 1 rel, rl i� sf�,♦'r�I�YY 4) s &�i�lit'} ?"v ,P I,y, Fr 8 x '4':a TJi t i.';� tY h xyk 'r•t + �'iG:”: lv /' r »-ii- S ..i.•y.gyyth t�"'(.4� k. r,..;i. v e In y�; i- .,. t; t: tt,hv;.i r , :-:dy:rr � r';�+. �F try j ,i1 kl {.;,�v v°�Y})` �'a2y`��r .la.r k' t:y.+ryl y,ie.•SG. r , +r r ���r� 3 3,;t e:4 � �„� Lr � � y t? I., , G r t �.(; •.�fi,}+t 4�-�. I R?M ti t r}. 47t i'w'y ,k `r1 �y � ay,y' p ..at��' J i f �� r't �j x° :.q ,ts��j;4'fl �1'SC:JFt,.11 9'�izCt 'Y.a�s,n,,1 D���r' f ,r {!•Y.r. '��if�bl 'Ji-r r d, ,(.,. ,✓{fe''. i r r i7 Y•t :1 s 1�:i�-•,, c ) it X i,"''�'71�7i�rJr'{{i.Y 6 -•�.!ts'�'P����6 y , r,.`, f ,., f } � r r s ,4d�i, f 'N f t r,:'s, ,,t: {� t r�1A,a,+ zr5a r 11 J �', t.,:. I l ...: � � s: S•k� e ��, } i•A s i.) .'�,: rt j } sT?;b,X,J t:u✓ k.��•'.. ,,:,� r , r, v�it ;M y,t ' u.kt.4�, (t'�9'r $ It Ir :. LL C�d tt isjJs"( I J ' r '': tr t t`� Y-. {q,F � :,.p to ja`•, i , ,, 7 Y,.r �: i�,'{ tr, '� ' S,i D. taJ::,ftr f Ir' 1 �'�” tr ,���,.�;f•„ � � � ii �. tF� t�, I t� '{;,'t"h r ( 1 9 `t �a I fyVtn'Wtly( r t; r # f:.5 �r ,L Srl,.. V �'t�yp,� �>•t'a< f(t ���'fr�}1t*duk 11.. 6 Y 11ny :± ttk,+i.i{'ttl �',, r '. 'Ir' Y '' t1 f;.rY Ui,t 2' a�' }� �te���f.h,. r.£,,t. t r.,1. F�' ..d9�' ,� �'if:�'� •,'�t`,�:d,l �'1 "i".rt�t.'«'1 bw � f tilx ✓.':) ''tV 1h ,i ";t{ t .r.11. CI ifh'h�i si "d. u,'�r(ru �ftc.2? ,1a i!iy�•s,al, 1",;i' �s tyXc ;:n -'r�"r�, ie"'1 ',hy�.: r+, ak'� � r� 14 tt alty 4e'r t, '+i�, .:;,x',}T sl•Vy 7� t�.��Y± , }' r tt;r`J u l: }t j!` ��J� Y.'� w1U ;�4� -'d::.. rlh i i,(.Iri('n�.d}" :-arT' .,,?' S� t' f�l D \ .9 yt V)4: I :aV li,i tsi', 1• 1;..Aa di y,t..3 7b�, r,.;; fi',P iiys it iCltti.�ti t1 f+ y,l, t{Ihrar 4`P,t, , St �� Y t" 7�rt I{ :.:,,,,1,1'4a��4,�t�r'r 4. t t S ,t{ tt i+, '}r?y+.k>ii�, :, :StM i ?j. rr}I ?. r!" i t ' �:t � +Y.;,t I•;,;v ka rte... r ,1 +1 -,.y+A.6 i.Y:.a.. �+� � � f J y t7'iC,�'dY+ / p''.. •a w, � } 1lr } f l }, , '}� yi{: 3' + �'�dJ n<} o���I�t' i s: Y DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 The site is located in the lowermost reaches of the Marsh Creek watershed and adjacent to the Delta, which represents the lowermost reaches of the very large Sacramento-San Joaquin system. Detaining stormwater runoff from large storms (e.g. those greater than, the 10-year event) at the site for any prolonged period of time would increase the likelihood of needing to discharge the runoff against higher water elevations at the outfall, one in this case Emerson Slough. The most efficient drainage system in this case would be o ] that moves runoff to the Slough in a direct manner so that it passes downstream prior to the flood peaks associated with the Delta in general. The project site has three distinct segments that would move stormwater runoff to the ultimate discharge point at the south end of Emerson Slough, which is directly connected to the Big Break via Dutch Slough(see Figure 3.12-6 and Figure 3.12-7). The three project segments are: Storm drain system. The entire project area would be drained through aconventional ---------------- gravity storm drain tem to the northeast comer of the site (see Figure 3.12-6 and Figure 3.12-7). The project area would be drained__Fy—five lines, four of which originate to the south of Cypress Road. Per Contra Costa County guidelines, all lines serve an area of less than one square mile and are therefore designed to convey the 10- year storm with adequate freeboard. The system is designed to also carry runoff from the school that is currently being pumped toMarsh Greek,as -well'-as the runoff from the non-project area triang Le sou o ypress ba J • Stormwater pond. The central feature of the drainage system would be a large pond .1 located in the northeast corner of the project (see"Figure'3'.1' 2-_6_ina-1.1-2--9)� The . surface pond would cover an area of approximately 1 36 acres elevation of 2.0 feet. All of the storm drain lines would flow to the pond,which would serve as an amenity for the project while playing a key role in the stormwater management strategy through design features that provide water-quality benefits and stormwater detention capacity. Unlike stormwater detention features that are designed to attenuate flow peaks and most often have some type of gravity outfall (e.g. weir, orifice, etc.); the outflow from the pond would be entirely controlled by the stormwater p��Tp The maximum allowable water surface,elevation for the pond is 6.5 feet and is consistent with Contra Costa County design guidelines that call for the 100-year storm to be contained within all pipes and inlets. • Stormwater pump station and outfall. The outlet for the pond would be via a stormwater pump station that would be controlled automatically for appropriate operation over a range of storm conditions and pond water levels. The pump system would require a minimum of two pumps and an emergency power supply. The latter would most likely include a diesel generator capable of producing enough power to operate the PUMPS and associated controls in an emergency situation. The pump station would discharge through a 36" pipe that would run to the east, parallel to the Contra Costa Canal on the Emerson property, to�Sellers Avenue where it would outfall to the south end of Emerson Slough,,(see Figure_�.12,7 and Figure 3.i2_'8). CHAPTER 3.12— HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.12 - 14 C) L W C14 NO d r17G© NI > C�) V WLALULLJLJW 10181SIO 831VM dl.SOO d81NOO , oi J..; I, f BIW iil CL OE con t. a, coi 0 19 OVON SS38d L t,IV f�. s 1 2216, �., • C:1 CL., Z � M x rCVM .rl� Lf3 � � � R( C� 'f k' c� illllll .,� �� � ? 4 _ , i zxoom if ' 14 if 40 ......._.Y.).`�::." 1_+�':�{.:f... '.. ... .. _ _ _.u.»,..w.n.>j n�.n.0 In p,.v.i., w u+ •.....rc._-.. .... .r.. +•�. . uif3Y }kY__ ..... .+ t Stvr -_..a.., ....... ... .. •...... . a..at• _....n. ad0s SS3Q3 01 ... i�9�xf.. {. .,' !� •�wy`:."'u t r_ „3nN3Ab -S-gn n12 .>�•:.c.:s<,:i�#�...:• rte{-' .. a ;�4 f �..i` -- ,.'a.a,. i {: *:-, .. ,.•.,��s" r ,... ..E '�, .....s�111 j t 1�i ! (l i Ii � ,;t� a'y'�x�c 2;�'i ..,N64;ca: `p7't t .,.`� •..� t ii �' Il.,, �i' t3'-'�`�'�`'�`���jp •�:����a��+1 i �\�r•\1 ``• �"gi tt� I�!� �� �f r .. ,.' i,{i f� jl , �t If i � f�lE:fj ��P �{t{ ,;��• ,.!... � 'E E fii � 1 tlry . . .... .� t •t i=: .. 131 '!L =�fi' i=`1w.i:". +4&;arc j`x' t� �•pr 4 1' ' CL- lip ' {•' �,,.� ` !) i } „�fi��°rr.�(, �• I� �r ((x"i �..�!'�, r � ice_ � 'i:'�= LaJ , �'ti " �'{ � �'k'• � `1 ..J .f.I. ..i. f 1. !�l�j V tn_ o ! �r-� lip If',f uj ' �•. r{JP {t •Al ? f7 /f 51"1 i� E� � 1 W It V jt if !{frLLJ c rRtL a. � r { 'i 1 f � •yir 1���Etl' �If�1ti' 111 �:I p,'4 ',t �� f� Int' "t,j ' t ii;P,�l t �'�it,• �f j � N Ij '; s;r y it 'i t r(� j ,ti E t �+t t i• + Y 'j" r �xJ.r ')t' Tr, 3. W6 Li E\• � tr ( f' fj Jti 1�S• {f�' ,� �i \fEt 1. ! '• �1 �h14 �! t (i� I;•�'�,-t�?, � 1?�� ,may, l i; !!;I 0 ml� mom 2L q � tJ CJ G.3 cD 00 Lai X LLJ Nan tow 9944 ESE CD f LiLAJ rL m ' m CL za co CL W,� Q C U- w � LJ 00 L r � z r y W r 00 LO LA- 14 ca k`'c� � cvs IL U- ,l w,OL � uj F5 _j� CL 06af4 t 0 C Z3 Of big .cr t? DRAFT EIF CYPRESS GROVE I A4AY 2003 Pump STATION � r 01 11 I'llpla t z y� h � a tk es", � $v��RA a WNY 4 � ,y Y 1 '77 wlw s x a a _ I ' -`'" r`a� ���c ✓F 'rst SFR 3,..Ny d 10-YEAR STORM 700-YEAR STORM WATER SURFACE. '�TER SURFACE, EIFV. 4.59 8.49 TOP OF SLOPE BA�3l� 4 —.PUMP-CONTROLLED --`- � NORMAL WATER � SURFACE, ELEV. 2.00 SLOPE GRADE BREAK LAKE BOTTOM, ELEV. -4.C1 AT ELEV. 5.O RIPRAP SLf1PE f TEc-no.4 TYPICAL STORMWATER POND S CTION FIGURE 3.12-9 � � !� +.srrrrrr,.x�,x�r�e.. PIAN Al�(D rySE�r�.TIONOFA PROPOSE�3 � STti MWA 1 ER POND ]YN G L127`.fur. E B 5�5 � rr�.gs'trsrtr�,gwn, CHA=TER 3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY d 3.12- 18 �' � DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 The outfall structure is designed to accommodate the proposed project stormwater flows and anticipated future stormwater needs within four (4) 36-inch pipes. The outfall structure would be a modified Contra Costa County Standard CD50i outfall. Each outfall pipe would serve a distinct area within the,drainage..,,shed as depicted in Figure 3.12-10. The Cypress Grove project requires only one of the four pipes for its storm drainage needs and would extend the pipe to the stormwater pond within the subdivision. The remaining three pipes would terminate at the southern edge of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)property. Construction of the outfall structure iwould eliminate the need for future connections to Emerson Slough as the drainage—,J area is further developed pursuant to the City of Oakley General Plan. Future development would be required to design a pond and pump system similar to the Cypress Grove project that would restrict flow volumes and velocities at Emerson Slough. The maximum discharge volume from each area would not exceed 35 cubic feet per second (ds) at Emerson Slough. This equates to a discharge velocity of approximately 5 feet per second (fps). Consequently, during a large storm event, the maximum impact at the slough would occur when each of the four pipes discharges 35 ds. Although a total of 140 ds of flow would be entering Emerson Slough, the-velocity would still be limited to 5 fps. However, at the time of construction of the Cypress Grove project, only the pipe serving Area 1 would have the potential to discharge 3S s° ds at the outfall. In the event of a 100-year storm, the water surface elevation of the pond could reach a \ r.maximum height of 6.49 feet (Balance Hydrologics, Table 2). As mentioned previously, the maximum mum allowable water surface elevation for the pond is 6.5 feet. The stormwater �, pump would trigger at a water surface elevation of 3.1 feet and would adequately remove N water from the stormwater pond to prevent the water from overtopping the pond banks. (—Therefore, the stormwater pond is designed to contain the 100-year storm. `1 �f 1 � l�,J„i`1� The storm drain system, stormwater pond, and stormwater pump station and outfall designed for the proposed project would ensure that the change in peak stormwater flows resulting from the proposed project would have a less-than-significant,impact, Mitigation Measure(s) None required. 3.12-3 Water quality in the Contra Costa Canal and Emerson Slough. The Contra Costa Canal is the natural northern border for the project site, running east to west between the site and farmlands to the north. The proximity of the waterway to proposed residential properties north of Cypress Road could potentially affect water quality (due to anticipated roofs, roadways, and other impervious surfaces),resulting in the loading of urban pollutants into increased stormwater runoff. The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) commented that drainage and seepage originating from the housing developments could impact the canal's water quality. In addition, the drainage from the site could impact water quality in Emerson Slough because the Slough is the location where stormwater is ultimately discharged via the pump located at the stormwater pond. CHAPTER 3.12—HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAUTY 3.12 - 19 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRo vE" MAY2003 F: NT 717 'a x k 9 iREISRF x v y 33t wj r t y� Y 1 F :w 3 Y � 9 4, i A CHAPTER 3.12 — HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY 3. 12-20 DRAFT EIR CYPREss GROvE MAY.200.3 ) The proposed pond at the Cypress Grove project was designed by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. to be an effective overall BMP for the site, functioning as a water-quality, wet pond (see Figure 3.12-9). The natural physical, biological, and chemical processes of the wet detention basin would remove pollutants. Sedimentation processes would remove particulates, organic matter, and metals, while dissolved metals and nutrients would be , emoved through biological uptake. Biological uptake is the process whereby vegetation / and microorganisms remove metals and nutrients from water. Typical of wet pond designs, the proposed pond would store a residual volume of water and provide additional capacity (treatment volume) for individual storm events. The pond would be multi-purpose in nature and therefore require different operating levels depending on the circumstances of individual storms and the season of the year. The pond would be designed as an amenity to the project; therefore, it is important that it be attractive and safe as well as functional. The size of the active treatment volume in the proposed pond was selected to comply with the guidelines that would likely be included in the amended General Discharge Permit for Contra Costa County. The new terms of the permit call for the treatment of 85 percent of the mean annual runoff in an appropriate BMP or set of MMPs. For the Cypress Grove project, the active treatment volume was selected by the graphical method, utilizing the graphs included in the Bay Area preamble to the stormwater BMP handbook (Balance Hydrologics, p. 12). chart used shows that the active treatment volume should be on the order o © acre-fee The pond has been sized to accommodate runoff from Cypress Road and the s , providing important additional water-qu eneh�-i is for these la—Muse"`"s m as 'tion to the project itself. The active treatment volume of 4.0 acre- feet is stored between elevations 2.0 and 3.06 feet. The active treatment volume would be drained over a period of 48 hours. The pump would also control the normal water surface /"elevation to 2.0 feet throughout the year. The depth of the pond would be approximately 6.5 feet and is designed to contain the 100-year storm. The proposed drainage system would also redirect stormwater runoff to Emerson Slough that has historically been flowing into the Contra Costa Canal. When the canal was built, it prevented stormwater runoff from following its historic path to the Delta. Runoff that previously flowed to the Delta now enters the canal through two culverts on the northern end of the property. To improve water quality in the canal, the proposed drainage system would redirect this flow to Emerson Slough and then to its historic destination, the Delta. The proposed project includes the removal of the two existing culverts on the northern end of the property. Ultimately, the stormwater management system is designed to adequately treat urban runoff generated by the project, and therefore the proposed project would have a less- than-significant ess- than-s gnif cant impact on water quality in the Contra Costa Canal and Emerson Slough. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. CHAPTER 3.12— HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE j MAY 2003 3.12-4 Maintenance of stormwater pond. The natural physical,biological,and chemical processes of the wet detention basins remove pollutants. Sedimentation processes remove particulates, organic matter, and metals, while dissolved metals and nutrients are removed through biological uptake. Wet detention water duality basins may experience numerous water duality, insect, and wildlife problems if not designed and maintained properly. Nutrient loading is a common problem with small shallow detention basins. Improperly designed or maintained basins may result in stratification and anoxic conditions that can promote the resuspension of solids and the release of nutrients and metals from the trapped sediments. The stormwater pond has been designed to reduce overall maintenance needs. Routine maintenance activities that are required would be facilitated by the ease of access to the pond and surrounding areas. The stormwater pond would be an integral element of the storm drain system for the project and would therefore be classified as a constructed wetland (Balance Hydrologics, p. 20). As a constructed wetland, routine maintenance activities would not require special permits, as would be necessary for disturbance of a F.' natural wetland. Routine maintenance for the stormwater pond should be carried out on a t f' schedule similar to the rest of the stormwater system. Routine maintenance activities require the normal water surface elevation of 2.0 feet to be drawn down and should include inspection of inlet structures and pond banks,vegetation and mosquito control, and pond sediment removal(Balance Hydrologics,p. 20). If not maintained properly, the detention basins could have an adverse effect on future residents in the proposed project. Future residents could be adversely affected by insect, wildlife, and/or water quality issues. Therefore, the impacts of the water quality detention basin would be potentially signijlcant to future residents. .Mitigation Mt&age s Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- rJ than-significant level: 3.12-4 Prior to Improvement flan approvals for any of the three subdivisions, the project engineer shall develop a storm drain system maintenance program. The maintenance program shall be submittedy for the review and approval of the City Engineer and include the plan for financing and maintenance of the water quality detention s basin. The plan should address aquatic vegetation and vector control, pond bank and inlet structure conditions, and pond sediment removal. --; 3.12-5 Maintenance of storm drain system. Storm drains throughout the project would function best if the amount of sediment entering the system is kept to a minimum. The level terrain at the project site would help to reduce the overall amount of sediment generated within the drainage area of the stormwaterpond, because the erosion potential would be low, particularly after landscaping has been established. Many of the routine best management practices (B,MPs) implemented as part of the City of Oakley's responsibilities under the National Pollutant CHAPTER 3.12-- HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.12-22 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2O03 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Contra Costa County would work to reduce sediment production and mobilization within the project. Among the most 71 important would be: is ; • Regular street sweeping. Regular street sweeping can have a significant impact on the control of such constituentsof concern as trash and debris, particulates, and heavy metals. All streets should be swept on a regular basis to control the build-up of sediment and trash with particular attention to the early fall period prior to the onset of the winter rainy season. Street sweeping schedules would follow City of Oakley standards, but should not be less than monthly. • Inlet and catch basin cleaning. Stormwater inlets and catch basins can function as effective sediment traps for heavier materials. Therefore, these structures would need to be maintained and cleaned on at least an annual basis. Typical maintenance schedules for these activities include a thorough inspection and cleaning in late summer or early fall and a mid-winter inspection to identify any new problems that may have arisen. If not maintained properly, the storm drain system could have an adverse effect on the drainage patterns of the project site and the treatment efficiency of the water quality detention pond due to it being heavily loaded with sediment.Therefore, the impacts of the storm drain system would be potentially significant to future residents. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level: 3.12-5 Prior to Improvement Plan approvals or an o the three subdivisions, the project .f Y J� P 1 � engineer shall develop a storm drain system maintenance program. The maintenance program shall be submittedfor the review and approval of the City Engineer and ) include the plan for financing and maintenance of the storm drain system. The plan should include regular street sweeping and inlet and catch basin cleaning. 3.12-6 Maintenance of levees surrounding the project. The Cypress Grove project would be surrounded by levees on three sides. Regular inspection and maintenance of these levees is an important consideration in the overall level of flood protection provided to the project site. The levees can be viewed as falling into two general categories by the type of flooding that they are designed to protect against. The levee along the western side of the project would - be rebuilt to protect against flood flows in Marsh Creek. The elevation of the top_of_the levee varies, because the flood elevation of Marsh Creek is decreasing toward_the mouth of the creek located north of the project. ren the other and, the levees along the northern and eastern perimeters of the project site are designed to protect against regional flooding in the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. FEMA has identified this flood elevation to be 10.0 feet. In general the Marsh Creek levee is expd to ore tz6 ectebe msuscepe,to erosion and Other damage because it would be more regularly exposed to higher velocity..flood flows. CHAPTER 3.12-- HYDROLOGY AND WATER O`JALITY 3. 12- 23 DRAF7 Eli; CYPRESS GRo vE MAY 2007.3 The condition of levee embankments and access roads should be monitored in detail as part of routine monitoring, as well as during post-flood event inspections. During periodic monitoring visits, personnel should inspect the entire perimeter of the levees around the project and note evidence of erosion or slope failures on both sides of the levee. Embankments should generally be free of erosion, rills, slumps, and landslides. embankments Additionally, woody vegetation would need to be removed from levee emb 4 � during routine maintenance visits. If not maintained properly, the levee system surrounding the project could cause significant flooding risks to people and structures in the Cypress Grove development. Therefore, the impacts of the levee system would be potentially significant to future residents and structures if not maintained properly. Mitigation Measures) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a lea- than-significant ess- than-sign f cant level: 3.12-6 Prior to Improvement Plan approvals for any of the three subdivisions, the project engineer shall develop a levee maintenance program. The maintenance program shall be submitted for the review and approval of le City.engineer and include the Plan for financing and maintenance of the levee system. The plan should include the following guidelines: (a) All pertinent agencies that may have jurisdiction over the repair area must be consulted. These agencies may include (but are not limited to) the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Contra Costa County Public Works Department, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control District. i (b) Both an engineering geologist and a civil engineer should be consulted on significant embankment repairs. (c) Soil removal and placement should be limited to the minimum amount needed to achieve bank stabilization. ; i (d) Access roads will be kept clear of obstructions and maintained in a manner that allows access for maintenance equipment at all times. Access road dimensions and specifications will conform to guidelines prepared by the City of Oakley. i (e) The establishment of woody vegetation(e.g. trees or shrubs)can impair the integrity of the levees. Therefore, regular inspection for, and removal of, # woody vegetation will be required. CHAPTER 3.12-HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3. 12 - 24 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY,2003 �f) Tunnels created by ground squirrels and other animals can also compromise the integrity of the levees. Annual inspection of the levees by a competent professional will be required to assess the need for remedial repairs and animal control measures. ' (g) Material should not be placed in a manner that will be eroded by normal or expected highy flows. (h) Bank stabilization in excess of 500 feet in length or an average of one cubic yard per running foot must be authorized by the City of Oakley or Contra Costa County Flood Control. Cumulative impacts 3.12-7 Increased stormwater drainage into the existing drainage system. The proposed project would create impervious surfaces where none currently exist. The addition of impervious surfaces to the project site would increase the stormwater drainage downstream of the project site. The effect of the proposed project plus other development in the project area may increase the stormwater drainage to overcome the existing drainage system and cause flooding downstream. The majority of the surface runoff flows to the northeast of the site and discharges into the Contra Costa Canal and Emerson Slough. The proposed drainage system for the overall drainage area (of which the proposed project is a component) would consist of a gravity- flow pipe system leading to a multi-purpose pond that is regulated by a pump system, and increases in flows generated from the development of the proposed project would be contained in the proposed drainage system. The stormwater management system is also redirecting stormwater runoff to Emerson Slough that has historically been flowing into the Contra Costa Canal. When the canal was built, it prevented stormwater runoff from following its historic path to the Delta. Runoff that previously flowed to the Delta now enters the canal through two culverts on the northern end of the property. The CCWD is concerned with water quality problems resulting from stormwater runoff entering the canal. To improve water quality in the canal, the proposed drainage system would redirect this flow to Emerson Slough and then to its historic destination, the Delta. The proposed project includes the installation of four 36" drainage pipes at the Emerson Slough outfall to accommodate the anticipated need resulting from the buildout of the Cypress Corridor area. Each outfall pipe would serve a distinct area within the drainage shed as depicted in Figure 3.12-10. The maximum discharge volume from each area would not exceed 35 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Emerson Slough. This equates to a discharge velocity of approximately 5 feet per second (fps). Consequently, during a large storm event, the maximum impact at the slough would occur when each of the four pipes discharges 35 cfs. Although a total of 140 cfs of flow would be entering Emerson Slough, the velocity would still be limited to S.fps _ ` V vtv"j'� CHAPTER 3.12— HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ¢ �� t�^' 1 � n" 3. 12- 25 °" DRAFT EIR CYPRE.ss GRovE MAY 2©03 At the time of construction of the Cypress Grove project, only the pipe serving Area 1 would have the potential to discharge 35 ds at the outfall. The other pipes would not be fully utilized until fixture development occurs. The second pipe, serving Area 2, would collect existing flows contained by the new levee system,. Due to the sandy soil and flat topography, very little flow would actually reach the slough, and velocities would be negligible. The third pipe, serving Area 3, would convey existing flaws from the ditch _r adjacent to Sellers Avenue. These flows currently reach the slough through the existing l pipe at the southern end of Emerson Slough. As part of the outfall construction, the existing outfall pipe would be removed and the new flows would be conveyed to the slough through pipe 3. As with Area 2, the flows and velocities would be minimal prior to future development. The fourth pipe, serving Area 4, would be plugged south of the CCWD canal, and flows would not be conveyed to Emerson Slough until future development of Area 4 occurs. Therefore, although the proposed project and buildout of the General Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the drainage area of which the project site is a part, _ the storrowater management system designed by Balance Hydrologics would contain increased flows resulting from the project and other development in the Cypress Corridor A and would also redirect runoff from existing drainage systems. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on existing drainage systems. MMittigatign IVleas sl None required. 1 3.12-8 Waiter Quality Downstream Development of the proposed Cypress Grove project and buildout of the General Plan j would increase the sediment load of area waterways. In addition, the stormwater runoff occurring in urbanized areas would contribute a higher amount of pollutants to adjoining ? channels. As such, water quality in the region could be affected on a short-term and long- term basis. However, the project applicant has proposed a design for the Cypress Corridor drainage area, which would prevent pollutants from entering the downstream channel. The proposed drainage plan would construct a detention basin, which would filter out pollutants before the drainage enters Emerson Slough. Therefore, the impact to water duality would be considered less-than-significant. f Mitigation Measure(s) .Alone required. 1 Endnotes t Cypress Grove Design Guidelines D December, 2001 by Western Pacific Housing, TSB HOME South say, Inc., "'J Schuler Hames Northern California,and Pacific Communities. 'Oakley 2020 General Plan, City of Oakley,August 30,2002. r f CHAPTER 3.12.— HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .3. 12-26 DRAF 'EfR CYPPE'SS GROVE MAY2003 1 r Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,City of Oakley,September 2002. ' Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, Cypress Grove Project, City of Oakley, California, 0 February 2003, Balance r" Hydrologics,Inc, c CHAPTERS.12-- HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY 3. 12 - 27 , 3. 1 3''PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES a 1 _>, ,, ---�. f '� i i �. _� i DRAF r EIR CYF'RES.S GROVE MAY 2003 3. 13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES { INTRODUCTION s This section will summarize setting information and identify potential new demand resulting from the proposed Cypress Grove project on water supply, sewage systems, solid waste disposal, law enforcement, fire protection, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, electric power, natural gas, and telephone services. Information for this section was drawn from the Cypress Grove Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines),' the Oakley 2020 General Pian Background Report,' the Contra Costa County (CCC) General Plan,'the CCC General plan's Draft Environmental Impact Report,+ and the Oakley 2020 General Plan; and its associated EIR." Further sources include the Diablo i Water District 1998 Facilities Plan update (DW D plan) prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM), the Contra Costa Water District Urban Water Management Plan,the Contra Costa Water District Future Water Supply Study, and the Contra Costa Water District Future Water Supply Implementation FEIR, and the Bay Area Census 2000 Report' provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and information submitted by the applicant regarding proposed services and utilities. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1 This setting section describes the existing proposed project site, including the water system., wastewater collection and treatment, law enforcement, fire protection, schools, solid waste collection and disposal,parks and recreation facilities, and other related public utilities. i � Project Site ! i The proposed Cypress Grove project consists of approximately 147 acres within the Cypress Corridor, which is situated in the northeastern portion of the City of Oakley. The property is bordered to the north by the Contra Costa Water District Canal; on the south by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company railroad and single-family homes; on the west by Marsh Creek; and on the east by undeveloped property. Cypress Road bisects the property. The project site is primarily vacant, currently containing a residence and associated outbuildings. The Cypress Grove project surrounds the existing 33-acre Delta Vista Middle School and future elementary school site. Development of the proposed project would allow for 541 single-family LA homes and 96 multifamily units, and would create a gateway into the remaining Cypress Corridor area. 4 } CHAPTER 3.13-- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13-1 DRAF-T EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200.3 Water System Existing Setting_ Contra Costa Water District(CCWD) The proposed Cypress Grove project site is located in the City of Oakley, which receives its water supply from the Diablo Water District (DWD), which, in turn, receives its water from Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). CCWD's primary source of water is the United States Bureau of Reclamation's Central Valley Project (CVP). CCWD receives additional water from minor suppliers, including Mallard Slough and Mallard Well Fields and the East Contra Costa Irrigation District(ECCID). CCWD is a CVP contractor, historically relying almost entirely on the Federal government (the Bureau of Reclamation)to supply its water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). The amended contract with the Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau) provides for the operation of the Los Vaqueros Project, and for a maximum delivery of 195,000 acre feet per year (ac-ft/yr) from the CVP, with a reduction in deliveries during water shortages including regulatory-restricted and drought years. The CVP manages some 9 million acre-feet of water annually, delivering about 7 million acre-feet for agriculture, urban, and wildlife use, which includes approximately 5 million acre-feet for farms and 600,000 acre-feet for municipal and industrial use. The CVP dedicates 800,000 ac-ft/year to fish and wildlife and their habitat and 410,000 acre-feet to State and Federal wildlife refuges and wetlands pursuant to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act(CVPIA). Passage of the CVPIA in 1992 established new CVP operating parameters by reforming water distribution pricing and policies. The CVPIA attempts to better balance the needs of water contractors with those of the environment. Water allotments under renewed CVP contracts will be based on new estimates of CVP supply that take into account the CVPIA and other new regulations. Consequently, future contract renewals will likely result in reduced water allotments. To meet CVPIA environmental dedications noted above, future CVP supplies could be reduced by as much as IS to 20 percent. If this reduction is spread evenly among the contractors, CCWD could receive as little as 156,000 ac-ft/yr of CVP water during a normal year, and less during regulatory restricted or drought years beginning between the years 2000 and 2010. In addition to its existing CVP contract, CCWD also receives minor supplies from pumped diversions at Mallard Slough and through pumping at the Mallard Well Fields. In addition, CCWD has obtained an agreement with East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) to use up to 21,000 ac-ft/yr of ECCID water supply to service municipal and industrial demands in portions of ECCID that are now or potentially may be,within the CCWD Service Area, An agreement with the City of Brentwood provides for the transfer of 7,000 ac-ft/yr to Brentwood for its future water needs. A review of water rights in the current CCWD Service Area identified the City of Antioch, the Gaylord Container Corporation, and the Tosco Corporation as having significant surface water rights. Table 3.13-1 lists water rights currently held within the CCWD Service Area, along with respective annual diversion entitlements. CHAPTER 3.13— PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3. 13-2 .....................................................�aa�� ........................ ................... ................. aA�00��.............. ....................................... ........................................ .................. .............. . ............................. DRAFT E/R CYPRESS GROVE MAY2OO.3 Under ideal conditions, current agreements entitle CCWD to a total annual supply of 242,700 ac- ft/yr, plus an additional 3,000 ac-ft produced from wells (owned by CCCWD and ethers) in the District's Service Area (see Table 3.13-1). In reality, however, the full amount of supply is not always available due to deficiencies, such as CVP supply shortages and water quality conditions xn the San Joaquin River. Firm near-term water supphes,._absent,.any,restrictions, total 223,400 ac- ft/yr. Near- and long-term restricted and'unrestricted projected firm water supply volumes are shown in Table 3.1.3-2. Table 3.13-1 CCWD Water Contractual Sources `C s EF a. f USER at Rock Slough Permit Nos. 12725, 12726 CCWD 195,0(}0 i FECCIDat River(Los Vaqueros Project) Application No.20245 CCWD I95,000° I Brentwood Slou h Agreement with ECCID` /ECCID 21,000` License No. 3167 CCWD at Mallard Sloulyh Permit No. 19$S6 CCWD 26,700 City of Antioch at San loaquin RiverCity of Antioch Statement No.009352 Svc.Area 7,670 City of Antioch at Antioch Murlic!pal Reservoir License No.0002713 City of Antioch Svc.Area unknown Gaylord -Gaylord Container Corp.at San Joaquin River Permit No.019418 Container Corp. 2$,000 E.I.DuPont aq Nemours&Co. E. I. DuPont Der at San Joaquin River License No.000674 Nemours St Co. 1,405 Tosco Corp.Lion Oil Division Tosco at San Joaquin River License No.A010784 Co oration 1 iS a c USS Posco Not listed with SWRCB USS Posco 12,900 a Diversion amounts represent maximum diversion capabilities and do not reflect diversion quantities available for all years. b Diversion right at Old River for the Los Vaqueros Project includes capacity for CVP diversions and water quality diversions. c ECCID=East Contra Costa Irrigation District. d Brentwood/CCWD Agreement of October 19,1995. e Water to be made available in three blocks,phased over a 20-Year period(1990.20710) Source: CCWD Future Water Supply Study,Final Report,1996 s LJ , I i i i CHAPTER 3.13 — PUBLIC SERVICES AND U'T'ILITIES 3. 13 -3 ©PAS EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 003 i Table 3.13-2 CCWD Current and Projected Firm Water Supplies Yeare .r Near Term 229,400 184,650160,150 160,150 137,798 115,763 2405 228,350 183,600 165,324 165,324 156,853 139,911 2010 230700 201,047 186,038 186,038 176,547 157,565 2020 230700 216,364 191,864 191,864 1 180,950 161,450 a The CVP conditions used for supply planning are defined as follows.Normal is Full CVP contract allocation. Regulatory Restricted is the greater of 75 percent of the CVP contract or 85 percent of historical use. Single-Year Drought and Multi-Year Drought(year 1)is 90 percent of Historical Use or the Regulatory Restricted amount, whichever is greater.After Historical Use exceeds CVP contract miximum,use 90 percent of contract.Multi-Year Brought(year 2)is 85 percent of Historical Use.After Historical Use exceeds CVP contract maximum,use 85 percent of contract.Multi-Year Brought(year 3)is 75 percent of Historical Use.After Historical Use exceeds CVP contract maximum,use 75 percent of contract. Source.CCWD Urban Water Management Plan(December 2000) Existing Water Rights Central Valley Project Supe CCWD's primary water supply is its CVP entitlement. On September 18, 1951, the District entered into a contractual agreement with the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR or Bureau), to receive water service from the Bureau's CVP (Water Right Permits Nos. 12725 and 12726). The contract has been amended on several occasions since its original enactment. The 1994 Amendatory Contract is effective through December 31, 2010 and provides that the Bureau will supply up to 195,000 ac-ft annually to CCWD at Rock Slough. The CVP's ability to provide water supplies to CCWD is greatly affected by regulatory conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), and upstream water resource conditions. During regulatory restrictions, CCWD will receive the greater of 75 percent of the contract entitlement, or 85 percent of historical use. During water shortages, CCWD will receive not less than 75 percent of the contract entitlement or 85 percent of historical use (whichever is less). Under severe drought conditions, the CVP supply can drop to as little as 75 percent of historical use; the contract allows lower supplies during drought emergency conditions, when there is only a sufficient supply to maintain health and safety. Historical use is defined as the three-year average of CVP supplies unaffected by reductions, plus river diversions by Gaylord Container and the City of Antioch and Mallard Slough diversions by CCWD. The average is adjusted for growth in the existing service area, and reduced by any amount actually supplied in the shortage year by Gaylord, Antioch, or Mallard Slough. CHAPTER 3.13 — PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3. 13-4 CYPREss GRovE MssY2©03 Drought Def--- ienei The frequency of drought deficiencies incurred by CVP municipal and industrial water contractors, including CCWD was analyzed using output from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) DWRSIM model, which incorporates the May 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the + San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Plan); this Plan incorporated the i December 15, 1994 Principles for Agreement. The Plan, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), establishes water quality control measures to protect beneficial uses in the Bay-Delta Estuary. The Plan identifies: (1) beneficial uses to be protected, (2) water quality t, objectives for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, and (3) an implementation program to achieve water quality objectives. DWRSIM output indicates that CVP municipal and industrial contractors (including CCWD) would suffer supply deficiencies in one out of every eight years. These deficiencies are for drought only; regulatory restrictions could result in deficiencies in any year. However, the December 15, ,= 1994 Principles for Agreement, which led to the flan, have reduced the likelihood of such drought restrictions. Earlier analyses -,with PROSIM, a model developed by the Bureau, put the drought j deficiency frequency between one in seven and one in eight years, depending on the water duality standards applied. For the purposes of this EIR, the expected frequency is one in seven years. Mallard Slough Water Bights CCWD has additional water rights at Mallard Slough(License No. 3167 and Permit No. 19856)for a maximum diversion of Delta water of up to 26,700 ac-ft/yr. Diversions from Mallard Slough are unreliable due to frequently poor quality in the San Joaquin River in this area(CCWD, 1994b). In addition,water under Permit No, 19$56 is subject to availability of flows in excess of those needed i for State and Federal projects. Water rights under the license are senior to the State and Federal projects, and the District has a contract with the DWR that compensates the District for water quality degradation caused by the State Water Project (SW P). CCWD generally halts diversions .j from Mallard Slough when the chloride content of the San Joaquin River exceeds 100 milligrams ' per liter (mg/1). The 1994 Amendatory Contract contains provisions that account for water taken at Mallard Slough against CVP allocations in years with shortages or restrictions. East Contra Costa Irrigation District Agreement In 1990, ECCID and CCWD entered into an agreement providing for the eventual transfer of up to 21,000 ac-ft to CCWD each year. The agreement transferred to CCWD an entitlement to use up to the transferred amount for municipal and industrial purposes withinECCID. On October 19, 1995 CCWD and the City of Brentwood entered into an agreement that provides for the transfer of 7,000 ac-ft of this supply to the City of Brentwood. The transferred water is to be made available to CCWD, at the District's option, in three blocks phased over a 20-year period. The first block of 8,000 ac-ft/yr was made available upon i completion of the agreement; the City of Brentwood had the option to purchase 7,000 ac-ft of this block by 1997. The second block, an additional 7,000 ac-ft/yr, became available to CCWD on January 1, 2000, and the third and final block` consisting of the last 6,000 ac-ft/yr of the transfer amount will be available to CCWD on January 1, 2010(EECID, 1990). EECID's water right is not t C}-4,u.PTER 3.13— PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13-5 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRovE MAY2DC3 subject to regulatory deficiencies; and, therefore, neither is the portion of water transferred to CCWD. Current Water System Capacity Prior to completion of the Los Vaqueros Project, approximately 90 to 95 percent of Diablo Water District's (DWD) raw water was surface water supplied from the Contra Costa Canal. The Los Vaqueros Project was completed in 1997 and now provides additional conveyance of surface water to DWD. Contra Costa Canal and Los Vaqueros Project Diablo Water District purchases surface water from CCWD under a contractual agreement. Surface water is currently supplied from the Contra Costa Canal. The canal is operated by CCWD, which treats water for its own use and also sells raw water to agencies serving the municipalities of Oakley, .Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, and Martinez and several large industrial users. In turn, these communities/water districts and industries own their own treatment, distribution, and storage systems for treated water. The Contra Costa Canal is 48 miles long and conveys water from Rock Slough in the Delta to various treatment plants. The Bureau of Reclamation constructed the canal and its four pump stations in 1937, as part of the CVP, to serve agricultural demands in eastern and central Contra Costa County. Since that time, the predominant demand for canal water is for residential, commercial, and industrial use; agricultural use is now negligible. CCWD assumed operation and maintenance of the canal and pump stations in 1972. The canal capacity varies from 350 cubic feet per second(CFS)at Mile 0 in Oakley to approximately 25 CFS at Mile 48, where it terminates into the Martinez Reservoir in Martinez. Oakley is approximately 4 miles from the canal intake and is the first major consumer of canal water. The Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant (RBWTP), which DWD jointly owns with CCWD, takes raw water from the canal downstream of Pump Station No. 4. Los Vaqueros Reservoir also provides raw water to be blended with Rock Slough canal water prior to delivery to the RBWTP. Historically, the canal has been a reliable source of water. Stoppages of canal operations have occurred infrequently from one to eight hours in duration, because of electrical or mechanical failures, over the past 20 years. However, water supply was not interrupted because the treatment plant intake is positioned so that water can be backfed to the plant from the Contra Loma Reservoir. In November 1988, Contra Costa County voters passed a bond proposal for the construction of a water storage reservoir in the Los Vaqueros area. CCWD proposed the Los Vaqueros Project to improve the quality of water supplied to its customers, minimize seasonal water quality changes, and improve the reliability of its raw water supply by providing emergency storage. The raw water supply from Rock Slough is subject to substantial variations in quality, during seasonal periods of saltwater intrusion from the San Francisco Bay into the Delta. The Los Vaqueros Reservoir supplies high-quality water for blending with Rock Slough water during periods of low water quality in the CHARTER 3.13- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3. 13 -6 DRF T"E"IR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 Delta. Los Vaqueros Reservoir also provides emergency storage in the event of unforeseen circumstances, such as a levee failure or chemical spill, which could make Delta water unusable for extended periods. The Los Vaqueros project facilities were completed in 1998. The Los Vaqueros Project provides 100,000 acre-feet of storage with a 1,500-acre surface area and 170-foot maximum depth. The intake is from the Delta at Old River above the Clifton Court Porebay. The intake facility has a 250 CFS (10,000 HP)pumping plant. The reservoir will be filled during tunes of high water quality(typically winter and spring high flow periods). Then during low flow periods (typically summer and fall) when the canal water quality from Rock. Slough is traditionally at its lowest with high sodium and chloride levels, the higher quality water stored in the reservoir will be blended with the canal water to improve raw water quality. The blending will be effected by the RBWTP at the Neroly blending facility, which receives water conveyed from the Los Vaqueros Reservoir via a pipeline varying from 6 to 8 feet in diameter. The current canal capacity is not adequate to take CCWD's full CVP entitlement of 195,000 acre- feet at Rock Slough. However, CCWD has indicated that capacity upgrades are not planned or the Contra Costa Canal upstream of Pump Station No. 4,which affects deliveries to DWD,because of its ability to use Los Vaqueros Project facilities to divert and convey its CVP water. The Los Vaqueros Project facilities provide additional raw water delivery capacity upstream of Pump Station No. 4. The ongoing Seismic Reliability Improvement Program, conducted by CCWD and some of its raw water customers, is developing facilities that parallel the Contra Costa Canal downstream of Pump Station No. 4. This will not affect deliveries to DWD, and will provide additional canal capacity and improve reliability. Groundwater Well In addition to the surface water supply from the canal and Los Vaqueros project, DWD has one well to supplement the raw water supplied by CCWD during peak summer demand periods, or in ' the event a limitation is imposed on Contra Costa Canal supply. The well is located at the former treatment plant site about 50 feet north of the main building and has been used intermittently since its installation in 1977. The well is 12 inches in diameter with a capacity of 1,000 gpm. The well water is chlorinated on site at low doses, which makes it compatible with the chloraminated Randall-Bold water for blending purposes. Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant The Randall.-Bold Water Treatment Plant, completed in 1992, is jointly owned by DWD and CCWD. CCWD operates the plant under a Joint Powers Agreement between the two agencies that specifies the terms of the contractual arrangement for ownership and operation. 4 The facility has a capacity of 40 mgd with an expansion capability to 80 mgd. The initial treatment capacity is allocated with 15 mgd to DWD (37.5 percent share) and 25 mgd to CCWD. DWD is 'r entitled to increase its share from 15 mgd to 30 mgd,provided the incremental increases are no less than 5 mgd in any single increment. DWD must notify CCWD of the need for additional capacity at least three years prior to the date such capacity is required. 1 CHAPTER 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3. 13 -7 DRAFT CIR CYPREss GRo vE MAY2003 Diablo Water District(DWD) The Diablo Water District receives approximately 90 to 95 percent of its raw water supply from CCWD via the Contra Costa Canal and Los Vaqueros Reservoir. All surface water is treated at the RBWTP, which is jointly owned by DWD and CCWD`. When the RBWTP was put into operation in 1992, it had an initial capacity of 40 million gallons per day (mgd) with expansion capability to 80 mgd. The initial allocation of water to DWD from CCWD is 15 mgd with a future maximum allocation of 30 mgd. This future allocation is to be made in increments of 5 mgd under the condition that CCWD is notified at least three years prior to the date such capacity is required. For purposes of comparing DWD's allocation with CCWD's total water supply, 15 mgd and 30 mgd translate into approximately 16,800 and 33,500 ac-ft/yr respectively. Therefore, in a normal year DWD would initially claire approximately 6.9 percent of CCWD's total water supply under ideal conditions and approximately 7.3 percent of the firm supply. Linder the maximum allocation, in a normal year, DWD would claim approximately 13.8 percent of CCWD's water supply under ideal conditions and 14.6 percent of CCWD's firm water supply. In addition to the surface water supplies from the canal and Los Vaqueros Project, DWD has one well to supplement the raw water supplied by CCWD during pear summer demand periods, or if there is a limitation imposed. on Contra Costa Canal supply. The well is located at the former treatment plant site, the Rose Avenue Pump Station. The well is 12 inches in diameter with a capacity of 1,000 gpm and has been used intermittently since its installation in 1977. The well water is chlorinated on site at low doses that are compatible with blending with the chloraminated Randall-Boyd water. Since 1991, a number of changes have occurred requiring that DWD review and update its water system planning to ensure adequate capacity for existing and future customers. In 1993, Oakley Water District became Diablo Water District, with a service boundary that includes the unincorporated community of Oakley as well as other unincorporated lands in the greater Oakley area. DWD's sphere of influence has also grown to include the Cypress Corridor, Hotchkiss Tract, Veale Tract, and Knightsen. DWD may also provide service to Bethel Island in the future. Based on its analysis of the changes in its sphere of influence (SOI), DWD prepared the Diablo Water District Facilities Plan Update dated August 1998, in which DWD includes projected water demands from the time of preparation to buildout(year 2020) as anticipated in the Contra Costa County General Plan adopted in 1996. Table 3.13-3 shows the projected average day, maximum day, and peak hour water demands for the DWD SOF, which includes Bethel Island in year 2005 and later. CHAPTER 3.13 — PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13 -8 CRAFT EIR CYFREss GRovE MAY 00-7 Table 3.133 DWD Summa of Projected Water Demands m d ' Oakle --N. Brentwood Area Avera e Day 4.$ 5.5 6.7 10.1 Maximum Day' 8:6 9.9 12.1 18.2 Peak Hour 14.4 16.5 20.1 2.90 Within Entire 1995 SOI Includes Oakley-N. Brentwood Area) Average Day 4.8 5.51 7.6 14.4- Maximum 4.4Maximum Day 8.6 9.9 13.7 25.9 Peak Hour 14.4 16.5 22.8 41.9 Bethel Island -Average Day 0.0 0,0 1,1 19. f Maximum Day 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.4 Peak Hous 0.0 0,0 3.3 5.7 Total Study Area Average Day 4.8 5.5 8.3 16.3 is Maximum Day' 8.6 97 15.0 29.3 Peak Hour 14.4 16.5 24.9 47.6 1 Maximum day peaking factor of 1.8 used for planning purposes. 2 Peak hour factor of 3.0 used for planning purposes,except for Dupont's demand which is assumed to be constant at its maximum day rate. 3 Service outside the Oaiey-N.Brentwood area is not assumed to occur until 2005.By 2005,it is assumed that DWD will begin serving outside the Daley-N.Brentwood area and that service will be provided to existing development as well as new growth. 4 By 200s,it is assumed that DWD will serve these areas and that service will be pLovided to existing development as well as new wth Source:Diablo Water District 1998 Facilities Plan U ate i Wastewater Collection and Treatment I The Ironhouse Sanitary District(ISD)provides Wastewater service to the entire City of Oakley and the unincorporated areas of Bethel Island and Sandmound. Wastewater services include the transmission of primarily residential and some commercial and light industrial Wastewater to a treatment facility, treatment, and then land disposal of the wastewater and residual waste solids. { Current System CARM-14 The wastewater system is composed of collection, treatment, and disposal. The collection and treatment facilities will be expanded to meet future requirements. The disposal system has been sized to meet the buildout capacity within the District. The current daily flow is 2.1 MCD and LJ1 treatment capacity totals 3.0 MGD. The current disposal delivery system can handle 4.3 MCD. Current Pa ' hies The trunk line system is divided into four general areas and are identified as follows: .,._J • Empire Avenue System • South of Ridge Line System CHAPTER 3.13- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13-9 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200.3 + Central System, O'Hara Avenue, Laurel Road • Highway 4 System vt t Pumping stations and wet wells are to be designed for continuous operation`at peak inflow For reasons of safety, the pumping stations are duplex installations with standby power at major stations. Pump system failure alarms and pumping status is telemetered to signal the ISD office. Wastewater Treatment ISD owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant in the northeast portion of Oakley. The plant currently provides wastewater treatment services for Oakley, Bethel Island, and the Sandmound area. Fifty acres of onsite storage are currently available for treated wastewater. The plant uses an aerated pond treatment system that occupies about 7.S acres of the site. The aerated pond system consists of a 9-inch parshall flume, two grinders, two pumps, and two parallel-two-stage aerated treatment ponds followed by storage and then chlorination. Effluent Disposal Effluent disposal comes about through land application of the treated effluent on irrigated pasture and agricultural crops. Currently the disposal is split between the mainland and Jersey Island properties,both owned by the District. ISD is permitted to apply its reclaimed water on 350 acres of its jersey Island property and on 260 acres of its mainland property. This provides enough capacity to accommodate the current plant capacity of 3.4 MGD. ISD has increased its ultimate effluent disposal capacity from 3.0 MGD to 8.4 MGD by the acquisition of additional land. Sludge Disposal Cate ISD has increased its sludge disposal capacity through the beneficial reuse of sludge by land application on ISD-owned lands. ISD rotates the application of dewatered sludge and treated effluent both on the existing disposal areas on ISD property and on Jersey Island. Law Enforcement The City of Oakley contracts with the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department for equipment and personnel. However, the Oakley Police Department controls the specifics of delivery of law enforcement services in the City, and this control results in a City-based police operation free of county jurisdiction. The current number of officers in the City results in a ratio of 0.7 police officers-per-1,000 population. The General. Plan EIR indicated that as the population in the General Pian area increases, the need for additional law enforcement services would increase. The General Plan EIR indicated that to maintain the level of service for the General Plan area, the appropriate police office to population ratio is 1.S officers per 1,040 population. CHAPTER 3.113 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13 -10 DRAFT EIR C"YPREss GRovE A4AY2©03 Fire Protection The City of Oakley is provided fire protection by the Oakley/Knightsen Fire Protection District.,... The district serves a population of approximately 32,000 residents in a 32 square-mile area. Of its two operations, Station 93 serves the City of Oakley. The district is under,authority of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The district currently has 37 firefighters. ,r Schools Three school districts serve the Oakley area: the Oakley Union Elementary School District, the Liberty Union High School District, and Antioch Unified School District. Following are brief descriptions of the schools operated by these three school districts. Oakley Union Elementary School District(OUESD) '. The OUESD encompasses the City of Oakley with Neroly Avenue as the eastern and southern borders and Empire Avenue as the western border. The following schools are included in the k` OUESD: ,U * O'Hara Park Middle School (1100 O'Hara Ave.) + Gehringer Elementary(4951 Main St.) + Laurel Elementary(1141 Laurel Rd.) i Oakley Elementary(501 Norcross Ln.) Vintage Park.Elementary(1000 Vintage Parkway) • Delta Vista Middle School(240 Cypress Road) For elementary schools, the City of Oakley is primarily served by the Oakley Union Elementary School District. The portion of the City west of Empire Avenue is located within the Antioch School District. The Oakley Union Elementary School District has two middle schools with 1,486 students currently enrolled and a design capacity of 1,600. The District also has four elementary schools with 2,828 students currently enrolled and a design capacity of 2,400. The District is operating at about 93 percent capacity,in their middle schools and almost 120 percent of capacity in their elementary schools(Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR, p. 3-80). Lib=y Union High School District(LUHSD) . s a' } The LUHSD includes facilities in both Oakley (Freedom High School)and also Brentwood(Liberty { & High School, LaPaloma High School). LaPaloma is a continuation high school. Table 3.13-4a shows the projected enrollment and capacity numbers for the Liberty Union High School District. Enrollment in the LUHSD is under capacity. Enrollment projections show that the schools will not exceed capacity until the school year 2003-2004(Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR,p. 3-80). r i .,;,3r -HAPTER S.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES DRAF—r EIP CYPRESS GROVE MAY 2003 Table 3.13-4a Projected Enrollment and Capacity: Liberty Union Hi h School District ' .� w a E . 2000—20 t}1 3,555 (745) (17%) 2002—2003 4,146 (154) (4%) 40 2 2004--2005 4,$36 536 12% R, jr}j�r[j!, 21 + *Note:Over/Under Capacity is bared on a maximum capacity level of 4,300 students. 3 Data Source: Libert Union High School Marice,Accountability Report Card 1994-2000. Antioch Unified School District(AVSD) The AVSD primarily covers the City of Antioch, and the western portion of Oakley from the border with Antioch to Empire Road and Big Break Road. Of the seventeen schools in the District, the following five schools enroll Oakley students: • Bidwell Elementary(800 Gary Ave.) • Kimball Elementary(13 10 August Way) • Antioch Middle School (1500 D St.) • Antioch High School(700 W. 18th St.) • Deer Valley High School(4700 Lone Tree Way) Table 3.13-4b shows the amount of Oakley students that have attended AVSD schools over the past five years and the change in attendance from year to year. Table 3.13-4b Recent Physical-Resident Student Population Chan es by Region 10,11 WN, 01offill"'Ift. �ma .��, West Oakley 1998 361 1999 379 18 L 2000 370 -9 2001 365 -5 ; 2002 274 -91 Dara Source: Enrollment Projection Consultanu,February 2003. CHAPTER 3. 13 — PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3,13-12 DRAFT EIR CYPREss GRovE Solid Waste Collection,Disposal,and Recycling Oakley Disposal Service, since 1976, has provided residential and commercial solid waste collection and recycling service to the City of Oakley. Contra Costa Waste Service and Mt. Diablo Recycling are affiliates of Oakley Disposal Service and provide recycling services and waste diversion programs. Es Oakley Disposal Service Solid waste collected by Oakley Disposal, in the City limits of Oakley is hauled to the recycling Center and Transfer Station in Pittsburg, which is operated by Contra Costa Waste Service. Residential, commercial, and industrial waste is processed at this transfer facility and the residual material is hauled to Potrero Hills Landfill (PHLF) outside Suisun City. PHLF is permitted to accept waste through 2015,with the potential expansion of 50 additional years. Mt. Diablo Recycling Oakley Disposal Service provides weekly curbside recycling service whereby each residential I ,I customer is provided two 12-gallon crates for discarding recyclables. Green waste service is provided on a bi-weekly basis. The curbside material is transported to the Concord Facility (Mt. Diablo Recycling) where the recyclables are sorted and moved to the appropriate markets for processing, composting, etc. Parks and Recreational Facilities Two basic park types exist in Oakley neighborhood and community parks (Oakley 2020 General r'lan, p. 7-15). Neighborhood parks generally abut residential areas and have amenities such as play ' areas,picnic areas, gathering areas, and open turf. These parks have turf areas suitable for informal play, practices, and scrimmages,but not formal games. Community parks are designed to serve the needs of several neighborhoods up to the whole community. These parks are intended to host organized, formal recreation leagues and tournaments to meet adult recreation opportunities that would require larger fields and therefore larger sites. The City of Oakley became responsible for the provision of local parks at the time of its incorporation in 1999. Parks in the City of Oakley are mostly located on school property, or other E joint-use sites, and maintained under school/park joint-use agreements with the Oakley Union School District or Contra Costa County funded by the parks Landscape and Lighting Assessment District. The school-use agreements detail how all aspects of the joint site-use will be funded, developed, and maintained, with the city (formerly the .county), typically being responsible ` primarily for improvements and sharing the cost of maintenance while the School District provides insurance and maintenance operations. LJ.' The existing agreements provide for joint school/community-use areas, a term used to describe areas used exclusively by the schools during the school clay and that are available to the public after school hours and on weekends. Public park use, or day use, is also provided by the agreements, �> which refers to sites that are available to the general public during all daylight hours. Existing Oakley recreation facilities are listed in Table 3.13-5 below. kLJY ' CHARTER 3.13- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3. 13-13 ADMINISTRATIVE!l DRAFT EIP CYPRESS GROVE ApRiL 2003 { I Table 3.13-5 !, Oakle •Park Facilities Inventor g 1 Neighborhood Parks Claremont Ba Park .25 acres 1 .25 acres Civic Center and Plaza 1 acre 1 acre Crockett Neighborhood Park 4.66 arses 4.66 acres Freedom Soccer Fields Park 8.48 acres 8.48 acres Heather Park .16 acres .16 acres j Holly Creek Neighborhood Park 6.7 acres 6.7 acres ' Laurel Ballfields Park 13.63 acres 13.63 acres Laurel Crest Park Site 10 acres 10 acres Laurel/Nutmeg 2.56 acres 2.56 acres Laurel Road at Marsh Creek Park Site 9 acres 9 acres Main Street Park .4 acres .4 acres . Marsh Creek Glenn Park 2.4 acres 2.4 acres ! Moura Park Site 6 acres 6 acres Oak a Fire District,Station#93 .2 acres .2 acres Stonewood Park 1.95 acres 1.95 acres Teakwood Basin Park 5.2 acres S.2 acres SUBTOTAL 21.7 acres 48.33 acres 72.59 acres joint-Use School/Community Parks 1 Delta Vista Elemenm and Middle Schools 19 acres 19 acres Freedom High School 9 acres i 3 acres 12 acres j Gehrin er Sementary School 4.2 acres 4.2 acres Laurel Elementary School 4 acres 4 acres Oakley Elementary School 4 acres 4 acres O'Hara Park Middle School 17.5 acres 17.5 acres Vintage Parkway Elemen School Park 4.37 acres 4.37 acres Subtotal 43.47 acres 22 acres 65.07 acres Regional Parks Antioch Oakley Regional Shoreline .81 acres .81 acres Big Break Regional Park 43.14 acres 43.14 acres Le ess Lizard Preserve .62 acres -62 acres SUBTOTAL .81 acres 43.76 acres 44.57 acres Total Park Acres 65.58 acres 114.09 acres 182.23 acres Acres required for city po ulation(27,000)` 135 acres, i 3Sacr4 Acres per 1,000 people' 2.43 acres 4.23 acres 6.75 acres Park acres required at 2020 Build-out(68,371)(City 342.27 acre, 342.27 acres pop.: 49,388;Fx ausion Areas p".:18,9831 I. Lichides park, and plavfields made available through joint-tsse. agreements betwe,�n the City and the :loon Control District. ?. includes parks and pl avf'ic:lds available through joint-use a<greemem,between L}e Cite,the Flood Control District and the School Distric!. 3. Acreage noted ii>r Regional Park, is I I`is of'total acrca-V of regional park site yithin OW-ev. based on Ual lev's participation in East Contra Costa Counts regional parks funding programs. 4. Rpres based on cit, park standard of 5 total park acres/1,000 people (2' acres/11,000 for neighborhood parks, 2 acre" 1,(X)0 for community parks,and i acres/1.000 lisr specid purpose iadliries). CHAPTER 3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13 -14 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRovE Other recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the project site include the Marsh Creek Trail, located along Marsh Creek, which forms the western boundary of the project site. The Trail would provide recreational opportunities for future residents of the proposed project. The Tentative .Maps for the proposed project include plans to build a trail behind the lots on the Williamson Property and the Conco North Property that would provide access to the Marsh Creek Trail. Electrical and Natural Gas Service The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is obligated by California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) Rule 1S to extend services to all new developments. However, PG&E is not required to distribute the services throughout the project site, it is only responsible for getting the electricity to the project site. Oakley is positioned within PG&E's Delta Distribution Planning Area (DPA), which covers the eastern portion of the county from Bay Point to Discovery Bay. Electric transmission and distribution facilities are located throughout the DPA, with electric transmission lines (generally energized at 21,000 volts) crossing the western area of Oakley. However, individual sets of facilities are not dedicated to serving Oakley exclusively. Electric distribution facilities consist of i overhead and underground lines and associated line equipment such as transformers, switches, etc. Existing gas facilities include gas transmission lines in the western portion of Oakley. Distribution gas mains are located in the roads serving residential and commercial facilities. Telephone Service The City of Oakley is currently served by Pacific Bell for all telephone needs. Pacific Bell's existing facilities are able to supply services to the city, and are comprised of one central office in Oakley and two main feeder routes consisting of both aerial and underground plants. REGULATORY CONTEXT Existing policies, laws and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are summarized below. Diablo Water District The Diablo Water District (DWD) serves customers in Oakley from a water treatment plant owned in cooperation with the Contra Costa Water District. Water District Master Plan and Facilities Plan update The Diablo Water District(DWD) drafted the original.Master Plan in 1992, and has since updated the plan to ensure adequate capacity for existing and future customers. Most recently revised in 2998, the flan also addresses water demands projections, identification of potential future facilities, and financial evaluations. The DWD Facilities Plan update focuses on water planning with respect to population projections within the Sphere of Influence. 4 CHAPTER 3.1:3-- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ........... DRAF-T EIR CYPRESS GR o vE MAY 2003 Contra Costa Water District The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) serves approximately 450,000 people through north- central and cast Contra Costa County, and supplies raw and treated water distribution facilities to Oakley by means of the Diablo Water District. In December 2000, the CCWD developed and implemented an Urban Water Management Plan. Los Vaqueros Project The Los Vaqueros Project (LVP), combined with the Contra Costa Canal, make up the CCWD's principal water supply and delivery system. The LVP provides water quality benefits to the entire Cypress Grove project site. Central Valley Project The Cypress Grove project site is located within the boundaries of CCWD Service Area A, as well as within the boundaries of DWD and the Los Vaqueros Project (LVP) Planning Area for receiving LVP water quality benefits. The major portion of the project located north of East Cypress Road is included within the CCWD's CVP contractual service area boundary. Annexation to the Central Valley Project Contractual Service Area occurred on December 18, 2002. City of Oakley General Plan The following applicable goals and policies are from the Oakley 2020 General Plan: Water Services: Goal 4.8 Assure the provision of potable water availability in quantities sufficient to serve existing and future residents. Policy 4.8.1 Coordinate future development with all water agencies to ensure facilities are available for proper water supply. Policy 4.8.2 Encourage the development of locally controlled supplies to meet the growth needs of the City. Policy 4.8.3 Encourage the conservation of water resources throughout the City. Policy 4.8.4 Ensure that new development pays the costs related to the need for increased water system capacity. Policy 4.8.5 Ensure that water service systems be required to meet regulatory standards for water delivery, water storage, and emergency water supplies. Policy 4.8.12 Reduce the need for water system improvements by encouraging new development to incorporate water conservation measures to decrease peak water use. CHAPTER 3.13— PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13-16 ................ ............................ ............ ............................. DRAFT EYR CYPRESS GROVE i MAY2003 Wastewater Services: Goal 4.9 Assure the provision of sewer collection, treatment and disposal facilities that are adequate to meet the current and projected needs of existing and future residents. Y Policy 4.9.1 Coordinate future development with the Ironhouse Sanitary District to ensure facilities are available for proper wastewater disposal. Policy 4.9.2 Wastewater treatment should preserve, and to the extent feasible, enhance water duality and the natural environment. Policy 4.9.4 Deduce the need for sewer system improvements by requiring new development to incorporate water conservation measures, which reduce flows into the sanitary sewer system. Law Enforcement. Goal 4.5 Provide a high standard of police protection services for all citizens and properties throughout Oakley. Policy 4.5.1 Police patrol beats shall be configured to assure minimum response times and efficient use of resources. Policy 4.5.2 Incorporate police protection standards and requirements into the land use planning process. Policy 4.5.3 Encourage public participation in crime prevention activities. Policy 4.5.4 The city shall strive to provide sufficient personnel and capital facilities to ensure adequate police protection and appropriate response times, Policy 4.5.5 Require that the Community Development Department refer, as appropriate, development proposals to the Police Department for review and comments. Public Schools Goal 4.6 Assure the provision of adequate primary and secondary schools in optimal locations to serve planned growth. Policy 4.6.3 To the extent possible, new residential development, General Plan Amendments, or Rezoning shall, in the absence of the Planning Agency's satisfaction that there are overriding considerations (i.e., provision of low r" or moderate cost housing), be required to adequately mitigate impacts on primary and secondary school facilities. Policy 4.6.5 Ensure that school facility impact fees are collected and shall work with developers and school districts to establish mitigation measures to ensurethe availability of adequate school facilities. Policy 4.6.6 Work with the school districts to consider alternative funding programs for school facility construction andprovision of educational programs. Policy 4.6.7 The hearing body reviewing residential projects shall consider the f availability of educational facilities and impact on school capacities. CHARTER 3.13--PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13 -17 ©RAFT EIR C YFREss GRo vE MAY2003 Policv 4.6.8 School site donation by developers may be encouraged through the use of density transfer or other appropriate land use alternatives. General Parks and Recreation. Goal 7.1 Develop and maintain a system of parks, recreational facilities and open space areas to meet the needs of the City of Oakley. Policy 7.1.1 Develop and maintain a park system that provides 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Policy 7.1.2 Offer a wide variety of indoor and outdoor recreational opportunities in proximity to all residents of the city, enabling residents to participate in activities that will enhance the quality of life in the community. Policy 7.1.3 Provide a full range of park and recreation facilities and programs for all community residents. Policy 7.1.4 Provide recreation services that enhance the quality of life and meet the changing needs of residents. Policy 7.1.5 Maintain and improve existing parks and develop new neighborhood and community parks in new residential neighborhoods as growth occurs. Policy 7.1.7 Provide sufficient playfields within the City to accommodate both practice and competitive demands for organized and informal activity. Policy 7.1.10 Consider multiple uses for open space land (i.e. land use buffer zones and green-ways for trails and linear parks, flood control basins for basin and park joint use, and school sites for neighborhood/community park joint use). Policy 7.1.13 Consider multiple uses for open space land (i.e. land use buffer zones and green-ways for trails and linear parks, flood control basins for basin and park joint use, and school sites for neighborhood/community park joint use). Policy 7.1.19 Require all development to dedicate parkland and pay in lieu and/or impact fees sufficient to meet the added demand for parkland facilities. Neighborhood Parks. Playfields, and Recreation Centers: Goal 7.3 Provide a network of neighborhood parks to adequately service the various neighborhoods within the City of Oakley. Policy 7.3.1 Provide area for neighborhood parks at a rate of 2 acres per 1,000 residents. Policy 7.3.2 Where 2 acre parcels are not available, provide pocket parks and neighborhood parks at a rate of no less than 1 acre per 1,000 residents in older or in-fill neighborhoods. Policy 7.3.3 Provide for 2 acres of developed neighborhood park per 1,000 residents from all new residential subdivisions through Land Dedication In-Lieu fees and/or Park Impact fees. Policy 7.3.5 Focus on development of parks, not leftover residual space. Parks should not be used as buffers for surrounding developments nor used to separate CHAPTER 3.13— PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3. 13 -18 ........................... ......................... ................... ........................1.11,11,111.111.1............... .......... CRAF EYf� CYPREssGRovE i MAY 200; buildings from the street. dews from surrounding streets should be considered in location of the park site and individual park features. Policy 7.3.6 Front at least 50°!0 of a park's frontage onto a public street. For perimeters not bound by a street, woodlands, creeks, agricultural uses or other significant open space features are desired over backyard fences. Where backyard fences are unavoidable, they should be screened through the use of trees and shrubs. Surrounding buildings should have windows and entries onto the park. Policy 7.37 Design neighborhood parks to conserve natural features including creeks, heritage trees, and significant habitats. However, parkland dedicated for active recreation should not have biological and/or ecological restrictions on land usage. Policy 7.3.8 Locate neighborhood parks no more than sl,. mile walking distance for most residents. Avoid major street crossing for most residents to access a r" neighborhood park. f_ Policy 7.34 Design and locate neighborhood parks based on a preferred size of 5 to 6 acres with a minimum size of 2 acres. The park size of 5 to 6 acres would allow for the incorporation of lawn play areas of sufficient size to 5:. accommodate informal field sports. Policy 7.3.10 Suitability of potential neighborhood park sites to be determined by the following guidelines: • Grade land to have appropriate slope to support active recreation activities. • Eliminate or avoid biological or ecological restrictions on land usage. • Design the ratio of park width and length to be no thinner than 1:3 to promote functional usages of park. Policy 7.3.11 Design neighborhood parks to meet the specific needs of the neighborhood i that it serves. Appropriate features include,but are not limited to: • Multi-purpose lawn areas for informal play • Picnic and gathering areas • Small play structures, with separate structures for pre-school and 1 school-aged children • Small court game areas • No parking facilities • No permanent restroom facilities Trails: Goal 7.5 Establish and maintain a comprehensive system of local and regional trails linking open space, neighborhood parks, community parks and recreation centers, libraries and schools, public transportation nodes, governmental j buildings and commercial uses throughout Oakley to provide for pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle circulation. F CHAPTER 3. 13 -- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ADMINISTRATIVE 11 Df?AFT E1R CYPRESS GROVE APRIL.200.E Policy 7.5.1 Construct trails to provide transportation, exercise, and connection to nature and leisure opportunities for Oakley residents. Policv 7.5.2 Construct short feeder trails to connect proposed developments to the regional trail system. i Policy 7.5.3 Provide easements to connect new neighborhoods to such amenities as parks, neighborhoods, and commercial centers of not less than 20 feet in l width. Policy 7.5.4 Provide public greenbelt corridors along major arterials of not less than 40 feet in width. Policy 7.5.5 Provide easements along stream corridors of not less than 100 feet in length and 20 feet in width. Policy 7.5.8 Construct trails, whenever possible, to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Policy 7.5.9 Construct trails to provide for proper grading, drainage and erosion control. Policy 7.5.13 Provide trail fences, directional signage, gates and bollards to protect the safety of trail users and adjacent properties. Provide equestrian trails to connect stables or ranchette development with regional trails. Oakley Parks.Master Plan Parks planning for Oakley was initiated in 1988 when the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted the first Oakley Parks Master Plan. The 1988 plan attempted to establish goals and priorities for parks in the Oakley community. The 1988 plan was not utilized effectively and therefore development did not accomplish the outlined goals. Following revision of the County General Plan in 1991, the Oakley Parks Master Plan was updated to maintain conformance with the County General Plan. The updated Oakley Parks Master Plan adopted in 1993, took a realistic look at parkland opportunities and strategies needed to achieve the goals of the community. The 1993 plan contained updated technical data, new maps, inventories of existing facilities, population projections and neighborhood analysis, as well as park standards and prototypes. The 1993 plan provided a guide to the planning and development of future parks and recreational facilities in the Oakley community, with implementation to occur as funds became available. In 1999, the newly incorporated City of Oakley became responsible for the provision of local parks. At that time the city initiated an update of the Oakley Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Information and policy direction compiled for the new Master Plan has provided the foundation for the Parks and Recreation Element of the Oakley 2020 General Plan. The updated Oakley Parks and Recreation Master Plan is anticipated for adoption in early 2003. The new Parks and Recreation Master Plan will dovetail with the City's General Plan and will provide the detailed implementation programs needed to expand local public recreational opportunities, in conformance with the findings of the study. CHAPTER 3.13 — PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13-20 DRAr-7 EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 IMPACTS CTS A.ND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance An impact to the public services and utilities of the proposed project area would be considered significant if the proposed project would: * increase demand on existing water supply and distribution facilities, such that the facilities cannot meet the demand; * adversely impact the wastewater delivery system and increase the wastewater capacity beyond the ability of the wastewater treatment plant; * increase the demand for additional law enforcement or fire protection services beyond the ability of the existing departments to provide adequate service; * increase the total number of students beyond the capacity of the three local school districts; * increase the demand for recreational uses beyond the existing or proposed parks and recreational facilities; * exceed the available provisions of local solid waste disposal/recycling agencies; and * increase the demand for electrical, gas, and phone services beyond their ability to provide service. Method of Analysis The following section evaluates the impacts of the proposed project on the existing public services that would occur if the project as currently proposed went into effect. Impact significance is determined by comparing project conditions to the existing conditions. The responsible agencies for each service have been contacted regarding the potential impacts on their facilities. s. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.13-1 Adequate water supply and delivery for new residents. The proposed project would result in an increased demand for domestic water. The Diablo Nater District (DWD) provides water service to all residential and commercial users within the City limits. The water supply available to DWD is the Central 'galley Project water purchased by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) under its contract number 175r-3401 with the US. Bureau of Reclamation, and resold by it to DWD under CCV DD Code of Regulations. This supply is sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with Cypress Grove. The approval of the Bureau of Reclamation must be obtained for the inclusion of the land of Cypress Grove for municipal and industrial water service under CCWD's contract. CCWD's application for inclusion is in process and approval is anticipated prior to service need. The maximum projected water demand associated with Cypress Grove is estimated to be approximately 124 million gallons per year. The availability of this quantity is included and a CHAPTER 3.13— PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13-21 DRAFT EIP CYPRESS GROVE MAY.2003 accounted for in DWD's Urban Water Management Plan, DWD's 1998 Facilities Plan Update, CCWD's 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, and CCWD's 1996 Future Water Supply Study. The maximum quantity of water purchased by DWD in any prior ' year is approximately 1.8 billion gallons. Delivery of water to Cypress Grove can be accomplished by extensions of DWD's existing water mains. Funding for the delivery of the supply is documented in DWD's 1998 Facilities Plan Update. State and local permits a for construction of the extensions can be obtained routinely in the normal course of business. The water supply of DWD that is available for Cypress Grove does not include ground water. The Cypress Grove project site is located within the boundaries of CCWD Service Area A, as well as within the boundaries of DWD and the Los Vaqueros Project (LVP) Planning Area for receiving LVF water quality benefits. However, the major portion of the project located north of East Cypress Road is not included within the CCWD's CVP contractual service area boundary. The previously requested annexation of the land to the CVP service area has been approved by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. However, the final CEQA documentation and other environmental information, including evidence of compliance with ESA and other federal regulations would need to be completed for the Cypress Grove Project and coordinated through CCWD for submission to the Bureau of Reclamation as an inclusion application. The project proponent and CCWD initiates ESA compliance through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To serve the project area, a 20 -to 24-inch water main would be constructed in Cypress Road from the west edge of the Delta Vista Middle School site to the eastern boundary of the project area (see Figure 3.13-1). Depending on the timing of Cypress Lakes improvements to the east, an additional 1.6-to 20-inch water main would connect the main in Cypress Road to the main in Laurel Road to the south. This line would be constructed south along the western edge of the project entrance to Subdivision 8678 until it reaches the BNSF railroad. The line would then be constructed parallel to the railroad track (outside of the railroad right-of-way)for approximately 650 feet to the southeast where the main would be bored and jacked under the railroad tracks. The 16.—to 20-inch main would then extend south adjacent to the existing detention basin to its connection with the existing 16"main in Laurel Road, providing a looped system. All local and collector roads would have 8"or 12"mains to serve the project site. The approval of the inclusion application by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation would allow the provision of water service to the Cypress Grove project site north of Cypress Road. The Water Supply Assessment provided by the Diablo`Water District states that adequate water exists within the DWD and CCWD systems to provide service to the Cypress Grove project area. Therefore, the impact on water supply and delivery would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. CHAF ER 3.13 — PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILI T IES 3. 13-22 - ............................................. �- l a-1111-Illn ONV sl[--)]A` r�r tri �� �' vc a V i :IJ t �.. t �y T � •� k} \ f�F t{ il�}+r 'rtY�'f^ll� �I p( � y .i""1, ,+ ,�' tt ^ 2��ij rr> i ,t d '1 f - Dy, A►t t J 4 `,:7�. �,.:" ,�y, r�'$r T,� ''k'r a� k , �x7' r �� ' �1r '�r �. i,'G :���3¢- `.ti.;: '�. �.,• ,Y' s :'V I I., �y 1.1` '�j , .+ f 7 s �`'R s 1 Y� ,orf .� �{,,�,���$`'�`,'a+r,4•� i�: i��., �"��np"� ,�"p�r'`�^'_fti r',. ,4.arfS�-a:;.l,. wt�►Sy:rF ;s;. � 'R' r '� �'.:,• t � �,�,�"":+rJ �"t rl:.c +dry,' 'vS"o- :y �'E ';4d r, r.r' ��,,,,�,. �t ,,t ��'�' + a•� i i,�,r �i '�� - �!?'• �''� �'r .. � �t• ti.4571 .. �.� �� � �Li,fM l�1 ` �.ry" V4,.� ��^^'f. ` i`'"'•�Y.� �, a�.'y �,�x �4. 4 45..,� , iii. W+, $y �ayF r J x Y�e � iF i + w �ci� Y:qct'9 � i � ;�� ':1 �„�?+�w � i1�•r � �+�='° "^.I�., +�^I y'yy i'. ��, !•"tr C� w ;v� �34�^'1�` � w 4 t yy�� 1v.'gf r trt.:.,,:,_ + } �_ J ..a-4 ,4; y. '1,, tl 'Y £YT y, rl-,.` i r, ,, ry F�'i ✓:� 'iti a ht i tl6': W� `i .p A ::J 1+4 t:.'r.�1,4.1'f ! +s r!`. � � �i• ' I �`I'• '�i{4.,�J`1� 15 .w.. 1'�yl.r'4'i i ri J +�: �c * t 4'+'ti ,�i.y��. r � -'1•rl Y, � t. .l r� �. ... �� ,'tip?' �rcy,1',f S;r,,,�,f QV(7a"INfl1�T KI i $ LVM (4iI151X� y R� w r a t JJ1 IQaLLiO�tPE�SOdQd r �► ,. .t'r � 'r , in 6tR3 ..�J "d nd�h>r �nJ .bIR7F .'�a, , h, t �w r ,xp r� s�' i �•1'3�v iwa N{ T ]IfFr I ,� �''S�i OtlY,it. �4�n �'' ;� i�'. 3:41`+, i �r`wt' t.'.+�d �wW ^'�. I � •. , tr nrr` j '"' z � lr.:��'s3i�Y'4.t '�,.•...� k ,' 4 k, j �St tv�.. ,.. k �!4 hY" {' .+ = 11t�'"i ..�,.'� 4. ,��':.r 4.1' , � k �' r �. �'�iWlt :eft+M, AjT'a�•�6'�Y �. `r ,w it '�t ,•Sr`1��:> a.,.�, ltr,- i. x � # Y g,,, i 6��a. ,"� +,tF' # :41�, � 'i;( :�.�..`�' '^{' i+ ��.•�.a..�� rs• r, �;,, iC, � r +�`' .+. � '�. 1 w, nY .�w�,,,�E� - ."'��o�y+ .' "`.`+Y- S �i'•,�'t '.� � ��:�4 .,t r�( �.,;{ly'i r:.t. '��.� �,,u `��� - �,..t, s ���, �'. ' .r I: ;�� •� � � ',� ' y to � �f F Mf n i � _,p a x ;, ��; " \ i� �.' �> es�, p,�+GV$ § ra .,, ��� F-x�..r„ `,3�.,�+ � .r: ��.t. ,��f.. rr�, at :.•:,, �+ �y �6 fur 4.f,,.:?}�',+ ' T' rwl v ' YFt �,�.. �y>Lt' ,�++�t��� t 5 c 1;" ` •� +�F�t ��A. ! �� r� • ,�,�h),tJ��'i�M Y� r N �y.�.�r�,e'r. WIf '+, .. _ .. . . .. 'i x�J +r + �'+"1►Y} �`F y'�y �: `k" � "$J+ ,E ,,��.,.,s,! .'4ri♦ j i ti. r. r n - „� .. �: ' n` . t1 .�5r� .1• b < rt.o.�' � >�;. 4 {+' t ` y�',y ,�«"' t g if - �� � .Y4.,,,, ,o, J �'F�•t 4'�e zy.,� n��, r „�fii"9�'��� ���W r � ',a �`��1�r���I 1 a � �w .p � -�'- r' '+� '4 " r in.�4 i A .►' t i�r r`i>� F� rd t� �� k '.� �` �,� ss�.e3 :. t '.�.:. •�? �r��r �{ + 1 y>z. .Sy::.-�. vr.d � ,� .I -�/<it� {f' a+ I a w•��.,�,� •'�' "Y - 7. � ,. ��i"64. Yr *" ! � , '•''7K'� �x,. , ,�$�' `dal: Sws"'�Y��L'- '.it. F.'+I. �i ,w+R�Y.--� "" w� ; 5 '� �..�,4 likerF,"k r$`" i ��`"'$r, a:at,J;ap r�AU @ ,4i'��V; Y�, y: A" .,.+e. �' yri:q�: •t"" 4 q,"`•..' s.Rt .. � � )tp�er��' ! �Ai "•4'1t�r� rifer�`�b.�'t� '� � � .�. ,t �$��"1!� w 1� k•.� 7 y ll ! iot. j wtii,'``y r �.$pit:.-,. y`C�S •.4 .ry- t�.S'XJJJIJJJVA,�Jj .4 •._}� �` p' .. s wl .T7'+r,'w.r1�1,,tom' � .•; �l j, AV iDOISMIA 4 fie 4q.�t �'i'•i • __ � _—'-•� �»� �'�, ,qµ �'Nht ;a3 ;i.1 � j ri �i �.. .-1�f",• y�,,rs)r � j'�,. { _ � , c rv'a+ ✓ v5,.tr" ti!`✓_, 'rye _ r q +, ,.� fid© ;•�. � (\ , �,�k�r �M,•�'�s,,, �,,� - ;� y_'i-- __�__—_. 1� -..__....... �,_..—. w-- �, �S."t..i9 ,.,,�•.. n �,.+v�ry171.TA1� _JL,i$ �X,n a;.! .I'7t Y. �{ � `!'_"t,�{., _.a. a f �, �,�,,•� cr"--,-_- - —___��.�.._._,_ — -,---.., ,11( _ _- -"�-'z",�.��. �', a�a4 " VI i •�„_.«i � � i f� � _�_ ��� �/� - A``� � y+ Y �•A� 'i'S 4tti.t-.ai^,-. '7Y+li{.�Lt+"f,'S. i - i •Y _�,%j � 'r ^.L.... � J lir �.��� •.,'�sd�W",{ `y, �1 > i _�Y � t�� �;;•. •� _. :: ' .;,._ �..�: i._... � �.l���Is St X���.�ar �l�,,.. l.� �zt�J-s..a�<•'���ss� � ,. t J' NP .4 3 SKI MOMS '1 r�: cLl�t` ..�.1 L�l(,/!1`1.E1.AC1'1 (J ('�E •y a,. t'::: 1 { • , 77— Cin _ " -� / Y X — ♦ __ -`J S' --C- Y4. .. , �•r T Y M j.M1i -.:. __•_.� w _ -�_ � `.'� • ��..___ _�5_2'___ ._�Y]I _�-���.Y�1'�—.L - �eYl�Y�� I . . OOC)G 77/<t.rJV 3110HO s33&aA0 axn;anzxs�x�u� xa;�� r: DRAt=7 ELR CYPRES'S GRovE MAY,2003 3.13-2 Decrease in availability of land used for wastewater disposal. . I , The Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD) provides wastewater service to the entire City of ! Oakley. ISD would provide wastewater service for the proposed project. The ISD wastewater treatment plant is located northwest of the project site. ISD currently accommodates 2.1 MGD of wastewater and the current capacity is 3.0 MGD. 3 The proposed project would add approximately 637 dwelling units to the ISD service area. According to the ISD Master Plan, a dwelling unit would generate approximately 250 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. The addition of 637 dwelling units would add approximately 161;000 gpd (or 0.162 MGD) to the service area. The addition of 0.162 1 MGD of wastewater to the ISD would not exceed the plant capacity. �j Currently, properties connected to the system on Cypress Road pump their wastewater to F ' the treatment plant through an existing 14" force main in Cypress Road. The force main I connects to an existing 18" gravity main in SR 4 that flows to the treatment plant. The existing 14" force main size is adequate for the proposed project's capacity and future upstream development within the ISD service area. Because the ISD has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project and because the project would be required to pay fees should additional service be needed (i.e., connections, plant expansion and maintenance), the proposed project would have a less- than-significant ess- than-sign fcant impact on the wastewater system. Mitigation Measurets) None required. 3.13-3 Adequate ratio of law enforcement personnel to residents. s .} The Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report Table 5.3 shows that the Contra Costa County Sheriff's office determined that Oakley had a ratio of officers to population of 0.74 3 officers per 1,000 residents (19 sworn staff divided by 25,615 persons). Presented as a comparison is two neighboring cities; Antioch, with a ratio of 1.24 (105 sworn staff divided by 84,500 persons) and Pittsburg, with a ratio of 1.36 (74 Sworn staff'divided by . 54,400 persons). F, x The Police Department has limited ability to fund expanded services due to a limited { budget.1°Oakley is taking steps to secure dedicated future funding for police services. i 9 I i I LJ I C . i � t I:..i CHAP"T"ER 3,13 -- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES I 3. 13 -24 E s jur,u n GNV Sil')lA`JDS ononc:1 _ t 81I.Livl.io ", Jj�a � •.y.. '`yu x,�f �, } .. .V � iia• � d�', �� 41{. z` t ,�,� l�iR'�•l,�i �: ,i, �; r d rn, t• r , .p, a� �j�rfi r{�i �� , ,;�,F dvl i4• � .- >Y, .w Y Apr rdl .tr >:•��. ++a.`rY r.i�r,::,.,�1., �' ,'ct ���,.'.,. r "•�►".'` °. �'. i ,�' V�� Nldoomyle t;d wF +4ty, v"' s I J tidr's 4. �g i fir" #r F+r k ,t ' � '�(� I r:,y ,t ,�. :; � t ! '�1 c1 �" vtn M , , niy. � _. #} ' _ f _��{�I.i,S �+t,�� �� ��'�#$�I'< �t�:-F'T' 'ii' it 'i Ais"t�ji�4' "�� � ���'�„r,s' -��i � ^is� `� stt } wY x/Q .i DIY, W 1 ..:`4�7 'tfi 4 1' �Y yYM ri' .. 7 t 7_7 �1 1 1. y � 1 IL -- 12� ro �I Vii., �•^� �i�,•�,�kl,lY. ,�.�"i'�' ,,�• IANVJL vs 'If If ' 24 1 ' 1.......... I 1. r �` __� � ;F-__-_f_ __--I, fl-_�..»_.�111� r' "� 'r G-`, �`aii�•`�*� `:'4 � 'i�''.y � �, 5t1 ��'.� ,Y�y �' :. iti 1. - - S i ii! num,mo �I 1 - - 1 !' -- 1 {! l 1 E__ 1 --tl ; _-. _ .,I - +♦. r„1 - ------- #f _ T -� r+' , I .,�y � - ' Y•�1�{ f Y� 1�" i �.," +,li ir�'°"�h'IIY,t a. it «_ -_ -- -» « .a I •j ,. e i G Itti # ,. __ J7 i.,.»_ - a _R.. __1 7 t{y. ._ � ;. `S`i/� ., ___ _---- -------• '.r7...x� � ..' ------------ ��- �r»'.84w:A««fit.»�SL�»»..::L'CMw.»,'::.':: ..s. -Y{';,.�_:.�: -•f+r _7r"'Felyy �� 4 -�'- �y '� try .. , t I + 90101 yy y} yROV`yTt4i' lryt�`ltIaVryv, 90101 at'l xg 1`tV411lY RY (` ♦ ,< � \ NZM�O.G 141 { h } { , __-- fX--fib hUVI1fl O N LM tt4JllIVYt t /Nouns md 100HOS Xa 109NNOD 1118 }�9�71 0 ��htji�1�43�i W "}� 031A 32 1+ a 1 X PK1tINv Yl i`•:� �'. r tri .._ ( i � 1 �, 33103 s �hiaN 4 ,r `L i I i 1 k l I 1 t r ..I _ 11 1; 1 1 t t t 4 I ' i I `\; t..Y ), l-t s i ,: I +i M .1r; 1y �r t s 1 ,rj SSI ;1 w7. ------------- �. .. � .1 -_ �.-�-_»..i'_ I �, -- � t» ` ( J�+t�t•4 •�t+r� ,C••;. ..:� ��i�%�i I i;�fl�,�+\,� I �) � �I ; ' •> t r ' i-'_.:.__ � ' �...•_ I.F_i-._.: �i r. i i f [ t ,�' t S f � '.. 4...'. „✓ter. I ! - J i �_..� S. _.:..� J r � '.F4M1'.NY9i t 1� '��Fi"IA'+' �''W F 4r w�t•y .{ T". '7` -_ E ,�4f1,t�gS;1p1'�f�-k� �t 4'tplS •tif ��t i,.' i�'1� ���.,+� y� i ��y ! ��• I.,; _ i li -r.___ `1 .I(�'__ -'�`�i I ,_.._ •,` ; � :i �,r10 ---- � -t.. '_i_ ---- ------- L I ` • �' I 1, i ' ' t ' i. :}:vr ~M1�'. {S i���}�t, �Y; *., L � L � "Z�� ....�»: 1:.i .. <� '.. j t � ; � � 11 � �r ' __' � .:{4 S'.t, .rw...•., i �Y-I I ��y t�. _....`�i� � .. 11 t i If Y3r1. I;�F 1, i' $ { � i'; 11' `f""'"" o r ttt ' _ .t.__ _ 1 '�i' '":" r....'T.,.'• iy - 1 i Vii 'WpeF'{:O �' 1 ,� ,�•( — _� f�t .t Y I 14 � I ( 1 Y+ �e.._..:.—�i ( r •` „ �yn1l,�. V1 lora:I.SItI'I OMS ti I -I ; H ax ---- ------ E`v^s_yy r:el} d, 1SQY tXilY't i tYVkkYt!R t.RYV ii_ �(.>°_ .._�f _ "'i::lr ------ ------ --- -__--"'' _ n{ -s _ 1 i v _j --I i 1� _- 14 ------ ----- �V _ lWi 1 1+ 1 1 1 � ' t {', re �.t ._ "• � �I'"-___"` "..__"«.�1 i , ,vi - �,. , la 1 lir. - tttt _ - -- - --.,.»-..»» �., •I""""'. -tt Yr --�-_`.�"'_ __�.:....{-__f +_-�... 1� �a Zt:, ,. »»....- VY , f r" _ wi 1t iif y i �. L ;• L» : � -" ------ i 7J ... ,1 f+ _:- WLi 6 #� 1 a v j ( _• 1I ---r _---- y - 1;-----_� —_-- i YI ,-------------- _�I'r t•, I -- -_--- ' {{{ ---till-- _ —t `�_` » it Il 11 t t .tLI7b'fi� � it------ ---- 1 ; a, it 1 i i 1 _ _ -- - » O Is ov 5yAzmv y t _ tVit It '� i i .,f_._ +_-�- j Y___ -�'I'___ _ d rld 3 HS --t'� 1 I -- --I 11____--� --------I "i.-__11 _ __J, ----,t-------- _ri_ __,L,__� 1' + A Y el �" S,• '� 7' , . . axct;�Inar.Issx,�a�aa3en�axse� _g/l O vo ss_:7Hd t 0 _ ADMINISTRATIVE 11 DRAF-r EIR CYPRE5`S GR JVE +ApRiL 20303 However, it is anticipated that the necessary revenue building may take several years. The City Manager and Police Chief continue to seek grants and other types of funding.The City is concerned that future growth in the Planning Area would make adequate coverage of the citizen's police protection needs more difficult. Development of the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 1,968 persons (based on calculations using the Oakley 2024 General Plan standards, p. 10- 17), and result in a need for more law enforcement personnel. Therefore, the impact would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-sign f cant lever 3.13-3 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project proponent shall pay the appropriate fees in accordance with AB 1600 and local policies. j 3.13-4 Adequate ratio of fire department personnel to residents. The City of Oakley is provided fire protection by the Oakley/Knightsen Fire Protection District. The district serves a population of approximately 32,044 residents in a 32 square- mile area. The District currently has two fire stations; Station 93 serves the City of Oakley and Station 94 serves the City of Knightsen. Station 93 is well situated to meet the service needs of the City of Oakley until the year 2004- (Oakley 2020 General Plan, p. 4-16). The District is under authority of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The district currently has 37 firefighters. Due to the projected growth demand over the next seven years, the Chief of the Oakley-Knightsen Fire Protection District has determined that an additional fire station will be required. The new station, Station 92, is tentatively proposed to be located on Live Oak Avenue and Laurel Road, and constructed within the next five years. f The Oakley-Knightsen Fire Protection District has a response time goal of five minutes for 80 percent of the District's area and a current average response time of 6 minutes and 30 seconds (Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR, p. 3-89). When multiple units are dispatched, all units should arrive within 10 minutes. The City is concerned that future growth in the City's Planning Area would not enable adequate coverage of the citizens' fire protection needs and has therefore included in the General Plan, Policies and Programs to enhance the goal of providing an efficient fire protection system for the citizens of Oakley. Therefore, although Station 93 is well situated to meet the service needs of the City of Oakley until the year 2404, the proposed project would contribute to the growth of the City of Oakley, thereby making adequate future coverage of the citizens' fire protection needs difficult. The proposed project would have a potentially sign f cant impact on fire protection personnel and/or equipment. CHAPTER 3.13--- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13-26 ADMINISTRATIVE 11 DRAFT Elf? CYPRESS GROVE APRIL 2003 Mitigation Measures) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a Iess-than-signcant level: ,1 3.13-4 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project proponent shall pay his fair share of costs for new f re protection facilities and services. 3.13-5 Number of enrolled students exceeding capacity. The four elementary schools in the Oakley union Elementary School District are over capacity limits and the two middle schools are currently serving over 90 percent of their capacity." In addition, future growth will. further impact these schools. One reason the middle schools are less affected is because the Delta Vista Middle School was recently opened in August of 2001 and dramatically increased the middle school capacities to acceptable levels. The Liberty Union High School District is not as capacity constrained as the Oakley Union Elementary District. Enrollment projections show that the schools will not exceed capacity until the school year 2003-2004 (Oakley 2020 General Background Report p. 5-10). Two Oakley high schools are projected to exceed capacity beginning in Fall 2003. Implementation of the proposed project would add to the enrollment of the two existing school districts. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on the existing schools would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level: 3.13-5 Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project proponent shall pay the appropriate statutoryfees to the three existing school districts. 3.13-6 Adequate provision of parks and recreation space for new residents. The anticipated growth in the city population resulting from the development of the proposed project would determine the amount of park space proportional to the number of new residents. The standard requirement in the Oakley 2020 General Plan is six acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (Oakley 2020 General Plan, p. 7-3). More specifically, the Oakley 2020 General Plan requires 3 acres of community parks, 2 acres of neighborhood parks, and 1 acre of open space and greenbelt per 1,000 residents (Oakley 2020 General Plan, p. 7-4). The Oakley 2020 General Plan (p. 10-17) used the following standards to estimate the population of the City of Oakley should all residential land in Oakley be built out to the maximum capacity: a) 3.26 residents per single-family dwelling unit, and b) 2.13 residents per multi-family dwelling unit. Using these numbers, the 637 (541 single- family and 96 multi-family) proposed homes would add approximately 1,968 residents to CHAPTER 3.1.3 — PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3. 13 -27 DRAF-T EtR CYPREE.Ss GRovE MAY 200.E specifically, S.9 acres community parks, 3.94 acres of neighborhood parks, and 1.97 acres of open space. The total acres of community/neighborhood parks required then is 9.84. The Tentative Subdivision Maps propose: 1) a 1.99 acre park located in the Southwestern portion of the Conco South Property, 2)a S.19 acre neighborhood park located just north of Delta`lista Middle School in the Williamson Property, and 3) 11.54 acresOf open space and trail. Trail corridors mare account for S.38 acres of the 11.54 acres of open space and trail. The proposed project would meet the City requirement for open space and trail,but would not meet the City requirement for parks because the project would provide for approximately 7.18 acres of community/neighborhood park area instead of the required 9.84 acres for a population increase of 1,968.1. However, the City has agreed that the proposed 5.38 acres of trail corridors should count as community/neighborhood park at a rate of 50 percent, which would increase the total park contribution from 7.18 acres to 9.87 acres. As a result, the impact of the increased population on the parks ratio would be considered less-than-significant. I Mitigation Measure(s) None required. ;1 3.13-7 Need for additional waste disposal/recycling services. Currently, the residents of the City of Oakley privately contract with Oakley Disposal Service for solid waste disposal and recycling services. New residents would also contract with Oakley Disposal Service and pay the appropriate fees. Oakley Disposal provides both: ! solid waste disposal service and recycling services. Solid waste collected within city limits is taken to the Pittsburg Recycling Center and Transfer Station for separation and all non- recyclable waste is hauled to the Potrero Hills Landfill.. i The Potrero Hills Landfill is two miles southeast of Suisun City. The facility is permitted to accept waste until 201 S with a potential expansion for an additional fifty years(until 21365). 1 The curbside recyclable material collected is transported to the Concord facility for recycling, which is managed by Mount Diablo Recycling, an affiliate of Oakley Disposal Services. The recyclable materials are separated and transported to the appropriate market. The addition of new residents resulting from development of the proposed housing units would necessitate increased waste disposal and recycling personnel and equipment. However, because the City is served by a private company and the new residents would I pay fees for the waste service, the addition of new residents would be accommodated by the new fees. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on solid waste disposal and recycling. Mitigation Measures) None required. 'i f ..,? 1-HAPTER 3,13--- PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3.13 -28 DRAF7-FIR CYPRESS GROVE MA.Y 2003 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures j 3.13-8 The proposed project, combined with future development in the City of Oakley, would increase the demand for additional public services and facilities. The proposed project would increase the demand for public services and facilities. The proposed project would not create cumulative impacts on the public services. Typically, each project would pay for the services it requires which would fully mitigate the impacts on public services from the proposed project. Should the fees not be sufficient to fully mitigate the impacts generated by the development of the proposed project, the city should require the applicant to pay additional fees. Once the fees are fully paid, cumulative impacts would not be expected to occur. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Endnotes ' Cypress Grove Design Guidelines(Design Guidelines)C December, 2001 7 Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report(Oakley General Plan Background)©September,2001 3 Contra Costa County General Plan 0 1996 {Contra Costa County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report©September, 1990 s Oakley 2020 General Plan,City of Oakley,August 30,2002. 6 Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Oakley,September, 2002. 7 ABAG City of Oakley Census 2000,htt sem:.//census.abag.ca.cov/cities/Qaklev htm. s Projected Enrollments, 2002 to 2020 in the Antioch Unified School District, January 2003, Enrollment Projection Consultants,Table 3A. 9 Oakley 2020 General Plan,p.7-IS. 10 Oakley General PIan EIR,p. 3-91,92. " Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR,p. 3-93. CHAPTER 3.13— PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3. 13-29 r"y 4. STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS �i i� I LJ � t r i F DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 4. STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS f ` 4.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS x According to CEQA standards (Section 15126 (d)), an Elft should discuss the ways in which a project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth is often induced through projects, which would remove obstacles to population growth such as a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant that might allow for more construction in service areas. `y Development of the Cypress Grove project site would result in the residential buildout of 147± g acres of vacant land.. Growth-inducing impacts associated with the Cypress Grove project wouldd be considered to be any effects of the project allowing for additional growth or increases in population beyond that proposed by the project. r The total population of the City of Oakley is 25,619 people.' The buildout of the proposed project '3 would increase the Oakley population by approximately 1,968 people, or approximately 10 percent. As a result of this increase, services and infrastructure near the project site would require improvements. First, the City (and various private entities) would have to extend services to this area. Second, the Cypress Grove area would be connected to existing utilities and would require development of utility infrastructure on the project site. These improvements would include wastewater infrastructure, domestic water delivery systems, and a drainage system. The storm drain system would not only serve the stormwater drainage from the project site, but also the drainage from the Emerson Property and the lands to the south of Cypress Road, west of the project site. The outfall at Emerson Slough to be constructed for the project's drainage system would include four 36" pipes to accommodate the need anticipated upon buildout of the Cypress Corridor area. The Storm, drain system to be constructed for the proposed project would not be growth-inducing, rather it would be growth-accommodating because the project site and surrounding area is designated for development in the Oakley 2020 General.Flan. Similarly, other infrastructure that would be constructed to serve the project would not be growth-inducing because the City of Oakley plans to develop the area. { !' 4.2 CumuLATIVE IMPACTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires that an EIR discuss the cumulative and long-term effects of the proposed project that adversely affect the environment. The CEQA Guidelines defines a cumulative impact as an impact that is created as a result of the effect of the project evaluated in the EIR, combined with related effects of other projects. i The proposed project, in conjunction with buildout of the General Plan and other proposed s development in the vicinity of the project site and within the region,would contribute considerably to cumulative environmental impacts. Below is a list of all the chapters of the EIR containing a CHAPTER ar^ --STA T UTOML.Y REOUIREL2 SECTIONS 4- 1 DRAF?EIR CYPRESS GRovE MAY2Q©3 Cumulative Impact sections and an associated summary of each chapter's Cumulative Impacts and mitigation measures. s Land use 3.2-4 The proposed project and all other projects in the Oakley area would increase the intensity of land uses in the region: The proposed Cypress Grove project, along with all known projects would change the intensity of land uses in the City's Planning Area. All developments proposed and constructed within the City are reviewed for consistency with citywide land use controls and development standards during the course of the project review and approval process. Given the land use controls and development standards presently in use within the City of Oakley, cumulative land use impacts would be minimized to a level that is considered to be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure None required. i Agricultural Resources 33-4 Cumulative Loss of Agricultural Land The Contra Costa County General Plan incorporates an urban Limit Line (uLL) and has established a minimum 40-acre lot size for prime agricultural lands outside the urban Limit Line. The entire Oakley Planning Area is located inside the County uLL and was, therefore, generally designated for urban development. Although the General Plan Policies and Programs proposed to be implemented do preserve a buffer between urban development and agricultural land, the Oakley General Plan is primarily completing the urbanization of this area as originally intended by the County. Sixty-five percent of the County is protected as undeveloped. The Oakley Planning Area falls in the thirty-five percent that is designated for development. In addition, currently agricultural resources are fragmented and commercial agriculture is substantially compromised. The General Plan accommodates agriculture, while providing for balanced needs of the City. The incremental environmental effect of the General Plan on agriculture is determined to be less-than-significant upon implementation of the Policies and Programs of the Oakley 2024 General Plan(Oakley 2420 General Plan EIR,pp. 3-75,77). Mitigation Measure None required. CHAPTER 4-STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4- 2 DRAFT EIR J CYPRESS GROVE MAY.2003 Aesthetics 3.4-5 Cumulative impacts related to change in visual character of the region. The proposed project would contribute to the cumulative change in visual character of the eastern Contra Costa region from agricultural to residential. Due to the location of the project site within an agricultural area, the larger cumulative context of the visual impact of the proposed project could be considered as within the City as a whale. The property in the immediate vicinity of the project is designated for development by the Oakley 2020 General flan except for the land to the north. Therefore, in terms of the change to the visual character of the Cypress Corridor, development on the project site would be typical of what is planned for development on the adjacent properties. Should development be { allowed, the character of the area would change from flat agricultural fields and roadways to residences interspersed with trees. Development in the City, in addition to the development on the project site, would contribute to a change in the visual character of the area. However, the site has been designated for development in the Oakley 2020 General Plan. In addition, the Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR under Impact 3.2-B concludes that development anticipated in the General Plan would have a less-than-significant impact to the alteration of existing visual character or quality and urban design of the Planning Area if General Plan policies are implemented. The applicant has submitted Design Guidelines and requests approval of Design Review by the City for all structures,which would ensure that the proposed project would comply with applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(g) None required. Biological Resources 35-18 The proposed project has the potential to affect common species and reduce available habitat for some special-status species. "Cumulative impacts" refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered � i together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines 15355). The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines 15355). An assessment of cumulative impacts should consider both impacts identified as significant as well as those impacts identified as less than significant for individual projects that may become significant in a collective sense when considering the co-occurrence of multiple projects. ` i i '_HAPTER 4--STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4- 3 DRAB EIR CYPREs.S GRovE MAY2003 I The Oakley area, like other communities in the Bay Area, is experiencing a great deal of growth. Many housing developments are already approved in the surrounding areas, such as Subdivisions Numbers 7797, 6963, 7986, 6968, 8403, 7658, 7630, and 7662. Cumulatively, these projects would affect common species and reduce available habitat for some special-status species. The majority`-of the 'Cypress Grove project area is highly disturbed as a result of ongoing cultivation and the nearby presence of a recently active ' dairy farm. However, disturbed lands provide habitat for many common species and may provide habitat for several special-status species. The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR (Impact 3.9-F) states that a potentially significant impact to biological resources would result from the cumulative conversion of habitat; however, implementation of applicable General Plan policies and programs would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. One of the programs that the Oakley General Plan EIR lists under Impact 3.9-A is Program 6.3.A, which is in the Open Space and Conservation element of the Oakley 2020 Genera Plan. Program 6.3.A states that prior to development within identified sensitive habitat areas, the area shall be surveyed for special status plant and/or animal species. If any special status species are found, the program requires consultation with the appropriate resource agency to establish management strategies to ensure the protection of the particular species. The mitigation measures pertaining to special status plant and animal species included in this EIR would be consistent with program 6.3.A. Ultimately, because the project could contribute to the cumulative loss of special-status species (if detected on site) and their habitat, the project could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to a less-than-significant level. 3.5-I8 Implement mitigation measures 3.5-3 to 3.5-17. Cultural Resources 3.6-3 Potential to uncover previously unknown cultural resources Approval and final build out of the project site and other approved developments may lead to the loss of undiscovered prehistoric resources. Additionally, the increase in population could lead to increased vandalism and/or inadvertent destruction of such resources. Nevertheless,the cumulative impact on cultural resources would be less-than-signif cant because the occurrence of significant cultural resources in the region is not known or anticipated to be present. MitisRation Measures None required. CHAPTER 4—STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4-4 I DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE t, MAY 2003 Transportation and Circulation i 3.7-7 The project would result in cumulative impacts to the intersection at Main Street/Cypress Road f, Cinder the year 2025 with project conditions, the intersection of Main Street and Cypress g Road would operate at LOS D during the marring peak haus and an unacceptable LOS F during the evening peak hour. The degradation of the intersection from an LOS D to an LOS F during the evening peak hour is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures would minimize impacts to the intersection and charge the LOS F to an LCIS C during the evening peak hour. 3.7-7(b) implement MM 3.7-1. 3.7-7(a) Applicant shall be responsible for the project's fair share of the cost to restripe the Main Street southbound approach with two lei-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through and right-turn lane. The project's fair share funding shall be submitted as determined by the City Engineer prior to the recording off nal maps. 3.7-8 Cumulative impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road.and Sellers Avenue. The signalized intersection of Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F with the proposed project. Therefore, the project would have a significant cumulative impact on the intersection of Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue. Mitigation Meas Implementation of the following mitigation measures would provide an acceptable LOS to the intersection, therefore reducing the impact to a.less-than-significant level. 3.7-8 Prior to approval offinal maps, the project proponent shall pay a fair-share portion as determined by the City Engineer for transportation and circulation L improvements, which shall include one of the following, depending upon which >. arterial alternative the city chooses to implement: Diagonal Arterial Alternative a. Construction of one left-turn lane, one through lane(already exists), and one right-turn lone for the northbound approach; left-turn lane, one through lane (already exists), and two right-tura lanes,fear the southbound approach; two { l ft-turn lanes(one already exists), two through lanes(one already exists), and one right-turn lane for the eastbound approach; one left-turn lone (already CHAPTER 4—STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4- 5 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 exists), two through lanes(one already exists), and one right-turn lane for the westbound approach. r Sellers Avenue Arterial Alternative b. Construction of one left-tum lane, two through lanes(one already exists), and one right-tum lane for the northbound approach; one left-turn lane, two through lanes(one already exists), and one right-turn lane far the southbound approach; one left-turn lane(already exists), one through lane(already exists), and one shared through and right-turn lane for the eastbound approach; one le ft-approach; one left-turn lane (already exists), one through lane (already exists), and one shared through and right-tum lane for the westbound approach. 3.7-9 Cumulative impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road and Frank Hengel Way. The impact from project-generated traffic would result in a decreased LOS during the evening peak hour in addition to creating further congestion in the morning peak hour. The additional congestion and LOS degradation to the intersection of Cypress Road and Street A is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would provide an acceptable LOS to the intersection,therefore reducing the impact to a less-than-sign cant level. 3.7-9 Prior to initiating roadway construction, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval improvement plans including plans for signalizing the intersection and providing one shared left, through, and right-turn lane for the northbound approach; one shared left and through lane, and one right- turn lane for the southbound approach; one le lane (already exists), one through lane (already exists), and one shared through lane for the eastbound approach; one left-turn lane, two through lanes(one already exists), and one right- turn lane(already exists)for the westbound direction. 3.7-10 Cumulative impacts to the intersection of Cypress Road and Street A. Street A would be constructed only under the proposed project to provide access to the site. Three different control scenarios were analyzed for the Cypress Road/Street A intersection: 1) signalized intersection, 2) one-way stop controlled intersection (traffic on Street A would stop), and 3) one-way stop with right-turn in/right-turn out/left-turn in movements only. Linder each of the three scenarios, at least one of the morning or evening peak hour LOS fails to operate at an acceptable level. Due to cumulative impacts caused by the proposed project, traffic operations at Cypress Road and Street A would result in a significant impact. CHAP T ER 4—STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4-C CYf'REss GRovE MA Y.200.3 Mitigation Measures) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would provide an acceptable LOS to the intersection, therefore reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.7-10 Prior to the initiation of constructions, the Applicant I Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval improvement plans showing plans for j providing one I ft-rum and one right-turn lane for the southbound approach; one l -turn lane and two through lanes (one already exists) for the eastbound approach; one through lane(already exists)and one shared through and right-turn lanefor the westbound approach. Air Quality 3.8-5 Cumulative impacts to regional air quality " 1 The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines states that the evaluation of a project's cumulative impacts should be based on an analysis of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and the local general plan with the regional air quality plan (BAAQMD, p. ,.: 51). The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR. concludes that the implementation of the proposed Oakley 2€720 General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts on regional air duality. The General Plan EIR states that the Oakley 2020 General Plan would have less-than.-significant impacts on air duality if it satisfies an analysis of consistency with regional air quality plans and policies (Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR., p, 3-59). The evaluation of consistency relies on 1) a comparison of plan-related population growth, and 2) a review of travel growth and transportation control with the projections and policies used in the most recently adopted regional Clean Air Plan (CAP) (Proposed Final 2000 Gleam Air Plan, December 6, 2000). The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR explains that the air quality and traffic General Plan policies and programs demonstrate an effort on the part of the City of Oakley to implement all feasible measures; and would result in the Oakley 2020 General Plan being consistent with regional air quality plans and policies (Oakley j 2020 EIR, p. 3-59-60). Therefore, because the Oakley 2020 General Plan would be consistent with regional air quality plans and policies and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation Measures Drone required. Noise The project would contribute to the cumulative future traffic noise environment along the roadways utilized by project traffic. However, due to the relatively small number of trips which are predicted to be generated by the proposed project when compared to no-project traffic volumes, traffic noise level increases are predicted to be less-than-significant on t � all segments of the local roadway network. . l CHAPTER 4-STATUTORILY RFouiRED SECTIONS ,4-7 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY 200.3 Mitigation Measures None required. ' i ` Geology ; 3.14-6 The proposed project would contribute to the continuing buildout of Oakley and surrounding areas, and would combine with existing and future developments to increase the potential for related geological impacts and hazards. The proposed project would increase the number of people and structures that could be exposed to potential effects related to seismic hazards. Development of the proposed project would also increase the number of structures that could be subject to the effects of shallow depth to rock or expansive soils. Site preparation would also result in temporary and permanent topographic changes that could affect erosion rates or patterns. However, potentially adverse environmental effects associated with seismic hazards, as well as those associated with geologic or soils constraints, topographic alteration, and erosion, are usually site-specific and generally would not combine with similar effects that could occur with other projects in Oakley. Furthermore, all projects would be required to comply with the UBC and other applicable safety regulations. Consequently, the proposed project would generally not be affected by, nor would it affect, other development approved by the City of Oakley. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Hazards Hazards and hazardous materials are generally not considered to cause cumulative impacts. The definition of cumulative includes the effects of the proposed project in conjunction with all other development in the area. Because other projects in the area are not anticipated to result in increased hazards-related issues, and because the Cypress Grove project is not contributing new sources of hazardous materials, a cumulative impact is not capable of being defined. Therefore, a cumulative impact related to hazards does not exist. Hydrology and Water Quality 3.12-7 increased stormwater drainage into the existing drainage system. The proposed project would create impervious surfaces where none currently exist. The addition of impervious surfaces to the project site would increase the stormwater drainage downstream of the project site. The effect of the proposed project plus other development in the project area may increase the stormwater drainage to overcome the existing drainage system and cause flooding downstream. The majority of the surface runoff flows to the northeast of the site and discharges into the Contra Costa Canal and Emerson Slough. The proposed drainage system for the overall CHAPTER 4—STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4 -8 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE y MAY 003 drainage area (of which the proposed project is a component) would consist of a gravity- flow pipe system leading to a multi-purpose pond that is regulated by a pump system, and increases in flows generated from the development of the proposed project would be 1 contained in the proposed drainage system. The stormwater management system is also redirecting stormwater runoff to Emerson Slough that has historically been flowing into the Contra Costa Canal. When the canal was built, it prevented stormwater runoff from following its historic path to the Delta. Runoff that previously flowed to the Delta now enters the canal through two culverts on the northern end of the property. The CCWD is concerned with water quality problems resulting from stormwater runoff' entering the canal. To improve water quality in the canal, the proposed drainage system would redirect this flow to Emerson Slough and then ;i to its historic destination, the Delta. The proposed project includes the installation of four 36" drainage pipes at the Emerson Slough outfall to accommodate the anticipated need . resulting from the buildout of the Cypress Corridor area. Each outfall pipe would serve a distinct area v�ithin the drainage shed as depicted in Figure 3.12-10. The maximum discharge volume from each area would not exceed 35 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Emerson Slough. This equates to a discharge velocity of approximately 5 feet per second (fps). Consequently, during a large storm event, the maximum impact at the slough would occur- when each of the four pipes discharges 35 ds. Although a total of 140 ds of flow would be entering Emerson Slough,the velocity would still be limited to 5 fps. , i At the time of construction of the Cypress Grove project, only the pipe serving Area 1 would have the potential to discharge 3S ds at the outfall. The other pipes would not be fully utilized until future development occurs. The second pipe, serving Area 2, would collect existing flows contained by the new levee system. Due to the sandy soil and flat topography, very little flow would actually reach the slough, and velocities would be negligible. The third pipe, serving Area 3, would convey existing flows from the ditch adjacent to Sellers Avenue. These flows currently reach the slough through the existing pipe at the southern end of Emerson Slough. As part of the outfall construction, the existing outfall pipe would be removed and the new flows would be conveyed to the slough through pipe 3. As with Area 2,the flows and velocities would be minimal prior to future development. The fourth pipe, serving Area 4, would be plugged south of the CCWD canal, and flows would not be conveyed to Emerson Slough until future development of Area 4 occurs. Therefore, although the proposed project and buildout of the General Flan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces to the drainage area of which the project site is a part, the stormwater management system designed by Balance Hydrologics would contain increased flows resulting from the project and other development in the Cypress Corridor and would also redirect runoff from existing drainage systems. Therefore, the proposed 4 project would have a Less-than-si8niif cant impact on existing drainage systems. Mitt'gation Measure(s) None required. i l,..a CHAPTER 4— STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4- 9 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS .GROVE MAY 200.E 3.12-8 Water Quality Downstream Development of the proposed Cypress Grove project and buildout of the General Plan would increase the sediment load of area waterways. in addition, the stormwater runoff occurring in urbanized areas wouldcontribute a higher amount of pollutants to adjoining channels. As such, water quality in the region could be affected on a short-term and long- term basis. However, the project applicant has proposed a design for the Cypress Corridor drainage area, which would prevent pollutants from entering the downstream channel. The proposed drainage plan would construct a detention basin, which would filter out pollutants before the drainage enters Emerson Slough. Therefore, the impact to water quality would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Public Services 3.13-8 The proposed project, combined with future development in the City of Oakley, would increase the demand for additional public services and facilities. The proposed project would increase the demand for public services and facilities. The proposed project would not create cumulative impacts on the public services. Typically, each project would pay for the services it requires which would fully mitigate the impacts on public services from the proposed project. Should the fees not be sufficient to fully mitigate the impacts generated by the development of the proposed project,the city should require the applicant to pay additional fees. Once the fees are fully paid, cumulative impacts would not be expected to occur. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. 4.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The State CEQA Guidelines mandate that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes, which would be involved if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2[c]). An impact would M into this category if. • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; CHAPTER 4—STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4- 10 DRAFT EIR CYRRE55 GROVE "t MAY2003 • The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g. a highway provides access to a previously remote j area); t * The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves a wasteful use of energy). The development of the proposed project would result in the irreversible conversion of approximately 147 acres of vacant land to urban use. The site is sparsely occupied with rural buildings and has been designated in the Oakley 2020 General flan as Single Family Residential, j High .Density (Williamson, Conco North, and eastern portion of Conco South Property), and Multi-Family Residential, High Density (western portion of Conco South Property). The proposed Cypress Grove project would likely result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes: • Conversion of existing undeveloped land to suburban land uses, precluding alternate land uses in the future. r.# M Irreversible consumption of goods and services associated with the future population. ' • Irreversible consumption of energy and natural resources associated with the future population. • Possible demand for and use of goods, services, and resources for this project to the exclusion of projects in other locations. CEQA Guidelines section 15 126.2(c) states that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The above changes appear justified in order to meet the identified project objectives in Chapter 2 of this EIR, and to implement the comprehensive planning scheme planned for the area through the City's recently adopted 2020 # General Flan. 4.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT'S According to CEQA Guidelines, a Draft EIR must include a description of those impacts identified k as significant and unavoidable should the proposed action be implemented.'Such impacts would be .s considered unavoidable when it has been determined that either no mitigation, or only partial t mitigation such that the impact is not reduced to a level that is less than significant, is feasible. This section identifies significant impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigations imposed by the City. The final determination of the significance of impacts and of the feasibility of mitigation measures would be made by the City as part of its certification action. y Implementation of the proposed Cypress Grove project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts: CHAPTER 4—STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4- 11 C YPRESS GRO vE MAY 20©3 Section 3.3 of this Draft EIR, Agricultural Resources, identified the following as significant and i unavoidable impacts: t 3.3-2 Implementation of the proposed project would place urban land uses within a primarily agricultural area, which may impair agricultural production and result in land _ use compatibility conflicts. Overall, potential land use conflicts can be discussed from the perspective of the farmer and from the perspective of the residents that would occupy the project area. From the farmer's perspective, agricultural production can be adversely affected as a result of restrictions on pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide use, trespassing and pilferage, increased personal injury liability as a result of trespassers, and littering of the fields. From the perspective of the residents of the project area, adjacent agricultural land uses may result in a number of nuisances and perceived hazards, such as concern over pesticide, herbicide, and fungicide use on adjacent properties, odors, dust, and slow moving vehicles. These potential land use interface conflicts can individually or cumulatively decrease the efficiency of farming operations, which can cause production costs to rise, and make farming operations less sustainable, Should agricultural operations persist on the farmland to the east of the project site, the project could result in significant impacts due to the impairment of productivity and land use conflicts. Section 3.8 of this Draft EIR, Air Quality, identified the following as significant and unavoidable impacts: • 3.8-2 Residential Trip Generation Air Emissions Will Exceed Acceptable threshold. Implementation of the proposed project would include 541 single-family homes and 96 multi- family dwelling units. The addition of these units into the City of Oakley would increase the number of people within the city limits. As population would increase, the number of vehicular trips to and from the project area would rise as well. As a result of the increased vehicular trips, NOX would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 80 pounds-per-day. Therefore, the increased emissions resulting from trips generated by the proposed project would be considered a significant impact. The Ballanti Analysis lists mitigation measures that have been identified by the BAAQMD for reducing vehicle emissions from residential projects, but notes that many of these measures are predicated on the availability of substantial transit service. As the site is suburban in nature, and has only limited transit service available, some of these measures are not feasible at this time. Because feasible project-specific mitigation measures are not available at this time to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. • 3.8-4 Emissions from adjacent agriculture operations The project site is surrounded by fields to the north(across the Contra Costa Canal)and to the east that have most recently been used to support the dairy operation to the northeast, which has recently been sold. The agricultural fields to the north would become part of the CALFED Bay- Delta Program (see Chapter 3.2, Land Use,p. 3.2-7). The agricultural fields to the east would also no longer support the dairy;however, the property owner may continue agricultural operations on CHAPTER 4--STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4- l2 j DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GROVE MAY2003 the property. The location of the proposed project would create the potential for exposure to emissions from farm operations to the east. The General Plan designates the area east of the project site as Single-Family Residential, High Density (SH) and Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH), Therefore, the urban/agricultural interface that exists along the eastern boundary of the project site is only temporary. However, because the existing setting is agricultural, and because the project includes the development of homes adjacent to the existing agricultural operations, sensitive receptors would periodically be subjected to dust and pesticides emanating from the agricultural operations. Therefore, the project } would have a significant impact to residents. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the magnitude of this impact; however, measures are not available to eliminate odor emissions. Therefore,the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. i Endnotes Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG)Census 2000,htip:tlcensus.abaa,ca,govfcit:eslClakic ht-m r z GEQA Guidelines§15126.2[b]. 4 9 I t j t. :J i ,._,J i 1 CHAPTER 4--STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 4- 13 i 't w 17 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS a u�i j , I 1 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS f?OVE MAY,2003 S. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The primary intent of the alternatives evaluation in an EIR, as stated in Section 15126.6(x) of the CEQA Guidelines, is to "[...] describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives [...�, Furthermore, Section 15126.6 (f) states that"[...J The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a"rule of reason"that requires the EIR to set y,y forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice [...j." The CEQA Guidelines (§15126.6 (e)(1)) state that a `no project' alternative should be evaluated along with its impact. Specifically, the Guidelines state. l The specific alternative of the "no project" shall also be evaluated along with its 7. impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow P; '} decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project's environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline. ' a In addition, Section 15126.6 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that "[...] If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed." Selection of Alternatives Alternatives that are included and evaluated in this EIR must be feasible alternatives. According to ? the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f}, "[...] the alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project [...j. In addition, Section 15126.6(f)(I) states that the feasibility of an alternative may be determined based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and site accessibility and control. 'r iv.. , i t..t CHAPTER 5-ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5- � DRAt T E'R CYPRESS GRo vE MAY20D3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS EIR No Project/No Development Alternative - ij The No Project/No Development Alternative would allow the continued existence of Cypress Grove project site in its current agricultural state. While this alternative would not meet the project objectives, CPQA requires the alternative to be analyzed. Land Use The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any construction-related impacts as identified for the proposed project. The project area would remain an undeveloped area of the City of Oakley; therefore, impacts related to land use resources would be eliminated. However, the zoning of the site would remain General Agriculture (A-2) and Heavy Agriculture (A-3), which is inconsistent with the current Single Family Residential, High Density (SH) and Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH) land use designations for the project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have more impacts to current zoning than the proposed project. Agricultural Resources The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any construction-related impacts as identified for the proposed project. The project area would remain an undeveloped area of the City of Oakley, and the impacts related to the loss of existing agricultural resources would be eliminated. Aesthetics The No Project/No Development Alternative would not alter the existing aesthetic characteristics of the project area. The proposed project would introduce substantial light and glare sources into the project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have no impacts on aesthetics. Biological Resources The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in development of the project area, which would disturb any of the existing biological resources. The No Project/No Development Alternative would, therefore, have fewer impacts than the proposed project. Cultural Resources The No Project/No Development Alternative would cause fewer impacts than the proposed project because the cultural resources would not be disturbed by construction activities. Therefore, although cultural resources may be disturbed by the farming activities, the impacts would be markedly reduced compared to the existing proposed project. CHARTER 5-ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5- 2 DRAFT EIR CYPREss GROVE MAY 2003 Transportation and Circulation The No Project/No Development Alternative would not cause a traffic increase in the surrounding areas because homes would not be constructed under the alternative. Therefore, unlike the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have no impacts to traffic. Air C uality The proposed project would create air quality impacts from both the construction of homes and the additional vehicles from residents in the project area. tinder the No Project/No Development Alternative, homes would not be constructed; therefore, the number of vehicles would not increase and air duality impacts would not be created. Noise The proposed project would create an increase in(a)noise levels due to construction of homes and (b)traffic noise due to the increased number of vehicles. These noise impacts would not exist under the No Project/No Development Alternative. However, noise from adjacent farming activities 4 a would continue in the project area. In addition, the noise originating from the railroad would remain. Therefore, although the noise levels would be reduced under this alternative, the existing agricultural noise impacts would remain. Geoloz The existing geological and soil conditions under the No Project/No Development Alternative would not change. Because this alternative would not result in any construction on the site,impacts related to geology would not occur. Hazards Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the use of the project site would not change. The project area was actively farmed for decades, and the presence of pesticides would remain. Pesticides are no longer in use on the project site because farming operations have ceased; therefore, an increase in pesticides would not exist under the No Project/No Development Alternative. The potential hazards from storage tanks would be removed once the housing is in lace. Therefore compared to the proposed project, the No Pro ect/No Develo ment Alternative P P P P P j j P may result in increased impacts related to hazards. Hydrology,an-d Water unlit; The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in construction, which could change the existing drainage pattern for the project area. In addition, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not generate urban runoff that would affect water quality in the area, which would need to be treated, as would the proposed project. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development alternative would result in decreased impacts on hydrology and water quality. 'l CHAPTER 5---ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5-3 DRAFT EIR CYRRESS GRo vE MAY2003 Public Services and Utilities The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in the construction of new homes that would require additional public services and utilities in the project area. Therefore, this alternative would not impact public services and utilities as would the proposed project; Reduced Intensity Development Alternative The Reduced Intensity Development Alternative (RID) would still develop the project site, but,in accordance with the Low Density Residential Designation, which identifies a density range of 1.0- to-2.9 dwelling units per acre. This alternative is assumed to result in a reduction of the number of houses by 50-percent. Therefore, the overall number of houses on the project site would be reduced from 637 to 319. Land use The RID Alternative would not avoid the development of residential properties on land zoned for Single Family Residential, High Density and Multi-Family Residential, High Density. The total loss of existing open space and agricultural land would remain. Additionally, the compatibility issues raised under the proposed project would be identical under this alternative. Therefore, the RID Alternative would be considered to have the same impacts as the proposed project. Agricultural Resources The RID Alternative would not reduce the loss of agricultural land. The total loss of agricultural land would remain. Additionally, the compatibility issues raised under the proposed project would be identical under this alternative. Therefore,the RID Alternative would be considered to have the same impacts as the proposed project. Aesthetics The development of the 147 acres of undeveloped land would impact the visual characteristics of the project site, despite the reduction of residences from 637 to 319 units. The RID Alternative may reduce the level of impact on the project site, but the visual character of the site would still be permanently altered. Additionally, the RID Alternative would not avoid increased light and glare associated with the development of new housing units within the project site. Therefore, the RID Alternative would result in a lessened impact than the proposed project,but an impact nonetheless. Biological Resources The RID Alternative would reduce the amount of housing units proposed for the project site. The reduced units could be clustered to maintain sensitive habitat areas. However, development on the site could still potentially disturb any sensitive species on the project site. Therefore; the RID Alternative would create impacts comparable to the proposed project. CHAPTER 5-ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5-4 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS GRovE MAY 2003 Cultural Resources Though the number of housing units would be reduced under the RID Alternative, development would still occur on the project site. While cultural resources have not been identified within the project site, the potential exists to uncover resources as development occurs Therefore, the RID Alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed project. : .I Translsortation and Circulation Traffic levels generated from the RID Alternative would be reduced overall to-and-from the project site as compared to the proposed project. The lower level of residential units within the project site would reduce the level of traffic in the area. However, the development of 319 residential units would still increase the traffic level above existing, conditions. Therefore, this alternative would still result in an impact on traffic; however, the impact would not be as y significant as that of the proposed project. is f Air QualiLv The RID Alternative would reduce the impacts compared to the proposed project regarding air duality. The RID Alternative would reduce the overall number of residential units proposed by the !; project by half, but would still increase development within the undeveloped project site. Furthermore, the reduction of traffic circulation within the project would result in a decrease in vehicle emissions. The impacts related to air quality would not be considered as substantial as the proposed project,but would still be considered significant. Noise i 'y The noise impacts from the RID Alternative would not be considered a significant impact in relation to the proposed project. The RID Alternative would develop 319 residential units on the project site where none currently exist, thereby, increasing the potential sensitive receptors in the project area. However, the total number of sensitive receptors would be reduced under the RID Alternative as compared to the proposed project. The reduced number of residential units would allow greater flexibility in design to buffer the residences from.noise. Therefore, the noise impacts under the RID Alternative would be less than that of the proposed project. Geology The geological impacts generated from the development of the project site under the RID Alternative would be similar to those generated by the proposed project, despite the reduced amount of residential units constructed. Although the RID Alternative would result in fewer residences that would be affected by geological impacts, the residences would still be subject to liquefaction and soil erosion; therefore, development of the RID Alternative would have similar impacts as compared to the proposed project. { ls, CHAPTER 5--ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5-5 DRAFT EIR CYPRESS Gpo vE MAY2003 Hazards 1 Under the RID Alternative, sensitive receptors would still be introduced into the area where none currently exist. However, the overall number of residential units within the project site would be reduced, as would impacts related to exposure to asbestos and the abandoned windmill well or other potential hazards. Therefore, the RID Alternative would reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality The RID Alternative would develop fewer residential units on the project site compared to the proposed project. Fewer impervious surfaces on the site could reduce the potential impacts to the stormwater drainage system and ultimately water quality. Therefore, the RID alternative would be expected to reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities Due to the reduced number of housing units, the RID Alternative would require a reduced amount of services compared to the proposed project. However, the RID Alternative would still require services where none are currently needed. Therefore, the development of the RID Alternative would reduce the public services and utilities impacts as compared to the impacts that would be generated from the development of the proposed project. Environmentally Superior Alternative Designating a superior alternative depends in large part on what environmental effects one considers most important. This EIR does not presume to make this determination; rather the determinations of which impacts are more important is left to the reader and to the decision- makers. Finally, it should be noted that the environmental considerations are one portion of the factors that must be considered by the public and the decision makers in deliberations on the proposed project and,the alternatives. Other factors of importance include urban design, economics, social factors, and fiscal considerations. For this project, the environmentally superior alternative would result in development of the site under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Impacts to Aesthetics would be reduced because fewer housing units would be developed; therefore, different development schemes could be utilized for the project site such as the clustering of homes to allow for more open space. Transportation and Circulation impacts would be reduced because fewer residents would occupy the area; therefore, fewer vehicle trips would be made, thereby reducing Traffic, Air Quality, and Noise impacts. In addition, Hydrology and Water Quality impacts would be reduced via the Reduced Intensity Alternative because impervious surface area would be less as compared to the proposed project due to the fewer number of houses developed. Hazards would also be reduced because fewer people would be exposed to potential hazards such as pesticides and asbestos. Public Services and Utilities impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project because not as much infrastructure would be needed due to the fewer number of housing units to be constructed under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Conversely, impacts would still occur related to Land Use, Agriculture, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Geology. CHAPTER 5-ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5- 6 4 1 f I' .6. EIR AUTHORS I PERSONS CONSULTED I t,.,i 1 { f j ©RAFT EIR CYPREss GRo vE MA r 200.E 6. I=IR AUTHORS / PERSONS CONSULTED RANEY PLANNING & MANAGEMENT, INC. C. Timothy Raney, AICP Project Manager Cindy Gnos, AICP Deputy Project Manager P Nick Pappani Associate Brian Gleason Associate Shirley Hendrickson Associate Brian T. Stuart Associate CITY OF OAKLEY r Mike Oliver City Manager ` Barry Hand Community Planning Director �. Rochelle Henson Associate Planner Jason Vogan City Engineer CARLSON, BARBEE 8e GIBSON, INC. Dave Carlson Lew Carpenter BOLLARD & BRENNAN ` Paul Bollard DON BALLANTI Don Ballanti FOOTHILL ASSOCIATES Theresa Ward KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS John H. Boll, REA, CPEA KC ENGINEERING COMPANY h , David V. Cymanski, PE Amy E. Lee KLEINFELDER Fernando J. Silva, CE Ken R. Warren Robert D. Campbell, CE Corina M. Dominguez MCL.AREN/HART, INC. Keith Hoofard CHAPTER 6.0--AUTHORS / PERSONS CONSULTED 6 - 1 DRAFT EIR CYPRE-ss GRovE MAY 200: Tim Costello TERRAsEARCH, INC. Simon Makdessi, PE Steve Han-is, PE SYCAMORE ASSOCIATES, LLC Jerry Roe Whitney Kneuppel TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Jeff Lee BALANCE: HYDROLOGICS, INC. Ed Ballman Charlotte Hedlund CHAPTER 6.0—AUTHORS PERSONS CONSULTED 6- 2 .............................................. ............................... ......................................... ................ .................. ........................................................................................- .............................. ............. .................................................. f i j 1 : I 7. REFERENCES t t t i DRAFT EIR CYPREss GROVE MAY200.9 l 7 . REFERENCES i # Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Proposed Cypress Grove Project, Don Ballanti,October, 2001. Biological Assessment for the Cypress Grove Property, Oakley, California, Sycamore Associates, December 7, 2001. Contra Costa County General Plan EIR, September, 1990. Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010, Contra Costa County, 1996. Cypress Corridor Hydrologic Analysis, HSI Hydrologic Systems, August, 2002. Environmental Noise Analysis, Cypress Grove Property Development, Bollard & Brennan, Inc., y December 17, 2001. r Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development, Cypress Road, Oakley, California, 30 March, 2001. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, Cypress Grove Project, City of Oakley, California, Balance Hydrologics, Inc.,January 2003. Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report, City of Oakley, September, 2001. i3 Oakley 2020 General Plan Public Review Draft, City of Oakley, August 30, 2002. Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Oakley, September, 2002. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Proposed Residential Development, South of Cypress Road, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California, KC Engineering, 15 March, 2001. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on Proposed Residential Development on 5155 East r Cypress Road in Oakley, California, Terrasearch, Inc.,June 6, 2000. Phase i and Screening Level Phase II Environmental Assessment, Cypress Creek Project, Oakley, California, McLaren/Hart, Inc. 0 May 25, 2000. Phase II Environmental Services For Proposed Residential Development South of Cypress Road, Oakley, Contra Costa County, California, KC Engineering Company D September 30, 2002. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, Cypress Creek Project, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 24 July, 2000. { CHAPTER 7— REFERENCES 7 - 1 DRAFT EI CYPREss GRovE MAY2003 j Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed 60-Acre Subdivision, East Cypress Road, Oakley, California, Kleinfelder, April 7, 2400. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California, LIS Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1977. Traffic Impact Analysis for the West Cypress Properties, TJKM Transportation Consultants, October 16, 2441. CHAPTER 7 — REFERENCES 7 - 2 .............................................................................. t APPENDICES t j ti I , I I I I } �,j,. r P j J CI'T'Y Of $ A PLACE for FAMILIES in the HEART of the DELTA j DATE: January 17, 2003 TO: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Interested Persons FROM: Barry Hand, Community Development Director City of Oakley SUBJECT: DEVISED NOTICE OF PREPRARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED CYPRESS GROVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The City of Oakley, Community Development Department is the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Cypress Grove Development Plan (proposed project). A revised Notice of Preparation (MOP) has been prepared and circulated due to the changes in the proposed project. The scope of the EIR has been proposed based upon a determination by the City of Oakley. The City of Oakley has directed the preparation of this EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Once a decision is made to prepare an EIR, the lead agency must prepare a NOP to inform all responsible and trustee agencies that an EIR will be prepared(CEQA Guidelines Section 15082).The purpose of the NOP is to provide agencies with sufficient information describing both the proposed project and the potential environmental effects to enable the agencies to make a meaningful response as to the scope and content of the information to be included in the EIR.The City of Oakley is also soliciting comments on the scope of the EIR from interested persons. y' BACKGROUND w , An initial NOP for the proposed project circulated from December 20, 2001 to January 18, 2002 describing the intent of preparation of a Program Level EIR for the proposed project. A NOP scoping meeting was held on January 9, 2002 at the Delta Vista Middle School. The sole attendee at the scoping meeting was the Contra Costa Water District who was j primarily in attendance to gain an understanding of the proposed project. Verbal comments on the scope of the EIR were not received at the scoping meeting; however, i L ,t written comments were received. Since the time of circulating the NCP, the project application has been revised to include tentative maps and design review for the development of the project site. The current revised NOP serves to provide more project specifics and also to notify previous reviewers that the Elle;has.:been changed from a Program Level to a Project Level EIR. r PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location and Setting The subject property consists of approximately 147 acres in the northeastern portion of the City of Oakley(Figure 1, Regional Location Map). The property is bordered to the north by the Contra Costa Water District Canal; on the south by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and single-family homes; on the west by Marsh Creek; and on the east by undeveloped property. Cypress Road runs east and west and bisects the property. The major streets serving the site are Cypress Road and Main Street (State Highway 4). The site is identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 037-192-013,037-192-014,037-192-017, and 033-012-402 (Figure 2, Project Location Map). The project site is primarily vacant, currently containing a residence and associated out buildings. The Cypress Grove project surrounds a 38.2-acre existing middle school and future elementary school site. The development of the proposed project would be anticipated to create a gateway into the remaining Cypress Corridor area. Project Entitlements The entitlements requested with this application include: • Adoption of a Rezone from Agriculture (A2)and Heavy Agriculture(A3)to Planned Unit District (P-1); • Adoption of design guideline standards for the future development of the site; • Approval of a Parcel Map dividing 32.26 ac. into two parcels, creating a 6.55 ac. parcel for multi family development and a 25.71 ac. parcel for single family development (Subdivision 8678); • Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8678)to subdivide 32.36 acres into 100 single family lots (23.61 ac.), one lot for multi-family development (Parcel A; 6.55 ac.), and four parcels totaling 2.20 acres for park and open space and trails; • Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8679)to subdivide 49.95 acres into 201 single family lots (43.56 acres), one lot for a stormwater pond (Parcel A; 5.45 ac.), and 4 lots totaling 1.34 acres for Open Space and Trails; • Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8680)to subdivide 64.80 acres into 240 single family lots (54.95 ac.), one lot for a park (Parcel A; 5.19 ac.), and four lots totaling 4.66 acres for Open Space and Trails; 2 • Approval of Design Review of 100 homes in Subdivision 8678, consisting of four floor plans with three elevations each, ranging from 2,100 to 3,000 square feet; • Approval of Design Review of 201 homes in Subdivision 8679 consisting of five floor plans with three elevations each, ranging from 1,725 to 3674 square feet on large lots; • Approval of Design Review of 240 homes in Subdivision 8680, consisting of flour floor pleas with three elevations each, ranging from 1,900 to 2,600 square feet on the smaller lots, and three floor plans with three elevations each, ranging from 2,700 to 3,100 square feet on the larger lots; and +� Approval of Design Review of 96 multi-family units developed in nine buildings, including a community building with units ranging from one to three bedrooms each. Project Components The applicant has proposed land use designations for the 147 acres in order to allow the development of 637 housing units (541 single-family units, 96 multifamily units). The applicant has submitted Tentative Maps providing details on project specifics, and design } review guidelines that reflect the city's vision by applying the design concepts expressed in '-J the Cypress Corridor Design Charette. Tentative Maps: Subdivision 8678 (Figure ) has a minimum lot area of approximately 5950 square feet, a maximum lot area of approximately 12,750 sf and an average lot area of approximately 6,680 sf. The largest lots in the subdivision are located adjacent to the j north and south b0- Vis. The remaining lot sizes throughout the subdivision are consistently arou 6300 sf_except for a neighborhood in the southeastern portion of the Subdivision, which has lot areas of approximately 6,600 sf. Subdivision 8679 (Figure 4)has a minimum lot area of approximately 5,100 sf,a aximum - lot area of approximately 8,200 sf and an average lot area of approximate[ 6,380_s Similar to the adjacent Subdivision 8680, lot areas are generally smaller in the southern portion of the subdivision and steadily increase northward. Subdivision 8680(Figure 5)has a minimum lot area of approximately 5,098f; maximum lot area of approximately 9,500 sf and an average lot area of approximate 6,850) The lot areas are generally smaller in the southern portion of the subdivision and steadily 4 increase northward. Design Review: Subdivision 8678 results in the creation of lots for the construction of 100 s homes (Briarwood). The proposed residences consist of four floor plans with three elevations each. The floor plans include one and two-story models with approximately 2,140, 2,588, 2,698, and 2,918 square feet each. Subdivision 8679 results in the creation of lots for the construction of 201 homes. The subdivision includes a combination of larger and smaller lot sizes with a different product for each. The proposed residential design for the smaller lots consists of five floor plans t 3 with three elevations each. The floor plans include one and two-story models with approximately 1,725, 2,292, 2,587, 2,592, and 2,665 square feet. The design for the homes on the larger lots also includes five floor plans with three elevations each. The models include one and two-story, with approximately 2,171, 2,865, 3;165; 3,305, and 3,674 square feet each. Subdivision 8680 results in the creation of lots for the construction of 241 homes. The subdivision includes a combination of larger and smaller lot sues with a different product for each. The proposed residential design for the smaller lots (Wildrose) consists of four floor plans with three elevations each. The floor plans include one and two-story models with approximately 1,901,2,134,2,535, and 2,310 square feet. The design for the homes on the larger lots (Brookstone) includes three floor plans with three elevations each. The models include one and two-story,with approximately 2,735,2,859,and 3,001 square feet each. The proposed multi-family development(Courtyards at Cypress Grove; Figure 6)includes 96 units developed in nine buildings, including a community building. The units contain a combination of one, two, and three bedrooms ranging from approximately 750 to 1,350 square feet each. Primary Infrastructure Systems Drainage/Flooding: The design of the stormwater management facilities for the project would be developed to control peak stormwater flows, improve the quality of the stormwater runoff before it is discharged from the site, and to protect the homes from flooding during large storm events. The storm drain system would collect runoff from the project, Delta Vista Middle School, and the remainder triangle(bound by Cypress road to the north,the multi family site to the east, and the railroad tracks to the south and west) in a series of conventional gravity mains that would convey stormwater flows to a stormwater pond located in the northeastern portion of the project. The stormwater pond would detain the runoff, allowing the solids to settle to the basin bottom, consistent with state best management practice (BMP)requirements. The clean water would then be pumped from the stormwater pond to Emerson Slough, through a 30" to 36" force main. This system would protect the subdivision from large storm events within the watershed; however, it is also necessary to protect the homes from flood sources outside the watershed. The Marsh Creek watershed (approximate 36.3 square miles) is conveyed to the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta in Marsh Creek,which flows adjacent to the western edge of the project. In order to provide adequate freeboard protection from this flow, the existing Marsh Creek levee would be raised approximately 3 feet from the railroad tracks to the Contra Costa Water District(CCWD) raw water canal in order to meet FEMA and Contra Costa County requirements. The site is also subject to inundation risks from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta itself, which has a 100-year flood elevation of 7 feet above mean sea level. In order to protect the homes from this flood risk a levee system would be built along the northern boundary, south of the existing CCWD levee, and along the eastern boundary,from the CCWD canal i to Cypress Road to an elevation of 10 feet above mean sea level to protect against a flood elevation of 7 with an additional 3 feet of freeboard. The remainder of the project, including Cypress Road is higher than elevation 10 and would not require further flood protection. Sanitary Sewer: The Ironhouse Sanitary Ditrict treats the existing sewage and maintains ;. the sewer infrastructure in the City of Oakley. Currently, properties connected to the system on Cypress Road pump their sewage to the treatment plant through an existing 14" force main in Cypress Road. The force mein connects to an existing 18" gravity main in Highway 4 that flows to the treatment plant. Ultimate buildout requires replacement of the existing 14" force main with a new 24" force main. The Cypress Grove project would construct a new 24" force main from the existing connection at the 18" gravity main in Highway 4 to the eastern boundary of the project. The existing 14" force main would be abandoned from the east project boundary to the gravity tie in. The force main would include a bore and jack underthe Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad (BNSP)and would be suspended across the Marsh Creek. The system would include a new pump/lift station on site that would connect the project gravity mains to the thew 24"force main. L.. Water System: The Diablo Water District maintains the existing water supply and infrastructure in the City of Oakley and has provided a Water Supply Assessment indicating adequate supply exists to serve the proposed development. The Diablo Water District is provided water by CCWD. Water mains for the Cypress Grove project would be constructed in accordance with Diablo Water District's master plan and dedicated to the District upon completion. To serve the project area,a 12"water main would be constructed in Cypress Road from the west edge of the Delta Vista Middle School site to the eastern boundary of the project area. An additional 12" water main would connect the main in Cypress Road to the main in Laurel Road to the south. This line would be constructed south along the western edge of the project entrance to Subdivision 8678 until it reaches the BNS'F railroad.The line would then be constructed parallel to the railroad track(outside of the railroad right-of-way) for approximately 650 feet to the southeast where the main would be bored and jacked under the railroad tracks. The 12" main would then extend south adjacent to the existing detention basin to its connection with the existing 16"main in Laurel Road, providing a looped system. All local and collector roads would have 8"or 12" mains to serve the project site. The Cypress Grove project area is inside the current Contra Costa Water District's service Area A and the Los Vaqueros Project(LVP)Planning Area for receiving LVP water quality benefits. The portion of the project located north of Cypress Road is included within the j District's Central Valley Project Contractual Service Area boundary. Annexation to the Central Valley Contractual Service Area occurred on December 18, 2002. Roadways: Major roadway infrastructure would be constructed to serve this project and serve as a gateway to this portion of the City of Oakley. Cypress Road would be improved from Highway 4 to the eastern boundary of the project. The intersection at Highway 4 would be modified from its current rural configuration to a more urban, pedestrian friendly intersection with median islands and shorter pedestrian crossing distances. Turning 5 movements would be improved and the existing signal would be modified to accommodate these changes. Cypress Road would be widened to provide two lanes in each direction, shoulders, and a median island with turn pockets where appropriate. This would include a widening of the existing bridge at Marsh Creek as well as a widening and modification of the existing railroad crossing and signal. New traffic signals would be constructed at the project entrance to Subdivision 8680 and the school entrance at Frank Hengel Way which also serves as the project entrances to Subdivisions 8678 & 8679). A new pedestrian actuated signal would be constructed where the East Bay Regional Parks District Trail along Marsh Creek intersects Cypress Road. Parks and Trails: Two parks would be constructed as part of the Cypress Grove Project. South of Cypress Road, a 2 acre park would serve subdivision 8678 as well as the multi- family development. North of Cypress Road, a 5.19 acre park would be constructed adjacent to the north boundary of the middle school.A trail system would be constructed to connect the parks and neighborhoods to the regional trail along Marsh Creek as well as the future improvements in the Cypress Corridor. The proposed project would improve the existing Marsh Creek Trail undercrossing at the BNSF railroad, construct trails along the north and south sides of Cypress Road, reconstruct the existing Marsh Creek Trail along the project boundary, construct a trail and landscape corridor along the northern edge of the project and provide safe pedestrian circulation to and from the school. The trail system is designed to be extended by future projects to connect to the 50 acre City park planned at the north end of Sellers Avenue, the future commercial center at Sellers Avenue and Cypress Road as well as easy pedestrian access by future subdivisions to the existing school site. ENVIRONMENTAL. EFFECTS The environmental analysis within the EIR is proposed to focus on the following technical environmental issues: Land Use The EIR will evaluate the consistency of the proposed project with the City of Oakley's adopted plans and policies, including the recently adopted General Plan. The chapter will further address the consistency with the City of Oakley Zoning Ordinance, as well as assess the development of the proposed project in relationship to agricultural lands and the compatibility with adjacent residential/non-residential land uses. Agricultural Resources The EIR will summarize the status of the existing agricultural resources of the site and in the areas surrounding the City of Oakley, using the current state model and data,including identification of any prime/unique farmland or farmland of Statewide Importance on the project site. Any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use,Williamson Act,or right- to-farm ordinances applicable to the project site will also be identified. The analysis will further include a discussion regarding conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. 6 Following the setting discussion, the chapter will identify thresholds of significance applicable to the proposed project including the loss of prime farmland. The impacts will be measured against the thresholds of significance and appropriate mitigation measures, and monitoring strategies will be identified which are consistent with the policies of both the City of Oakley. 2 ( Aesthetics The EIR will summarize existing regional and project area aesthetics and visual setting. Project-specific aesthetics issues regarding conversion of farmland to urbanization will be included such as effects on scenic vistas, trees, historic buildings, scenic highways, existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding areas,and light and glare. The ECR will also include an analysis of the proposed Design Guidelines. The EIR will describe the existing setting, identify thresholds of significance, identify impacts, and develop mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. Biological Resources The EIR will summarize the setting and describe the potential effects to plant community wildlife, and wetlands including adverse effects on rare, endangered, candidate,sensitive, and special-status species for the project site. This chapter of the EIR will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of project-specific as well as cumulative impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies.This chapter will be based on a biological resources report currently being prepared. Cultural Resources The chapter on cultural resources will summarize the setting and briefly describe the potential effects to historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. The chapter will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. a Traffic The traffic analysis will describe existing traffic conditions, existing plus project traffic conditions, and cumulative traffic conditions. In addition,the analysis will include standards of significance and methods of analysis, and will describe the impacts associated with the traffic and will propose mitigation to reduce the level of impacts. The traffic chapter will summarize the existing and planned regional and local transportation network as well as 1 existing and future traffic conditions. The chapter will identify traffic loads and capacity of street systems including level of service standards for critical street segments and intersections. Potential traffic effects associated with increases in volumes and changes in i the nature of traffic and circulation patterns will be discussed as well as traffic hazards due to design features. The traffic analysis for the Cypress Grove Project will focus on the k I 7 project-related impacts at the following study intersections: 1. Main Street (SR-4)/ Rose Avenue r 2. Main Street (SR-4)/Cypress Road 3. Main Street (SR-4)/ Laurel Road 4. Cypress Road I Sellers-Avenue _r 5. Cypress Road / Street A 6. Cypress Road / Frank Hengel Way Emergency access, transit and bicycle facilities will also be discussed. Air Quality The Air Quality chapter for the EIR will summarize the regional air quality setting including climate and topography, ambient air quality, and regulatory context. The chapter will discuss the potential affects associated with changes in air quality, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, cumulative emissions and long term effects, as well as impacts from the adjacent farm uses. The chapter will include an analysis of the existing setting,thresholds of significance, identification of impacts,and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. The chapter will be based on a technical study prepared by Donald Ballanti, air quality specialists. Noise The Noise chapter for the EIR will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. The noise analysis will be based on a study being prepared by Bollard & Brennan, acoustical specialists. The chapter will summarize regional and local noise setting information,identify relevant regulatory setting information, identify changes in ambient noise characteristics and the effects on sensitive receptors and potential effect of existing noise source generators. The chapter will also analyze the vibrations associated with the adjacent railroad tracks *and the potential impacts to future residential development. Geology The chapter on Geology will summarize the setting and describe the potential affects from earthquakes, landslides and liquefaction as well as identify any unique geological features within the project sites. The chapter will include an analysis of the existing setting, identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, .and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. 8 ' I j Hazards The Hazards chapter of the EIR summarizes the setting and describes any potential cif existing or possible hazardous materials on-.site or as-a result'of thiEproposed prdject. The chapter will include an analysis of the existing setting,°identification of the thresholds of significance, identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. The chapter will be based on information contained in the Phase I Site Assessments for each property. Hydrology and Water Quality The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter of the EIR will summarize the setting and evaluate the project's water characteristics regarding recharge, surface flows,flooding and associated quality of water in and around the project site. The chapter will include an analysisof the existing setting, identification of the thresholds of significance,identification of impacts, and the development of mitigation measures and monitoring strategies. F Public Services and Utilities The Public Services and Utilities chapter will summarize setting information and identify potential new demand for services on water supply, storm water drainage, sewage systems, solid waste disposal, roads, law enforcement, fire protection, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, electric power,natural gas,and the telephone system. Consideration will include on-site as well as off-site infrastructure facilities. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, an analysis of the cumulative impacts will be undertaken and discussed in the EIR. In addition, pursuant to CEQA Section 21100(B)(5),the EIR will also address the potential for growth inducing impacts of the proposed project focusing on whether there will be a removal of any impediments to growth associated with the proposed project. F ;< s t i 9 SUBMITTING COMMENTS To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed project are addressed and j all significant issues are identified,written comments are invited from all lnter6s1ed parties. (y Written comments concerning the proposed.EIR<for the'Cy r i s G ove p o et"should be directed to the name and address below: Mr. Barry Hand, Community Development director City of Oakley 3639 Main Street Oakley, CA 94561 (925) 625-7000 (925) 625-9194 (fax) Written comments are due to the City of Oakley at the location addressed above by 5:00 p.m. on February 17, 2003. SCOPING MEETING A public scoping meeting will be held regarding the proposed EIR for the Cypress Grove Project on February 4, 2003, at 6:00 p.m. in the library of the delta Vista Middle School, 4901 Frank Hengel Way, Oakley, CA 94561. t� ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Figure 1 Regional Location Map ArCad -,h w • ,_ , y c� A3xon _ �.Caivinei Rd Wiliaw Paint ! `_ p ru w � -�'_ n"" ;Sheldon art}e . idyyYd Fid ! a Wi U�Iilton 7Yalana�jl� F 19 CEa>ksburg, otET3t Grs�ve Bat tiia f f _ raendaiecasskiitt 1Nairriar# c _ c if4lt din ham�`an f .t` 1 S? aaPaint Pierian YCourtianii` Maine Prairie razle � om Cenfralia�� 104 +� deed tJtankas Comer6 ,.�rGardero Junctirrn �s -- �wm'Gities Travis r ietd Pa its Vorders a is t ie x .. 8it- ,;Roc r[ ( Gswtsct City , `�-�` Ftpde eke urrsne CcFy .1 ' _ .. T �CSenver#an It NeW Ho ,Lanciirrg`' harntan a oxdeisa _ {� f j v Marite"�urna Acampo x s "� jrlietq ° 41 _ Urgon e.:� � '�..fit �f � "� ! r, .-. .....v"Ff...^•. �'.. j�..-` f �4i ;�YY'r 55 -. ��� 4 rt^y:8 k""'�.'. f `µ ``7 t tl L{'Jkt�l��.$n�`.ttan �."', ei e.„�+Xt Sx.: •.� t. motetP�''"_...,..,�,-' _._.. .,,y e --trnina S'' a 9 ''SS 7,ae', ,. •--t t `•.,,, Hen ersori•'Uiia g i p Bah i ` i i Toja'' L'andrn � xi CafiinsviUe 9 mmatan i `= �> tfiez ai ay` bYn ptttssbuAtxtiac `�, a - _M ` r- $ thei tStald. ��, sr i i t akf }� � $iackSl ti !S'Letnc�t tai ar4e P �> r � a card � } + a r iattd iHfi { F i l'Ji Pirrdl'" r© +t`rt ti3tr ..a+ ✓.' '- k..r '1a \ T. 1}/,,�m'^t �} y-'+ + �`- r* -0+ �}ns wd `+�^'•' " ' '..�T.+Rw�Yant FTti/ s fi• Cwia n""c.. 't -,.r', ; t �'talt ti't-•;.;......5 dPrentwood --= ii3i ttdaimrt Cree'i ` f�tQCtN T br ° Fre Cam" Lata e r' _ 1-Byron E -----—. :..•• y `" •40rinda. � •- t atno Marsh C'e fid r G til „•i'unp, ZyE'S,{-5 �"». f � '" t� � \ .I � '15F.`M+ ^a amqn ! ; Mountain�i ease _ a ` ztiC2andm reak� " ;' �Aitamont i Sen.L"nd`ro h' Bisbtin: _ Cay e QA's �; ���.' ra lie y � � i varna Carbone -�•� �M,,,�ayvV• rd ..�}:� 1 ^'' .*"',:iV�rCtlare ....--^.'2068~ "� ;sir .r"'" 1 s nt n liraCe Woad '' - 132 X132 Bai2mi7G �} 238 Y, c `, / ✓F. s2 Carne`1` Ursk3n CttY Farwell}, l ' _ �Sdyo ru x i ` ro \ 38 ` H c xic��7-AtifOfliCt Fi`GSE'rVw� � C".Ky'rB os NAL PARK84 �-�_^ •r S. O f nli 5 10 15 20 t 4 '-J R Figure 2 Project Location Map -i � I i r Contra Costa Canal r r U� r i site E School E.CYPRESS RCt. LU LAUREL.RD. p 12 ' 1 AS Y &i �{ Y 5 N � E a i ma,E � ZRQ wa 'R I moll ��3lefi e gg .pt¢■ iS S� � : Rk' tY Et 1p , E eg � u� 3C � 4e�;fig itii fit It � f -. =I� w ''.."`- u ._.....a��..,. �.:a`_ ,CL'OkZi� ep R,dO�r••s'^•-•„gin:• ,:._ ..,.- ✓r�r'•-.,...-�•w.:.,"�:;.�.,,,+.:` I� T V,4- V. �� ••• I `.A¢ f[ m vay~ �. µr w r 'M t r m r ay r En ,.amu,'" i �t L.. 4 81 js yt m m m m n x w - � �Et3B AI i lr P M M r m w r • m r � r. r r m r ,,, Eg t # t l r g W 9 I ,' �� ii __. �4� !'. �n as p•J`,�'l�:J,mow: - ��t y � � .� ��"'q�p w�y '��}� ����«�y r+�� r•1 �g' �iT':j� �%^rY � � :% :'i^to � �� ;�1�;h�l�.�/X•yt' 7� gull : . R [[[� �tt _ _ ...._ _ r� '"�•t' t � f � AWE «iS� {{% �• '. �» .c�•t.. � ,,iC"prS 3�f,Li.iO�� �,.., ��.t 1�.«.>/'j�'✓�cfd •Vl.---` � yp R g r iE Y E #inn`p q,—�.:•'u�`I' Za M,k rt �u a - °r, "`fit l•�J ,`Y Ell .,y t-..•� I tiy�� � �IH� �� �sd'}«...i Y � •'!.`Yi Al�/�/�� 1��� Jc* �+`, �,� '^�X^,F''".'` '•»guw,k-- �, pt �„„.;.... ,w,� wryJj.✓,+�,..m i g i'� ° t � �w l �� 1, _ � �-,�� 1. w:r'- ,ak�rrrP1.,` i � �� •t ., 13 f r.-... ✓__.,..,.. w»—......---`zn`"•,..x1nc-a�af..:.««-:n,. ....,wv1 u.s9a. ., 'L...., w ...;:� � u�� �l {{ L�1'x15'A Yd1YM YLaO�vY.Jtt73 !1 {1 a 1l,�Elil i ♦'iC. it w' i".i:a^%tl 'q,"g'°I.:�'.. '""5i' s.—�^"'r ' .4 �K ..... ,r.. „prcuzar{-lr¢'—•.G` .,w+... ..R".'.' � ��.�.r � CS � 4 a3 t lit Syr ay r €{jt #y14 A lift; r ! a Y t g5.r Kill it It flit # t lit if rt M V, fI� 1X 4.i E, a i 1 tt y gppe3a¢ nag Ix NfJiri }1y 1 fes. '-- �,I ► it t 5t t '#t % Er sy i33 ��' '� r �t t t =; �y a 'at �; K= KtC i k3 ��H 4 ►� 1 r Mitt fi GTiYiF if t at t atm aj r as tt pct t a etn % at t e ty Kt a.. at act r. 7t •� eY%t f * t I i � i� # ki it at of % ry tt• Y t i t a at F—I, fa} a % eft r 6 id..jt a A t sY t ar ee .K r f' t at%� l % t� Y sa ryet t X! ial t 1t$ .�� a tt x t r I F f I t #r t t :. ,��"'.."r.--i—,� �er—• - _ _"'yenaii�a 1.--,w` �Ci � � � y � 1 a-•.�.r.0_.r.ca� te-.. r_..�. v`,._.a,-+` �"" M2.W»-C- _ ,zY_ ��J �. i � 3 } k 1 � tiM�Elf1 xr �g � g; -911b ri ij �'+f,r53'�" "�..•' .... c.*.:-as:.=. _. .. -_• m�wcw win amara ....��ryWw��. 4 iw P.+i,,.•aw�_JtC�,,,,, aT3,+++e,w^u�'0 { '— "5 {•ji* d• �d• r• .n:, ;,e.""8x5K'3w.�ny„--°M,.w:' i"M"C'•-0.x°'1=-V•'„- ..:."•-�,�asl'wC�uera'w.ya-."'"'.;�,.4p.=. x.-a.'^, -s r I 411 , i _ ; p sans rrns E3 4 g � 4 rE a �'• i t 14 !' c�(�` �` 3 ' amal"a S � � Y'�...,,..��' r<F. hj `' •�a �1�;_ 4:i _ ..„,£, 1 im all a; xj { � �1'�� 'd l.£�` i a * i' x �• {tt l�;E'C.k k�'"d'�. �rt F r Cx `,i,y j 1�� ab a€ ai t! s! *€ ab ax a! ai *3 ' � �"r i1��' � •', f � nIT -541tQ ` -.!fi�t x(( .,, �;�•�...�r•� 'e.. �� � 15 of * '! *: •j �"'^ ,., t{ t I b [ � t t ff S� u , •tl g � g ti Milo I R 1 i �i CD-nn bb j tl 1111 , CI gg r o s t � j � { y A���n«tn«n«{f $ RKR♦ w ybV�b ; ' Y � K C n{nrt♦«nn«j; f �� ClCn n ' 13 j3 5 I y � ZZ•• be� C w I � R'Y7j{f� F' � C {{ �. S Q fill � 1 �g35 I If I I . 4 y <D66V 0 I W I i' fill I i j r t ? r , } f 1 f' i,.J ...................................................��00.—00000—00000—o--.............................. ................................oo............... ................. .. ......... ...................................................1.11,11, Of 925 625 9194; Jan-17.02 10:53AM; Page 2 : It By: clay D, 02kley; obi 55 Pel CCSB Pt��It�EPING D�P� F`AX NO. 8256988383 P. 02 Al CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT 1,131 COMCotci AvMue M 6ax H2O _ Cor�crti,�94624 1925)588-6000 FAX(926)588.8122 A Jatnuaary 16,2002 Via Fax 9251625.9194 t3iroelcrs Barry H:tstti, Dlrootor Jamas pratV Aisident Community Development Depwiment, N obbe a.Baccnho,D.C. City of Oakley We Presidenr P.O. box 6 ttizat>ath R.Anetlo Qaskley, California 94561 Bette Boatmun ".; Josoph t.,Compbeti ;art},jcCt: Responge-s to Notice of Preparatinn for the Proposed Cyprcgs ,, Walter J.Wallop Grove Development Plan Dow.Mr. Hatsd: OL "I'liank you for the opportunity to review and Cornrn6nt on the CF-QA Notice. of Preparation (NOT11) to preparc. an BIR. on the propcxsed Cypress, Grave Dcvelopmtrit Plan (pruposccl project). The proposed project is within the existing service area boundaries of the Contra Costa Watrx District(CCWD). However, as discussed below, rarity a portion or the Devt;loprnent Platt (i.e., area south of Past Cypress Road) is jyy currently approved for a Ctantr7l Valley Project(CUP)water Supply. The project, c1.s shown on the NOP Project Location Map (Figure 2) involves four 4cpilif.1t.e pl-ODoscct da;: elopments comprising a Planned Development on 147 .Icres ' bounded by tlxtr Contra Costa Canal on the north, Marsh Creel;,on the west, the AT�UF R(ailroncl on the ;outhwesa, and agricultural lands on the east, The applicants have pre po,,cd land use designations (requiring a General Plain Amendment and rezoning pnor to l)rojeU1. ittsltic:rnentttti011) tis allow up iti 660 110%itzg t:nitR (560 single-family unitta and 100 multi-family units*). In addition to roadway anti access improvctnentc along Cast Cypress Road, the project will include a piped sterns drainage sysitm, wafter survict:s from tlao Diablo Water Oistrict (DWI)), and a trail system connecting to the cxh�titl; ret innal trail adjat t-ret to Marsh Creek. 'liar,Cypres.w Crewe:project surrounds a .13-acre existing middlo school and a fiuturo elensentaary gchool:lite. CCWD lynx provided two previous commatn letters identifying concerns rwlastivo to putentint project effects on the Contra Costa Canal, including water duality, and pr:r,4 Providing information on the CVP inclusion approval process (i.e., the, U.S.. Bureau sof Reclamation approval for adding the area to CCWD's CVP contractual service aria), The first letter darted Septerral>er 2.1, 1-001 to Cindy Gno.q, dic city's environmental costNtiltnnt.rt xpotndcd Eo a t*roject Review Requcst. lrollowialg two ineeting.4 between bees city, projcct anti CCWD m-presentastives, a second letter dastad November 20, 7001 1 was.sent to David Coulson, project engineer whicli surntnarived CCWD's concerns and .i Y;J Sent 5y: City ort Oakley; 925 625 9194; Jan-17-02 10:53Aha; Page 3 JAN-16-02 ED 05:58 PH CCWD ENGINEERING DEPT FAX NO. 9256888303 P. 03 NUI'kcrsrs€%iso to Cyprors Gr()Vc DL'.Vctol'i7ii m Kill January 16,2002 Nip 2 ' aagrct srscnts rc:rctteci in the niettings on matters for inclusion into the BIR document. In addition, CC;WU provided raqucstcci inclusion applicatiriti ifirortsssttion to tttc project biological rc sources coF3sulttutt on£Jctcsber 9, 2001. COLS hats significant concerns relative to project impacts on the Contra Costa Canal, including its water quality, levet: stability, security and humin safety, "Itssw canal conveys waster frorn hock Slough in the San Joaquin 1?elta (approximately three visiles Io the sotathomt froin (ho projoct) to CCWI-) and raw water customer treattnant plants (including the iistsadall-Bold Treatment Plant in Oaaklcy which is jointly owned and operated by CCW0 and DWI)) for distribitiitsn to approximately 450,000 residents in eccstr,al and eaistern Contra Cvsta County. The portion of this canal inlet chaarincl adliractnt to the project (Milepost~-. 3.09 to 3.54) is contained within earthen levees, The groundwater uthle in the arta is very high (i,t., near dila natural ground surface). The levees unci canal are vulnerable to scepagc and there air. potential liquefaction issues. Storinwater drain.atgc frown the project could inirDduce pollutants into the groundwater and cane). Maintaining tho quality of water inside the c:aarial is of primary iniporiance,as is the integrity sof ilte levees. Therefore, it ip concludod that the proximity and layout of the projecLx could ropresont it stibsl antial liability for the District. It appears that ally initigation measure tither than lining or erica emont of tht canal will not he sufficient. This rncrasuro ix further discussed in the responses to the Hydrology and Water Quality olumcm (page 4). The, following response comatents address the Environmental affects identified in the order pr"entod in tlrc NOP. Some of the effects 'tncludc additional project description information from tlao Project Components (e.g.,Ilydrology and Water Qunlity relates to the doscription of the Storm Thain projoct,component). it is ralr;t, noted that several of the hnvironntctaat BlTetts or elorrients are intell--eate(t {c.l;., CVP water supplies ill Public Set-vices and Utilities is contingent on Biological Rcsources work}. Biol gict�l Resettle y, A numbez of special-aatus plant and unitrtal species have varying degrees of pots-ritual to occur in the study (project) area. The CCWD Intorim ,Scrvier Area Listed Species Occurrences unit Potential habitat map (lune 2000) doea meat identify .illy fecicraally-listed species occurreners (based on tho California Department or Fts:h unci Game Natural Divcmity Data Base) within tiie predominantly gr aes laand vegctartion shown for Tile project site. However, as noted, the Biological Rosoufres rhttlitor in the Draft SIR will be bazsod on a biological resotirces report prcpaart�d by Sycamore Asst>cltttom The portion of the:project north of East Cypress Road (114.4 ascrog) is ctirrcntly outside CCWD':a contrracttral service area rcir tire receipt of CVP waiter supplies, An inclusion application For these tands must be submitted to C:CWD for coordination with the US, Bureau of Rc chtmaatian. Tile inclusion application will need to include the Draft acid i BY: City Of Oakley; 925 525 9194;, Jan-17-02 10:53AM; {cage a u SN—l b-U? Wtv Ub:!)b Fn 1}ND LNU 1 ISI c t 1 NU Uhl'i' FAX NO, 82btil3€iiiM NOT'ltt,qviise to C'yprois Grove t)cvultilinlent flan r January 16,2002 Nip 3 ctnnnplionco with atll f0deral )awe, 3 ild regtitMI nCrits. Additional isnfvrnatttionn on"the iYu:1113100 tapplic:lttion and approval proccs;W is provided,in,tllc.response cbm' Me-I'M to the. Public Services and Utilities olemclus or erivir�nmcnt,;(_cffecrs section, Cu nt`y; Ai..totalthi, chapter will acidross the wring and potential effects from aarthgi_nak.es, latndslid'es and liquefaction. The'underlying sand stratum in this arca may have, it high notentiatl for seiAmically induced liquefaction. It is requested that a l gawcchnicaf study be cotrmpletod :hat: (1) evaluates the existing sails, geology and Itydrology (sce Hydrology and Wntor Quality elesnant, below) of the site toad the st iyounding areA (Mcause of the psesence of groundwater and ctnnal waters), and (2) provides an evaluation or the proposed potential Impacts of me project on [tic Contra, Costa t~:ntnatl (including the cautatl lcvoe), The study needs to also "arnine the potential errects of a canal levet railure on the project. This ,audy, including recommell icd Mitigation of potential itrmptteu to the canal and the water stipply,as well as any project do.gigtn modification or alternative action(), must be submitted to tho CCWD Planning D-cpatrlTamcnt for review tinct approval before 1noorporation into the Draft FIR. H�Yrtrolrrgv ane Wttter uaa This chapter wilt evaluate the project's a-unorf charartcristics (recharge. surface flows and flooding) and associated water duality "in and around the project site". It will identify impactrs and develop rnitigatiott iraeaasures and monituring stratt;gie;ss. Contra Costa Water District requests That this clement inchtIdc an analysis alysis tar a l potential flooding impacts, including human safety (in future subdivisions), ax a a-csult of potential flooding risk- or exposure from tiny potential canal lcvec rallure(ns dented above. i C;CWI) is particularly concerned about the collection of story awater runoff aadjac silt to due citnaal "to In olx n Male along the northern arra of the project" for tran:aport to In ori'site water detontionlwater quality husin. This woff has potential impacts to carnal water duality and the stability of the canal levee, Storm wasters collected adjacent to the canal loved: tire unatcca'pta3ble without engineered nnetasunws, including concrete lining, to prevent drainage into the;canal or secpage.into the levees and canal. Any accumulation of Water.Such as if) holding Ponds,or duo to flooding,could lead to levee deterioration. The r;tortn water colle(;tioat facilities (Le., drainage ditch tt d off-site daenticin basin), ;tt3tl rirsulting setbacks for the project, will need to he designed for construction, atter evnluattitwrl of the requemed gootechnic:atl study, above,tit a safe distance frorn the too of Clic canal levee. This chapter silould uls0 Include an evaluation of tho urban runorf impacts re.milting farm at maximum probable slot= event, and identify any project rela3wd or itndiiccd impacts can lass canal levoe and water quality arising from serol) an i cwont. CCWD ;tests requc:sL~t that, drtalmigo facilities be designed to procluh (or intercept) poictnial southwatrd sctapage froth the canal into future rtwsicicritfal leets. CC.WD rcquests to review preliminary grading plans(including drainage facilities to intercept or prevent :(wut'hwaartl suepap) thaat dafine the cicvatioan5 of the irxisting mall firtet grades in ttnc i Sent BY: City of Oakley; 925 625 9194; Jan-17.02 10.54AM; Page 5111 JAN-I6-02 WED 05157 PM CCWD ENG}NEERM DEPT FAX NO. $2558$8303 P, 05 NOP kcsPonso cn t`.pttt xs Grove Dvvclopmonc Plnn 3anvary 16,2002 Nino 4 Parks anti trails itrc included in the NOP Project Components A'l.rail syst� will he contirrltcteti to c011nect to 1110 oxi$titt reg#gnat train sy r; Adjacent to Mardi Crock, Tho Cyprohr; Grove Doxign Guidelines sh'rrw plan and profile illustrations of the j separaic hiking and cqucstrinn trails mouth of the dminatgc ditch: The drairnargc ditch is 4 lies:nt to the toe Of the r:lnctl levcca and will be r.-ttcod from the recreational trails, CCWD is concerned that introducing a permanent residential population in close pre xintity to the canal tcdcls the ri.5k that popple (and pets) coutct roll into tile swift flowing and &,,op waters of the c;annl. The cabal waters could lie attractive, to childmn, and adults rL; well, For fishing, boating nod even swimming, In order to address this potential, the Draft flit analysis will need to &Sed; e CCWD's current containment (barbed wire property line fencing) with CCWD`s standard fencing requirements which will he supplied by the project. CCWD policy is to rewire "double fencing' to afte.ss (his i::suc where tale canal traverses; ;Urban develop*d ;area;.,. Double fencing in Urbttn amts is curnuntly Implctitented with a catmal litter Imoc. and the property tint: f6rncing. The projact propDsc4 fencing it; the draft .Design Guitdclines (also currently untiar review for coinmeni) that separates the traails from the drainagc dimli, and the, regnired property litre forcing. `1`hc safety and security discussion should also address the adequacy of project fencing reltativo to the heightened uonse of awareness on canal sucurity and water totality protection since September 11,2GOI. As ;toted in the introdoCtory to the responms to trite NOP, it appears that the only form of mil.igation to addreas an of the identilllud potential impacts alcove is the lining or enensenient or the canal in the projects area. The site drainage from these projects and the potential sccpaage effects could negatively impact the water quality in the canal, and could jeopardize the structural intcgtity of the canal levee. C,:C"+VIt2} hereby rctpieSts tis most with the project proponent engineer and nthers to cdiscttss the fftnalting implicotions and options of this;approach. Pt:tt-)tic Servicrr acrd Utiliticz; This chapter will identify putentlBl new demandA for sorvicos oil waiar supply, stone water;drainage, sewage systems, wlid waste. eiisposal, xcliools, parkand mcroaawion and other` services provided by governmental agencies Park.,; a and utilities, Attachment A is cnclososd as gen€rel information on CCWD Opcmtions and Fracilitic4 ror incorportuion, as needed,into the Draft ETR s=tion on water stepply, it is noted that considarattion will include on-site as well Ls off-site infrastructure facilitievs, Stcirm water drainage has been addressrard Irr Mously(wbovc) as a hydrologic clement having a direct potential prej= impact on the Comm Costa Crural. However, the ;disposition Of stoma water drainage create-,impacts thio transevnd beyond tha prqj,xL site to the "wirthotud corner or the study amn' (page 3),with ultimate di-scharge into Pmerson Slough atncl the western San Joaquin Delta (baked on mettings diRcussions witli the project proponents). CCWD rtquc:nts that the Dratft ,'FIR provide full information on the "study area" ('which is not defin d in the NOP) and identify pntcmial impacts on Lhe development or the "combined water detention/Water quality 3` )t By: City of Oakley; 925 625 9134; len 17-{}2 10:54AiVl; Page 5I11 AN-1 6-02 WED 05:57 Fly CCWD ENG l NEER l NG DEP-1 FAX N0, 9256886303 NOT'Response to Cypress Cir«va PlAn January 16,2002 F`ai;c 5 basin" on the, Contra C'.oslat Canal, ialcluding a safe setback from the carnal levoe. The coorc project relationship to other known or projector projects, such as the CAL ED Dutch Slough Restoration project, also needs to ba addre4scd in (lie Draft FIR. t; As noted in the rus'ponce to the Biological kc-qutircos environme.riml effect discussion, ilio majority of the project sites arca will require Rcclamaatjon's approval fov inclusion in(o CC" D's CVP contract service area, Attachment B, CCWD Cocic of RegulAtions St diet SAA.120 is enclosed for informa fion on the inclusion, process (see subsection 13.1.), As noted in the NOP, the prnjcct site is within, the CCWD's Service Area A (Puture Walter Supply Study, 1996 and IiWS Lmpletmentmion EIR, 1998) and the Los Vaqueros Project (I-VP) Pianniaag Area (LV RLFJS, 1993), and is therefore eligible to receive;ilia witter quality attid reliability bemofitc from the LVP, Tlic final response, commont is a rc mindor to comply with recently enacted legislation ,ix., sl;ls i21 mid 610, as uniclatlmentS to previous SB 901) requiring as water supply assossurient for mtbchyisions or a development agreerraarat for a subdivision creating } more Brun 500 new ruxidentiail units applies to the project areas. t.a if ymi have any questions ort the comments, or t- quire furthrr intormadon on tho. CCWD, its regulations, plans, biological opiniom or environmental documents on officr prrijects or platax.plcrixe contact Dennis P'iaila at 925/698-8119 Si Icer , Jerry R.o lrlanning ircctor i JIIfl�l•' AlLuchment A: CCWI)Operaations and Pxciiities 6: CCWD Code of Regulations Section 5.014,1 r0(AnnCX/tnclnciorac) cc: Cay rroudc,hxsixtant Field Superviror,Endnaecred Species Division,USMS Sncranianto Ruddy Sagitta,Acting Chief,,Bn;iaecrinr.Msimmance are Opara,tions,USHR 3.°rncy Twit CurlLno,Principal Frigincer,Curixen.13arhtc and Gibson,Inc.,San Eamon z: 9 .v j i 4.1 Ey: City of akiey; 925 625 9194;., Jan-17.02 10.54AM; Page 7111 JAN-1b-2 WED Ub:,' i Fm COWL, ENGINEERING DEFT FAX NO, 9256888310.3 P. 07 s , An'ACI I1vf l NT A CCWD OPE RATIONS,AND FACILIMMS r . 't ha Contra Costa Wettr District ("CMD") serves approximately 450,ODO people throughout noitll-centrat and cast Contra Costa County. Its clients also include 10 major industries, 36 smallor industries and businesses, and all agricultural users. CCWD operates raw water distribution facilities, water treatment. plants, and treated water distribution facilities, CCWD supplics raw rtnd treated water to Antioch. Concord, Diablo Water District (nerving Oak)oy), pittsiturg, Souther:: California Water Company (serving Bay Point), Martincz, and farts of Picasant 101 mid MUM Crock. Toro treated water service areal ror CCWD enootnpas.ses all or part of the cities or Concord, Clayton, Clysis, Plc,munt Hilt, Walnut Creck, Martinez, and Pott Costa. Trestted water for this service area is trrovideci from dio District's Bolirnan Water Treatment Plant in Concord, The t. 130llrn.1t1 facility is a 75 MCI7 convention-it plant and is currently being upgraded to include intecioudiate ozonation. CCWD also supplies trtaated water to the Diablo dater District wlliell servos customers in Oakley from a plant jointly owned by CCWD and DWS. %.. The Randall-Bold Wntcr Treatment Plant is a 40 'MGD direct/deep-bed filtration plant and utilizes froth pre;- rind post-ozonutioo to provide a hlgh quality drinking water to the customers in ( its sarvice area. t:CWU is entirely dependcnt on the Delta for its water supply. The Contra Costa Canal and tba recently cotmpleted l.rrc Vnclucros Project make up CCWD's principal water supply and delivery sy,Wlcttr. CCWD divert.; unregulrtted flows and regulated flows from storage relcamcs front Shtt%ta, Folsorn, and Clair Engle reservoirs into the Sacramento River as a contractor of the United States Bureau of Reclamation's("Rurcau")Central Valley Project("CVP"), Under Water Service Contract 175t.5401 (amended) with the Bureau, CCWD can divert and re-divert up to 195,f}L2C} acre-feet annually (°AFA") or wafter from Rock Slough and the new Old River intake, Ctlrrently, CCWD uses between 125,000 and 140,000 AFA. CCWD can also divert up to 26.790 Al-A of water from M.-diarcl Slough under its yawn water rights (Water Rights License No.3167 j and Permit No.19956). The City of Antioch and Gaylord Coutaincr, hath customs of ttre District, alcor have water rights permits to divert water from the Delta. CCWD has obtained its water supply morn the Dolts since 1940. Delta water is subject to targe variations its salinity and mineral concentrations and this water supply has.maple CCWD and its cust+orlttrs vulnevable to any man-made or Natural sources that could dcgrasdc Delta water quality. Water duality change:, in Dona wafter arc.noticeable to dross who drink the water or otic tlres water IL for commercial and industrial processes. Degradation in water quality is objectionable to marry CCW t) custosncars, costly to all residential and industrial users, and a health risk for some: `> individuals. The.most recent fodertal drinking water mgulations promulgated in�7ecorttbe 19911 impose stringent H ir:its on disinfection by-products in treated water. To unsure that the bromato attd Clic total trilialorn:thanes (the principal disinfection byproducts) standards are met, rinonicipal water aganciex need to Minimize the bromide level in source water. Bromide level is s. 's t 0CiILoy. �-1.y ul OdKleyp ... '3�� b;db 131'34 ,,. ,Jan•17-02 10:55AM�, ... a-age B/.1 1 J AN-16-02 WED 05:68 PM CCWD ENG I NEER I NG DEPT FAX NO, 9256888303 P. 08 ditutly proportional to the chloride concentration in Datta water, Degradation of Delta water 71, Arita{{ty inilauirs [tic benoficial uses of water supplied by CCWD to its customers. Contra Costa WateLr District is committed to supplying its customers witli the highest quality water practicable and providing all reasonable protection of the supply froU, any known or Pote.ntdal source of hazardou,contamination. CCWD Resolution No. 98-45 states in part tllai. "CCWD is cornmittad to reducing the concentration of sodium and chloride in the District's water, themby reducing household and landscape irrigation conecras and industrial and mw%ufacturing costs caused by the fluctuating sodium and chloride level of CCWl:7`s Delta source...." Irl May I987, CCWD's Board of Directors adopted water quality objectives for water distribumd within its service ,area. Tile acceptable concentration Icveis for sodium and chloride were established at 50 milligrams per liver (mB/l) and 65 mg/1, respectively. In 1988, the voter- constitueav; of CCWD aillsraved tau; issuance of bonds to finance a $450 million water quality and reliability project known ate the Los Vaqueros Project. The primary purposes of The Los Varltreros Project Ares to improve the quality of water supplies(.to CCWD customers and minimize scascmnl quality cimng(%, :and to improve the:reliability of the emergency water supply available to CCWD. The.l.t)s Vayereros Project consists of a mse:rvoir with 100.000 acro-feet of storage, a new point of diversion (at Old River south of the Highway 4 crossing) which operates its conjrinction with the current {'tock Slough diversion point, associated warar conveynnee and delivery facilities,pulnping plants,and other facilities. On ,{Lure 2, 1994, Lite State Water Rc.ourccs Control Board issued Decision 1629 wFtich gives CCWD additional rights to divert and store; water for beneficial uses. The State Board subscquently issue(( Wgiter Rights permits No. 20749 turd 20750 for filling Loc Vaqucras Reservoir from the new intake at Old River near Highway 4 and diversion and storage of tho water of Kellogg C=k. These rights are in addition to the contractual righty to divert anti store water furnished through the Cts'. Construction of the reservoir began in September 1494 and waN cornplctod in'.linuary 1998, Diversion from the Old River intake for delivery to C1:WM's service.arca bagan ill tilt;stuniner of 1997. Can January 28, 1999,the first filling of Los Vaqueros Rescrvoir to 100,000 acre-feet was completed. Up to 95,950 APA may be diverted for storage Ixtween November l of cads year to.?tine 30 of the sumeoding year tinder Water Rights Perini( No.20749.. A key to successful performance of the Les Vaqueros Project is the District's ability to fill ttnd cotttintsc tv r dill tale reservoir frotn Old River with high quality water, and to use that water for blending when saliaity at they District's Delta intakes exceed the 65 ttmg/L chloride goal, Any incrc,sse in Dela( salinity cased by tttzw 13tty-Delta projects will increme the demand on blending water froin the reservoir whilo at tite satne time reducing the availability of high quality water for rvfi{ling, The District and its 450,€00 customers will bo impactod through higher pumping casts to replace rhe extra blending water that is re.lmsed and through the. additional Ira lincot costs, increased corrasion and health effects of delivering higher salinity water. Y SY t Cit of Oakley; 925 625 9194; Jan-17-02 10.55AM; Page 9/11 j JAN-16-02 WEU 06:59 PM COWS} EI�GIl�EEPING DEPT FAX NO, 92;,8888803ATTACHMENT 13 5.04.110 5,04.110 Ltxanattthorized U$;e or twatcr. 71t district's L'UI'is a water quality ad reliability ` Artyesnts using water tvitfnout barring ttan�eSa applica- prts)= Waste r from LVP fatuities its,approved for lith to Oto efisaict for walor service shall be held liable use it a deCmcd`area as teat fiartll-inti the perrtsils and for the service from the dam of smy previous incur, enArotitht tial documentation entation for the project That - rcad'utg that most nearly ooln6idcs r+ th;the actual arrals referred tt�in this section as the."LVP service <lntr~rite service was first used try such customer,(lies. arta"and includes flit planning area for the LVP as 9()-84 Exh- A (part)) defittod i,n„ �,,� the Los Vaqutios Project F"usaat Ravir:cot1. rawtal 5.04.120 Amnesxution of hand to the district (Draft Stagt 2 ISIS for tit©Los Vaquerrrs Project, stad pru*islon of water aerTi.+ce to 'February 1992,pp. 14-1-7)and any lands to whicli ontiaxed Loinds. the district's board of dire etors hu conscated to 'Me an nfixation sof lands to the distriet is gcrvttned survim f omL' P Litccitities.I–ba district mint approve by the previsions of tho Cottecxet'Knox was t ovem- the addition of any laods to fire LVP service arca me nt Reorganization Act of 1985 (California.Gov- bcloma such lauds can receive: service from LVp emmont Code Section 56000 et ser{., cited In this facilifies in ord"to emuzc that such wrvim is conx"rs- l section as tho"Ate').This regulation supplernents tent wicltthe huts,eavitmnrn tal,docutnent,ation, t.ho provisions of'the Act.In the event of any conflict objectives and planning for tate LVP. lrctrNc..`n the provisiots5 oftheActand this regulation, A. Annexationcsf Lauds to the T>�trict 4 the former shall control, 1. Tl elis#iCt will itt#tiate pzcx a lir>4rs(1tscEudiatg t:. I”-Ae provision of water service to anne=xed land annexallons,demclune:titS and morganixation)if:(a) is geouanied by tiro regulatintti codified in this section. evidoom satisfactory to tho,district is presorted that ,Subsection A corntaints the processes for annexation rt2l,or a substantial portion,of the resident voters or of L^tuds to the district, Subsection B contains the propeny+ary hers oftlu:aftac d lairds desire rite action, proom—tes for obWtsing watte;rsetvice fbr annaxtd lands (b)a map and legal description of the affected hinds from either rias district or traria one of its WhOlosalc neer submittdi to the district. (c)the proponents of ! municipal cutstornters and applies to Lends that ares dee proceedings fray (be fees Irrt Mad, and (d) the insides or outsidos citlser tiro district Contrxl Valley prvpme nts acme to ownpiy with the provisions of I:Imjcct(MV sc vice anti or Or.Los Vater Project this regulation rctawA to annexation of lands which (IVP)service atva.11te regulation applies torequests art not within ft district's CV service am and/or for annexation to or dcuaclunants from CCWD. or notwithin thoLVP service arm."flit initiations of pro- anttexatiott to CCWD &5 past of a teargaaixation, coodinp s by the board shall nvt restrict or impair rite; whether thmigh raquests dLmctly to the district or powers of the board in subsequent proceedings for w::J by applications to the Local Agency Forcmdon Cram- amivatieSn of tett lairds or any part thereof. inission(LA�:CO).TU replation also provides fees 2. The fix for annexation of lands shall be a flat to offset tba coasts associated wltb admirdsWing these arnoont of ei&hundred dollaas for a otnexations that rrgnim marts. arc not subject to the CVP inclusion process and orte Under tlie,terms of the district's cont:aact with the thousand two huadrod dollan for a utt amnions that US,Bureau of Reclamation('flureau)for CV?water, arc tubjrct to the Cin'inclusion proms-'T his district £.; tltc Secretary of the Interior or flitSecretary's duly ft-- is sel wwo from any odstr fees which Wray be authorized representative(Seen tary)must formally reqs and by cad=agrxscies;including Bureau fens for consent to frmiusiort of newly aintaearcd terms into rhes rroce;ft an inclusion M*lw—In t.e—Mition.the dsstaict district bafoore such lands taut receive:CV?water.The will bt reimbursed for any direct coasts e.g., lel ad „t "CVI' servicer area"refers to all those lard}within descriptio t verification,attorney review costs,docu- the disu,ict that have:mx eiyad such consent. me tt mptoitacdou cores,public iced s,ctc,rayniout will be"utsted stpem the.pmpo newt's fomW applica- i 41 (CM&%cm"woe"morw rasa Z ;ent By., City of Oakley; 925 625 9194; Jan-17-02 10:56AM; Page 10/111 JAN-16-02 WED 06:00 Ptd CUND ENGINEERING DEPT FAX NO. 9256888303 P. I0 5.04,120 tion to LAF� or the ti%sts ct, aid chali be made triode to such a customer for water service fpr lands willtin thirty calusd:ar days.Mu,-a nate fe_ l already annexed to t}3cdistr�ict.thee,wbolesalo tnunic,. to proponents rrtlurst iesg annexation to or daUciitraetus pat cttstolt�IIWl,rsOtify.the district ot`tlrr~ from CCWD,or art=ation to CCWD as part of a Tb�districtwtll ruin_ they ant of tlw Anntzation t'cotganizatiOn,w[tstlicr through requests direectly to ifli App iieall i for Waricoaj and the wtwlcsaic rnnraici- iitc district or by applicatiot ito the LAFCO. pal customer that writt-e n consent.of the Swretuy Ii. h'OvisiOn o£Water Service ter Aram ed lAzuls. is required before CVP watts cats be nutde.available 1. No water shall be provided by the district to for rtsa On the subject laxed.It shalt be dioYesponsibili- atutexed bends unless zAd until It water supply is ty of tat,P"POnent of the arutexntion or the applicant available for use Ort such lands, as confumed in for water ae Mce or ease:wholesale>rstsrsiciprah custsrrtmr writing by tete district..No water furnished by the CVp to develop attd provide the necessary ccttvironn W sherd be providad bydie district or any of its wholesale or other ciocuumstsAiOn ncccssxry for such wftct municipal customers for tic On lands which am not cOnsem The district will puMue timely and prompt in the district's CVP service,&=unless and until lite writes consent decisions based on thus documentation Stctitarp gives written contscnt to then inclusion of 'rise district will promptly issue a,con€x=tion 16Mr such land in the district's CVP service amt.A canfir- to t1r-whokwk nm3n1cipgxl customer authorizing water enation lottor will be issued by the district for water service 130xitt9 CVP water purrImsed tmm tim distact $Vvvic O based upon a CVP water supply under the after such written consent hats bow reeoived, provisions Of citl=subsection B I a or B I b ret fcntli e. If tht district do-armifres th ata non-CVP water 140w;it confirr2talion lc.:tW for water service based Supply has been idowifted and is&VAilables or cava be ©u a tion-CVP supply will be issued by the district made available by tl -district in a timely matcher to under dw provisions or suinc edon B Ic set fwh below. provide Ilia water service requtc steel,tlse district will a. At the titter _,a-,,rxi is sougint for the putlxrsc issue a confirmation letter to the proponent of the of receiving treated water from the district, or an annexation or the applicaut for water service,and if application is made for tmatgd water service for lands nerccrsary tb*whalesate tet Ukipal customer,describ• previously annexed to the district, tate district will ing the water supply available: And any conditiom notify dee propcsa=of the anrtrrar.ttdon or the:applicant Andior restrictlous drat might apply to its use on the for w to service that the written caaasest of tare seers- subject land, Provision and deUvary of steeh water taary is requited before CVp'nater coon be nude%v,ail- Sh ll be nsado subject to the conditions and/or restrk- able for use on the subject land.it shall he thts tespon- tions that apply to use of such war::r supply. silrility Of the prOPOWnt Of the annexation or this 2. WMar service from LVP facilities will not lrc anplitUt for wrtttr service to develop and provide provided to lands outside the L'Vly service ansa by the necessary eriviroeust cud or othor doctunentat on tete district or its wholesale,municipal customers.'1'his accessary for such written cattssettt.TIM district will subsection describes the puss by which the Lvp pursM titnely and PrOMpt Whelan consent decisions service aero can be adjusted by the district,and app*4 lsasocl on this docimaentatiom Tilt distriax with gtr nv* both to lands outside the L'VI'service arca for which issue the ctmCinisatioee letter for treated water service annexation to the district(either directly or duough utilirinz CW water after such consent his been reorgani=aott) is scat ghl, and to lands tarcviaatslp received.No meter will be issued by the district for Snnexed to the diaTict which arc outcn'de the I.'VP ttr;ated water service until a confirmation letter has service arra and for which an application for water been issued. service is trona to tete district or to one of its whale b. At die tiim a nn=titut(oraro-oxa don try CCWD salt municipal customers(wt&it shall itrunodiately a�part of a r wrganinithon)is sought for the pwpo;se inform the district when any such application is Of treeesEvint;water service from one of els:district's rrceivCd). the district shall inferno die annexation wholesale au nicipat custotncrs,or an application is proponent, water Sorvict applicant and wholesale d 2 cc..�[eau ar,.a ni:��a•at BV; City of (7akley, 525 625 9154'' Jan-17,02 1t7;56AM; Page 11J1i o , - s-a avD as.aa n COWD ENGINEERING DEPT FAX NO, 9256886303 � 5.04,lZO inunicipal customer dut the district will not provide 5.44.130 Encroacirruent onto district t iglu- sarvir a front LVF'fitellities unless the district deter- of-way. mines that; The following charges shall be paid 17y those a. The mquwed wholesale or reu+til service can individuals encroaching onto the district's Tight-of- only be pruvidatl from disviet fac`ilitiies which cannot way: . ' feasibly bo se, ritted from LVP facilities; A. An encroachment permit fbc of nincxy.fivt 6. The hrq;act of the rcqucsmd wholesale cc retail dollan with an annual rertewal char€;e of fiftyfivt water service tart dto LVt' is do rninimis; and dollars.(Res. 95-7 L-xh. A (part)) c. All necessary envirounzontal docuiri inutioit 3 for the cxp:t Aon of the LVP service arra to include the land proposed for antiaxation to the district has been provided by ilia proponent or tits annexation or the applicarit for wat*r 8crvice and approved by the approprime regulatory agency. A determination of de nxinirais will be rnade if the 4 c:umulativo increasc it dotnand from tile. stibjoct annexation and all oilicc{s=and pending atir=atiorss is less than five porccnt of ilio domands prescntod CS y in ttzc LVP Bil"w,IIS (Draft Stage 2 isUIS for the Fos,Vaqueros Project.R bruary 1992,as suttirir ni7.cd in Attaclutvmi.A.).The district's riot:niiinations purse ant to this soction will be irdnsmiued ht a confiruLdioit letter to ttte applicant for water service or die propo- :tent of the astsnexation wvI it neccsstuy,the wholesale intmicipal custotniar. If the district deternnines that a wholesale mutuci€ml cusiotneris using LVP fs4lities to provide w>uamt service to lands outside the LVP servim art>.'c prior to the dit trio's &-ten-nina•tion to adjust tine 1 VI'sense ansa,it will d4=1 tl=whialesalo nttutriciltal cwontt_t to brirnodiately ouse this wiautho- 62zd use of di strict f rciiides.The water supply avail- able to rite wliolesaic municipal customer will be suh)ct to immodiatc reduction by Clic district in the asuount the district det.atrlitics was it nisi idy d4v- owd to lands outside the LVP service,arca,and the whs lt:sxtic munlelpal customer will lis requ n:d tb pay thr,full cast of servico from LVP facilities(iticluding fixt 4 tui€va&ble mists and n.4,,ovcry of t apit;l invest- rent)as well as the actual covets of adminism frig this LJ rtsgulatiott,for tir-wntcrx which eras intlnoperly served oi,mside t 7 VIS Service aroa3 �'R,ts, tl wOl Lich. A (hair); Re4. �,7-36 Z7.h. A (ftart);'Res. 95;7 LzlL A j 43 9 O j 4 E a.� ,Col L O Y, t .L t.Y..V i a cl m !: Y 7......... .... ,:r:-:i t.re.a:: 1`mar.}:;.:. .:::.m i l`r-:�•v e - :J.•.t -rviy ..... sit3,a e:1 a JAN-25-2002 TUE 05157 Phi FAX NO. 4 P, 02 i E A 4 T I3 A Y T{ Cir r CJ N A l 11 A R IG I) I S "t" I I C 1` John Srfltor min:+rw+t W:mlI Jmulry l 5,2002 Aye M esksmn wstd b 1', l3arsy Ilaltal Tmmwo 1 Community Dcvvlopment Director wa,u' City of Oaktuy paun S+Ocrr SmOssrV was'!Q Ozklc:y,CA 94561 8rvrOv'alta VAX(925)625-0194 w.vd u C�Jl C3 if lt:hA wo"S r.._] Jo.i15 art+ WE: Marsh Croak and Delta Do AtmA Itch icltral Trails Cypress Grove-Notice of Preparation of an LIR Prl CYBrtrn !}C«rrMr.fland: $ansrraiM„:artsw 'fire Sast Pay Itcgionrlt Park District has received the N'oticc of Prepar4ition(NOP)for Cyl pins Grove. This prolsc ud project is located adjacent to the Park District's two regional multi-mSc trails in tine area,the Marsh Creek and the Delta Dt Anxa Traits which also connects to the Big Track Shoreline Regional Trail. The Marsh Greek Trail(paved ctlstern purl ion)is opcn and is being used. Roth dic unpaved west portion of rite Marsh Crack Trail anti the Delta DuAn7a(Contra,Cresta Canal)are not opm to the public as yet and will need future duvclopment to serve the residents of the arta. Willi development comes increased rccrcational demand. This increasa recreational demand impacts not just local facilities but also regional fmilitics. The EIR should address thcs impacts to local recreational facilities as wall as to the regional facilities including: L:tilitcacllstrgs'ngarea,rmtzancc stmotures within tho doveloprracnt,st:rectcrossings,and tails should be evaluated in connection with circulatiols,noise,public safety,biological resources ;aM long toren maintenance for sonic facilities. 1'he disettssiola xltauld include consideration of mitis otion measul•c that could be directud towards improvcni mts of the regional trails to scree the future ro;jdonts Of t€ae arca. in the llytlrtt: gay and Water Quality scotion of the Ell,discussion of the runoff water quality as it nYight affect and impact Marsh Creek and Big Break should be included. l ltartk you fnr fire opltcartunity to cornmem on this NOP. If you have any questions Incase contact me at(S 10)544-2624, The Park District will be following this proposed project. We request to be on the raniling list to roaeivc copies of the draft EIlt,s,taffreports and :iotiuQs forpublic hearing:, Vk-cy(truly yours,�"D Linda J.1' }avc 1Ptlrlc f lartttt.'r li f i is n5o Voralta Oaks Gatut r.d. t4ox 5301 4akiarwd.CA 04600.0361 'frt 510 1335 0135 lex 5 W I3 69.431$ !UD E 10 633.0460 www 4U pgra;s.0r6 i i I EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK. DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS led Radke President Ward 7 January 30,2002 `r �►-y) Doug Siden IY E" wad 4 cent an Seri Mr.Barry Hand t A �� ' Treasurer `i K, ?reasurar Community Development Director ward, City of Oakley `. OF SBeverly(� `� Lane Secrretaarry P. O.Box 6 Ward 6 Oakley, CA 94561 Carol Severin FAX(925)625-9194 Ward 3 John Sutter Ward 2 I`'1 Ayn Wieskamp RE: Marsh Creek and Delta De Anza Regional Trails ward s G Cypress Grove-Revised-Notice of Preparation of an EIR Pat O'Brien General Manager Dear Mr. Hand: The East Bay Regional Park District has received the Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP)for Cypress Grove. The Park District had sent a previous response letter,dated January 15,2002, to the past NOP. The only additional comment has to do with the project description under the Parks and Trails section where there is two sentences regarding improvements to the Marsh Creek Trail. The trail undercrossing at the BNSF railroad is complete and does not need any improvements. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this NOP. If you have any questions please 1 contact me at(510)544-2624. The Park District will be following this proposed project. We request to be on the mailing list to receive copies of the draft EIP,staff reports and notices for public hearings. Ve truly yours, Linda J. P. Chavez Park Planner II I I , i 0 n r n m m i c 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 m 7E, 510 635-0135 FAX 510 569-43319 7ao 510 633-0460 www.ebparks.org 4 Contra Costa County Maurice M. Shiu s, ex officio Chief Engineer -FLOOD TRO 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553-4825 t & Water Conservation District Telephone: (925) 313-2000 �t FAX (925) 313-2333 l January 7, 2002 Cindy Gnos City of Oakley P.O. Box 6 � I Oakley, CA 94561 Our File: 97-74, Cypress Grove .Dca Ms. Gnus: We have received the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Cypress Grove Development x Plan located at East Cypress Road and east of Highway 4, and submit the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in Drainage Area 74, an unformed drainage area. Therefore there are no drainage area fees due at this time. 2. Please note this project should not drain to Marsh Creek. The NOP correctly . t proposes to route project drainage toward the northeast, which is the historic drainage pattern. The NOP states drainage from the developed areas on the west side of the project will be collected and conveyed to a detention basin located at the northeast corner of the project and then discharged into Emerson Slough. Stormwater from the eastern project portion will be collected and conveyed along Sellers Avenue to Emerson Slough. 3. The EIR should include an analysis demonstrating the feasibility and adequacy of the detention basin, storm drain system and downstream facilities. This is critical at this stage in the project to ensure sufficient right-of-way is reserved for these needed facilities. 4. The existing Delta Vista Middle School has a temporary storm drain connection to Marsh Creek. The ETR. should address the elimination or abandonment of this temporary connection and include as a mitigation measure, a requirement for the developer to obtain a Flood Control Permit for any work in the Districts' right-of- way, such as the removal of the temporary outfall into Marsh Creek. The applicant should contact Bob Hendry at (925) 646-1607 to request a Flood Control Permit. In addition, a mitigation measure should be included that requires the project to include drainage from the school site in their overall drainage plan. Cindy Gnos January 7, 2002 Page 2 1 r { 5. As another mitigation measure, the EIR should identify the maintenance entity and perpetual finding source for maintaining the detention basin and the storm drain facilities. 6. The Oakley School District currently has an unapproved trail connection to Marsh Creek. This illegal encroachment onto Flood Control District right-of-way has been an outstanding issue and needs to be resolved. The EIR should include this issue when it looks at pedestrian circulation of the project site. We appreciate the opportunity to review plans involving drainage matters and welcome continued coordination. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR for this project once it U is available. If you have any questions, you may reach me at (925) 313-2394 or Hannah Wong at(925) 313-2381. Very truly yours, Paul R. Det ens Associate Civil Engineer Flood Control Engineering PRD:HW:cjd G:1GrpData\FldCtl\CurDev\CITIES\Oakley\Cypress Grove\NOP.doc cc: Eric Whan,Flood Control Engineering Hairy Hand,City of Oakley i 1 RECEIVED l � U 7 2001 Project Review: Cypress ypress Grave CITY 0F OAKLEY Comments By: Jim Haslip, Superintendent Date: December 20,2001 Agency: Oakley Elementary Union School District We appreciate being involved in this process.The overall project is an asset to the school district because it F: ties into our schools in a thoughtful manner. We have several safety and maintenance issues that are important to us: I. The road will need to be widened from Highway 4 to the end of the project. r, 2. The pedestrian walkway along the north side of Cypress must tie into the underpass at the railroad and discourage the crossing of the railroad. Both the grading of the hillside at the intersection of the railroad and Cypress and fencing need consideration. 3, Access for vehicles onto the Marsh Creek Trail will be needed to maintain the trail. 4. parking will have to be provided on the proposed road along the west side of the school property. 5. Fencing of the school property must be provided, including pedestrian access onto the fields at the west end of our property for recreational uses. 6. A gate in that proposed fence will be needed for district maintenance vehicles and fire access. 7. A driveway up to that proposed gate is needed. 8. Grading of the northeast section of our property will be needed to tie into the proposed open space park adjacent to that section. Note: the district proposes this area as a joint use area with the City, in a similar manner as the O'Hara.Park School grounds. 9. Some form of speed deterrent may be needed along the road on the east side of the school property. It is a long straight stretch of road. 10. The open space park, adjacent to the northeast area of our property, must be blended into our property in a manner similar to the OHP park 11. Storm water drainage must be managed as it affects our property. i 12. The proximity of multi-family projects to the school will increase the use of our grounds and y'. maintenance costs. How will this be mitigated?We prefer that multi-family dwellings not be included in this project unless some compensatory arrangement can be made. 13. We understand that a signal will be laced at the entrance to our o t� p property.This is important. 14. What is the land use plan for the isolated triangle of land on the south side of Cypress adjacent to the railroad?This area could be a dangerous attractive nuisance area for children from this neighborhood. We look forward to the opportunity to read the Draft EIR as soon at is available. Thank you for this opportunity. r w ��CF Erp STATE OF CALIFORNIA $' *� % GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH Gray Davis State Clearinghouse Steven A. Nissen GOVERNOR DIRECTOR REUE; EC Notice of preparation _ DEC 2 7 2001 December 20,2001 Cf?V OF OAKLE*,; To: Reviewing Agencies Re: Cypress Grove SCH## 2001122073 { ' 1 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation(NOP)for the Cypress Grove draft Environmental Impact Report(BIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific -a information related to their own statutory responsibility,within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Barry Hand City of Oakley 3633 Main Street Oakley,CA 94561 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process,please call the State Clearinghouse at (916)445-0613. S' rely, Katie S ulte Joung Associate Planner,State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency i a 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-0613 FAX 916-323-3018 VI%VW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2001122073 Project Title Cypress Grove Lead Agency Oakley, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description The applicant has proposed land use designations for the 147 acres in order to allow' the future development of up to 660 housing units (560 single-family and 100 multi-family units). The applicant j has submitted a preliminary land plan in order to identify the major access points to Cypress Road and l address infrastructure improvements. The application also includes a planned development in order to address the type and quality of future residential development. Lead Agency Contact Name Barry Hand Agency City of Oakley Phone 925-625-7000 Fax email Address 3633 Main Street City Oakley State CA Zip 94561 Project Location County Contra Costa City Oakley Region Cross Streets Cypress Road Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways SR 4 Airports Railways Santa Fe Waterways Marsh Creek, Emerson Slough Schools Delta Vista Middle School Land Use The project area is primarily vacant, currently containing a residence and associated out buildings. The project area is currently designated Light Industrial and Agricultural under the City of Oakley General Plan. Project issues AestheticNisual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic;Noise; Public Services;Sewer Capacity;Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation;Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetiand/Riparian;Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Landuse;Cumulative Effects j Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation;Reclamation Board;Department of Parks and I Agencies Recreation; Department of Food and Agriculture; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Native American Heritage Commission;State Lands Commission; Delta Protection Commission;Caltrans, District 4; California Highway Patrol; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5(Sacramento); Department of Toxic Substances Control Date Received 12/20/2001 Start of Review 12/20/2001 End of Review 01/1812002 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. o c a 0 O S2rZ5mO t.a Vi m Q G K�� C O ® O �y 7r ty p` ri m D ip ro a O L7 0 m n Ca Q Y. C �ai C3 �. 6S Q•. Q C L aJ O 1!7 v K-4 ��}' C3 Ca t3k m nJyCti �` �CD40 acrE m `n0 `rim .4 d e � CJ : � 40 GUf ® B hix Oen! tl1� � c asc `ah mmU C13 m._ � 0CS to `ym �:.;3 $m '00-c- 3t mo' � _ m � W c �k o • d Um Ua Uas L}sc as m� a �- Cs m :pct C! m O C!y o c CI •C!as,4 CL U ts. oC GS C3 !gin r0�� ui 3asv` +� com $m 3o.a 3 +nQ ❑ 3� ❑ c»mL7C7 tAin ��U � ►. m0-z ccWUtA w0 IL'^s.s �U tr1 it G3 �+A StrA ❑ D �� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D DD ❑ r 0 a a — Q O 6 O C C `0 G. 0 Ci d E > 0 ra C C C 4S Ly o o}` r7 a Ci CD ` C U3� Llc 2ca� s .miG eaC It M a C am �y? C ` s. SCJ @N �m4. ; ash 1- C3 m a `$i c m E m ` ce 2 e� Oma. 65e C =� tr s o 8no CGU e0j, s5. ` mo c 62. ` E '` �ac G -+ $ ., a � e _gym _. mo .Z� r-.C' 0 �a m,E b 4D=H mm peso iem itrS` s�ioas C, � c e� m c3c�n a ,n tai.`-cn .sUz cern Uro s�¢U dEr�. �❑ ❑ ❑ aamt5cs �' ❑ D D D D pLCJq D D ❑ C3 p b a �•" N m �} Q° 1[! to P, m 02 .2 GC Cz C 0 oa CD a 3 j0 E 40 mm40 m` CD o. a ° E aae 6E d c . CL �m an> E 0r 4a n .0e. c c = cc A E +co >. m 'D a m y m .F- > h m` m }Z ..a .. .. m Ts st`Sr.E o cs w s m c,- m m mt- '.° Cu `o `�9 6.e` d �u' $ CO a C p°' C �a C w e a cL '3` [fir C G 52 . aii � c � .�L �n V OE ie 5. 0 Om mom a, SOS mho"' #iD ''--' mm=' tau? Ci`a`s�e CLQ.Z ��:vs i`s,in nc� f-•c S-, an snva a_a a>-j uinn awn c C 0 0 0 = o c m a E as e c e �_ m m e m E 9, des E I t7 m q O GS '--t 0 V (� m � c � C7 U 2 � o m E o � cn m b+` v m s ac s o O c� mv�s V C • `c e 0 0� e m o e- a .� e c ty C • G u. es LL v 0 Was y_ 3 m m c a yo �, W e a as e s 3 c E t siCy u.= is a m e m m as e i rs m � C 0� C oU= u c a-j `o�cE pasC°E pay.m pmt CtU c E Q �" =C] c � p4Ca o aeo •yam `ma • � •Clot .Cp � E a Z � p o 9a om ! mcmtc m cm m4z � mom CL 000E comma mE &C m oa�`s m as c as �m �c 3a EoeC "ami } C1 CD LU Cines C]mtr t5t�tr Ct3 GG��iI Li U' tLa Ct-tLU (3w ZUt] a¢ rocs CS ascn fi ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c ❑ ❑ ❑ m N 3 G m m o m m 5 02 o 2 m 4z (� V C m r m e�{ Cr R vt C e d C ` w p L] � ` G m � Q7 C b V m C L of � �+ O M CD m n @ ate.. � p Uo� ° "' al'il fat ai72 m Qcm at m o ��m iso SOC -6mm CL 0�- 2 of 7Q� vC'm3� � Ca L — Q U O m 0 r0 Ea F m� at mY 0 Em` .�m �_ 0 m`o �S at o CL m m 0s0 ``N ®m mom —�" ar mm u > 0 ticY "� meas' otj omm rrz rZm clticu nY aad OcLs c�cc ¢a`.. (6 CO azo � i3r� -a u Clr Z° ,� ® ❑ D7 ❑ r-1CSI" ❑ ❑ i �:IA XOf CALIFUFUNIA �.. tavi��'e •rner NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION RECEIVED 435 CA?rrOL MALL,ROOM 364 sacxi+rrts.8to.CA9ss1a {?1 ',SAN 10 2002 4)G53�Wi<2 rax(916}6574390 CITY OF QAKLEY )anuary 9, 2002 Mr. Barry band City of Oakley 3633 main Street Oakley, California 94563 RE: SCH# 20tH 122073 Cypress Grove r Dear Mr. Hand, The Native American Heritage Commission has reviewed the above mentioned NOP. To adequately assess and mitigate project-related impacts on archaeological resources, the Commission recommends the following actions be required: 1. Contact the appropriate Information Center for a record search. The record search will determine: t If a part or all of the area of project effect (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. J • if any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or,adjacent to the APE. = If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE • If a survey is required to determine whether previousiy unrecorded cultural resources are present. ' 2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report { ' detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be ?! submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. • The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological information Center, 3. Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for: • A Sacred Lands File Check, • A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in the mitigation measures. 4. Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Lead agencies should Include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated illative American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. • Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains in their mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA §15064.5 (e), ;and Public Resources Code §5057.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. i It you have any questions,please contact me at(918)6534038. j S# rely, _ Debb Pilas•Treadway Enviro ental Specialist III CC: State Clearinghouse F I Contra Costa County dire Protection .district Fire Chief KEITH RICHTER December 28, 2001 j RECEIVED jA�N 0 001 jW=I i' MJF Ot"tKL h Y City of Oakley Community Development Department POBox 6 Oakley, CA 94561 j Attention: Barry Nand, Director Subject; Cypress Grove 200 Block of Cypress Road Gentlemen: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to establish a 147-acre residential development of about 546 single-family and 166 j multi-family units at the subject location. This project is regulated by codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by this Fire District and the State Fire Marshal's Office. If approved by your office, the following shall be included as conditions of approval: 1. The developer shall provide fire hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon submittal of three copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.4.2) UFC 2. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 2000 GPM. Required flow shall be y delivered from not more thantwo hydrants flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main. (903.2)UFC 3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet six inches of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus i.e., 37 tons. (902.2)UFC Note: The developer shall provide emergency vehicle access from Cypress s Road onto the road next to Lots 129 and 55. 2010 GEARY ROAD • PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 94523-4654 - TELEPHONE (925) 930-5500 + FAX 930-SS92 4527 DEERFIELD DRIVE * ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA 94509 + 'TELEPHONE (925)757-1303 * FAX 754-8852 C WEST COUNTY AREA • TELEPHONE (S 10) 374-7070 City of Oakley -2- December 28, 2001 4. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to construction. (8704.1)UFC 5. Provide a second access point for Lots 384 - 422. Two points of access are required when more than 25 homes are being served. Suggest the elimination of Lots 416 and 432 and connect the roads. 6. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this office when compiled by the planning agency. if you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, I re4 Richard S. Ryan Fire Inspector Engineering Division RSR/snb FELE PROJECT 11065.21t G?F � FC3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT " � ` � Douglas R. Ward, Director s ,OU'Ka`..a ". RECEIVED January "7, 2002 JAN 0 9 2002 CITY OF OAKi.EY Mr. Barry Nand, Community Development Director City of Oakley j P.O. Box 6 Oakley, CA 94561 Re: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed / Cypress Grove Development Plan Dear Mr. Nand: Thank you for the opportunity to review the NOP for the above proposed project to {_) change the General Plan designation and rezone 147 acres to allow the construction of up to 660 residential units. The City of Antioch requests that the traffic analysis examine project impacts to regional transportation systems, particularly State Route 4 and arterial commute routes through Antioch including East 16th Stmt, Lone Tree Way, Hillcrest Ave, Deer Valley Road, Somersville Rd, and Buchanan Rd. Again the City of Antioch appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project and looks forward to the opportunity to comment can future projects in the City of Oakley. Sincerely, Tina 1Nehrmeister Assistant Planner cc: M. Ramsey, City Manager, City of Antioch R. Ward, Qommunity development Director, City of Antioch V. Carniglia, Community Development Deputy Director, City of Antioch 7 J. Brandt, City Engineer, City of Antioch Office of Director Third&H Streets P. 0. Box 5007 Antioch, CA 94591-5007 (925)779-7030 { FAX (925)779-7034 �✓F1VEQAN 14 2082 t J > t Cr;`yI)f()AqE}, Persific COS end Efectric Company Steve Willougbby 24S Marw sires[.Harm 1054A Plammp Analyst Sin Francisco,CA 94105 Aukiep end Lens Semites :1 (415)973.2509 Fti k Lade N!OA P.O.Boz 770000 i y San Frencssu,CA 94177 January 10, 2002 'i Mr. Berry Hand City of Oakley 3633 Main Street Oakley, CA 94561 RE: Cypress Grove Development Plan, Oakley �.. Dear Mr. Hand: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the scope and content of the Cypress Grove Development Plan in the City of Oakley. We offer the following information. Historically, energy consumption in any city increases over time. The magnitude of the increase is affected by a number of factors, In a rapidly growing city such as Oakley, the most significant cause of increased energy consumption is new development approved by the City. In addition to development, other factors that affect energy consumption include technology changes, the economy, weather, and conservation efforts. Future consumption will be dependent on these variables. Extending service to new development has direct and cumulative impacts on PG&E's qas and electric systems, and requires offsite additions and improvements to gas and electric facilities in addition to the on-site facilities that supply these services. PG&E has to construct new facilities such as electric substations, gals regulator stations, transmission lines, and distribution lines to accommodate energy load growth. As the City of Oakley and surrounding communities in Contra Costa County continue to approve new development, PG&E will have to expand system capacity to maintain adequate service levels. PG&E's ability to construct new utility facilities will depend upon PG&E's agility to secure the permits, environmental clearances, and land rights needed to construct these facilities. Information on the direct and cumulative energy effects of projects should be incorporated into the environmental documents for this project as well as any other projects that will increase power needs within the City of Oakley. { j i Oakley is located in Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) Delta Distribution Planning Area (DPA), which covers the eastern portion of Contra Costa County from Bay Point to Discovery Bay. Analysis of maps and electric load trends of the area demonstrate that in recent years and for the foreseeable future, most of the Delta j DPA's load growth due to new development has been and will continue to be concentrated in the western area of Brentwood, Oakley and the southeastern area of Antioch. i Future gas loads will also increase with development. Based on current information, PG&E expects to have adequate gas supply for anticipated lead growth. However, the installation of new gas regulator stations and additional and/or larger gas distribution mains and services may be required to increase the supply capacity to the area and deliver gas to these new customers. Because of the need to maintain an integrated utility system and deliver energy services to developed areas from energy sources in more remote areas, utility facilities are located in all land use designations and zoning districts. Facilities such as electric substations, gas regulator stations, and gas and electric transmission and distribution lines must be located in proximity to energy loads in order to maintain system reliability and minimize drops in voltage and pressure which occur over extended sections of distribution lines. Although not subject to local discretionary authority, general plain policies, or zoning regulations, PG&E strives to integrate these facilities with surrounding property to the extent allowed by CPUC regulations and operating requirements. When considering energy conservation measures in proposed projects, developers and property owners should be aware that in addition to measures required by Title 24, they may be eligible for energy conservation incentive programs offered by PG&E. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)has directed and authorized PG&E to provide a number of energy conservation incentive programs. As CPUC directives change, some programs expire, and new ones are implemented. Since some of these programs require that PG&E monitor project planning and development, persons should contact PG&E as early as possible in the planning•stages of any retrofit or new construction project to determine whether their projects qualify for any conservation incentive programs. PG&E's Smarter Energy Line provides information for residential applications and can be reached by calling 1-800-933-9555. For commercial applications, customers should call PG&E's Business Customer Call Center at 1-800- 468-4743. In closing, we would like to thank you for contacting PG&E concerning the proposed development. Growth and development have direct and cumulative effects on energy supplies and the systems that deliver these supplies to the homes and businesses of the City of Oakley. PG&E remains committers to working with the City of Oakley to provide safe, reliable electric and gas service. To meet this challenge, we need the active efforts of everyone involved to recognize that growth and development increase the load on out electric and gas systems and to incorporate plans for needed energy facilities into all future planning documents. please include me on the Draft EIR distribution list for this project so that PG&E may have an opportunity to provide additional comments before the Final EIR is prepared. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-973-2609. Sincerely, Steve VVillough y cyGr_dev.doc :<x d L.4 F i [i S e. 2 i i..:i __...... __.__ w ?.. ....... �,� �... .. .o. .. ..._ .:yam .., .... .... .. r "'IDEPARTMENT CTP TRANSPORTATION v U Boy.23580 oAX NO.cR 94623.0650 1510)2ab-"- TLSO(5113)256-44&4 January 18. 2002 RECEIVED IAN 2 3 2802,. . . CC-4-834.92 CITY 6# (1f4K1_lrY CCO04640 SCF1#20011220073 Mr, Barry Hand Community Development Director City of Oakley 3633.Main Strect Oakley,CA 94551 Dear Mr. Hand: CYPRESS GROVE - N0110E OF PREPARATION (NOP) FOR A DRAFT ENVIROI'v'R+1ENTAI, IMPACT REPORT(DEIR) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation in the environmental review process for the proposed project. We have examined the NI OP and have the following comments: Our primary concern with the project is the potential impact it may have on existing traffic volumes and(congestion to the State transportation facilities, specifically State Route 4. In order to adequately address our concerns, we recommend that a Traffic Impact Study be prepared ati part of the DEiR. Please include the following information in the study: I. Information on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assumptions and methodologies used in compiling this information should i he addressed. 2. .Average Daily Traffic and AM and Plvi peak hour volumes can all significantly affected streets and highways,including crossroads and controlling intersections. 3. Schematic illustration or the traffic conditions for: 1)existing.2)existing plus project, and 3) cumulative for the intersections in the project ama. 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should con.';ider all traffic-generating developments, both existing and future, that would atffect the State Highway facilities being F evaluated. 5. Mitigation measures should consider highway and nem-highway improvements and services. Special attention should he given to the development of arltemute solutions to circulation problems that des nett rely on increased highway=construction. s y ?or.Bally Hua.d January 18.2002 Page 2 G. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including finincin,g, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, attd lead age^uy monitoring. We also look forward to reviewing the DEEM for.this-projec:t.,We do expect to receive a copy from the state Clearinghouse, but in order to expedite our review, you may send two copies in advance to: Rick Kuo Office:of Transportation Planning B Department of Transpor-Cation, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oak-land, CA 94621-0W Should you rewire further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Rick Kuo,of my staff at (510) 286-5988- Sincerely, 510) 286-5988.Sincerely, RANDELL H. IWA.SAKI Acting District Director By JE C .9'N4 F4,y District Branch Chief 1GRJCEQA c: Katie Shulte Joung(State Clearinghouse) CALIFORNIA :; %ti?'''' ALRMEDa MaftlN SAN MATEO Northwost information Center r-o i�i r!f<: CCLUSA MENDOCINO SANTA CLARA Sonoma$tale University r7t5t0�R1CAL 1. ,. y �+ ertJNtkACCSsiA MONTEREY saNTA4Hu2 r11=SC7URC�S .b'•..� 1301:1 NlfurlG9 AY&rYIJET C �i,'`•ii";. LAKE NAPA SC7tANCi SAN BENITO 5pNt3MA Rohitert Park,cilitbmia$4929•$809 INFORMATION I s qs4�•:.. r i"` J�j SAN FRANUSCO YOLO Tat: 707.$64,48803'Fax:707,SS4.08$0 SYSTEM i...0. 18 latiugu-y 2V)2 File No.'03-C"C-1 2 IEj ) i ;l nCU VF*D .i Mr.Barry Hand Community Development Dirwor JAN 2 2 &2 ,..I City of Oakley 3P6O33 i Street vITY OF OAKLFY " .' Box 6 Oakley,Ca.94562 rc�Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Itttpact Depart for the Proposed Cypress Grove DcN-clvpment ?Ian hear M.Hand; Records at this otT=were reviewed to detcrininc if this project could adverselyhf. Itistonr l resouit s. Tlae ltviGw for possible historic structures,howi:ver.was limited to references currently in our office. The Offioc of Historic Preservation has dcicrinincd that any building or ctniewrc 45 years or older may be of historic value. Therefore.if the project area, contains such properties tlicy should be evaluated by°an arcLitcctural historian prior to caiwucnce=nt of project :activities. plegm mete that use of ft term hi irica!resoumes includes bath archgeola 'cal sites and bl!doric structures, " i _..� The proposed project arra contains of is adjacent to the a;;4m_io ice, si s ( }. A study is recommended prior to Commencement of project act.ivitics. XX The proposed project area has the passibility of containing unrecorded<irchapological site s A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. Study# identified uric or more historical restsurres. It is rcconunended that a qualiL(A archaeologist the slatits of the site and provide project specific recommend;ttions. _ ... Study# idcixtified iio hiswrical resources. Further study for histongal resources is iwt rccutnuueuded. The guidelines for implementation orthe CAifornia Rzgister of Historical Resources(Cal Rogister)criicria for evaluation of historical properties have been dcvcloped by the State Office of historic Preservation. For Purposes of CEQ1k,,all identified archaeological sites should be evaluated iising the Cal.Rester Critgriu, XX Out mvicw is based on scientific information. In addition:we reoommend you contact the local fnhe(s)regarding uaditionat,cultural rind religious values. Comments: ' d If archaeological resources are encountered during the project.work in the irnslicdia.w vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist hies cNaluatcd the situation. If you have any questions please give vs it wil(707)664-2494. sir K. o Leigh Jordan Coordinator i r 3 1 Of PLAllC STATE= OF CALIFORNIA }�* ds W � Governor's Office of Planning and Research ��tlF O#MSF State Clearinghouse Gray Davis Tat Finney Governor Interim Director Notice of Preparation January 17,2003 RECEIVED JAN 2 2 2003 To: Reviewing Agencies Re: Cypress Grave CITY OF OAKLEY SCH# 2001122073 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation(NOP)for the Cypress Grove draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). `! ) Responsible agencies must transmit their continents on the scope and content of the NOP,focusing on specific r information related to their awn statutory responsibility,within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead A encv. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely 1 manner. we encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Barry Hand City of Oakley 3633 Main Street i Oakley,CA 94561 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process,please call the State Clearinghouse at (916)445-0513. Sincerely, /z' j ( rian Grattidge ` enior Planner,State Clearinghouse Attachments cc:Lead Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIPORNTA 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov ® 26 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2001122073 Project Title Cypress Grove Lead Agency Oakley, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description The applicant has proposed land use designations for the 147 acres in order to allow the future development of up to 637 housing units(541 single-family and 96 multi-family units). The applicant includes a Planned Development in order to address the type and quality of future residential development. The applicant also includes a request for approval of tentative maps and design review to develop the 637 housing units. J Lead Agency Contact Name Barry Hand Agency City of Oakley Phone 925-625-7000 Fax email Address 3633 Main Street City Oakley State CA Zip 94561 Project Location County Contra Costa City Oakley Region Cross Streets Cypress Road Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways SR Airports Railways Santa Fe Waterways Marsh Creek, Emerson Slough Schools Delta Vista Middle School Land Use The project area is primarily vacant,currently containing a residence and associated out buildings. The project area is currently designated Light Industrial and Agricultural under the City of Oakley General Plan. Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality,Archaeologic-Historic;Drainage/Absorption-,Flood Plain/Flooding;Geologic/Seismic;Noise, Public Services;Sewer Capacity;Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;To)dc/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetland/Ripartan;Wildlife;Growth Inducing; Landuse;Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Conservation;Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Agencies Food and Agriculture; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3;Native American Heritage Commission;State Lands Commission;Delta Protection Commission;Caltrans,District 4:Department of To)dc Substances Control;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 2 Date Received 01/17/2003 Start of Review 01/17/2003 End of Review 02/18/2003 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead aoannv z m �F ° �m � �Cb QQ o 52r' mob c < ^t � � O �� , 'n=,� xSk G7na mm0.oN j ° o , zx3 { �. C C u,"�.. {j} 'r*, `'C' C7 0 w-aa D '"' COY" h rrro =: o b �} a o cc oho � ' � c; `c �a ceras' mea° aCL =ofio ctr; Mry to ■ Ll CL C1 w Z pccz7ro =caa cin pJGsp i ID g , cc -n C 0 N ID Sit 0 .�Z Gn ,afi t1-fl+. r3 c to �a a , 7 a 4 '? a ro H ?? o-rte j ca01 i# mo cn N �, m 2 3 D r`a f to CA w CD rm ar �L7 pUjd l.� Q ak a C o � 2z m a mn6 a � a o � = m Qsmoat. m c Z o a, :: 3 '" z ry x rz _ _ o A6 21 (� Qr f4- L3 s ' ow 01 oCLm m a="t m a = n S� m .M-a RL = eco CD d o m CC 0 #`� c o m Cn =n m a o "c a �`� m _ x� � w� ° o ar pacn ca a m_ {n NCDN N C? cn .a N cn t� D LI C a o X Ami (��`j! b t7 Kra c +C} o N m m o c " z C> -S CC] U v m m m '.E} �'_„ ., o CL m w am trt LS(7 fig t7s rza cu t7 �'a o —E7 ts� f7? ° m KIE0 Cn m m `'mom N m n�<irn o m O � m mt3 Z, m w-.a i m e CD ett " C t�;' o w o a BF .� o = r= m Xo sao o n_ic r=idC_ �}vias C3 N isi + = n C7 CS O « v Sa m cl CD 41 A �; zvcori , rtxr;' ,-r-6-cr U0 nrivi rwLit ezteW DIAt3LO WATER DISTKICT Rmuary 27, 2003 2107 fain St. PO.Box 127 Oakley,CA 54551-0127 925+b25.3798 fax 925•625,0814 Mr. Barry Hand RECEIVED Drrecrors: jr of Oakley ry �rytt Joon H.Wrellwy � y :JAN 20B 9 2 ?resident P. 0. BOX 6 Howard Hol is Oakley, CA 94561 CITY OF OAKLCY Vice Presid{11 ftlneth L Cruc*oli Edward Garda bear Mr. Hand: Rickard Haad ctrsa of Marragcr Enclosed are my comments on Cypress Grove MOR Mike Yeraka Sincerely, .arornoy: t ederirk RNd Jr. Make Y'eraka,P.E. General Manager Enclosure f 1 { i;J JLlY u, . vi, , vi... vMl\L Liy _ ALJ`-tSt i'1 V l f -`Y6'G-7'Ud -f-.:itll"iYl y. r73UE Cd/Cd I to Cypress Road to ars elevation of 10 feet above mean sea level to protect against a flood elevation of 7 with an additional 3 feet of freeboard, The remainder of the project, including Cypress Road is higher than elevation 10 and would not require further flood protection. Sanitary Sewer. The ironhouse Sanitary Dltrict treats the existing sewage and maintains 4 ' the sewer infrastructure in the City of Oakley. Currently, properties connected to the system on Cypress Road pump their sewage to the treatment plant through an existing 14" { force main in Cypress Road. The force main connects to an existing 18"gravity main in Highway 4 that flows to the treatment plant. Ultimate buildout requires replacement of the existing 14" force main with a new 24" force main. The Cypress Grove project would construct a new 240 force main from the existing connection at the 18" gravity main in HighWay'4 to the eattem boundary of the project. The existing 14" force main would be abandoned from the east project boundary to the gravity to in. The force main would -# `include a bore and jack under the Burlington Northam Santa Ps railroad(BNSF)and would be suspended across the Marsh Creek,The system would include a new pump/lift station on site that would connect the project gravity mains to the new 24" force main. Water System. The Diablo Water District maintains the existing water supply and infrastructure in the City of Oakley and has provided a Water Supply Assessment indicating adequate supply exists to serve the proposed development. The Diablo Water District is provided water by CCW`D.Water mains for the Cypress Grove project would be 2,0 r-c� constructed in accordance with Diablo Water District's master plan and dedicated to the i� 4 District upon completion. To serve the project area,a water mairrwoul be constructed ?o in Cypress road from the west edge of the Delta Vista Middle School site to the eastern bounds project area. An addltionai i`Yof the_ p j .�T water main would connect the main in —ay-press Road to Me main'in Laurel bad to the south. This line would be constructed south along the western edge of the project entrance to Subdivision 8678 until it reaches the BNSF railroad.The lime would then be constructed parallel to the railroad track(outside of the railroad right-of-way) for approximately 660 feet to the southeast where the main J/'To 2_0 would be bored and jacked under the railroad tracks. The IS. main wau d then extend l south adjacent to the existing detention basin to its connection with the existing 16"main in Laurei Road, providing a looped system.All local and collector roads would have 8"or 12' mains to serve the project site. The Cypress Grove project area is inside the current Contra Costa Water district's service Area A and the Los Vaqueros Project (LVP)Planning Area for receiving LVP water quality 4 benefits. However, the portion of the project located north of Cypress road is not included within the District's Central Valley project Contractual Service Area boundary. The northern portion of the Cypress Grave project must be granted inclusion into the Central Valley Project in order to receive water from the district. Roadways: Major roadway infrastructure would be constructed to serve this project and serve as a gateway to this portion of the City of Oakley. Cypress Road would be improved from Highway 4 to the eastern boundary of the project. The intersection at-Highway 4 would be modified from its current rural configuration to a more urban, pedestrian friendly ' S i 1 Department of Toxic Substances Control Edwin F. Lowry, Director S 5i6PMIM 749 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200 Winston H. Hickox Berkeley, California 94710-2721 Gray Davis Agency Secretary Governor alifomia E=nvironmental i Protection Agency RECF-.WED January 29, 2003 �� ZOQ3 Mr. Barry Hand City of Oakley Community Development 3633 Main Street Oakley, California 94561 Dear Mr. Hand: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Cypress Grove draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH# 2001122073. As you may be aware, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC) oversees the cleanup of sites where hazardous substances have been released pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8. As a Responsible Agency, DiSC is submitting comments to ensure that the environmental documentation prepared for this project to address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) adequately addresses any required remediation activities which may be required to address any hazardous substances release. The project includes rezoning of approximately 147 acres of agricultural land to allow development of up to 637 housing units. The hazards analysis to be performed for the EIR should include a discussion any hazard due to agricultural chemicals that may be in the soil. Since residential units are proposed for the site, any contamination that may be present should not exceed residential standards. We strongly recommend that sampling be conducted to determine whether this is an issue which will need to be addressed in the CEQA compliance document. If hazardous substances have been released, they will { need to be addressed as part of this project. For example, if the remediation activities include the need for soil excavation, the CEQA document should include: (1) an assessment of air impacts and health impacts associated with the excavation activities;-(2) identification of any applicable local standards which may be exceeded by the excavation activities, including dust levels and noise; (3) transportation impacts from the removal or ._.y remedial activities;•and (4) risk of upset should there be an accident at the Site. i The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. Fora fist of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs,see our Web-site at www.dtsc.ea.gov. Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Barry Hand January 29, 2003 Page 2 DTSC can assist your agency in overseeing characterization and cleanup activities through our Voluntary Cleanup Program. A fact sheet describing this program is enclosed. We are aware that projects such as this one are typically on a compressed schedule, and in an effort to use the available review time ^i efficiently, we request that DTSC be included in any meetings where issues relevant to our statutory authority are discussed. If you have any questions or would like to schedule a meeting, please contact Bill Brown of my staff at (510) 540-3841. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Barbara J. Cook, P.E., Chief Northern California - Coastal Cleanup Operations Branch Enclosure cc: without enclosure Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P. 0. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Guenther Moskat CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 ........ ......................................... '1 California Environmental Protection Agency C. :7 DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL { The Voluntary Cleanup Program 1 n 1993, the California Environmental Protection Agency's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) introduced this streamlined program to protect human health and the environment, ensure investigation and cleanup is conducted in an environmentally sound manner and facilitate the reuse and redevelopment of these same properties. Using this program, corporations, real estate developers, other private parties, and local and state agencies entering into Voluntary Cleanup Program agreements will be able to restore properties quickly and efficiently, rather than having their projects compete for DTSC's limited resources with other lower-priority hazardous waste sites. This fact sheet describes how the Voluntary Cleanup Program works. Prior to initiation of the Voluntary Cleanup Program, project proponents had few options for DTSC involvement in cleaning up low-priority sites. DTSC's statutory mandate is to identify, prioritize, investigate and cleanup sites where releases of hazardous substances have occurred. For years, the mandate meant that, if the site presented grave threat to public health or the environment, then it was listed on the State Superfund list and the parties responsible conducted the cleanup under an enforcement order, or DTSC used state funds to do so. Because of staff resource limitations, DTSC was unable to provide oversight at sites which.posed lesser risk or had lower priority. DTSC long ago recognized that no one's interests are served by leaving sites contaminated and unusable. The Voluntary Cleanup Program allows motivated parties who are able to fund the cleanup— and DTSC's oversight—to move ahead at their own speed to investigate and remediate their sites. DTSC has found that working cooperatively with willing and able project proponents is a more efficient and cost-effective approach to site investigation and cleanup. There are four steps to this process: t, ! ,r Eligibility and Application I Negotiating the Agreement r I Site Activities L. I Certification and Property Restoration The rest of this fact sheet describes those steps and gives DTSC contacts. " August 1999 The Voluntary Cleanup Program Step 1: Eligibility and Application Most sites are eligible. The main exclusions are I r I r if the site is listed as a Federal or State Superfund site, is a military facility, or if it falls outside of t1 DTSC's jurisdiction, as in the case where a site contains only leaking underground fuel tanks. . Another passible limitation is if another agency # currently has.oversight, e.g. a county (for underground storage tanks). The current oversight. agency must consent to transfer the cleanup responsibilities to DTSC before the proponent can enter into a Voluntary Cleanup Program agreement. Additionally, DTSC can enter into an agreement to Jack London Square Theater, Oakland. Under the Voluntary Cleanup Program, a work on a specified element of a cleanup (risk �' �' g assessment or public participation, for example), if nine-screen theater was built atop a former the primary oversight agency gives its consent. The Pacific Gas &Electric town gas site, standard application is attached to this fact sheet. creating a regional entertainment hub. If neither of these exclusions apply, the proponent submits an application to DTSC, providing details about site conditions, proposed land use and potential community concerns. No fee is required to apply for the Voluntary Cleanup Program. Step I Negotiating the Agreement 11-r14 Once DTSC accepts the application, the proponent meets with experienced DTSC professionals to negotiate the agreement. The agreement can range from services for an initial site assessment, to oversight and certification of a full site cleanup, based on the proponent's financial and scheduling objectives. The Voluntary Cleanup Program agreement Romero Ranch,Santa Nellas A Voluntary specifies the estimated DTSC costs, project Cleanup Agreement enabled the Nature scheduling, and DTSC services provided. Because Conservancy to use the land to.preserve every project must meet the same legal and natural habitat and promote wildlife technical cleanup requirements as State Superfund development rights. sites, and because DTSC staff provide oversight, the proponent is assured that the project will be completed in an environmentally sound manner. August 1999 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY p-� DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL SITE MITIGATION STATEWIDE CLEANUP OPERATIONS - VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM APPLICATION } The purpose of this application is to obtain information necessary to determine the eligibility of the site for acceptance into the Voluntary Cleanup Program. Please use additional pages, as necessary, to complete your responses. SECTION 1 PROPONENT INFORMATION Proponent Name Principal Contact Name Phone ( } Address Proponent's relationship to site Brief statement of why the proponent is interested in DTSC services related to site b. SECTION'2 SITE INFORMATION Is this site listed on Calsites? >a Yes No If Yes, provide specific name and number as listed ; f i Name of Site I i Address City County ZIP {Please attach a copy of an appropriate map page) i i DTSC 1254 (3195) A-1 SECTION 2 SITE INFORMATION (continued} Current Owner Name ! I Address "} Phone ( } Background: Previous Business Operations Name Type Years of Operation If known, fist all previous businesses operating on this property What hazardous substances/wastes have been associated with the site% i What environmental media is/was/may be contaminated? o Soil ❑ Air o Groundwater 11 Surface water Has sampling or other investigation been conducted? Yes to No Specify i i If Yes, what hazardous substances have been detected and what were their maximum concentrations? DISC 1254 ;3/95) A-2 ... ` j SECTION 2 SITE INFORMATION (continued) l Are any Federal, State or Local regulatory agencies currently involved with the site? ❑ Yes G No If Yes, state the involvement, and give contact names and telephone numbers -------------- ----- _____.__ ______------__---_ -__--__- __--__.._ A^envy involvement Contact Name Phone ` What is the future proposed use of the site? n '€ What oversight service is being requested of the Department? Q PEA 0 RDFS ca Removal Action o Remedial Action a RAP ❑ Certification 0 Other (describe the proposed project) ) Is there currently a potential of exposure of the community or workers to hazardous substances at the site? n Yes ❑ No If Yes, explain E SECTION 3 COMMUNITY PROFILE INFORMATION Describe the site property (include approximate size) I f � Describe the surrounding land use (including proximity to residential housing, schools, churches, etc.) i Describe the visibility of activities on the site to neighbors DTSC 1254 (3/95) A-3 SECTION 3 COMMUNITY PROFILE INFORMATION (continued) What are the demographics of the community (e.g., socioeconomic ;eve!, ethnic composition, specific language { considerations, etc.)? �f A 3. j Local Interest Has there been any media coverage? i Past Public Involvement Has there been any past public interest in the site as reflected by community meetings, ad hoc committees, workshops, fact sheets, newsletters, etc.? ; Key Issues and Concerns Have any specific concernsfissues been raised by the community regarding past operations or present activities at the site? Are there any concerns issues anticipated regarding site activities? } i Are there any general environmental concerns/issues in the community relative to neighboring sites? 6 Key Contacts Please attach a fist of key contacts for this site, including: city manager; city planning department; county environmental health department, local elected officials; and any other community members interested i;,, the site. (Please include addresses and phone numbers.) SECTION 4 CERTIFICATION The signatories below are authorized representatives of the Project Proponent and certify that the preceding '( information is true to the best of their knowledge. Proponent Representative Cate Title D7SC 1254 (31951 A- _...... - ..................................................................................... In the agreement, DTSC retains its authority to take enforcement action, if, during the investigation or cleanup, it determines that the site presents a serious health threat, and<prbper and timely action is not otherwise being taken. The agreement also allows the project proponent to terminate the Voluntary Cleanup Program a reement with 30 days written notice if they are not a . satisfied that it is meeting their needs. 7 Step 3: Site Activities Prior to beginning any work, the proponent :.4.. must have: signed the Voluntary Cleanup Program agreement; made the advance payment; and. committed to paying all project costs, including 1.- those associated with DTSC's oversight. The , project manager will track the project to make sure j that DISC is on schedule and within budget. y a DTSC will bill its costs quarterly so that large, unexpected balances should not occur. Once the proponent and DTSC have entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Program agreement, The new Federal Courthouse, initial site assessment, site investigation or cleanup Sacramesat° The largest construction a activities may Agin. The proponent will find.that project in the city's history benefited from DTSC's staff includes experts in every vital area. the Voluntary Cleanup Program when The assigned project manager is either a highly cleaning up a railyard site. qualified Hazardous Substances Scientist or Hazardous Substances Engineer. That project manager has the support of well-trained DTSC toxicologists, geologists, engineers, industrial hygienists, specialists in public participation, and other technical experts. The project manager may call on any of these specialists to join the team, providing guidance, review, comment and, as necessary, approval of individual documents and other work products. That team will also coordinate with other agencies, as appropriate, and will offer assistance in complying with other laws as needed to complete the project. (: a Step 4: Certification and Property Restoration When remediation is complete, DTSC will issue either a site certification of completion or a "No Further Action" letter, depending on the project circumstances. Either means that what was, "The Site," is now property that is ready for redevelopment or other reuse. w. August 1999 i .................................................................................................................................................. . I To learn more about the Voluntary Cleanup Program, contact the DTSC representative in the'Regional office nearest you: North Coast California Lynn Nakashima/Janet Naito 700 Heim Avenue, Suite 200 Berkeley, California 94710-2721 (5 10) 840-3839 l(510)540-3833 I � Central California Megan Cambridge 10151 Croydon Way,Suite 3 Sacramento,California 95827 (916)255-3727 Central California— Fresno Satellite 7 om Kovac 1515 Tollhouse Road Clovis, California 93611 (209)297-3939 Southern California (Glendale and Cypress) Rick Jones 1011 Grandview Avenue Glendale, California 91201 DTSC office locations (618) 551-2862 Additional information on the Voluntary Cleanup Program and other DTSC Brownjzelds initiatives is available on D7SC's Internet web pabe: hti=p.//wrwzv.dtse.ca.Zov ....................................................................................................e..._...........................: August 1999 ...' 02113/2003 17:02 51028fs5559 CALTRANS TSS+^S Facsimile Routs Slip CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING 111 Grand Avenue, I ft Fluor .. 0shbrod, CA W12-3717 Y, bdatillou rK. P.O.Box 23630 Yok§w . CA 94623`]WO Total pages,kwAidlrg Route Shp:., �.__ L.._... L-4 --- orvk A29nq or Comperelr Depadrnent: f Fax V. Pot -5 a Not"Anstructicros: C�lent >=tarn: 'Name: Telephone X: Fax : (510) 286-5559, CAI NET 11-541-5553 >: For transmission problem, please call(5 10)286.5519:CALNET 6-541.561 S. it ._.<, v. ,.... .., w,.,�,..w 5.. _._ .ii;:'.6 ...✓:..:. .yr�:-: ... i �v::v. uv -' .�-.-,`ri,. _. •rw.ox.,,.,e. 02/13!2083 17:82 5102965559 CALTRA14S PAGE 02 P,o.max 2 OAKLAND,CA 94623-06W t510)2W4444 PUM VOWS MWI (510)286-4454 TD13 Stw�w�yyt. ItJ February 11, 2003 3 SCH2tXf112201.7 E•-� W.$"Hand City of daklvy =� 3633 Main Street Oakley,CA 94561 Cypress Grove--Notice of P n*warstiou(NOP) s Tbank ym for int u&*the Caiid'itr m tlqrsrtcrteatt of TTwWar Caton is the enviractrrltnttal tr Mesw room for the p wpcssed projea. We htrve mamined the Notice of Prepwadw and bm a the to oftr: Otw primary concwu with the grojea is the potentially signi$caw irupact it any have to tru f1e vtii61tm aid on- Is order to 6d*quaWy addrvu our womm reprding the operation of Statc R&Ae, 4, we re+corrawad a tragic impact analysis be pzoparod. 7U traffic impw aEnrFlyris should include,but not be finkul to the followft : 1. Infonnatim on the prajtaat's traffic knpacts in terms of trip goof mtwn, dwnNi xrn, and a3sigsrrnaw- The&s&w )600s and rrxChodologies used in compiW*this m&rcra bon 4wutd be f t adcfr+atmd. 2. Arresag+e Dgly"tractile(ADT)and AM aid PM peals btu vawnes on sl igaiflcarittly Ar uts m1d biAwsptt,iut d eros wow&acid cdntrottiltg ist 3. Schersatyt 111cnration of the ftft conditions for: 1)mislin& 2)mining plus projed, and 3) Mumulaty for the iWAUMM:s in the Projw . 4. Cttkagoim of wcadativt traffic votunm si>rr M cmx idw OR traffic- tasting dcYclopumts, i bo4h caMM said f num tit would sffiwt the Stege Dowry Uffitwe "Anted. wo*dft Nov** g4e h 02/13/2003 17:02 5102865553 LAi,.I MAN!! ru+ac v� fwr.awry hand/city at owd*7 PW2 $. Mtigadon raftuitres shm" considts wgbvmy mW not-bwmmy Lm rv+r=iCstJ and !av;m. pe" Aumbm *PmW bervmto the &vedopw4* of iitwnaw s"o d to a7irculau q Probima IbA do not ray 4m irstxeasird*Bbwity cotutrnctiom 6. AS mifiV Loa mumAres ptoposed should be flay disc w#td, i3icitiding firma ittg, sc#ie Wi DX tia'iplmiai nation 2'C4pormbal bew,WW low Agcy iTMJititOt'itag. We recoumnetA you udf'm CaknLns' "Gott$for dw Prepavwm of Trac Imp=r Stm&cs,, which can be accessed from the Wowing vwe'bpW: i'If�va�rw dast,��*�r�Y�t�Matt t than'B+ery/��li���r�eot't�s!'tis � We kook fo r'wwd to mmwing the DM for this project We do to rive a copy fru%the Sara but is order to aWahl a our vrAew, you maty Ked tiww cakpme in to: Lasa Carboni Of&tx of Transit and Ccinzacnvaity Plsn g Depannwra of Trumpotution,District 4 P.O, Bt%23660 Chid uad,CA 94623-0660 Should you roquire Harter ixaftat€xaatam ar have any questiom regording this Imer, pia aa:i<s cell Lisa Carboni, of my statff at(5 10)6224491_ ', Sirrc�atady, SABIX Norio Branch Cbief IGRICEQA C:Orion Grim(sow Clriti**ftw) .i ' \►\ CONTRA COSTA .tri. WATER DISTRICT �rrr.rr rrrr 1331 Concord Avenue P.O. Box H2O Concord,CA 84524 (925)688-8000 FAX(825)688-8122 February 20, 2003 k f Sent by Fax: (925) 625-9.794 1 Directors Joseph L.Campbell President Mr. Barry Hand Elizabeth R.Anelio Director Vice President Community Development City of Oakley Bette Boatmun 2629 Main Street r.,t James Pretti Oakley, CA 94561 i Walter J.Bishop General Manager Subject: Revised Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for t ' Cypress the Proposed C Grove Development Plan P Yp P Dear Mr. tj Thank you for the opportunity for the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) to review and comment on the revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) issued January 17, 2003. CCWD has been providing comments and has met with City staff and the developer on this project on numerous occasions since September 21, 2001. We are willing to meet with you to further discuss our comments. In our February 12, 2003 comments on the tentative maps, CCWD stated that it must have more detail on the project and how it may impact the canal. The Contra Costa Canal is located adjacent and parallel to the northern border of the Cypress Grove development. CCWD is aware of a number of land use changes planned for the East County area surrounding the canal, in addition to this development. CCWD is in the process of developing a long-range plan for modifying the canal in a way that protects CCWD's water supply and facilities as an area wide solution rather than a project-by-project approach. CCWD requests that the Cypress Grove Development be required to participate in this process and work to satisfy CCWD concerns in a manner consistent "I with the long-range plan. We believe this approach is in the best interest of all parties. The primary concern with the revised NOP is to ensure that the draft ETR.includes a project description and analysis that is as accurate and complete as possible. This will allow for the best possible environmental assessment of the project and for a timely inclusion request to the Central Valley Project for water service. i Mr. ;Barry Hand Community Development Director City of Oakley February 24, 2003 Page 2 { The Draft EIR should include an analysis of the following: 1) A thorough analysis of the potential impacts that the project could have on the canal and CCWD's water supply. Mitigation, if determined necessary, should be consistent with a long-range area-wide plan that looks at all of the planned land use changes for the area and determines the most effective protections for the canal, including replacing the canal with a buried pipe. 2) The purpose, design standards and potential impacts of the proposed flood control levee system on the canal ROW and existing canal embankment. CCWD does not understand how the developer has already apparently come to the conclusion that a levee system is the appropriate approach. 3) The storm water system, specifically its general design, routing, collection points and discharge locations with a particular emphasis on how this system will not adversely affect the canal. 4) Health and safety related impacts as well as any operational and maintenance related issues. CCWD is particularly concerned that adequate measures be presented that eliminate the added risk associated with having a large residential development in such close proximity to an open body of water. 5) The Draft EIR should address that a portion of the Cypress Grove development that is north of Cypress Road will require Reclamation approval for water service since it is not included in the CCWD service territory. We would be happy to work with you in a cooperative manner as you develop the Draft EIR to ensure that the final product addresses our issues in a way that, satisfies all concerned and avoids extensive rework. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact Mark Seedall at 925-688- 8119. Si cerely Jerry Br Director f Planning MSfrlr-3 cc: Robert Edwards, Chief Engineering,Maintenance and operations,USBR,Tracy Cay Goude, Assistant Field Supervisor,US Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Cindy Gnos, Rainey Planning and Management,Inc.,West Sacramento fW APPENDIX C f Initial Study i INIT 4L,STUDY I. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Cypress Grove 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Oakley i 3633 Main Street Oakley, CA 94561 i 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Owen Poole (925) 933-4928 i 4. Project Location: Cypress Road east of Highway 4 west of Sellers Avenue. City of Oakley Contra Costa County 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Owen Poole 151 Spyrock Court Walnut Creep, CA 94595 6 General Plan: Single Family Residential,High Density(SH); Multi-Family Residential,High Density(MH) 7. Zoning: General Agriculture(A2) and Heavy Agriculture(A3) ' 8. Project Description Summary: The proposed project consists of developing 147-acres of agriculture land surrounding an existing school into a residential community. The new community would provide 637 residential units. The proposed project would also include a two-acre neighborhood park located in the southern portion of the prof ect site adj acent to the multi-family development,a ? five-acre community park adjacent to the existing middle school,the extension of an existing trail system, and the infrastructure necessary to serve the development. April 2003 1 Initial Study II. SOURCES The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis: 1. Oakley 2020 General Plan Update Background Report, September 2001; and 2. Cypress Grove Design Guidelines,December 2001. 3. Oakley 2020 General Plan, City of Oakley,August 30, 2002. 4. Oakley 2020 General Plan Environmental Impact Report,City of Oakley,September, 2002. 5. Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010, Contra Costa County, 1996. 6. Contra Costa County General Plan EIR, September, 1990. 7. California Department of Conservation,Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance; Contra Costa County, 1995. 8. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County,California,US Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service, 1977. III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. x Aesthetics x Agriculture x Air Quality x Biological Resources x Cultural Resources x Geology/Soils x Hazards&Hazardous Materials x Hydrology/Water Quality x Land Use&Planning ❑ Energy&Mineral Resources x Noise x Population&Housing x Public Services x Recreation x Transportation&Circulation x Utilities/Service Systems x Mandatory Findings of Significance IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial study: Cl I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has April 2003 2 Initial Study j been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed ._ project,nothing further is required. Signature Date j, Printed Name For =t:r V. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION This initial study provides an environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Cypress Grove project. The applicant has submitted this application to the City of Oakley. The initial study contains an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proiect Location The proposed project site consists of 147-acres of vacant land located in the City of Oakley extending both north and south of Cypress Road, east of State Highway 4 and west of Sellers Avenue. The western edge of the property terminates at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 'j Company(BNSF)railroad and Marsh Creek,which is 600 feet east of the Highway 4 right-of-way. The site includes three major properties: the Williamson property(APN 037-192-017),the Conco property north of Cypress Road(APN 037-192-013 and 037-192-014),and the Conco property south of Cypress Road (APN 033-012-002). The Conco property south of Cypress Road would be developed as two parcels.The properties surround the Oakley Union School District's 33-acre school site.The school site currently contains a middle school(Delta Vista Middle School)and construction of an elementary school on the site is planned for the future. Project Components Three developers: D.R. Horton, Inc. (formerly Western Pacific Housing and Schuler Homes of California);IAB Horne South Bay, Inc.; and Pacific Communities, LLC plan to develop the project site.The development would include 637 residential units,with 541 single-family units developedby D.R. Horton, Inc. and KB Home South Bay, Inc., and 96 multi-family units developed by Pacific Communities, LLC. Details for each piece of property are outlined below. �_J Williamson Property:The Williamson property(64.7-acres)would be developed by D.R.Horton Inc. f j The Williamson Property,known as Subdivision 8680,would contain 240 single-family units. "-' April 2003 3 Initial Study Conco North Property: KB Home South Bay, Inc. would develop the Conco property north of Cypress Road. The Conco North Property,known as Subdivision 8679,would contain 201 single- family units. Conco South Prop rt . D.R. Horton and Pacific Communities of LLC would develop the Conco property south of Cypress Road. This property would be developed as two parcels with the western portion planned for approximately 95 multi-family units built by Pacific Communities LLC,and the eastern portion planned for 100 single-family detached units built by D.R.Horton.The Conco South Property is known as Subdivision 8578. An internal roadway and park amenity would separate the western multi-family community from the eastern single-family community. Discretionary Actions • Adoption of a Rezone from Agriculture(A2) and Heavy Agriculture (A3)to Planned unit District(P-1); • Approval of a Development Plan including Design Guidelines for the future development of the site; • Approval of a Parcel Map dividing 32.26 ac.into two parcels,creating a 6.55 ac.parcel for multi family development and a 25.71 ac.parcel for single family development(Subdivision 8678); • Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8678) to subdivide 32.35 acres into 100 single family lots (23.61 ac.),one lot for multi-family development(Parcel A; 6.55 ac.), and four parcels totaling 2.20 acres for park and open space and trails; • Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8679) to subdivide 49.95 acres into 241 single family lots (43.56 acres), one lot for a stormwater pond (Parcel A; 5.05 ac.), and 4 lots totaling 1.34 acres for Open Space and Trails; • Approval of a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8680)to subdivide 64.80 acres into 240 single family lots(54.95 ac.),one lot for a park(Parcel A; 5.19 ac.),and four lots totaling 4.56 acres for Open Space and.Trails; • Approval of Design Review of 100 homes in Subdivision 8578,consisting of four floor plans with three elevations each,ranging from 2,100 to 3,000 square feet; • Approval of Design Review of 201 homes in Subdivision 8579 consisting of five floor plans with three elevations each, ranging from 1,725 to 3674 square feet on large lots; • Approval of Design Review of 240 homes in Subdivision 8680,consisting of four floor plans with three elevations each,ranging from 1,900 to 2,600 square feet on the smaller lots, and three floor plans with three elevations each,ranging from 2,700 to 3,100 square feet on the larger lots; and • Approval ofDesign Review of 96 multi-family units developed in nine buildings,including a community building with units ranging from one to three bedrooms each. VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following Checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. Included in each discussion April 2003 4 1 Initial Stady 1 are project-specific mitigation measures recommended as appropriate as part of the Proposed Project. For this checklist,the following designations are used: Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified,an E;IR must bo prepared. Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the Impact to a less-than-significant level. Less-Than-Significant Impact:Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards. ,i No Impact: The project would not have any impact. a Ll I t x t '.0 c {� a.� i . i s f April 2003 5 Initial Study Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- Issues Significant With Significant No ,i Impact MitigationZnpact Ttt:pacE ? Incozporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project, j a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X ❑ vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, X ❑ p G including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual X p p ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare 39 ❑ p ❑ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion a-c. The Cypress Corridor east of Highway 4 is predominately open agricultural land and dairy farms. The proposed Cypress Grove project would transform the area into a residential community. Construction of structures such as houses and streetlights would change the current visual landscape from rural to urban. In addition,the construction of residences may diminish or decrease the views of Mount Diablo from Cypress Road. The Oakley 2020 General Plan states as one of its goals(goal 6.7)that the city wants to preserve and enhance views of Mount Diablo.The City of Oakley also wants to preserve other scenic resources and view corridors within the city (Oakley General Plan, p. 6-28). The proposed project may impact views ofMount Diablo and therefore would cause a potentially significant impact to aesthetics. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. d. The vacant area of agricultural land contains few sources of light. The proposed project would introduce new light sources into the area consisting primarily of street and residential lighting.The increased lighting would affect the present view,therefore causing a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. April 2003 6 Initial Study Potentially Potentially Significant $-Than- No Issues Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural ' resources are significant environmental effects, lead r. agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site.Assessment Model(19 77)prepared by the California.Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or © ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), r l as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the z. Farmland Mapping Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural X use, or a Williamson Act contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing % ❑ ❑ ❑ environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Discussion a,c. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California published by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1977), refers to the near-surface soils within the maj ority of the project area as belonging to the Sycamore silty clay loam(So)soil series.The near surface soils in the southwestern and northeastern portions of the project area are referred as belonging to the Delhi (DaQ soil series. The Department of Conservation identified the So soil series as soils that"meet the criteria for Prime Farmland as outlined in the U.S.Department of Agriculture's Land Inventory and Monitoring Project..."In addition, the Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map (2000) identified the majority of the project area as Prime Farmland. The Cypress Grove development would convert prime farmland to non-agricultural use, therefore creating a potentially significant impact to i existing farmland. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. b. The proposed proj ect would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract because the property is not under Williamson Contract.However,the proposed proj ect would conflict with current agricultural zoning of the project site. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur to existing.zoning as a result of the project. April 2003 7 Initial Scudo Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grave ElR.. I 8 April 2003 Initial Study j ` i Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- No Issues Significant With Significant Invact Impact Mitigation Impact IncoMotated t; III. AIR QUALIT Y. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make 1 the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air duality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air } quality violation? ai C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net yt ❑ ❑ ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a X ❑ ❑ ❑ j substantial number of people? Discussion. a-d. Air quality within the region is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The eastern portions of Contra Costa County are well ventilated by winds flowing through the Carquinez Straits and the Delta. The proposed project would add additional carbon monoxide and other particulate matter to the atmosphere during and after construction.The increased pollutants in the air may violate the air quality plan. Increased vehicle use would occur under the proposed project.Construction activities as well as additional traffic on Cypress Road would emit a considerable amount ofpollutants into the region. The project region consists mainly of open agricultural land. The number of sensitive receptors is limited to the students of the middle school located in the center of the project site. The proposed project would replace the agricultural land with residential units. The increase in population from the residential units would, in turn, increase the number of vehicular trips to and from the project site.The increase in vehicular trips would increase the i level of pollution in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact on air quality. April 2003 9 Initial Study i Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. e. The proposed project consists of developing a new residential community and does not consist of any facilities that would generate odors.As the proposed project would not include industrial or intensive agriculture use, odors or toxic air contaminants would not be generated. The property to the east of the project site has most recently been farmed to produce grains and other crops for a dairy that has recently been sold which is located northeast of the project site,across the Contra Costa Water District Canal.Although the dairy has been sold, agricultural operations may persist on the farmland to the east of the project site. The agricultural operations may involve unpleasant or offensive odors. Therefore, should the proposed project be approved,future residents may be exposed to objectionable odors.As a result,the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact to residents due to objectionable odors. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. 10 April 2003 Initial Study , , 7 Potentiauy Poten&uy sigawcant Less-Than- No Issues significant with significant Itriact hmact Mitigation Itmact Incorporated IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. r ' Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly X O a 0 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? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any X 17 0 0 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Came or CTS Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X p © D 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? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of X . 0 0 0 any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X 13 d 0 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 11 0 X p Habitat Conservation flan, Natural Conservation Community Flan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat Jj conservation plan? Discussion a-e The project site is currently fallow agricultural land. While the site has been used for agricultural purposes for many years,the possibility for animals or plants to still occupy the site exists.Therefore,the site should be examined for biological resources and habitats.The proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on biological resources within the project area. April 2003 11 Initial Study i Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove Ea. T.} f. According to the Contra Costa County General Plan, the proposed project is not within a habitat conservation plan area. The closest habitat conservation area is the Big Break Significant Ecological Resource Area,which supports the California black rail,a threatened bird according to the State of California. Because the project site is not within the area,the impact from the proposed project is less-than-significant. April 2003 12 ................._.............................................................................. ._........................................................................................................................ i Initial Study ' E Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- NO p. Issues Significant With Significant impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. { Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X d a significance of a historical resource as defined. in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X 0 C M significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique it paleontological resource on site or unique geologic features? w d. Disturb any human remains, including those X 13 � C� interred outside of formai cemeteries. V '#{ t .E Discussion a-d. The Contra Costa County General Plan Draft ETR defines cultural resources as the physical evidence of the past use of the land and may include such things as track deposits,grinding stones,house foundations, and tools which may indicate special use sites(g. 4.6-40). Sites with archaeological findings constitute an important non-renewable resource which have the potential of increasing our understanding of prehistoric cultures.Although,the Contra Costa County General Plan EIR does not indicate known sites of archaeological significance at the proposed project site,the Oakley 2020 General Background Report describes a rich history for the Oakley area.True to the rich history of the Oakley area,unknown cultural resources may exist in the proposed site that could result in a putentrially significant impact. Mitization Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. f April 2003 13 Initial Study Potentially Potentially Siccant Izss-Than- No Issues Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated i VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 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 X 13 ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? X ❑ ❑ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, X ❑ ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X ❑ ❑ 13 topsoil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X ❑ ❑ 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. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in X ❑ ❑ ❑ Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ !t the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion a-d. The proposed project is within a seismically active area.The Antioch Fault is located in the area.Furthermore,according to the Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR,the Oakley planning area is mostly in an area of generally high liquefaction potential (p. 3-163). The potential for damage to persons or buildings from seismic and/or geological conditions is potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. e. The proposed project is located within the Ironhouse Sanitary District and would tap into the existing sewer system serving the City of Oakley. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on soils supporting septic systems. April 2003 14 ........................................ ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................... _. __ Initial Study `l Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- NO Issues Significant With significant IT"Pact InVact Mitigation Itnpact Incorporated VII. HAZARDS ANIS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a, ...Create a significant hazard to the public or the )C ❑ d ❑ environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? r-n C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X ❑ ❑ ❑ or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or i., proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list ❑ ❑ ❑ r x of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. 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? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation pian? h, Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, p ❑ j injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? April 2003 15 'hutial Study i Discussion _ 1 a-c. The project area has been proposed for residential development. The future residents are anticipated to use typical household solvents and cleaners, pesticides,..fertilizers,. and petroleum products and yard equipment. While :these products may contain known hazardous materials, the volume of material would not create a significant hazard to the public through routine transport, use, or disposal and would not result in a reasonably f foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. An abandoned gas well is located on the Williamson Property.According to the Phase II Site Assessment,the well was abandoned in accordance with State of California,Division of Oil and Gas requirements. According to the Division, the well would need no further well abandonment activities.In addition to the gas well,an abandoned windmill well is located on the Williamson Property. Due to the fact that the well may not have been abandoned in accordance with Contra Costa County standards, the well may have an adverse effect on future residents of the Cypress Grove development. The remaining parcels were used for agricultural purposes.Pesticides may have been used on the project site, which may have seeped into the ground. During grading and construction activities, the ground would be disturbed and the pesticides might be released into the air. A school exists adjacent to the proposed project site. Due to the potential presence of pesticides, the school and/or future residents of the development may be exposed to hazardous materials during development of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact on school children and future residents as a result of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. d. The proposed project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would result in no impact to the public or the environment. e, f. The project site is not located within two miles of any public or private airports. Therefore, the development of the Cypress Grove project would result in no impact regarding safety issues related to airport use. g. The proposed project would not interfere with the existing emergency evacuation plan. Therefore,the proposed prof ect would have no impact on the existing emergency evacuation plan. h. The project area is in a rural and urban area.Wild lands do not exist in close proximity to the project area. The likelihood of wildfires in the project area is not significant. Therefore, wildfire would have no impact on the proposed project. April 2003 16 i Initial Study Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- No Issues Significant With Significant Inpact Impact Mitigation Impact T�otpora#ed, Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste it discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or © C 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 f a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses: for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1C a 0 G' of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern d 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? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would at © 13 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? )t © 0 0 g. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as )t 0 ❑ C3 i._ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures it 0 l which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk is 0 © D of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami,or mudflow? 0 0 April 2003 17 Initis!Study Discussion a,£ The proposed project would create impervious surfaces where none previously existed.The increase in impervious surfaces would allow pollutants to runoff and flow_downweam from j the project site.Therefore,the proposed project would.have;a potentially significant impact on water quality. u Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. b. The proposed project would create additional impervious surfaces,which may interfere with the ability of water to seep into the aquifer and replenish the groundwater supplies. Therefore,the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact on groundwater supplies. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. c-e. The project would create impervious surfaces on the project site. The impervious surfaces could alter the drainage patterns of the project site. Therefore,the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact on existing drainage patterns. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. g-i. Substantial areas within Contra Costa County are subject to flooding. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicates a majority of the county's creeps and shoreline areas lie within the I00-year flood plain.The proposed project is located within an area of the 100-year flood plain as depicted in figure 8.3 in the Oakley 2020 General Plan. Areas deemed to be within the 100-year flood plain are subject to flooding during a storm likely to occur once every one hundred years. Therefore, the impact of flooding on the proposed project would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. j. A tsunami is a sea wave caused by submarine earth movement.A seiche is an oscillation of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea.The project site is not in close proximity to the ocean, a land locked sea or lake to be at risk from inundation from these phenomena.In addition,the land is relatively flat and has a low risk of suffering from mudslides.Therefore,the potential impact from these phenomena is less-than-significant. April 2003 18 j Initial Study Potentiauy PotentiallyLess-fihan- Issues Significant Significant Significant No With Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Impact IX. LAT USE AND PLANNING. M.. Would the projects r: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑LA ? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, X ❑ ❑ ❑ policies, or regulations 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 on environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat X Q ❑ ❑ conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? Discussion a. An established community does not exist within the project site.The project site is currently undeveloped fallow farmland, except for a middle school and an abandoned residence. Therefore, the Cypress Grove project would transform a vacant area into a residential community. Subsequently, the development of the site would result in no impact on the physical arrangement of an existing community. b,c. The proposed project would change the designation of 147 acres of agricultural land to residential uses.As indicated above,the proposed project is not within a habitat conservation plan.However,the impact of the proposed project on applicable land use plans,policies,or regulations could.be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. ; t t_3 E , t April 2003 19 Initial Study Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- Issues Significant With Significant No , Impact .- Mitigation Impact,,.,.,. mac` j InCOIgQZaieiii; .. 1 X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ x mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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 a,b The Contra Costa County General Plan EIR indicates that mineral resources do not exist within the project area. The project would not reduce the availability of mineral resources because the region does not encompass any existing mineral resources;therefore no impact would occur. April 2003 20 Initial Study Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- No Issues Significant With Significant Inpact Impact Mitigation Irrpact Incorporated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the j local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of X ❑ ❑ ❑ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient % ❑ p ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels # existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ❑ ❑ ❑ z . ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ �t plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two 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? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ )t airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the proj ect area to ; i excessive noise levels? Discussion a-d. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. For most people,the usual consequences of noise are associated with speech interference,distractions at home and at work,disturbance with rest and sleep,and disruption of recreational pursuits. Although the majority of the area to the east,west, and north of the project site is undeveloped and would not be disturbed by noise,a middle school is surrounded by the project site and the Oakley Union School District has plans to open an elementary school at a future date.The school is considered a sensitive receptor and noise levels generated by the proposed project may adversely impact the students. Short-term noise levels would increase substantially with an influx of trucks, machines,and people during the construction process. In addition, a permanent increase in noise levels would occur mainly due to the addition of motor vehicles and people in the residential neighborhoods. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway($NSF) railroad runs along the southwestern boundary of the proposed project. Residential development near the project site may be April 2003 21 Initial Study disturbed by the noise and vibration of trains using the railroad. Therefore, the proposed project would have short and long term potentially significant r'� impacts on noise levels. # Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. e,f The project site is not located near an existing airport and is not within an area covered by an existing airport land use plan. Therefore,development of the site would result in no impact regarding airport noise generation. April 2003 22 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Initial Study r , I I Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- No Issues Significant with sigaiiicant Impact 11mact Mitigation hmact Incorporated XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project. a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, D D 7i ❑ either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people, d © 0 )t necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion a. An impact is considered significant if the project would induce substantial growth that is inconsistent with the approved land use plan for the area. The proposed project would construct a community of neighborhoods with 637 residential units.However,the proposed i project is within the projected growth of the City. The issues of land use and compatibility, public services, and growth inducement will be addressed in the EIR. Furthermore, the Oakley 2020 General Plan Land Use Map is consistent with the proposed project. Because the proposed project is within the projected growth of the City of Oakley, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. ii b,c. The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or persons because the land is vacant. The project would have no impact on existing housing. � l ,f April 2003 23 hutial Study Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- No Issues Significant with significant impact Mwttgation impact ` Incorporated, XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would theproject result in substantial adversephysical 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 public services: a. Fire protection? D G b. Police protection? © 0 c C. Schools? 0 0 0 d. Parks? .Discussion a, b. The proposed project would require the construction of 637 residential units, thereby resulting in an increase in the population of the City of Oakley. The increased population would increase the need for additional police and fire personnel. Therefore, the proposed project would create a potentially significant impact on police and fire protection. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EM- C. The City of Oakley is served by Oakley Union School District and Liberty Union School District. The four elementary schools in the Oakley Union Elementary School District are over capacity limits and the two middle schools are currently serving over 90 percent of their capacity(Oakley 2020 General Plan, p. 3-93). The proposed residential community would potentially intensify crowding of the existing school; therefore this would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove ESR.. d. The proposed project would result in the construction of 637 residential units.The additional residential units would increase the population of the project area and in turn, the City of Oakley's population. The increase in population would result in the increased need for recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact to recreational facilities. Mitigationm Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR.. April 2003 24 Initial Study Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- No Issues Significant With significant I Tact Impact Mitigation Impact t .Innorpasated ...... XIV. RECREATION. Would the project; j a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and X ❑ ❑ 13 regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational. facilities X 0 ❑ p or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion r . a,b. The proposed project would result in the construction of 637 residential units.The additional :l residential units would increase the papulation of the project area and in turn, the City of Oakley's population. The increase in population would result in the increased need for recreational facilities.Therefore,the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact on recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. 'i t _I 1 April 2403 25 Initial Study Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- No issuesSignificant With significant Irsrpact InVact Mitigation lZmact Incorporated XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project: j a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial ❑ in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a )t ❑ level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. 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? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ X g. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting X ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion a,b. The proposed project consists of 637 residential units on the north and south side of Cypress Road, east of State Highway 4. The proposed development is expected to generate 5,745 daily trips, 449 during the morning peak hour and 598 during the evening peak hour(TJKM Transportation Consultants). With the addition ofproject generated traffic,the intersections evaluated would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service in the near-term future. However,under the Year 2025 scenarios,the project would be partially responsible for the degradation of various intersections to unacceptable levels of service. Therefore,the long- term impacts of the proposed project on traffic volumes and levels of service would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. April 2003 26 ! Initial Study c. The proposed project is not near any airports nor is it within the normal flight path of any airports. Therefore,the proposed project would have no impact on air traffic. d. The Tentative baps of the proposed project illustrate the layout-of.the three different Subdivisions of the project around existing streets and intersections The proposed project would result in an increase in traffic at existing intersections. Therefore,the project could cause potentially significant impacts to existing intersections,thereby,increasing hazards. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove ETR.. e,f. The proposed project would primarily be residential in nature. Residential units generally provide their own parking. Additionally, the proposed project requires a zoning change. Therefore,the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on parking and emergency access. g. The proposed project would place 637 residential units in an area used primarily for agricultural purposes.The additional residential units would increase the population within the project area and within. the City of Oakley. The increase in population may cause an increase in use of and need for public transportation, therefore a potentially significant impact would occur. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove ETR. f t i i z.v J 4 April 2003 27 Initial Study i Potentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- Issues No with Significant I Impact Mitigation lsnpact invact In'eorpbrated J XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of Xt U P C7 the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new Xi d II II water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new XC II 0 II storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to Xt II p II serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements ,needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater XC II G1 II 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? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted Xt II C II capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X II d J and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion a-g. The proposed project would add 637 residential units to an area that is currently undeveloped. The additional residential units would require additional water service, wastewater service,and solid waste removal service.The need for additional services would be a potentially significant impact to the existing environment of the project site. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR.. April 2003 28 Initial Study i Potantiatiy Potentially significant Less-Than- Issues significant With significant No Impact Mitigation Invact invact Incorporated XII. MANDATORY.FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade X ❑ ❑ ❑ + the qualityof the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, i cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of 171 California history or prehistory? E- b. Does the project have the potential to achieve ❑ ❑ ❑ X short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? C. Does the 'project have impacts that are ii ❑ ❑ ❑ ' individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fixture projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects X ❑ ❑ ID which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a. The proposed project would change the project site from vacant agricultural land to residential development.The change may adversely impact important habitats on the project site and could potentially harm endangered,threatened and/or special status plant or animal species. Furthermore, as residential development is constructed on the project site, any s archeological resources that are beneath the project site could be disturbed. Therefore, the proposed project would cause a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. f April 2003 29 Initial Study b. The proposed project is part of a long-range residential development plan for the City of Oakley and the surrounding region.Therefore,it does not sacrifice long-term environmental goals to achieve short-term goals, and no impact would result. C. The proposed project may have impacts that are individually liited`bnt cumulatively considerable,for example,the addition of traffic to the City of Oakley and the conversion of Prime Farmland. The'impact from the proposed project along with the impacts from other future projects in the Cypress Corridor would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove ETR. d. During construction,the proposed project would increase the level of particulate material in the region as well as degrade the air quality. The air quality would be impacted during construction and operation(increased vehicle trips and grading). The project site was also used for agricultural purposes as late as 1996; therefore, pesticides may have been used. These pesticides in the ground would be disturbed during grading operations.Furthermore, the proposed project area is adjacent to active farming operations, which also may use pesticides. Construction workers and residents on the project site maybe exposed to these pesticides. Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact to humans. Mitigation Measures Further analysis of this impact will be included in the Cypress Grove EIR. April 2003 30 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................ ...... ........ ....... PPENDIX D 7777 , ly r i i t � t i i I Transportation Consultants R V[SED DRAFT Traffic Impact Analysis For the Cypress Grove Properties ,f In City of Oakley November 26, 2002 ; 1 -..Y P L E A S A N T 0 N S A N T A R 0 S A r ; REVISED DRAFT - i „ 1 Traffic Impact Analysis For the Cypress Grove Properties In the City of Oakley November 26, 2002 Prepared by: TJKM Transportation Consultants 5960 Inglewood drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton CA 94588-2721 Tel: 925.463.06€1 Fax: 925.463.3690 L:: j-1 u6sdidoMoloakle)A270-008 cypressVl12602 draM.doc I ............................................................... .. ._...................................................................................................................................................... ........... i, TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTIONAND SUMIYIAI2Y..............................................................„................................................I INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................................3 OTHERISsUES....................................................................................................................................................3 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................................4 LANDUSE..........................................................................................................................................................4 TRIPGENERATION.............................................................................................................................................4 j "TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT.............................................................................................................4 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS .....,.......................................................................................................................4 .. INTERSECTIONCAPACITY ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................4 EXISTINGCONDITIONS...............................................................................................................................».6 TRANSPORTATIONNETWORKS...........................................................................................................................6 LANDUSE. .......................................6 TRANSITSERVICE..............................................................................................................................................6 :.. RAILROAD CROSSING ON CYPRESS ROAD........................................................................................................—6 IIS"£ERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS.......................................,........................,...................................7 MACTSOF APPROVED PROJECTS.........................................................................................................9 OAKLEY UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.............................................................................................9 TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT................................. ................ ....................................I...................I.....9 RAILROAD CROSSING ON CYPRESS ROAD.................................................. ......................................................9 INTERSECTIONLEVELS OF SERVICE.„.............................................................................................................. 10 IMPACTSOF PROPOSED PROJECT..........................................................................................................16 PROJECTDESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................... 16 TRIPGENERATION...........................................................................................................................................16 ".GRIP ASSIGNMENT........................................................................................................................................... 16 RAILROAD CROSSING ON CYPRESS ROAD....................................................... ................................................ 16 tLEVELS OF SERVICE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................20 YEAR.2025 CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................................22 EAST COUNTY TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL- 22 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ASSUMPI IONS............................................................................................22 RAILROAD CROSSING ON CYPRESS ROAD........................................................................................................22 NOPROJECT CONDITIONS......................... ........................,......................,.................................................22 WITHPROJECT CONDMONS............................................................................................................................27 ADDITIONALISSUES......................................................„...........................................................................31 s' CYPRESS ROAD CORRIDOR DESIGN GUIDELINES.............................................................................................31 r.:a CYPRESS ROAD BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND PROJECT ACCESS.....................................................................31 RAILROAD CROSSING AT CYPRESS ROAD........................................................................................................31 MARSH CREEK BRIDGE AT CYPRESS ROAD/RECREATIONAL TRAII.................................................................31 MAIN STREET(SR-4)/CYPRESS ROAD FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT..............................................32 CYPRESS ROAD CORRIDOR SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM..........................................................................32 SIGHT DISTANCE(MAIN STREEVROSE AVENUE)............................................... .........................................34 TURNPOCKETS ON STREET A..........................................................................................................................34 LEFT—TURN POCKETS AT CYPRESS ROAD/STREET B........................................................................................34 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES..............................................................................................34 MITIGATIONIYIEASURES.. .................................................... ...............................................................37 NEAR—TERM MITIGATION................................................................................................................................37 sCUMULATIVE MITIGATION...............................................................................................................................37 LIST OF TABLES TABLE L INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-EXISTING CoNmTioNs.................................... .............................7 TABLE 11. APPRovEi)PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ................... ....................................................................... 10 TABLE M INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-EXISTING PLUS APPROVED CONDITIONS................................... 15 TABLE IV: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION................ ......... ........................ 16 TABLE V: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-EXISTING PLUS APPROVED**PLUS***PROJECT"*C"0*"N'*D"I'T"1'0"*NT'S'...'."...'.'21 TABLE VI: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL of SERVICE-YEAR 2025 WrrHoTiT PROJECT............................27 TABLE VII: PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-YEAR 2025 WITH PROJECT...............__._..........30 TABLE VIII: CYPRESS ROAD CORRIDOR SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM.........................................................34 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE1: VICINITY MAP......................................................................................................................................2 FIGURE 2: EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES..........................................................................................8 FIGURE3: APPROVED PROJECTS ......................................................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 4: SCHOOL TRIP DISTRIBUTION.............................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 5: EXISTING+APPROVED TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUME'S................................................................... 14 FIGURE6: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 7: PROJECT TRIP DISTRI13UTION.............................................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 8: EXISTING+APPROVED+PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES................................................. 19 FIGURE9: FUTURE LAND USE.............................................................................................................................23 FIGURE 10: YEAR 2025 TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES...................................................................................24 FIGURE 11: ROADWAY CONFIGURATION.............................................................................................................26 FIGURE 12: YEAR 2025+PROJECTS TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES...............................................................28 FIGURE iii: MAIN/CYPRESS CONCEPTUAL FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT.............................................33 FIGURE 14: GEOMETRIC CONFIGURATION AT SCHOOL DRIVEWAY.....................................................................35 FIGURE 15: PROPOSED TILUFIC CALMING MEASURE LOCATIONS......................................„,..,............,.............36 APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS OCTA SIGNALIZED METHODOLOGY I APPENDIX.$: DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS UNSIGNALIZED METHOD APPENDIX C: RESULTS OF THE IN'T'ERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS APPENDIX D: RESULTS OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS APPROVED CONDITIONS APPENDIX E: RESULTS OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS APPENDz"X F: RESULTS OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS YEAR 2025 WTi ou-,r PROJECT CONDITIONS APPENDIX G: RESULTS OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS YEAR 2025 PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS APPENDIX H: RESULTS OF THE ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS YEAR 2025 WITH&WITHOUT PROJECT APPENDIX 1: CYPRESS ROAR CORRIDOR SIGNAL INTERCONNECT SYSTEM i , I INTRODUMON AND SU D4ARY Introduction This report presents the results of a traffic impact analysis for the proposed Cypress Grove Properties in the City of Oakley. The properties to be developed are located both on the north side and the south side of Cypress Road east of State Route 4. The project site is illustrated in Figure 1. The proposed development consists of 555 single-family homes and approximately 100 condominium/apartment units. The development to the north of Cypress Road surrounds a newly constructed middle school,which opened in the fall of 2001. According to the Oaldey Union Elementary School District,an elementary school will be built in 2004 adjacent to the middle school. This traffic analysis for the Cypress Grove Properties'focuses on the project-related impacts at the following study intersections as.shown in Figure 1: ,r 1. Main Street(SR4)/Rose Avenue 2. Main Street(SR-4)/Cypress Road l 3. Main Street(SR4)/Laurel Road 4. Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue 5. Cypress Road/Street A 6. Cypress Road/Street B 7. Main Street f Almond Tree Circle S. Main Street/Bernard Road 9. Cypress Road/Machado Lane Three near-term scenarios were addressed in the study: • Existing Condition—The current(200 1)traffic volumes and roadway conditions were evaluated. • Existing plus Approved Projects Condition—This scenario evaluates conditions based on existing traffic conditions plus the addition of the traffic generated by the approved projects that might affect the study intersections. • Existing plus Approved plus Project Condition—This scenario is identical to the "Existing plus Approved"scenario but with traffic added from the proposed project. Two long-term cumulative scenarios were also evaluated: • Year 2025 Condition—Future traffic conditions at the study intersections were projected based on"Eastern Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model"developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. • Year 2025 plus Project Conditions—This scenario is identical to the"Year 2025"scenario but with traffic added from the project. Cypress Grove Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page ? TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 .......................................................................................... - ........................................................................................................................................................................_. 0 z Z � CIO IT NI N. ssoli r :I. t r o 1 tr tt � tw t d ctS 7, '+ to WA { t t d 1 Summary Wear-Term Scenarios Under the near-term condition,the study found the following intersection to be operating 3 unacceptably without the addition of project traffic: • Main Street/Cypress Road f-y Our analysis also indicated that the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the existing study intersections. Year 20125,Scenarios Under the Year 2025 scenarios,the project was found to be partially responsible for mitigation measures at the following study intersections and roadway segment: C' • Main Street/Cypress Road d Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue Cypress Road between Maim Street and Project Access l Potential mitigation measures were identified for all impacted intersections and roadway segments under these scenarios. Other Issues The proposed project will be partially responsible for improving the following transportation facilities: • Railroad Crossing at Cypress Road ` i ?Marsh Creek Bridge at Cypress Road • Cypress Road and Street A • Cypress Road and Street B Potential mitigation measures were identified for these impacted intersections and roadway segments. f_'9 : t ri j t Cypress Grove Properties Trak Impact Analysis Page 3 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26,2002 METHODOLOGY One of the primary focuses of this traffic study is to compare intersection levels of service before and after the proposed project traffic has been added to the street system. The methodology used is based on the process approved by the City of Oakley and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Land Use Approved projects consist of developments that are either under construction,are built but unoccupied or partially occupied,or that are unbuilt but have final development plan approval from the City. Approved projects are used to forecast short-term traffic conditions. All approved projects analyzed in this report are assumed to be built and fully occupied in the future traffic scenarios. The traffic generated by the already occupied portions of any development is accounted for in the r existing turning movement counts. The future traffic from unoccupied portions of approved projects was analyzed by a trip generation, distribution and assignment process to determine future peak hour flows at the study intersections. Trip Generation Trip generation is defined as the number of one-way vehicle trips produced by a particular land use or study site. The trips generated by West Cypress Properties were estimated based on the rates , contained in Trip Generation, Sixth Edition,published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution is the process of determining in what proportion vehicle trips will travel between different locations within a traffic study area. Trip assignment is the allocation of-vehicle trips to available routes(local streets)between locations in the traffic study area. For the purpose of this study,project traffic was distributed to the roadway system manually based on existing travel patterns. Future traffic generated by approved and build out developments was distributed and assigned to the local street system using the"Eastern Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model, which takes into account likely peak hour route choices. Roadway Improvements 1 l The analysis of the future scenarios assume that key roadway improvements will be completed or partially completed in the study area. Intersection Capacity Analysis The level of service measurement is a qualitative description of traffic operating conditions for intersections and roadways. Levels of service describe these conditions in terms of such factors as speed,travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,comfort,convenience and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations ranging from A to F. Level of Service(LOS)A indicates free-flow conditions with little or no delay and LOS F indicates congested conditions with excessive delays and long backups. Separate methodologies are used to determine levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections. Cypress Greve Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 4 TJKM'Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 Signalized Intersections The operating conditions at the signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization Method adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(OCTA). Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as volume-to-capacity(v/c)ratios with corresponding Lai. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix A. r" Unsignalized Intersections i The operating conditions at the unsignalized study intersection were evaluated using the method contained in Chapter 10 of 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This method calculates the average delay at the intersection,as well as the highest minor movement delay,with corresponding levels of service. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix B. i lI 2C.. i 1 i t t ) Y j j I k_ J Cypress Grove Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 5 TJKM Transportation. Consultants November 26, 2002 ......... ........ .................................................................................................................. EXISTING CONDITIONS Transportation Networks State Route 4 (Main Street) is a two-lane major arterial that carries approximately 24,300 vehicles per s M1`1 day. It is the only major north-south transportation corridor in the vicinity of the project that provides direct access from Oakley to the greater Bay Area to the west and link between Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County to the east. Along both sides of SR-4 between Rose Avenue and Laurel Road are mixed residential/conunercial!agricultural land uses. The posted speed limit on SR-4 west of Rose Avenue is 35 miles per hour(mph),45 mph between Rose and Bernard Road and 40 mph south of Bernard Road Cypress Road is a two-lane residential arterial west of SR-4 and two-lane rural road east of 5R-4. The posted speed limit on Cypress Road is 50 mph east of SR-4. Laurel Road is a two-lane residential collector street with residential and vacant land fronting on both sides. Rose Avenue is a two-lane residential street with a 30 mph posted speed limit. ;._ Sellers Avenue is a two-lane rural road with residential lots south of Cypress Road and farmlands to t the north. Land Use The project site is currently situated on fallow land. The land use on the east side of the project are primarily farmlands. The Contra Costa Canal divides the project and farmlands to the north. Marsh Creek separates undeveloped land and the project on the west side. Santa Fe Railroad track runs through the southern limit of the project with partially developed residential area on one side and the project on the other. Transit Service Transit service in the area is provided by Tri-Delta Transit with three lines connecting Brentwood and the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station. Route 391 operates during the commute hours on weekdays and Route 392 operates on weekends only. Both routes travel through local streets in Brentwood, Oakley and Antioch. Route 300 is an express route on Highway 4 with only four stops between Brentwood and the BART station. In the vicinity of the project, all three lines have bus stops located j at the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection. r, Railroad Crossing on Cypress Road 5 3 Railroad tracks cross Cypress Road at grade approximately 630 feet east of Main Street and 455 feet west of Street B. TJKNlrabserved-on May 30,2001 that only brie train during Elie a.ffi peak'hour and three trains during the p.m.peak hour cross Cypress Road. The a.m.peak hour train caused 42 seconds of delay and an eastbound queue of four vehicles on Cypress Road. The p.m.peak hour trains caused a maximum delay of 99 seconds and an eastbound queue of 18 vehicles. The p.m.peak hour queue extended to Main Street with two of the 18 vehicles stopped on Main Street. f Cypress Grove Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 6 T JKM Transportation Consultants November 26,2002 Intersection Level of Service Analysis i Turning movement counts for the a.m, and p.m.peak hours for all study intersections were conducted by TJKM on April 4,2001. Figure 2 illustrates the existing peak hour turning movements for the study intersections. Table I summarizes the results of the intersection analysis for existing conditions.All study intersections as a whole are operating at LDS A. Although the one-way stop controlled intersection of Main Street/Rose Avenue operates at LOS A overall,the stop-controlled movement(northbound Rose Avenue)operates unacceptably at LOS E and F during the peak hours. However,this fl , intersection currently does not meet Caltrans' peak hour signal warrant. The City should monitor this intersection for further level of service deterioration. TABLE I: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-EXISTING CONDrrioNS A.M.Peak Hour ? P.M. Peak Noor i I ' -., E ID intersection Control * LOS * LOS 1 Main St{Rte 4}/Rose Ave STOP One-Way 1.4 A 1.6 A (40.1) (1_) (79.4) ? (F) n 2 j Main St(Rte 4)1 Cypress Rd Signal 0.40 A 0.47 A E 3 ' Main St(Rte 4)1 Laurel Rd j Signal 0.46 A 0.44 1, A 4 Cypress Rd I Sellers Ave Signal 0.31 A 0.37 A 5 Street A I Cypress Rd*" nla n1a nla nla n/a 6 Street B 1 Cypress Rd** nla nla i nla nla n1a One-Way 0.5 j A 0.2 A 7 Main St(Rte 4)1 Almond Tree Cir STOP i {10.7} (C) (12.5} (C) s 8 i Main St(Rte 4)1 Bernard Rd Ona-Way ? 0.2 A 0.1 i A ? STOP (11.1) (C) (7.4) (B) 9 l Cypress Rd I Machado!n One-Way 0.1 A 0.1 A E STOP (7.7) " Average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignalized intersections&volume to capacity(V/C}ratio for signalized intersections. *" Street A and B at Cypress Road do not exist under this scenario. (X) Average stopped delay for the minor movement in seconds per vehicle. LDS Level of service The detail calculation of the level of service analysis for the Existing Condition are included in Appendix C. J Cypress Grove Properties Trafo Impact Analysis Page 7 TJKM T ransportation Consultants November 26, 2002 _ _ r wiJi CF :� co c: tqr N!ljr c as e 13919fst ,.»4L4 g�fir, (gz)8E c 16 »� /c# �► �C US t 7 68 � u jt--06)t4 c Lot194�► rri m X955}t+S9 0 t la-i► END- C-4 is � tsz}at�t .9 { t�}stt't (v zt 7tI ti � D_> r� i # # 'BAY Sd2l135 a i # � r» N'1OQYHOYN r-1 } # 16'1f m w NIYN 3 ` W Co � a . -*ues)Lvs ( }L \ CD {LL9}o5S-► rrr '3nY 3SOU ,r a jrOt}LZ # 0 '9AWV8VKO IM E � VINTAGE PKVY1 # u » o ti cn zo # IL # a raa O fh • L IMPACTS OF APPROVED PROJECTS Traffic from currently approved but not yet constructed nor occupied developments located within the City of Oakley were added to the study intersections for this scenario. A total of eight projects were 3' identified for inclusion in this analysis, as shown in Figure 3,based on information provided by the City. These projects include potential development projects on the unbuilt or unoccupied land near the project. The projects represent the most intensive land development that may occur on their respective sites. Some of the sites could be developed with less intense land uses with lower trip generation. Oakley Union Elementary School District The proposed development to the north of Cypress Road will encompass a middle school and a proposed elementary school that are adjacent to each other. The middle school.with a maximum capacity of 800 students,opened in the fall of 2001. The elementary school will be built in 2004 with �.----....,..._r. a maximum capacity of 660 students. According to the School District,these two schools may ultimately be consolidated into a middle school with 1,400 students in the future. Students from the proposed development will be attending the school as well. Street A,one of the two access points for the proposed project to and from Cypress Road,will also be the primary access for school traffic. i�- r- Trip Generation and Assignment The trip generation rates for the approved project were derived based on information contained in ?rip Generation, Sixt/7 Edition,published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Both schools are considered as approved projects and their trip generation rates are based on observations conducted by TJKM of other similar schools in the East Bay. Approved project trip distributions for approved residential projects are based on existing commute patterns. The trip distribution assumptions for the schools are based on the location of the homes that will be 3 served by the schools. Figure 4 illustrates the school trip distribution. Table H illustrates the estimated trip generation for the approved projects. Railroad Crossing on Cypress Road The approved projects are expected to generate 833 eastbound trips on Cypress Road during the p.m.. peak hour. Using a peak hour factor of 0.90,the eastbound queue waiting for a train to cross Cypress Road in 99 seconds(maximum delay observed under existing condition)will add approximately 25 vehicles to the existing queue. Therefore,the eastbound queue at the railroad track is expected to increase to 43 vehicles,with 16 stopped on Cypress Road and 27 on Main Street. One solution is to allow adequate storage for waiting vehicles on Main Street that spill over from the Cypress Road queue. This could be accomplished by widening and/or re-stripe Main Street. If the railroad gates arras were down for 42 seconds during the a.m. peak hour,the westbound and eastbound queue are expected to be 18 and 11 vehicles,respectively. These queues are based on a 0.90 peak hour factor, and should not extend to the adjacent intersections. Cypress Grove Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 9 T JKM Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 _... - .......................................................................... _ _ _ _........ ....................... ....... j TABLE Ii: APPROVED PRoJECT TRiP CENER 4TioN Use Size i ©alt A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Rate Tris Rate /n:Out to Out Total Rafe in:Out In Out Total Tract 7797 i 98 du 9.57 938 0.75 25:75 18 55 74 1.01 64:36 63 36 99 �. Tract 6963 197 du 9.57 1,885 0.75 25:75 37 111 148 1.01 64:36 127 72 199 ' Tract 7689 225 du 9.57 .2,153 0.75 25:75 42 127 169 1.01 64:36 145 82 227 �3 Tract 6968 42 du 9.57 402 0,75 25:75 8 24 32 1.01 64:36 27 15 42 ,= Tract 8403 i 74 du 9.57 708 0.75 25:75 14 42 56 1.01 64:36 48 27 75 Tract 7658 44 du 9.57 421 0.75 25:75 8 25 33 1.01 64.36 28 16 44 Tract 7630 127 du 9.57 1,215 0.75 25:75 24 71 95 1.01 64:36 82 46 128 Tract 7662 251 du 9.57 2,402 0.75 25:75 47 141 188 1.01 64:36 162 91 254 - Cypress Lake* 1,330 du n/a 12,017 n/a n/a 268 580 848 n/a n/a 740 451 1,191 ` Middle School 800 stu nla nfa 1.06 53:47 449 399 846 0.97 47:53 365 411 776 Elementary 600 stu n/a n/a 0.99 54:46 321 273 594 0.90 46:54 250 290 540 4 School Total nla 1,236 9,848 3,085 2037 1,537 3,575 Rate Source: Trip Generation, Sixth edition,Institute of Transportation Engineers t *=Traffic generation taken from Cypress Lake EIR Traffic Impact Study,Abrams Associates du=dwelling units Intersection.Levels of Service Figure 5 illustrates the projected peak hour turning movement volumes for the "Existing plus Approved Project"scenario. With the addition of the approved project traffic to the existing traffic volumes, six of the eight study intersects are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. The following intersections would degrade to unacceptable levels of service: Main StreetlCypress Road—The level of service at this intersection is expected to fall 17 i below LOS during the peak hours. The southbound Main Street approach has one left- turn lane,two through lanes and one right-turn lane. The northbound Main Street approach has one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through and right-turn. lane. The intersection could be mitigated to an acceptable level of service by restriping the northbound approach to contain two left-turn lanes,one through lame,and one right- turn lane. The southbound approach restriped with two left-turn lanes, one through lane, E and one shared through and right-turn lane. `} Cypress RoadlStreet A—This signalized intersection is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the a.m.peak hour. However,it is expected to operate at LOS C with widening of Cypress Road to provide one additional through lane in the eastbound and westbound direction. i Similar to Existing Conditions,the intersection of Main Street/Rose Avenue is expected to operate l acceptably overall,but the minor street Rose Avenue is expected to operate unacceptably during the peak hours. Since this intersection is not expected to meet Caltrans' peals hour signal warrant,it is recommended that the City continue to monitor this intersection for any unanticipated delay. Cypress trove Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 10 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26,2002 i The overall level of service at Cypress Road/Machado is expected to operate at LOS A,but Machado Street,the minor movement at this intersection is expected to operate unacceptably during the p.m. peak hour. This intersection is not expected to meet Caltrans'peak hour signal warrant. i F f.t i i � r. 7 i Cypress Grove Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page I I TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26= 2002 _._ __......__......................... 1 ii {j s- `� Ln N t3. '-' , C # / a a m Rt /� apt �','+s's} 'iti co 0 l � 'AY SGOW } e—" t f I 3 � v7 � ON � LJ ti +40 — 0 m p fJ t LA . 4-0 � � v u " ' �nro straw ,'f c ci ID � a. fti CL 0 0 CL cn is vs F w— LU C � i E mz m I I `N SFfB` MS ; LL I 'NI OOVHOYIN 06, V � l tr d fz t�f 1S NNW ul i w \ t I � f .3AV V8VH.0 c I Q 1 i ...* Ll i 52 � 0 CL tu I iii 3 0 , 0 z y-+ E mz f � 0 , �r NIOQVHOYIN z I �.. c LO m Al SO i # CGS EC to "1S NIVA 1 � o° \ s _y 0 0 � � \ 0 � CL \ �r r '3nV 3Soh! ti m n a: A► LA,4-&6 M \ u�j c 96 .[-t(lsL}Ors A ` iLtl�(aa) \ {LZ)D t > z t \ o (SLS) C E h� I _ 1 i 1 virrracs a+cvvv I � ` CL Ai z a:'J � t C', tl 1 . 0 ' CL tt a cv tit 9bb) 89)9? 5:..:. m "r tit_L}t t C a�n .4- 964)Lti S p 899 ft ti m t .�. 9l 8z)9E I1 9}LOt Al l,► �M,23 rpt0 �k )r'{�t71}OM� Es9 Eob �!�+' t9 tt}98 � ; (z)s! 095 984-I� C (EgL}V£8-*- � � f 9}b t-► ��i e �} :h �`r ess a� Cft t }fit 711 LQt 9tz 1 a eve c _ �l tli ! CJ W I i' The results of the levels of service analysis for this scenario are given in Table M. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix.D. TABLE Ili: INTERSECTION LEVEL of SERVICE-EXISTU G PLUS APPROVED CONDITIONS Existing Existing plus Approved A.M.Peak flour P.M. Peak l-four A.M.Peak Hour RK Peau flour ID intersection Control LOS LDS LOS LOS 1 Main(Rte 4)1 Rose One-Way 1.4 A 1.6 A 6.5 A 12.3 C STOP (40.1) (l:) (79.4) (F) I (>120) (F) ; (>120) (F) 2 main(Rte 4)1 Cypress Signal 0.40 A 0.47 A 0.94 E 1.01 F 10.79] [C] [0.70) 16] 3 Main(Rte 4)/Laurel Signal 0.46 A 0A4 A 0.75 C 0.71 C 4 Cypress f Sellers Signal 0.31 A 0.37 A 0.78 C 0.86 l0 �. 5 Street A/Cypress Signal nfa n/a n/a n/a 0.98 E 0.78 C [0.73; [C] 10.411 [A] 6 Street B/Cypress" nfa n/a n/a ; nla n/an/a nla � nia n/a 7 Main(Rte 4)1 Alrnond Cine-Way 0.5 A 0.2 A 0.7 A 0.3 A ti I ;., Tree STOP (10.7) (C) (12.5) (C) (18.4) (C) (25.81 (IJ) 8 Main(Rte 4)/Bernard One-Way 0.2 A 0.1 A i -0.2 A E 0.1 A STOP (11.1) (C) (7.4) (B) (17.1) (C) 3 (12.7) (C) 9 Cypress t Machado One-Way 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A � 0.2 A STOP (7.7) (B) (10.3) (C) (22.9) (D) f (60.7) (F) * Average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignalized intersections&volume to capacity(V/-C)ratio for signalized,intersections. ** The intersection of Street B/Cypress does not exist under these scenarios. (X) Average stopped delay for the minor movement in seconds per vehicle on Rose Avenue. [X] Mitigated V/C ratio and LOS LOS Level of service f f� A t Cypress Grove Properties Trac impact Analysis Page 15 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26, 20r 2 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT This section describes projected intersection impacts related to the proposed project. Subsequent sections discuss additional project-related traffic issues. Project Description The proposed project consists of 550 single-family homes on the north side of Cypress Road east of Main Street and approximately 100 condominium/apartment units on the south side of Cypress Road. Access to and from the project will be from Cypress Road. The project site plan is shown in Figure 5. Trip Generation The proposed development is expected to generate 6,022 daily trips,471 during the a.m.peak hour and 528 during the p.m.peak hour. The trip generation assumptions for the project are based on j information contained in Trip Generation, Sixth Edition,published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Table IV illustrates the estimated trip generation for the proposed project. jt � TABLE IV: PROJ'EcT TRIP GENERATION Daily AM,Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour i' Use Size Rate Trips Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Single-f=amily 560 du 1 9.57 5,359 0.75 25:75 105 315 420 1.01 64:36 362 204 566 Multi-Family 100 dui 6.63 663 0.51 16:84 8 43 51 0.62 67:33 42 20 62 :Total 6,022 113 358 479 404 224 628 du=dwelling units Trip Assignment Proj ect trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing traffic conditions. Figure 7 illustrates the trip distribution assumptions for the proposed project. The project trips were assigned to the study intersections based on the distribution rates. Figure 8 illustrates the projected pear hour turning movement volumes for the Existing plus Approved plus Project Scenario. Railroad Crossing on Cypress Road The proposed project is expected to generate 363 eastbound trips on Cypress Road during the p.m.. peak hour. Using the same assumptions for railroad crossing on Cypress Road under the Existing plus Approved Scenario, approximately 11 vehicles will be added to the queue,for a total of 54 vehicles,waiting at the crossing. Assuming only one eastbound lane remains on Cypress Road between Main Street and the crossing,the queue overflow from Cypress Road onto Main Street is expected to be about 38 vehicles. However,if Cypress Road is widened to two eastbound lanes,the queue on Main Street is expected to be about 22 vehicles. Therefore,Main Street will need to provide approximately 600 feet of storage for the southbound left-turn and northbound right-turn movements. Cypress Grove Properties Trak Impact Analysis Page 16 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 'a mm �w� � � a , loll gill m IN MEN 1 rt' o ` o :; e o t, 1101 yw+r tog. N • 0 ' a a. 1 Y 1, u) anv says 000 mix z c► u. co usaCLOL l u: !� uj 1 u' h Fes„ t3S'CS \ •eta a S 691 0� 43 E + 3AV 390titZ"i}L`t SSE9 ✓ al 0 lie 'yrs$)szo,t I i Ilk i VINTAGF E m d 1 CL E m (99)99z 1 I lj + (s)a£-• cts C3 Q CL I -d CL IV , Ct1 'IZI ' k us)see as Y.-m k $919a m R iL)tt 4 "rte tit �� s r r»cv o E+e- 1a0't)ZOL o t 3 CJ} v A, {scz it)s6; i �" is y�=':1. € �•, cn 41 (Ls$l�£vs .... (63)fa �t $tit >M+ f ! L If the railroad gates arms were down for 42 seconds during the a.m.peak hour,the westbound and eastbound queue are expected to be 22 and 12 vehicles,respectively. These queues are based on a 0.90 peak hour factor,and should not extend to the adjacent intersections. Levels of Service Analysis With the addition of project-generated traffic, six of the nine study intersections are projected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. Main Street/Cypress Road will continue to operate unacceptably as with the"Existing plus Approved Project"scenario. But with the same mitigation as that scenario,the intersection is projected to operate at LOS D. The project share of total entering volume at this intersection is approximately 11.9 percent and 24.5 percent during the a.m.. and p. .pear,respectively. Cypress Road/Street A will be operating at LOS F during the a.m.peak hour. With the same mitigation as the previous scenario,"Existing plus Approved Projects,"the level of service is expected to be acceptable. The project share of total entering volume at this intersection is about 13.5 r } percent during the a.m.peak hour and 18.1 percent during the p.m.peals hour. r Under this scenario,a new roadway(Street B)that accesses the project site would form a T- .7 intersection with Cypress Road on the west side of the Schools. To determine feasible traffic control and turning movements,this intersection was evaluated as follows: � r signalized intersection • one-way STOP controlled intersection(Street B stopped) • right-twin inlright-turn outtgeft-tum in movements only With restricted left turns at Street B,traffic would shift to Street A. Therefore,the levels of service at Street A are also presented under the restricted left-tums scenarios. Our analysis indicated that Street A at Cypress Road continues to operate unacceptably during the a.m.peak hour. But it will operate acceptably with the mitigation described above. Overall,the level of service is acceptable at Cypress Road/Street B when it is not signalized. Its level of service during the a.m.peak hour will not be acceptable when it is signalized. The intersection can be mitigated to LOS A once Cypress Road is widened to include one additional through lane for the eastbound and westbound direction. This mitigation is consistent with those for the intersection of Cypress Road/Street A. The one-way STOP control scenario yields an unacceptable level of service (LOS F and E)for the minor street left-turn movement on Cypress Road during the a.m. and p. . peak hour,respectively. The overall intersection of Main Street/Rose Avenue is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service. However,the minor movement,northbound Rose Avenue,continues to operate unacceptably. Main Street and Rose Avenue is not expected to meet Caltrans' traffic signal warrant under this scenario and the City should continue to monitor this intersection. SR-4/Almond Tree Circle is projected to operate at LOS A as a whole. However,the level of service for the minor movement on Almond Tree Circle is expected to be LOS E during the p.m.peals hour. This intersection is not expected to meet Caltrans' traffic signal warrant. .:1 Cypress Grave properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 20 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26,2002 The overall level of service at Cypress Road/Machado is expected to operate at LOS A,but Machado „i Street,the minor movement at this intersection is expected to operate unacceptably during the peak hours. This intersection is not expected to meet Caltrans' peak hour signal warrant. The results of the levels of service analysis performed for this scenario are contained in Table V and detailed calculations are contained in Appendix.E. ( TABLE V: INTERsEcnoN LEvFL oP'SERvICE-EXISTING PLUS APPRovED PLUS PRo f LCT CONDI IoNs I t Existing plus Approved Existing plus Approved plus Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Pear Hour l ID Intersection * LOS LOS LOS "' LOS 1 Main St(Rte 4)1 Rose Ave-- 6.5 A 12,3 C 13.3 C 23.2 D unsignalized (>120) (F) (>120) (F) (>120) (F) (>120) (F) 2 Main St(Rte 4)1 Cypress Rd 0.94 E 1.01 F 1.06 F 1.24 F [0.79] (C] (0.70] (B] [0.82] P] j [0.84] [D] I 3 Main St(Rte 4)1 Laurel Rd 0.75 C 0.71 C 0.80 1 C 0.77 i C ;> i 4 . Cypress Rd I Sellers Ave 078 C ! 4.86 D 0.79 C 0.87 ! D l 5 , St A I Cypress Rd 0.88 E 0.78 C 1.09 F 0.89 D ` [0.73] i [C) [0.41] [A] [0.86} f [D] 10.51] [A] St A I Cypress-no left out at St B n1a n1a n1a n1a 1.09 F 0.89 D j [0.861 [D] l [0.511 [A] 6 St B I Cypress Rd**-signalized nla nla nla i nla 0.96 E { 0.89 D s [0.51] [A] (0.45) [A] St B I Cypress Rd**-1-way n1a n1a j nla n/a 5.7 B 2.0 A STOP (106.3) (F) (47.1) (E) i St B 1 Cypress Rd**-no left out n1a nla n1a n1a 2.6 A 1.1 A with 1-way STOP (55.6) s (F) (16.1) I (C} 7 Main(Rte 4)1 Almond Tree i 0.7 A 0.3 A 0.8 A ! 0.3 A (18.4) (C) (25.8) (D) (22.1) (D) ! (34.9) (E) 8 Main(Rte 4)1 Bernard 0.2 A l 0.1 A 0.3 A 0.1 I A (17.1) ' (C) (12.7) (C) (20.1} (D) (15.8) l (C) 9 Cypress I Machado 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A (22.9) (l0) (60.7) i (F) ; (37.1) (E) (66.3) Average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignalized'intersections&volume to capacity(ViC)ratio for j signalized intersections. ** The intersection of Street B/Cypress does not exist under the Existing plus Approved scenario. (X) Average stopped delay for the minor movement in seconds per vehicle. [)q Mitigated VIC ratio and LOS. LEIS Level of service i Cypress Grove Properties Trak Impact Analysis Page 21 TJK11l Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 YEAR 2025 CONDITIONS Year 2025 traffic conditions are based on the"East County Travel Demand Model." The levels of service at the study intersections were evaluated based on the projected turning movement volumes presented in the Model. Traffic trips from the proposed project were added to year 2025 volumes to s determine the intersection levels of service for"Year 2025 plus Project"scenario. East County Travel Demand Model The East County Travel Demand Model focuses on the East Contra Costa County area, including the cities of Pittsburg,Antioch,Brentwood and Oakley. The Model incorporates regional travel demand throughout the entire nine-county Bay Area,with greater detail in Contra Costa County and still greater detail'in the East County subarea. The Traffic Model indicates that east of the proposed project the primary land use is expected to be F - residentialwith large pockets of open space and commercial/business. Figure 9 illustrates future land use according to the traffic model. Transportation Improvement Assumptions Based on information provided by the City and the data contained in the East County Travel Demand Model,the long-term scenarios considered major improvements to the traffic network including the Highway 4 Bypass and a major diagonal arterial connecting Cypress Road and Laurel Road between Main Street and Sellers Avenue. The City may also consider an alternative to the proposed diagonal arterial by making improvements to Sellers Avenue between Cypress Road and Laurel Road,and Laurel Road between Sellers Avenue and SR-4. Levels of service at the study intersections based on the diagonal arterial and the Sellers Avenue arterial are given in Table VI. Cypress Road between Street and Sellers Avenue will be widened to four travel lanes and the intersection of Main Street and Rose Avenue is assumed to be signalized. Railroad Crossing on Cypress Road The train schedules are expected to be significantly different in the future than during the near term. However,the City had requested that an analysis be performed assuming future train schedule will be the same as the existing schedule. With this assumption, it is expected that there will be 45 vehicles in the eastbound queue during the p.m.peak hour, 11 eastbound and 22 westbound during the a.m.peak hour. No Project Conditions 1 Year 2025 projected turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 10. The results of the Year 2025 levels of service analysis are summarized in Table VI. Given the different arterial options(diagonal and Sellers Avenue),Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue is the only intersection to experience sufficient differences in the level of service. With the assumed transportation network improvements,three of the five intersections are projected to operate at r {, acceptable levels of service. Cypress Grave Properties Trak Impact Analysis Page 22 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 s�iYR'*.YK'�.4.< KiiN►SLSKRi\kYY<i#hr+.YiittititiM'4��{ i { r--�. ttiitit4iYiYi#iitkL KLKSAi4itKLkKYLiYYYii4iibtiititYti�# iti.\YYLSSYLi<OLYMM% K#Y4ti.iikK#YYYLLYLiKYSiikkiiSKA44LY S�tkiSYkiikLRt4i\iAAi1kK iiikkki###Yk#<LYiiYLAYAKktikki\<AY�� kkki#SKYSS4ktii\tikkKLY iSiik4khkKi4YiiYiiYYiiikKii4KS4<Yi' aL�:iiikSiiiiiiSiSK4itLYiiii\iki ikSiA�i4iYiYWYiiiYLiihilKSK'*iSSSYLY�E } YStitKKiiliiSSii#iW4;SSkYLtLYSitKiii a'ti1�iSLLKWkiLiit4ii'yKiiSSKKiiKSSS4iKY #4YSiLWLYSiiiiLLLLLKiiltbiiiSSSi4i'I *kti'hSYSi'ki,S*aw•YiiKS4kKSKSSiiki4KYiiOS►<\i '4\t4Y►tL4iitiLL4ikiikiA4kiiASiiSi<' � C'i Q �. Rtiti44\4i<Mr►k\iiiKSKk\ttiiiASSSSkiKLYYSkk<Li #i1\'<tLLiiL'*iiiiiiiLiiA4kiSkkkkY\Y' � .r *A<iA4"*ikiSS\4S#iiSSiiiSkiikkiSKWKWLYWYSikii4 #Siik4iiiiYWYKkKLLWKiiikL#ikSikkkR'IZ '� � k'S'RYi.►►kiAikSkk'KKKiitKk4SKii►114#KKWKSNL4K4kt 41LSk4\iiiiKKLlkitKi►iikkiarSSik4KM•{ p *t'4i4`AiiKARtiKLLiiiKAKiiR4Liiiiii##v.tSSkkSi4LL Ltikai4YiiiitSkSYSikiiiWiiiiktiKWLa � j aktiiK#Mk4\kii♦►LLASYKKikSLYLkSkit4KY4KKKSKAYkiK Yki'4iitiiiWWKLYSSSKSSik4►#iSkKYR4Y� '�+— ' ikK#kkMkk\\k M;t► ►Ykii\KKKKSt«W#tikSSKSi<kit iiKk'SkLWiiKiKLKLi4i<Akk4LlkSKiiKLRrfk } aLkikkS*.kkiti4iY\ilkktkkikYLKWSkt4iW#K4KRSSSE4KYY <iKii.KSLL4Si\SKKKikikKi#iikkkkKkt,4y tY<iktik44<k4i<iiiik►t<ikYS#iKikiNk#iSkKM%vkkY tki4WKSWLSKKSKKWSKkKkiiiNtkK4K'R'S.i*S . a4ktLkSK'1iKtY4iLLYikSSkikiiii#kkiSKL4SitAiikKSKRKi iiik#S#KLkikSKaaikkKiki'KLikkk3kk#'t#Y ►Yit\ikit\Kii4LL4LiikkkYiikii#SSiitkiiSS4WikkkKiik iikkk'�ASSSKkiSAktii►Akikiii�4'+♦kk'k#1h3 *Kiit<iSSA i4iLtYiitiSSiktiLiiiAlrkS444iitS\\MKkkYSK K+rkik4LkSKKSKkkk►Ak►AikkikkkikSkikh .iiikitii\iiKkiiKKiiiik'bk,kLLtYikkkK44Kiiikkkkkkkt#Ki ii4Yiikkkk4kiKlkklkkkkkiiWkiiLiiiAh�� (jam XA ri4tLii4iikt#WYiiSLkkk4►\ii#Si KkY#i1Ak►►Kt►k►k\k►<►i►i4SSk►iiiAAR 1a rSiWiiWiii\ik##YSKSikiktiiiiiA \i\WWSAk\ikk\4ii\k4kk\ASkSk\tiiiitit>: '''554tkKki4kWiikki:*tSYKtSSSiiiiiiiA kWkKLLNktikktiikki4iiiii"tktkiiiiiSt i.. ♦KYYWLSLikkk►iYKAKSAkkLi4iii►k kk#k'iik►kti«4kk4S<SktiAiiii4iiiiik t rkiLKiiiikkkiiStAlii'4'4kkiiiiiS k*Akiikkt\iikkkSSkikSkiiiSk4Liiiiiv�, f`+�,� a5.#iikiikikiii\SS1SikYLikiiiAi 4k4Siiitki►k4Si<#i\kAiiAASkktiiLLi�� . •kkiR#iKSkkiiikiSKkkKYYRLWLiiS Kkk4kLSki4LKKYkktkikkiiiikSLVLWSKkS _ fSASiiSSSKi<Wik\AiKSKKRKiiiiiS ►kKK4RSS\RLL4Lk4KKYKtiii►i14ii4KikSt� tSLK4KSitiA►Ni\A4iSK4Y4YkiLkS 4tiiSikL4\KKkkKkkiKKkkiS%"%k %M aKiAKLASkKSWL4iitKKkikiLYWYYSS k4ti#SSYYt<tKKKKKYRKKYR.i►ikiYS\\4YSII *�AAKSAS4kYYi4kSAKKti4K44\1K��L Y414ASkkk4KkKKKkR4RKKLLSASSYYkt . as aaaaawwaaa -� " • . •'ON.tlNY98I.'TdILL•1'6' Oki#SSSKYKKSKKKkSikt+a#Wiiik#LKS1i` � � "�.Ctitiiiktititi'Wti'S�IKK " . , .i41Y SYKKkkK4RKYYRLYikikk►iYY\iY•Ij KKiikkKk4S#i'.LSSi f,', YkL'4.iRkkiiKYikKKii#K'�.kkiikk44t`k•/ KKkiSikik'K#ikiK , ,• ' itYA>SktKth'KiSYkkkYY'tiK#ii4kY+.�a' d '}. 'y KKNKSk<kYL\iii\ " ' •• kkiiiKKYLkKkiYkYS►iS#RYiiik#k''�� SSKAik►4tit#1444 , + • � • RLSSSiiKLi*.k\iL • r • StSiiikk\kik#4Kk4RKY#Y'Kkiktk" d { s r� . • . 4kiYliikiiKk'RRYkYkiktKiiSSL" iiK44tiKS4ihLvi , ", , <iikAS►SK#Ki#iYitYikkkAiiS''+• � 1Kik\44YkSiiliiY • • " � ' • " iiKii4ktk4#kiiRki4iiiii• SYkiRikttALAi4S< r+ d � Kikttki\ikiLAKLRY ♦•r',',"""r•"'" "•" • + KKYKti4iiiAYAS1ki�,••'•'"'"',",'"'.'" ' 'ih+Y.1ki4'Wit'*'/ 'i \\1z` \��RW.1�` ti%1• :�• r "'" YikRSkYSKi\i44KttYYR�. YikkR#LKS Si'sik4K' � • " Ki4LiiiSY4Rti4Y\iii' / - KKKii►ikiiY4YYtRkY'! ►kkiYYSLkS iiAkkSY,','"•,','••,', •�f� d iS►ikSLLKkSii\kAK' . ♦ • " . ;��;�}}iii4Yw\;R'�a�`;�/ kiktkKLLkWi'*AiikK',• ,', , • • dp Kkii i R'KtK R.iKR.4k4<• r~ �K►kkiY4\Yiii'*iik%K' , ••'•" "Y• " j� kkkkitkkRl.SKlkkWi . r . s . , • ••. . . " . + " r" �j KkkkiS#kKk.iLt•4kki. • +•` ii s•s iL<►4K#Kt#kKikkkK 'a• +"•�,'{F r tt4ikYi##i RKAM\it , • • • • ti<kK4i#i#iKii<kt• , , , " W r r� dd. . •'.'"' tkiikiii4ikikk\ki","r • . f e • •♦ ` I •d /• s 4k4ttik#YkSKS\ik4 . , , , + ' •r••s \\kkkLi\#i KKtNki '� � \1.%tsik\kkkK'4kii#kk4ik\i4KKLSkSS .. + \kitiiiiiiKkkkk#iiiiiki►kkY\SWKi �K • •+ - i►Y4t<iiSk\kkklKRYiiiiiMt#KkkKi� AS " �•++"` "ik<kiltkA►iiYtikWYSiiiAkkik#ii4 ,','" t. � eki4\kkS\Ai4kKKSKkYkiiiiiLiiikki*y(�kAi. "•.y•,' j tNMiiiiikki►SkkLkiii►4RKSk4i*a/ :t\i<itk<Ai►►SKkitiAiAANStkKY4 ,�.KKk► I � .iiiii4kiikkkk►kkiiiiikik4k'4.Y'R**/ KYii "' m .tiYk\iiiAAii\KkKikiiiikKKKLKL 4•WWiii i kt►kkik\iA4SSSSkiiiiiikk\t4K*/SSKiiL • ",. 'i4kikk#LA4SLSkSkktSiSAk\►kkS*jLLKiii ♦ 00"'\. : '►\►k'akiik4kSLSSktiliiik►ikY♦YKiYKi# wry kkkKAtkYA►iKk4KkiiiiikkkiS :kk1'►tkti'tAAAikk'K'kktiiiikkiS���vv,,Yki4iiW �W �, ! ♦ kkiiiiiLK 'y{y { MSL { � iki+ylk,#LWSikkkkiiiA i'aSikRikiii L�V� s-.::j •iikiik4YY'+.tYi'S,KttkLiiiiA�,/hkkikk'*ki\k . iA4ikiiik4#YKiiikiiLi#A� iik kkitkkL • :rikii4kik4kK<Kiikiiiiii�.Wkk�'4Kiiiik .iSiiikkL4#iKtklSikkiLiy KiiS4kiSi4Li iikkiiiLkii#kKSSSkit1. X.iiktiiKik44i :iiii�444k###1 Likk�kYi� L:KiikKSiititk F_Y .Lki1A4Skkii#1�tiitlii �iliitkkkYiiiii ►iiiik4#i##1iY4Skik<� LSAAkkiSKik4YL i { .iiiiA►kk#Y<iiK\►kki+C CLiiAkiSkkkRK4K I iiiiAkkik+i.ki#tSkikS 1`iiAKAkSSk4ki4ii riiiikiiitYYikiiSi►4*YLYWiikSKKkR4N � •iiivikkikiYiiiiivtY+� viiviiiKKkk4ik4 :kiiiikik4kk#iLSiSSS�tiiiiiiWYilkikkt ikiiALSikk:•i#ikiKKkiSik+( iN►iikikkYY *tLikYA'iiLkK'KK4ki y{yg .♦ * 4iiYikKikkk4#K4 iiiiKKii iY4YKKi#KLkKS Ai iLii4YKt !Ci Ki YYii#iKKki4tRkY LA\<KS4KLLL4RKKk#kiK#YYSSii kSKKSSYKR W .iiYLikkikiLiiiikKii��ikiY►AASLLSSKki eiiikSiikiL4RYKRk#"y+s�+'S4,t,iiii YSAKKSSSkR I I. •�t�is�'A44'i4+kiw'ikb>4.+ki\1'\ +iik+ti. iilhw"ih\w11k 'k4�itiStiYii 'ii4'kttitit *`kiK+tn'KSti k'�i+ks4Y'W1�'iik\ycl ;`:{ .LYWYYSS►kk►kkYAiiSi i44kiiLYWKWSkSi RSAAAK4WYtY<1k##K4k\k# kik##Y►kKSk YR LiLKiikiS\kkkk4tiSK*h�iitiiA#iAkkKiki kiiAkSkS4k4kR'aKkkiiikk WkS4k#ii\iask 4k € �� +iii4hiSkSit4ikLikkK >t4tY►YKYASKkKk4 4L41SSkLKYLiiSSYkkkik. ikSitiSKt4SikR iLYWLiiikkk4kkYik+.ki*�{SiikkLiKKLWLKii Lilik\kYKKiki'1�'Rk#kki. iikk4kkiKA4kSiR Miiii►iM\4YkiWkikK yittiiii`\1.kiSiki kiiAikkLkkKi kKiikkk KYWiikkii4ikkkSR +iiiiiiA►kktikkktiSt �kKNi\t#tSLKSK t►YA►KkKkYS\�Skkkik k's4Wiki<kAi<SA4KR k{ ktKiiYK#kiSSti ikkAkikSikitKKii\ iitiii4kkti'Ri4ASKR •►ikKi4\kkikk\iLYLLi'� 4YLYikSkliiiiiK 4iiAi4SYSkKYKt\ \SKiiiili4kiLYLikSR - iiiKiiLSk4ikkY\kSSL� ikk4tYiiA#"4kKWk Kk4YikkktkYkk4i Wkki#SLWikkkiik#AL1!'kt cz 'YLiktKSSkik4i<SAK /,kkKtiiAi►Sk k4Y\i\ikYkYKii 4kii\Y#iikkkiiYLYY'..A �YkiYikikAtkKLiiii <<ki«4YLikikiikK <4YiiikYSRikR 4i►tk<#ikkkM4 !►SR r J .iLRKkiLii4kY4tLi"k�tkKkK4Ktiiiiili4Kk ikLSAkktk#kky"i �kklk'►4kk4ik'4kiV f'�AkiM r a*aaaa.saaa*aaaaa� K qe' <kt4<kkkASikk'V lCiiti►h i. kLSikM Oiikk klikiRkkki ZZ-NNt'1MkikkiR i<4KKKKYYWSN\►ki tiLkSSikk k kik<#44W itiiiikkhh KSLiiKY K4LiiSL\►i iiKSkkik< . kik4k !C iiiLWYANh j Ry, kKKYiiikiiAt kiWiikA Yk AkkWikitWWWikiAh � R �R,a av*aaaaaaa Y#Y\SSA Y iKiyy+V►lfSk iii 4kiYitAkkR *•oiik iiiiSY♦kkY i Y t k i 4 Y r+fkL4i\ii iiiiLMSkkh 1�:.,.a# ` •a�' M R"'+'K:Y Li *+a K4kiiiA► #iSkKik#th .ti'R r .,.�4 R�}�.< tiki 4► � kkiLKikktY *� a.v � RYr h YiK kti Y R # L Yik Yi#kiKkkkR +.d a.a. Ra, .K Yi kK# its t4Y t k iikiKK►►iY ��,"�� � t 4.aa♦saa ** Y kYkKi �a#kY t KSS \#ASS<►k4► a,�` LYWQ'�4►AWi►Skiikk Sk<i�K,�t - ►i k i1AiiSKLYR � � /�; a. 'd aar E iWKKiiiKSk4kkKk'i# kk4ki a *aY t S'K tiiiikiKih � �y# . 'i a.�♦ tKKiikikkkik\kik kiiij} i i i i ik LSA►N►kSR t !+ea•rt ati a•+w*Tait fiSvikiikSYtvYi ..s v viNiiYYY i 4kiK#iKiiYiiit j�ii<Si4KKYYiti Vi k' L ikii<KK i 4S i k#AKiiiiYiiit Nii►k►SSKKk 4 ik i►Sti4 S Y iki#Kiikkkkiit \►4►ikkKkKki kA i kiii\L i t i4i i\iiSKikkS44iR .� S�ti�*4!•a�4t R` W� i► A 1S'itr'ti S K SKt ��#+.�\11t4tK,W'ii+Ri �" CID S\i<Mk< K 4L A Ki SKt 1;. k MM%%SS zlll iikkk kiYYL A i Si1K 4 A 'KAi#\iiSKRAiLR LU ►•w/" i ►iki Y4LWii Sk## Kk ii# �tkSii#SKikkitiR S.. �K� � AY k X AA #iiAiiiiiLSAAkiiYkiR K K i ii ikiAiiSkWLNAS►Sk#yR * YL 1k LKKK\ S < \i iiiiSkkiiiiSARkSk#kk p} •� SS i i 4 f'► iiiikkS4Liiii4►k4SRY 8455 ' i 4S►�Li$i� ♦ 3 1-\ l� `+i1t��w*kiti�'iY�'i►ti+i.\'h'#iti1 '"y aaaaaaaatiwaaai*a*a C ' r fnrrurMa .t � arm_ {�} aml i ' 9N .............................. - ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ;1 \ � m 4 RJ O 1TOO 3ndsas u. 1 IS NfVI4 r` \ -:AAV390W tr � a 1 : ( � •3n+ovao i7 Cn 1 C�1 ca Im 1 � � 1 0 � v i + j c Q 5, # ts u w a. LU w o •I cc TABLE VI: PEAK HOUR INTERsECTIoN LEVEL OF SERVICE-YEAR 2025 WrMO TI'PROJECT A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Future Lane Mitigated Future Lane Mitigated Configuration Configuration ID Intersection V/C = LOS V/C LOS V/C LCIS V/C LOS Diagonal Arterial --; 1 Main St(Rte 4)1 Rose Ave 0,52 A - - 0.48 A ' 2 Main S#(Rte 4)1 Cypress Rd 0.85 D - 0.85 D 3 Main St(Rte 4)1 Laurel Rd 0.76 C 0.64 g E 4 Cypress Rd/Sellers Ave 1..51 F 0.81 D 1.33 � F 0..79 ! C 5 Street A I Cypress Rd 1.11 F 0.81 D 0.76 C 0.40 A 6 Street B/Cypress Rd n/a n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/a nla .2 A _ i 7 Main St(Rte 4)!Almond 0,5 A 0 l T-i Free Cir (7.3) (B) (7.2) (B) - is 8 Main St(Rte 4)1 Bernard Rd 0.2 A - « 0.1 A (8.6) (B) i (4.8) (A) 9 Cypress Rd 1 Machado Ln 0.2 A 0.2 A (71.5) (F) (79.1) (F) Sellers Avenue Arterial a 4 Cypress Rd 1 Sellers Ave 1.37 F 1.39 F 0.75 C 0.83 j !� LOS Level of service V/C Volume to capacity ratio for signalized intersection * The intersection.of Street B/Cypress does not exist under this scenario. t With Project Conditions Traffic turning movement volumes for Year 2025 with Project are shown on Figure 12. k ,} The results of the Year 2025 levels of service analysis are summarized in Table VTI. Given the assumed transportation network improvements,four of the six intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The following intersections would degrade to unacceptable levels of service with the traffic growth estimated by the Year 2025: i Main Street/Cypress.Road—This signalized intersection is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F during the pm.peak hour. The southbound Main Street approach at this intersection has one left-turn lane,two through lanes and one right-turn lane. The r intersection could be mitigated to an acceptable LDS C by restriping this approach to contain two left-turn lanes,one through lane and one shared through and right-turn lane. The project share of total entering volume at this intersection is approxinxately 11.1 percent for the a.m. peak hour and 14.7 percent for the p.m.peak hour. The proposed ultimate traffic striping improvement is illustrated in Figure 11. -r ..__,. Cypress Grove Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 27 TJKM"transportation Consultants November 26,2002 dm i 'and sti�-�Zss b L xY z cCL .. vada i �„ W -y�- i LU X d' { � i IS NIM uj R06 0 0 0 0 c �� A env Sada (Cos } f a► w E 11 F teff) iL (t'a4)BE9-4* �m rA as r': �rt�i pOL ( cv m --7siVINTAGE PKWY. tc CL ns z i >. r!+ MV)of (a)of ;� _ tstrt)a9tr`14 � stf tl� C) 0 r� i!1 CV et•cu cv t0 lo on. m �' r ` = C7•r C1 O s- y. _ FIRE V `p�_ a,. _Cit Sit R�ssy4 G�it�. fY M b`3� � } C. ® t}{'Q G L F Sid E C 1'� ttLt tt .F 111 LZE 'E-am ei� .h 63tr WL ! ° i tas)at t �► jc- s)tra 3 tr set is t 2 2 cq LLQ m v, {ate sst-�• ' �' itaa tsz �" s € z `'► �� C7 5., G ' o c tss?E�t - ta> sa t�t Eatr ssa y— {� CC rn u°'i a `n 4 cl' m n U3 � cli C5 N ............. • Cypress RoadlSeliers Avenue(diagonal arteriaZ)—This signalized intersection is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F with the project. This intersection could be mitigated to an acceptable LOS D with the implementation of the mitigation measures described under the No Project scenario. The project share of total entering traffic volumes at this intersection is approximately 3.9 percent and 1.7 percent during the a.m. and p.m.peak hour,respectively. • Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue(Sellers Avenue arterial)—As with the diagonal arterial,this intersection with Sellers Avenue arterial is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F. Acceptable level of service can be achieved with implementation of the mitigation measures described under the No Project scenario. • Street AlCypress Road—This signalized intersection is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F with or without the project. However,this intersection is expected to operate at LOS D with widening of Cypress Road to provide one additional through lane, an exclusive left- turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane for the westbound direction, one additional through lane and an exclusive left turn lane for the eastbound direction. The project share of total entering volume is approximately 14.7 percent for both the a.m. and p.m.peak hours • Street B/Cypress Road—This intersection is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS F with any one of the three conditions: signalization,one-way stopped with all possible traffic tA movement allowed,and left-tum prohibited from Cypress Road to Street B. The signalized intersection may be mitigated with widening of Cypress Road from two to four lanes by providing one additional through lane in the eastbound and westbound direction. The one- way stopped condition cannot be mitigated to acceptable level of service. If left turns are prohibited from Street B(stop controlled)to Cypress Road,the intersection may be mitigated to acceptable level of service by widening Cypress Road to four lanes with one additional through lane for the westbound direction and one exclusive left-turn lane and one through lane for the eastbound direction. The project share of total entering volume is 14.9 percent for the a.m.peak hour and 18.5 percent for the p.m.peak hour. • The overall intersection of Cypress Road/Machado Lane is expected to operate at LOS A. But the minor traffic movement on Machado Lane is projected to operate at LOS F. This intersection is not expected to meet Caltrans' traffic signal warrant. Figure 11 illustrates the potential mitigation measures. Appendix G contains detailed intersection level of service calculations, t Cypress Grove Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 29 TJKM Transportation Consultants Novembbr 26, 2002 .............. ..............I................... .................. .............. ................. ........... ............... ........... .... _ ........... .... TABLE VII: PEAK XOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL,OF SERVICE-YEAR 2025 WITR PROJECT A.M,Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Future Lane Mitigated Future Lane Mitigated Confl uration Confi uration ti ID Intersection LOS * LOS * LOS * LOS Diagonal Arterial 1 Main St(Rte 4)1 Rose Ave 0.53 j A - - 0.49 A - - 2 Main St(Rte 4)/Cypress Rd 0.89 b D.89 D 1.03 F 0.76 C 3 Main St(Rte 4)1 Laurel Rd 0.82 D - - 0.66 B - - 4 Cypress Rd I Sellers Ave 1.55 F 0.82 D 1.37 F 0.81 D 5 St A I Cypress Rd 1.21 F 0.85 D 0.86 D 0.47 A 3 j St A I Cypress-no left out at St B i 1.23 F 0.87 D 0.86 ( D 0.47 A 6 St B/Cypress Rd-signalized 1.05 F 0.56 A 0.$4 D 0.42 A St B 1 Cypress Rd-1-way STOP 52.1 € F 52.1 F 6.4 A 6.4 A (>120) (F) (>120) (F) (>120) (F) (>120) (F) St B/Cypress Rd-no lett out 2.2 A 0.6 A 0.6 ! A 0.6 A r (62.7) (F) (28.3) (D) (11.6) 1 (C) (11.6) (C) 7 Main St(Rte 4)1 Almond Tree Cir 0.5 A _ _ 0.2 A (10.0) (B) (9.7) (B) 8 I Main St(Rte 4)/Bernard Rd 0.2 A _ 0.1 A (10.6) (B) (5.9) A 9 Cypress Rd I Machado Ln 0.3 A _ _ 0.2 A (78.9) (F) (46.1) (F) Sellers Avenue Arterial 4. Cypress Rd!Seders Ave 1.60 F 1.62 F 0.78 C 0.84 D f LOS Level of service * Average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for unsignalized intersections&volume to capacity(V/C)ratio for signalized intersections. (X) Average stopped delay for southbound Street B 4 i Y Cypress Grove Properties Trak Impact Analysis Page 30 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 1 ADDITIONAL ISSUES Cypress Road Corridor Resign Guidelines Cypress Road will become a major transportation arterial as envisioned in the City of Oakley's future l transportation policy. As such,some general design guidelines should be considered for any future improvements to ensure that Cypress Road will efficiently serve the intended traffic,including vehicular,pedestrian,bicycle and even equestrian. While the design speed may be between 35 to 45 miles per hour on Cypress Road,the roadway width should be 80 feet minimum including 16 feet of raised median,four 12-foot travel lanes and two 8-foot bicycle lanes. Minimum of five feet landscaped buffer area should separate pedestrian/equestrian walkways and the edge of curb. Walkways should be at a minimum of five feet for pedestrian and. 10 feet for equestrian. The intersections of SR-4 and Sellers Avenue at Cypress Road are currently the only signalized r'.s intersections on Cypress Road east of SR-4. These two intersections are approximately one mile apart. To avoid unnecessary interruptions to traffic progressions in the future, signalized intersections should not be less than 800 feet apart. Unsignalized intersections or median openings should be at �. least 400 feet apart. Each public intersection should be designed to meet the corner sight distance 1 requirements presented in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. t Cypress Road between Main Street and Project Access This section of Cypress Road is projected to operate acceptably at LOS C without the project but LCIS F with the project trips added for the Year 2025 With Project Condition. The levels of service calculations are contained in Appendix H. This segment could be mitigated to an acceptable LOS C by widening this roadway segment to a four-lane divided arterial roadway with 12-foot through lanes, exclusive 12-foot left-turn lanes at intersections. The project share of segment volumes for the near- term is 30 percent and 14 percent for long-term. Landscaped buffer area should be considered between the edge of curbs and sidewalk since Cypress Road will be expected to accommodate pedestrian traffic generated by the school. Railroad Crossing at Cypress Road The railroad crossing should be widened the same time that Cypress Road is widened to accommodate four travel lanes on Cypress Road for the in the near future or by the year 2025. In order to encourage students from the middle.school and other pedestrians to use the trail to by-pass the railroad crossing on the north side of Cypress Road,pedestrian barricades should be installed along the north sidewalk of Cypress Road between Street B and the beginning of the trail. The railroad cro*_ aproxmately 315 feet to the east of Marsh Creek Bzidge.ancl 455 feet west oLthe Qypre,.. $Road/Street B intersection. Due to the close proximity between the railroad crossing and these facilities, a potential Cypress Road overhead is not possible. Marsh Creek Bridge at Cypress Road/Recreational Trail The existing concrete bridge is approximately 32 feet wide with 5-foot shoulders. An equestrian/bicycle/hiking trail is located on the eastern side of the bridge. This same trail had been extended to the east,bypassing the railroad crossing and adjacent to Cypress Road on the north side, to the middle school that is currently under construction. The trail on the south side of Cypress Road, Cypress Grove Properties Trak Impact Analysis Page 31 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 25, 2002 _ _.... ...... ......... _..._._.. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ after crossing Cypress Road,continues to the south parallel to the railroad track. Pedestrians-cross signals should be installed across Cypress Road at the staging areas. This will allow those pedestrians to safely cross Cypress Road from one side of the trail to the other. The Oakley Union Elementary School District will be expecting the students from the school to use the north trail to bypass the railroad crossing. Utility conduits are attached to the bottom of the bridge on the northern side. The widening of Cypress Road to four lanes should incorporate the widening of the bridge. Dividing mechanism should be installed on the sidewalk to separate pedestrians and the edge of travel way. Main Street(SR 4)/Cypress Road Future Intersectioin Improvement More pedestrians are expected to traverse the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection in the near future. This increase is primarily due to the middle school and an elementary school that is being considered. The proposed project is expected to contribute minimum pedestrians to this intersection. Figure 13 illustrates some potential improvements at the intersection that should provide safer crossing routes for pedestrians. 4 The first alternative is to construct raised median islands on both Main Street approaches. The islands are to provide a refuge for those pedestrians who cannot cross Main Street in one signal cycle. 1-1 Pedestrian push buttons should be provided on the median islands to allow pedestrians to request another"walk"signal indication. The existing free-right turns on northbound and southbound Main Street may be signalized to allow pedestrians to stop traffic for pedestrians. However,this would reduce the intersection level of service. Encourage pedestrians to cross Main Street on the south leg of the intersection by removing the crosswalk and prohibiting crossing from the north leg. Crosswalks across Cypress Road should remain. Limiting pedestrian crossings across Main Street to the south side of the intersection reduces the potential conflict between pedestrians crossing the north leg of the intersection and the heavy westbound to northbound right turn movement from Cypress Road. Cypress Road Corridor Signal Interconnect System It is assumed that future pedestrian-cross signals will be installed on both sides of Cypress Road at the recreational trail staging area just east of the Marsh Creek Bridge. Due to the close proximity to the railroad crossing,and the expected traffic volumes at Cypress Road/Main Street,Cypress Road at the trail staging areas, and Cypress Road/Street B,the traffic signals at these locations should have railroad preemption for safety reasons. As such,it is assumed that the traffic signals along Cypress Road,including Main Street,at the trail staging areas,railroad crossing, Street B,and Street A will be operatingas a system. Sellers Avenue will be more than half mile from Street A,the nearest signalized intersection, and therefore,will not be considered as part of this system. i i Cypress Grave Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 32 T KM1 Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 i R t *r � 1r{"� �• �j f ! w x� �� �' y� ��{s g� f f- �.+ Tit t z• "'�' °� { v �. ~� J#, .,,tet +f i.°+ ���F:e�� !�*tz r�k _rd+^ • L �"< ,,� �. � ins � �„ � �!4`t+ k a��„ s )�Ft�tr k J';• 'i�. '� ..t► '� t F.e �"°'r � ¢d irjg4 �v x�� �'1pe'Ft^�� k 4 �i ^r e` .�•� '+,.� ��—t'. "5q. � C+" '.,s..r t#"��. '��H� �J$..s �;t"'�y. 'w tT + �"�S � 0...'w. :a v=yra k 4' . ..+p i f a{� o �'+k„�h✓ �{,J' � Yr x� C� 'w�r$"7 s � 43,+f ^J ,R` �+� 4� - � �ttt�„�,,, I: � i�,� �' •i;,„e � .+ ,,,'1>>�'pr ('_a✓'�, M ',�.�// �; .� j �! 1B i � 4 t .` ”'� �?v,, r�v�l.+� * `4 i'�. cr T w r i`t} ' °a 4- tix .l�J Y tjv r •a � � ' '"'t.•+ Kk �'A. i s u c t f $ tl ] a i i F' I hlk t+ • � � ,r, ' .f ' }( f '� °xt r- rr.t{�.f{. � '�, sx �; �"`,� ,� Mdw •.� � �1� � 1 t t� lrr� J'1 �'l+'%-r J �� � r nt u�� w?�e;� • ! 3...w{'"n9f+' y, � ,�a �` -� p2'•s,�'?•.F{4, _`M," rf Y },���"„� �.:++' f ix � +...; .■.p>rtJ 5*�*tt���r�, � ``, ���t o.+' ''�*+. ",.',L "'{' '.�,'',n +ja ,, + 1t �`� 4� �A� .3.���:'�' � �. _ { , k ltd s r A wry + A +►. The levels of service for the signalized intersections, operating as a system, are shown in Table VIII. The analysis utilized Synchro 5.0,a soft-ware that is capable of simulating a coordinated traffic signal system. Detailed calculations are shown in Appendix 1. All of the intersections are expected to operate at acceptable level of service. TABLE VM: CYPRESS ROAD CORRIDOR SIGNAL T.N"TERCONNECT SYSTEM A.M.Peak flour P.M.Peak Hour 117 Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS 2 Main St(Rte 4)1 Cypress Rd Signal 23.0 C 29.1 C 3 Cypress Rd/Pedestrian Crossing Signal 2.8 A 0.8 A 5 Street A I Cypress Rd Signal 40.2 D 9.7 A 6 Street B I Cypress Rd Signal 3.9 A 2.2 A Sight Distance(Main Street/Rose Avenue) Field survey verified that drivers stopped on Rose Avenue at this intersection have a line of sight for i approximately 250 feet before a horizontal curve to the left on Main Street. To the right and before a z. vertical curve on Main Street,the line of sight from Rose Avenue is approximately 340 feet. The posted speed limit on Main Street is 35 miles per hour. The required stopping sight distance for the posted speed is 2.50 feet. Therefore,the sight distance is adequate at this intersection. Turn Pockets on Street A Based on estimated northbound left turn traffic and southbound through traffic on Street A,the 1 northbound left turn lanes at the three school driveways should be at least 125 feet long. There is 400 feet on Street A between Cypress Road and the southern most school driveway. There should be a 200 feet northbound left turn lane into the school driveway and another 200 feet left turn lane provided for the southbound traffic turning left from Street A to Cypress Road. The proposed geometric layout on Street A at the school driveways are shown on Figure 14. Left-turn Pockets at Cypress Road/Street B Street B at Cypress Road is located approximately 300 feet east of the railroad crossing. Based on this traffic study,the heaviest peak hour eastbound left turns from Cypress Road into Street B as a result of the proposed project is 133 vehicles during the p.m.peak hour and 105 on any given weekend. The weekend trips are projected assuming majority of the patrons of the park and sports facilities at the middle school will be using Street B as an access. Based on this volume, the storage length required for the eastbound left-turn pocket at Cypress Road/Street B will be 150 feet which is less than 300 feet. i Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures The arterial streets along the perimeter of the school and the parks should have traffic calming +' measures to reduce the chances of accidents due to vehicular speed. Traffic calming measures can be both physically pleasing as well as effective. Such measures include planted median islands,textured or raised crosswalks, and chicanes.The most desirable locations for installation of traffic calming j measures are indicated on Figure 15. `r Cypress Grove Properties Traffic Impact Anatysls Page 34 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 [ m ! v Y" I 4 ! t i sem+ ss. r� t v �L F■ MITIGATION MEASURES This section summarizes the mitigation measures identified in previous sections. Mitigation measures include such elements as pavement restriping and roadway widening. The minimum acceptable level of service established by the City of Oakley and Contra Costa County is LOS D. When the proposed i project caused a study intersection or roadway segment to fall below this threshold,the proposed project was considered to significantly impact that facility and mitigation measures directly related to the proposed project were identified. Near-Term.Mitigation Under the Existing plus Approved Project scenario,traffic growth was found to be directly responsible for mitigation measures at the following intersections: • gain StreettCpress Road- Restripe the northbound approach with one left-turn lane,two through lanes,and one right-turn lane. The southbound approach with two left.-turn lanes, $ one through lane,and one shared through and right-turn lane. s Cypress Rcadltreet A—Widen Cypress Road to provide one additional through lane in the eastbound and the westbound direction. With project trips added to the above scenario,the project is found to be partially responsible for mitigation measures at these intersections: ! .Main StreetlCypress Road—Implement the mitigation measures described above. Cypress RoadlStreet A—Implement the mitigation measures described above. Cypress RvadlStreet B—Signalized the intersection and widen Cypress Road to provide one additional through lane in the eastbound and the westbound direction. Cumulative Mitigation Under the Year 2025 No Project scenario,traffic growth was found to be directly responsible for mitigation measures at two study intersections. The potential mitigation measures are described below. Cypress RoadlSellers Avenue(With Diagonal Arterial)--Construct one left-turn lane,one through lane(already exist),and one right-turn lane for the northbound approach.. One left- turn lane, one through lane(already exist),and two right-tum lanes for the southbound approach. Two left-turn lanes(one already exist),two through lanes (one already exist),and one right-turn lane for the eastbound approach. One left-turn lane(already exist),two through lanes(one already exist), and one right-turn lane for the westbound approach. Cypress RriadlSellers Avenue (With Sellers avenue Arterial)—Construct one left-turn,lane, two through lanes(one already exist),and one right-turn lane for the northbound approach. One left-turn lane,two through lanes(one already exist),and one right-turn lane for the southbound approach. One left-turn.lane(already exist), one through lane (already exist),and one shared through and right-turn lane for the eastbound approach. One lett-turn lane , t f 3 Cypress Grove Properties Trac impact Analysis Page 37 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26,2002 (already exist), one through lane(already exist),and one shared through and right-turn lane for the westbound approach, • Cypress RoadlStreet A—Widen eastbound Cypress Road approach to provide one additional through lane. Restripe westbound Cypress Road approach to accommodate one additional through lane with one shared through and right-turn lane. Under the Year 2025 With Project scenario,the proposed project was found to be partially responsible for mitigation measures at two study intersections and a roadway segment. The potential mitigation measures are described below. Main Street/Cypress Road—Restripe the southbound approach with two left-turn lanes,one through lane and one shared through and right-turn lane. • Cypress RoadlSellers Avenue (Diagonal Arterial)—Implement the mitigation measures described under the Year 2025 No Project scenario. J- 0 Cypress RoadlSellers Avenue (Diagonal Arterial)—Implement the mitigation measures described under the Year 2025 No Project scenario. n 0 Street AlCypress Road—Signalized the intersection and provide one shared left, through, and right-turn lane for the northbound approach. One shared left and through lane,and one right- turn lane for the southbound approach. One left-tum lane(already exist),one through lane (already exist),and one shared through and left-turn lane for the eastbound approach. One left-tum lane,two through lanes(one already exist, and one right-turn lane(already exist)for the westbound direction. Street BlCypress Road—Provide one left-turn and one right-turn lane for the southbound approach. One left-turn lane and two through lanes(one already exist)for the eastbound approach. One through lane(already exist)and one shared through and right-turn lane for the westbound approach. • Cypress Road between Main Street and Project Access—Widen and improve to a four-lane (two already exist)divided arterial roadway. ii Cypress Grove Properties Traffic Impact Analysis Page 38 TJKM Transportation Consultants November 26, 2002 1! E, t...J APPENDIX A-- DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSTS CCTA.SIGNALIZED METHODOLOGY i 1 , l DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS CCTA SIGNALIZED METHODOLOGY Background The CCTA intersection capacity analysis methodology is described in detail in the Technical Procedures Manual of the CCTA,January, 199 L It is identical to the Circular 212 Planning methodology except that the lane capacity has been increased.from 1500 vph to between 1650 to t: 1800 vph based on saturation flow measurements taken at four intersections in Contra Costa r , County. (See following Table 9 from the Technical Procedures Manual.) On average, saturation flow rates for left-turn lanes were over ten percent lower than for through lanes. However, insufficient data was collected to provide statistical accuracy for the averages. Thus,saturation flow rates for through lanes are equal to those for turn lanes. This methodology determines the critical movement for each phase of traffic. It then suras the t :y critical volume-to-capacity ratio by phase to determine the intersection volume-to-capacity ratio, s Circular 212, on the other hand,scans the critical movement volumes themselves and cornpares them to the total capacity of the intersection to determine,in effect, the volume-to-capacity ratio r of the intersection as a whole, Level of Service r , The volume-to-capacity ratio is related to level of service(LOS). The following level of service for Signalized Intersections depicts the relationship between the volume-to-capacity ratio and level of service. An intersection operating at capacity would operate at LOS E. Level of Service F is not possible for existing conditions,but can be forecasted for future conditions when volume i projections exceed existing capacities. Input Data The intersection capacity worksheets use a code to identify different lane configurations. This nomenclature is described on the following Description of Lane Configurations. Right turn on red adjustments are accounted for as well as unequal distribution of turn volumes in double turn lanes. For more information,see Circular 212 and the CCTA Technical Procedures Manual. LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES Volume to Maximum Sum of Critical Volumes LOS Ca aei Ratio 2-Phase 3-Phase 4+-Phase A A ¢0.60 1,080 1,030 990 B 0.61--0,70 1,260 1,200 1,160 C 0.71-0.80 1,440 1,380 1,320 D 0.81-0.90 1,620 1,550 1,490 E 0.91-1.00 1,800 1,720 1,650 F ________Not Applicable souk contra Casts County Gwwtl.Management Program,Technical Praeeduses,Table 9. i Upas-nerve llitytappendioesketa methodkcta method,doe l l/08!99 , t j 1 r:_P APPENDIX B -- DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS UNSIGNALIZED► METHOD S Caps are utilized by vehicles in the following priority order. 1. Right turns f mm the mumor stmt 2. Left turns from the major stmt 3, Through movements from the minor street 4. Left turns from the minor street ' For example, if a left-turning vehicle on the major street and a through vehicle f om the minor street are waiting to cross the major traffic stream,the first available gap of acceptable size would be takea by the left-turning vehicle. The minor street through vehicle must wait for the second available gap. In aggregate terms, a large nt=ber of such left tuming vehicles could use up so many of the available gaps that minor street through vehicles are severely impeded or unable to make safe crossing movements. Level of Service See the following table "Level of Service Criteria for Ilnsignalized Intersections" for the relationship between reserve capacity, delay and level of service. 3 Gautier should be used in the interpretation of the levels of service. They are stated in general terms, without specific numeric values, It is, therefore, not possible to directly cosnpare an. { unsignalized level of service with a signalized level of service in,terms of specific delay values without collecting data directly at the subject site. The levels of service described for this methodology am not associated with the delay values cited for signalized intersections in Chapter 9. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR INSIGNAIZZED DMRS'EC'PIONS RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAYS 400 A Little or no delay 300 - 399 B Short traffic delays 200 - 299 C Average traffic delays 100- 199 D Long traffic delays .0 - 99 E 'Very long traffic delays l F E '? * VA= demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays wM be eno=*xed along with Turing whkh may cause severe caugesdoa and affect other traffic=ovema= at the i=mwt= Tfsss mon usury warrants linproveatent to the intersectiot asWor a change k the type of traffic cantroL Refer== Highway Capacity slr mud,Special)apart 209,nmeportadon Research Board, 1985 ktrzu-cta�.agp DESCRIP.'TION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS UNSIGNALIZED MMTIIOD Background w The method of unsigr� intersection capacity analysis used in this study is from Chapter 10, "Unsignalized latersec tiOns" of the Highwaty Capacity Manual, Special Report Na. 2139, Transportation Research Road, 1985. Updated 1994, This method applies to two-way STOP sign or YIELD sign controlled intersections (or one-way STOP sign or YIELD sign controlled intersections at three-way intersections). At such intersections, drivers on the minor sheet are forced to use judgment when selecting gaps in the major flow through which to execute crossing or turning maneuvers. Thus,the capacity of the comrolled legs of an intersection is based on two factors: 1. The distribution of gaps in the major street uiffic stream. 2. Driver judgment in selecting gaps through which to execute their desired maneuvers. It is .assumed that gaps in the traffic scream are randomly distributed. For this reason, the methodology will be less reliable in situations in which the conflicting flows are strongly platooned, as would be the case at many urban intersections where the major street is part of a sigadized network. This method assumes that major street traffic is not affected by minor street: flows. This assumption is generally good for periods when the operation is smooth and uncouugested. (When congestion occurs, It is likely that major street traffic will experience,some impedance due to minor street traffic.) Left turns from the major street are assumed to be affected by the opposing major street flow, and minor street traffic is affected by all corfficting movements. Input Data The general procedure to calculate the level of service is as follows. 1. Define existing geometric and volume conditions for the intersection under study. 2. Determine the conflicting traffic through which each minor street movement and the major street left-turn must cross. 3. Determine the size of the gap in the conflicting'traffic stream needed by vehicles in each movement crossing the conflicting traffic stream. 4. Determine the capacity of the gaps in the major traffic stream to accommodate each of the subject movements that will utilize these gaps. 5. Adjust the capacities found to account for impedance and the use of shared lanes. 6. Compute the reserve, or unused, capacity for each minor street movement by subtracting the total volume or flow rate using the lane Cm passenger cars per hour) from the lane's capacity. APPENDix C -RESULTS OF THE INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS i EXIS'T'ING CONDITIONS Y i FINAL E NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I State Clearinghouse Na. 2001122073 for CYPRESS GROVE CITY OF OAKLEY Lead Agency SEPTEMBER 2003 11,J Prepared By: ' I ._. R-ANEY PLANNING & MANAGEMENT, INC. r .a FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT f FOR CYPRESS GROVE State Clearinghouse#2001122073 i Lead Agency: f7_1 City of Oakley. Oakley,CA Contact: Barry Hand Community Development Director Prepared By: f z Raney Planning and Management,Inc. 1401 Halyard Drive,Suite 120 West Sacramento,CA 95691 (916)372-6100 J Contact: Cindy Gnos,AICD lDivision Manager s� f September,2003 i f a :1 i FINAL EIR CYPREss GRovE PROJECT F,r_ SEPTEMBER 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS It CHAPTER PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION and LIST OF COMMENTERS..............................................................1-1 "I 2. REVISIONS TO THE DEIR TEXT..........................................................................................2-1 a.Revised Table 1-1,Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............2-2 3. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES......................................................... .................................3-1 4. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN ...............4-1 APPENDICES A. Kleinfelder,Inc. B. Balance Hydrologics,Inc. C. Carlson,Barbee,and Gibson, Inc. D. TJKM Transportation Consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS jA f Rl 17 a N A.N, L� S 7Y OA4A4eN*reRS P r f r-tc t c "� d �' �5-e�,�,`k �" '3 `"++�.'� �Ssfi�s '-b ''y�s,°,�•2�`*�``"`c*r 1r+� { FINAL EER CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 a 1 . INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF COMMENTERS -7 INTRODUCTION r- This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) contains public and agency comments received during the 4_ public review period of the Cypress Grove Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR). This document has been prepared by the City of Oakley in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). BACKGROUND s An initial Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was released December 18, 2001 for a 30-day review period. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on January 9, 2002. A second NOP was l: released January 17, 2.003 and circulated for a 30-clay review period. The second NOP was based upon the revised application including the submittal of Tentative Maps and Design Review. An additional public scoping meeting was held on February 4, 2003 for the revised Cypress Grove project. The comments its received from the NOP were addressed in the Cypress Grove DEIR dated May 2003, The Cypress Grove DEIR is an informational document intended to disclose the environmental consequences of approving and F implementing the Cypress Grove project. All written comments received during the 45 day public review period from May 20, 2003, to July 3, 2003, regarding the project are addressed in this FEIR. In addition, a letter was received August 25, 2003, after the close of the comment period, and is responded to in this i FEIR. SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES Chapter 2, Revisions to the DEIR text,identifies all changes to the DEIR. These changes are in response to comments on the DEIR made by the public during the public review period. 'a t RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public comment period are presented in Chapter 3, Comments and Responses. Comments were received during the public comment period solely , from written correspondence. Each comment letter received has been numbered at the top and then bracketed to indicate how the letter has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is given a number with the letter number appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, the .first comment in Letter I would have the following format: I-1. The bracketed letter precedes responses to the letter's comments in Chapter 3 of the FEIR. LIST OF COMMENTERS The following is a list of letters received identifying the letter number, agency or person submitting the { F letter, and the page number on which it appears. Ler. ............................................................................................................ P- 1. Governor's Office of Planning and Research .........................................».................3-1 2. Governor's Office of Planning and Research ...........................................................3.3 3. Department of Transportation ............................................................................3-6 rtment of Toxic Substances Control............................................................. 3-18 4. Depa i CHAPTER 1 -- INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF COMMENTERS 1-1 J FImAL £IR ` CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT - SEpTzswBER 2003 5 I}�6lo\�ut�r [}i�r�� 3-�1 . ............�.....`.�'.,.........'`..`..�.,....................�...�................. . 6. Department o[Conservation's Division uILand Resource Protection........................... 3'23 7' Contra Costa Water District ........................................,................................... 3-29 � 8. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District............................................................ 3-81 9' Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ....,.................... 3'D6 IO. Stocl Rives LLP .......................................................................... ................. 3-98 � � 11. Department ufWater Resources ...................... ............................................. 3-121 / � s � . � � ^` � ' � ^ ' � � � � ' ` { � ` ' r � � � ! -� ' � � CHAPTER 1 — }mTnooucTom AND LIST OF COMMENTERS 1-2 � � , ------' ;r i 2. REVISIONS TO THE DEIR TEXT f� CA ORR r ; l R as a t,LN ME #� 4� Z MI. 'a, "M i Fit AL E'IR CYPRESS GR©vE PROJECT SE'PTEmsER 2003 2. REVISIONS TO THE DEIR TEXT INTRODUCTION This chapter presents all of the revisions made to the DEIR in response to comments received. New text is double underlined and deleted text is struck through.Text changes are presented in the page $' order in which they appear in the DEIR. TEXT CHANGES NOTE:New text is double underlined;deleted text is stmeIE threes. 1.0 INTRODUCTION,SCOPE OF EIR,AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1-24 of the DEIR,Table 1-1,Biological Resources section,first sentence and third bullet under mitigation measure 3.5-7(b),are hereby revised as presented on page 2-11 and 2-12 of this FEIR. i Page 1-30 of the DEIR, Table 1-1, Biological Resources section, mitigation measure 3.5-10(a), is hereby revised as presented on page 2-16 of this FEIR. Page 1-30 and 1-31 of the DEIR, Table 1-1, Biological Resources section, mitigation measure 3.5- 11(x)and 3.5-11(b),are hereby revised as presented on page 2-17 and 2-18 of this FEIR. Page 1-32 and 1-33 of the DEIR, Table 1-1, Biological Resources section, mitigation measure 3.5- 12(a),is hereby revised as presented on page 2-19 of this FEIR. F _r µ Page 1-33 of the DEIR, Table 1-1, Biological Resources section, mitigation measure 3.5-12(b), is hereby revised as presented on page 2-19 and 2-20 of this FEIR. Page 1-33 and 1-34 of the DEIR,Table 1-1, Biological Resources section,mitigation measure 3.5-13, is hereby revised as presented on page 2-20 of this FEIR. L4 Page 1-39 and 1-40 of the DEIR, Table 1-1, Transportation and Circulation section, mitigation measure 3.7-1 is hereby revised as presented on page 2-26 and 2-27 of this FEIR. E; �;•, Page 1-40 of the DEIR, Table 1-1, Transportation and Circulation section, mitigation measure 3.7-3, is hereby revised as presented on page 2-27 and 2-28 of this FEIR. ,y i Page 1-44 and 1-45 of the DEIR,Air Quality section, mitigation measure 3.8-1, is hereby revised as presented on page 2-30 and 2-31 of this FEIR. Page 1-57 and 1-58 of the DEIR, Table 1-1, .Hydrology and Water Quality section, mitigation measure 3.12-4,is hereby revised as presented on page 2-43 to 2-45 of this FEIR. t.a CHAPTER 2 — REvisiONS TO THE DEIR TExT" 2- 1 I . � � I J fa.i J � 4.,5 4s •�� f .� � z Z Z LC LL, W -r C O as tt V u C3ILI9 ytz Its m k cz nL%l Fs € 1 E nc ti °�' � n U � wal•Ty �•. OY Z4 4 cr 11 F v �. lu � N m j ... til 4r O ! ts. Con .d s onul i^ o o ►" L� o o °,�' o o 0t4 r - o �. N Cr•1 c ri m f m m ,S, N w a " tl Chi j mow+ J= X <. dam" IM c w w ear c M c.A •w C c/i .n cd1 W ds cd6. t � +C � 4 1 �„' ✓ SCS yam, � r+ (� w. ✓ ' � "u.' iY,'� �. '� � � � '�Cr CW "�. ~Li'l ✓ � '� e}'` C� ,:f I: � c I C\l , c Z z ~ N wZ3v; rC o� Cu, p 22- h � w � 1�.~r •� y y u � �" E c a y a x ,LLU_ 6 n n w ra. no r d , to ZZ •.` � i � w w � cn eve t••" U C � o o '� � u3 C-• > 1-4 Ld O s L L Ln o Ltj O CL rd rd Cd M � uA (� •� c I m m co m rr m i - n� LQ tJ �eC � r d O d ? C Q. I. �." 6t u'• 4i Cfi} °' tl � u y„i ..d •~. �7 CS fd v d Oi .�„� 01 .GJ 41 lz 42,` d d d � m � •� „O .ti " � :; `" b t7 � ri � C] +a tJ r,e .q C O� R. � d qW '� "�" +•, ,.c`3 � � � ��S �` d h � 1� b Is ^� � � � � � � � u CRY•• b *,C b +a "b O `` "•� o°i ti 05 C ••C � w �" ++ U �.,. t/2 yy ..s h � ..,,,, ++� � � a+ 05 •�"� � � C.a +.a � •„7 � b ci a �u Cl y +�' t .1 �" •� 61 a C+' -,,�' .a of 4�'� C ,�' �" "' � '.,d �' ° +d x1+ eY �.. C7 C � " *t''' L^; t� y y C :,y m .•L 'b "a' b ay �'' O Cj +„ c�,u F'- O r., d C .`„;' d "bqa '`aryt q»•-w Cj O Itri "Ly w 4 tl ww '""" R. d � � � "C � .a ori C •ary"' .0 Gdi � b :.; 3 d. N to. b c w tv Tj ` I N h w I l r , a L.! .21 I! 5 4.. r � 1 � � c � 'M � � 41 � t e O L�j irk lz� 1,; W z s R n I CL.td tl c •c am .E •." O N is •:-7 O � t,`�� �.' � "C7 Q «�. bJ a � u� :� # , t $ Q 3 "t-n �° a `� ` ave a s IV3 -S s. i L'3 u Q G fs y N �V y w CS . 02 �lyyjLA'S C O a tl C y d „II^�"y b rJ � 0p$i P v; .•C SS., O Ldi V © Ca 1` � •6 Gp C "� w � a rn u O i j p s C1 CS CO C Z Ll `Ty O +3 dC z 4�,� U o n y + y p 4 C L� q tl Kofi C3 O C 1 tiC2 u u tl "' 4.,1 �` 9: +' C b V ..,. „tl vl' ..r O � ': C .o ."' O •«.� {y C1 tl tt 4.'t7 tlJ E � 1 E 1 .4 O (, 4+ 'Vii' C- 5 i •.. i v Ld tCi IZ V G 4 w p .L F. u C CJ � v � � O Mn 3 N w W QCC ��+ y �- � �.U� •� c W a � � � � � mob', a � � � � �o� � � ,J'� �� �. ��. w+ .r.� 'C N t"""7 an � � a� q �+ t'�.1 •� �pyy� ..0 � � N •ti � w t.-,� •Bey �'' � `� � Ln c� d w w o U 19� tfS v. 1 �3 q i m �} U Lt tz IQ 42 ri c ^Q b v a c v v -zIts r,3 OT lz C7 b tz N ri w ECL ra 06. t y .C•. "" ^" LL, ii t7.. Q �r.� Q �C` 1-- 0J r.. rw � �: � � •� i Gam.. ; b � o� � gra eu 1 tj co y ci, is : U 'in co v 'G � w w V1 r � y nom.., 0�1 ty+4��+ tedy,y O' 71O N O •r ITZ •w� Vf � � �, i�3u 'Y.i � � • � •� f✓ y " NS , •i,} 7 •. cs O�1 O1; 'S ul" ti u1 t' 'CY ^ „S•`Yi'� 1„ Z4 CN "� O G b COi., CS as n ..a tn -Z '� � �?, � 01 '' � ,� �' �. • � eS � C chis �' "oo :: �''-`"`' tl ca � � d esa c° it r- t s a F. f' ♦.1 ti LU LLJ En u C rs rj R v UIn c ii y mot b 6 v w =1401 O z — U ^tom. u d p U O b L4 � u. p ais p� 6 y � "U "a •� p">..O .`�.� `.� 6. L'1. ^�.� �" C o� �. u �` O CL w Ci ++ h ay `� ,d,S •� 'b d q �",�•�.'� C C3 `"b r. � b 7 i-_.. � �A R.. q,, b > � � � �°.' .� ;;, `' � � � �, --°' b obi w Q �`•' .. i� ;'�� a u, � a w o W LU bio cr R..� Lo rj E . v .:c n z E d. 9 y r^' C� ' � '"as d •� Y -� IM C3 d a� #.,, �, �, CUJ M- ry, tj w ca s X1 � 44 i �, C5 � '� -� � � ...„. ., � ,�,� as •,� �y„ � til . A y. O W GL^ b n tL 4'2 Ly KIZtl Ci ?� •�+ m t7 f ,L C C3 b C5 W c� �4 .'- .,, } �a qty.., t"w O in 0 '� Il a .-r rp 11 y 'f 4 i 4 r C\€ V O 'a tj W y H ti fy 'b `n 'a:i r1.' V 1 C7 V � � O� u- "� I~ V QS p �•' 0.. u "J I C t3 C a F t5 Up b <v u �`mea r3 1 it d of C 7 V o C ti Iz . ' d n p "t3 m a ,o h a C p C v d i IL 0 u _.f a i Z N }.� C� `1. ._.. `."" u :.�y � w oui F. C, •,;, 'y+^`s ice. � 'w d �'or in �1 � s.+'1 O "? ''' �' .ol'' �2J U .C3'y N � � b tl •��ia � a � '� ,�-°` IR w O S 04 •�c4 � � c� lei) YS .rte � 'CJ IM, u G 6 t \i y F-a y' i� i' W � OO Fo u •� ;� "'�s L IL ° a - ;; b d Z. �, v n mor M O Cri j7 O� gip.., "tJ V 2l f rz C y' .L m os 3" C tin e r ,� O C a C .� G C - '•C tCs Cg d "" -.. b u a i � C 4 Li '4J `f b � �+] � t.i O '•,,,f' U L: � �^• �v' •.`. �r .`+., L`iu y �S L / m `- b 40, m os E� rl -Ti, 01 Yti Tj t {.tJ u v C °' �� b „� N C. .�.; y ;ts C d v v ti o du i 00 z { Li k w w �> `3 I li G t3 �J 9 i3 .� of o n M a p w act v " ca ' tai w O C 'ia C "" `ops ¢, `' Ir oa ami a o' a - , aK3a o13 ', `.-. :.s p„.Xt �C�3 y O w o C1 w '.CtLSS y 'i O ~„, a ; P- Yp ✓tel i by Ste+ CS p vi +-' oS q U +- C v. ` a"ytkC5 •Yy w '_` y„ j rw "> -•-� � a of ..c ..c a.. '; a a � ,� � `�„ to u `� � o �' to 3 tl t3 v t ON f Q it K i" 1 to 11 4 � w az 11 �E S rn>, i s' I V �.1 ..� ti a N to +. "'Q �" ."""••, C b "'S Q O LU � � or � C -C C as C `'' w •fit. �.:, -C `" � is b g lz z L2 zc ta ++ fib'- " O t ra 120 a 0- Y `J 13 C CS :t° , +n. 0.. •af a -C +� ,•V `^ 3C M ' tr O � l •�' �+r� yl Q O i w�+1 � `N "3 � y y � yrl �y Fri _YV •� �. Q �a ��y,,,w�.� �i �y � �+ .,,3 jJu• t C11 to tx� t3 O a Q -: c� a ;� ` z4 'A S ca. ' o a °u c n 12 r-+ M 1 F4ai Ln 1-4 44 i 4 .44 - t: tz lz V1 C O tv w #i zr t ea u i 0 C S tv M r 1 ii i r s n 0 ¢"� l�i"� a a � � •� "`t�.,� ' �` �.,;,� is � � ,� � � � � � y --71 a a r a n a41. f W tz '~' n cs t> as w ea G iii v � w a a ta a c h WCA �, o o ti ct Ln � fy C7 t4 � si tirs 1t iri 8, w VI it c � Z N YJ S)1 vK � C3 U..4 e� 3 t t ,Y 1 LLJ a tl et W L pj c e ^w Cis M 2 �•w ti y fL C b a ° .i� L7 lu a a a m a a 16. TI �G b as _� 10 of Itw y p ani by O4.._ tri, > gyp'' lt7 h.. «�.7.t� tl `� `.tea Ell V d crit ttl C7sd 4. a.; h \ c ggs Z a y cr} Inzz o —1301 tA Es CA- `«t O1y u y y L .ty m y tyw 'r3cr n n � a : z W trj 'r. C ¢fir `'c` v cs .. a lz w cs c UJ cz 44 Ql •,j t'% "'fin' y"' �7" W }rte.,.,, � �Q ..^'\ �`� W � U' p� � �"�,. y � �5.",. ,t;} (y -`.1 i�� v; Y L1. r d u u 11 cont. a , a q r� It 0 �. 14 t 5 i CL- W i a C ! 6 Q Q ' v � � 'ra Q c o �`, y �(J• d7 b d yS". CL. wy ! cz o a 5 "i y7 Ctl "7 •�n �.e p'S 6 m p O C C �n w U C u U C ^+ .w •'C7 ` '"' +•� ry7 .0 Z_ � p '� "C] " 6 C .,Oa A.. tl Q C� � .� .�.►, �`, C� CG"' 2! � �.�C •b w _ ,' '." R.. o. ZZ "' r� �tl .•.. O 0 'C' ". C `�" O .,.... ,.p tl u� p a'' f•' :./; . ❑ w, p `C a C W .V � � rxr •,v,, �' C � s, i3 ot~i G `� ° � u c13 UJ ' bi •-C1 •p as .`.. 3 C (" .� �'y, "£7 N O UJ � � •O � ,�'. � � u 6 � O V +. C � •��•, � C �,,, u ,�' ,b 'b as O ill „+ d b � C 5 d +'' •�,-•-, 0.. C v C jI � -O v v ,,, b G � � � � ", ._. W tzl- � 41 e t tl ti s C C h —fl t � ,Cq " � U al U ZIz- f ! 0 0 c c. t3 1'"'• 1 44 Z3 JS t "� gut' a � � � ,es �� •� � �� .� �� `�-c� `x' "'� 3 t� r- 1- �.+ t � 11 w d tA tt Y, w N Lu ti i � n r ,,.,`' IZ tt pt. A i -to „� a ..°, �, 6t .. +`3 + p --, c a~ v W `s N yam,,, V '7' O, !”' �+ .:�, .Z� +O ✓� („� y O O b tF C 'y; 4a., o .cam �` Ei u d bJ v b v cby v `U o o A a N u $rz t7S u •"rf •,•.7 � U �J c.� b "C� N �7 ^�•. .° O ,° f` .•••� `V ..� /� f y c p v LU o cz v m Cbi m o m m b > ob` ° 'C i. °►' a'"i u L C a., c r fl ed Lin }k Q L, L > C u O i IL vi >'vr dT J •J y i � Cd] c a.. M �M Vii: G 9 O C S ,j rA4 I dh v4 t c G o �+- r+ ta Cf K w l � ' d TI ' �,� '}� �. � CS 'ern `�- Sa.. 'CT,1 y ^'rj •� tl ,�, �� ���„"� ...�-� f,Sa CNtj � .yID C Y -1�5 C (� Ll v Ci Ol �' +�A V w Cl lam` IM, C. 0, o� v . tee, `""7 ..r` ial fl 'cy H C7 alk ld r zed' �u P: QJ t1 (� 4.� ❑ nv i2 ( o � .� J O r� Q d ;.n cLA N tz "•b - +❑+ ❑ cin f:.' 4 C ❑ � � `C +�-� d d � C' J i b tj W to ZZI- TI OJ d •w U' '42 y O c" �O ❑ di -C r. X U7 Ul�i c �LJ- r� ++ b ❑ b "b c� d �s -c iG C �7 b ` $ '�.y b "Ltz v b b b b b dr„ d GCar ,G w C d CU v y C b v b 1 �..� ,� Q � � C L7'•u v .:: l..) � ice., .� - Q -C �i � � o 4.0 Lill u E w > t1 J tw d CV 43 y C e— Lot W V v4 V, c .� y o � oc '0 � y J } ` T C M t•1 fY i N N w C/i JOU 2C, O C p v cs dam * � «ten- `C+' � � � "GU, O � ..., ¢• � d � �r, u Cw IZ Ink `l je- IM „ 2 w 14 f wd u M � M M g ' Y a` w oLu ! It o sp 6o m i UN � O rn KI II cLU u a f o u t f f u o- O O g� a F+ u 4r D ••� N d co rz CL rd sn Cq u j u M �`r1 es ,:, .� (t � L`+47J' ¢s "`•" „�, �' n aha � wL`a.. q :f% 'yy w'~3 'baa tw i baa 3 M � tl . CC G l. � � c"^"7.�y exp � y. mum,,, � tl p -�' m .sa •� •�, � ir: l n °' W cz. c� w.. • ��jj 3 t C""3 .r+i .-✓ V1 �7 N un 41 S. i O ts..Z v v tW I'iJA a- ee o r- m �Y v a o5 CL i tC71 S :. O1 C. "V p a �i •, v. N7 C � y„i"1 .0 y �" V C C Q! � � � CS 'b Ol tl o .,C -Ct U., ••., � q v, t7 If req � �,."'.`. C +.. "U .qC. +� •w, C ti •`� C w, G ". !4� � `� "'` � ,,,v, X �+ •� o � Ll. � wi ti ni � y u C "' � '-i,. CS �L" � '�9 C �dJ .>. t3 W v oCi ""`,.Z`n� C •� d C O• -C }"' .tea O c C v uj W w > d a v C? U LTJ td u C y CUl •> •a7 3 7- fo en rn rn i r., (1 4 J G G '-r C t5 "TS I V y,t C fA tl 10 i..\ ..S (� .., ri �rG C "G•,, G Tri p `� ��„ w ay "tl �'' � � J• vJ r- ` ' 2"N .InLon -r in 0 :. t LL , CrIl LU t:z Lai -,tz a -0 Or" tn w t4 ID rj t3 9z -Z cz ".3 "Z., -4 Ct Q C: CA- CI. IZ Z rx. CL. C. 'Uj ZI WO l Q Loll Ln co 41 to .............................. . ................................ ..................................... ............................— Un , Wit: _ Cc O� c -c� tl aCL o '. 4 - v 14. IZ CA y Q.. a a fi } ` � rt a 2to {{ Li tl ►r CS O "� `+ d b CI y �s td rA 4r ", "i` 't+i � � � � «� i ! • ! ! chi {—' t!I . t"t Q f+Cs W to k lz qu = d .c o y 0 It /"y v % W ti C c � W CG CG o OD 4! rr7 k CJ t Uj LQ z LU E (Y zzJE^ 0 ti rL IL yIt 3. c 'tj W2 kv r: -ts k fu t'n tv -Ell Zi '5 oj -0 0 > Cd C4 m rr Uj tt tn gz 0 -0 41 tv u ey) ....................................... ............ ................... ..... ................................................ i lz UA lz IJ W p In u cy t- y N s "� - e it at ro yC:L- ou td Q fiE� 45 fA) ii •�J baa r 4a 4 { e ,t -zn � I Lai lij .. y y u - u., IUD b} C k •� �p4bi � �" � "'fes � 4" s.o r v czo LLj v � ri- 0Ld ed O •tr � i � S J4 tjr 4 y C 2{7 V � p ° D b i o o c a a v e v i cis "� " ;~ •� (� � �E � +�- G �, _.r€w C O Z o W rs 0 w z ci ski ti .� U o m •t inn •7 r� erg I1 0o co 1 ao Cr C3 all x. m m rr cr) m m m `s t� w c m e is) t�. ro s u a r�s� »a ami acs ti n g p.. is 44 at WE 10 IQ y O `o CS «G Ch ty cl M b l. �s ren Q �G ^� �C3 w `C' ,.--,, w `� w o o .° .� y C •�'�' �, � 10 a d tai `A tS( a ,rte+ 'ad 'tet w LTi ..�• LT Cd w C v Ct j yyW3 tl ZO «M O "0 .en iS er M � k 's LA bJ c 13 V � m ti..} s..."'t� '�' ..n "b. "� o� C ...ti,� •. b. �`C � y",-, p s`3 b p7� � b CZ. .� -45 x C „ ori u 1 "'.� C or "� y. �" C t� .,C t"� 'S;, u ^oc "d L,,._ •r � m "b y 6 C p C tea_ w b C. .b •'� b „� d. `+.f' "�� �" O d am... u cr, c''°w a `.��` 'w' a °' ' a V3 ff'... yywwC •� �` !i •.y «...yf � � d CQ %65 V] a `." y •�` r.+ '� i�. v �". C3.+ �,' U b� h O ,� b b6 4 y,y r✓-' X MG b � '�' 'F. S "�"t5 ,.�f3 }us �" �" .EY b �u b C.. ►. .'`� tl p u p �% !Y f . w 8 U N t v b off, a� 3 4 p o p {. w /r ..p V�In .j v +'`.,... C CSS •�. r". Y•- r. U > b v 4r O C\i 1 G.. sir � ,a by j u :Qm u3 t<s a s CL y c o u o 4g f � r ns II m Its C V TWO tl rns; w o !1 Vq k � tLlny � � � `O '•'�° a N `C'1 � 07 C 'Cj � ,� p o> � cJ w GJ Dari C: Tl sts CY7 va "'Da,+ wv. ',3 y e y O t* y � r w CPI Y k tl� ij ?H rz Lu tp ts � !1 U; �? ``�'`' � ,� obi `.�., �..� � � ,y o'"i _n -` •y ,.� ..� c ;� ` tl w d d c �� v5 l " V ,,,,,. -"�+ ��-• `.' ami C +, `• tl y . cr a a a : 4 cEic a O a U w ' tb S p� LZ 0.. u ,}C.,}/. •... a r,,tl 6 y y °" ".a .°.0 •ty 6 +r N C {, F n «yi b C'S Ei .w 6 � �'tl pa .d lZ, u vdi u ..b d C'• '� � .,.t TR C z o I cz, ti j a C4 t 61 a� e., t 0 f � rr 41 Vi u a. c O ; p Cl. .7 c rn M � m W U4 C) t�iS "`��.�`" � � .may �+•� ��" "n` m °y � G Wim.. � � C "TI - v o ye oa v ra ea ss "ts -s� rs a 10 p is c 4sl on c n 'o 10 p a• O (.°'� ` y i m vii ` 7 °' o C ��' o, 4 a •- is H „f vi ' Ul cn cr, *` b rs CyiS w 3 3 „¢, rr C G7 M i { s ri Cr ya � raz "n mC rj- u � b .y .� � O uCi" +� t� ++ � ✓ ..., � � Q � ``� .y,� � `s� �i y w.`.t Z•s C'" CL. CA. ^ .�Is Z v C C otli L w � ri N �! S' 6 b b dKs Q •+a � � v � ¢µii n`'3 � -,., � � o .,� H y w � ,,,� ,,, � ,,,,, �. to to cr L u - a > Im en W G � c •°' < � s n K o # m � �h c vy w 3 d W c) a.a v y? m 21 r- In to c O a 1 11 q v L�3 03 end µ C:7 1 '�S i M Q tri � Lo .q c „ � � 5 r- C � -c a . � � � �• .,, -C a3 U O U •,.. C "Z3 .ty a.i -b Ci � 4 4�„ 't y �' ZG d O +� ` jz Ld O •t;; v 5 , tl ai cscs a u as IN cr LI) M Yy £ es 0 � e i M v et "n n 1 n n n tz y ca v s- Csa Cf- ty k r �- i } W WWF • n rE4, v z z { f`° wl El ts -t, r r MCi 6 w d € E. ' i 40 °' tt I! C j E c ;r CIO tot 1. td u C C1; ca +� C co `n c,,,, 4 e�6 •� td � SI ,. Cpl. itl U rr U U5 :R a� 0 tri m rri s d �T l N o` d W tT. CS ;; v 1 a n e tl tea, ' 11 Y �1 a s G m on' tl U jz a L$` rr ' tf� 'r. i S.Ya yw O 1 �a 'n � n W. t 't e ,w 4En p � ta ri o 42 4 O rn V3 v Z 01 —Za t5 L .fl -S foD CD Iz M C-5 Li K-1 C4. v 0 .t� ees � i � g� ctl CA ed LLJ 1 �4 fi F-Z) ..................................... ................................ ............................... ..................... X............ ..........1.111,............................... i r-, # � w � e > "b'� CS t c q u Cs u 12 Cqy w sz ' � � "q q qct � '� � � .� .�., � .�•, .SSS °+, C+� p t,j ... � 4 r i� tr W a v C c a. q ^ry :z b q Id g nS 4a W Cs wu b '^� q p L1 +;���+, �ey � F'�'•• cs F'�� � h� � -°: w "� � `^ 3 as o � cJ �` �., (d rii r✓ {t} ft c r uj to tt CA -I:vro ' ev ry 3I f4 s w 3 , i 7 03 Lu Qj 12 d .� C rL-� t3 L: E ti v; tu Q. ry O O d � l� y q , a ' k 4 C 14) c a' a " c -`. v t0 C ri v 6 � t`" `•..` rz + �° +°+ Cl. C t FS. Gd.. ."�•, "ti 'Cb C I v d d I to i iE til a.. .s bi cn o t ui.f i E y ' o = a ° o > m i7 v ll 3 L i. Fr '•� �"' V RS Sun \ �-r m CL ��,„ `� �., yv„ �• ^'� !!"t7 D ii CL "G d1 67 vC+i "C7 ..d �' v X 'Li N i !J §_ ry en d- an iL 3 ei m m m I Z N i S e N 0 s Ct} +� � ii R � r C tz o i J 0 � v M 't 4, E' ,t a tk FINAL EIR CYPREss G vE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-5 of the DEIR is hereby revised to read: (8) Develop the project area buildout consistent with land uses and policies defined in the City of Oakley 2020 General Plan. (9) Qrv6QR 51-1 u4z =1 a] hmjug a d.2 raaidenti Page 2-16 of the DEIR, second paragraph, is hereby revised to reads The Cypress Grove project site is located within the boundaries of CCWD Service Area A, as well as within the boundaries of the Diablo Water District(DWD) and the Los Vaqueros Project (LVP) Planning Area for receiving LVP water quality benefits. The major portion of the project site located north of East Cypress Road is = included within the CCWD's CVP contractual service area boundary. was am"ed to the Gentia4 VaRey Ptojeet (C—Nq2) GantreteettrA Ser-viee-Are&-4n —1-1. 2002. However,*T_he final CEQA documentation and other environmental information, including evidence of compliance with ESA and other federal regulations will need to be completed for the Cypress Grove Project and coordinated through CCWD for submission to the Bureau of Reclamation as an inclusion application. The project proponent and CCWD would initiate ESA compliance through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 2-20 of the DEIR, is hereby revised to read: This EIR is also intended to serve as the environmental document by which the following agencies would rely upon to ensure compliance with CEQA when carrying out actions potentially required of them by the proposed project. The agencies and their associated actions potentially required by the proposed project are listed below: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Section 404 permit • California Central Valley Water Quality Control Board—401 Water Quality Certification • Diablo Water District—off-site water line • California Department of Fish and Game — A Streambed Alteration Agreement, pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation-Approval of the inclusion application and_==A Mnt laeggil 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Since the issuance of the Cypress Grove Draft EIR, notice has been received that petition to list the California population of the Western burrowing owl as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA") was submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission in April Of 2003. The Cypress Grove DEIR does not reflect this information in the Biological Resources section (section CHAPTER 2— REVISIONS TO THE DEIR TEXT 2-50 i ' FINAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 200.3 { 3.5). Therefore, page 3.5-41 of the DEiR, first paragraph under "Western Burrowing Owl," is hereby revised to read: Western burrowing owl (FSC, CSC) is a small ground-dwelling owl that occurs in open, dry grassland and desert habitats in western North America from Canada to Mexico, and east to Texas, ' and Louisiana. Although in certain areas of its range western burrowing owls are migratory, owls are predominantly nonmigratory in California(Zeiner et. al 1990a). This species is an opportunistic ,m forager, foraging on large arthropods, mainly beetle and grasshoppers; small mammals, reptiles, ` birds, and carrion. The breeding season for western burrowing owls occurs from March through August, peaking in April and May (Zeiner et. al 1990a). Western burrowing owls nest in burrows in the ground, often in old ground squirrel burrows or badger (Taxidea taxus) dens. This species is also known use artificial burrows including pipes, culverts, and nest boxes. It should be nQttd that a petWon to list the California pQUulgUQp.Qf the )Meqtern b=uw' g owl as in !kcatotd Qr endangered undgr,,the Uifornia Endaugered " )was submLged to al'fnrn'a Fish and Yam ommi Sion 'n ,it of 2QU3, CESA Zen.rail ro ; it£ h t� i o 3x. h declugs Theh=Qmdag owl to be a andi . and/or i h h tr o•»n oi• hrd or -r, endangered any takinjZ of b_� 3rrowdno owls-incidental to the project would requ. , pori ion by s he F Page 3.5-54 of the DEIR, mitigation measure 3.5-7(b), first paragraph and third bullet, are hereby revised to read: 3. -7(b) If CRLF are positively identified during the prcteeerl Ige-cgnstruction survey, then a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared, with technical assistance from the USFWS and CDFG, that includes measures to minimize adverse effects of construction on this species and their lr associated habitat. At a minimum, this plan shall include all of the following measures; A USFWS-approved biologist shall survey the bridge, levee, and/or outfalls construction site at least two weeks prior to the onset of any construction activity. If CRLF eggs, ,w} tadpoles, or adults are found, USFWS shall be contacted to determine if an appropriate relocation site exists. 71e USFWS shall oversee any activities associated with the t. capture and handling of CRLF. :.: a Prior to any construction activities, a training session shall be conducted for construction personnel. At a minimum, this session shall include a description o�f`CRLF and its habitat and measures that are being implemented to conserve CRLF in the project site. A biological monitor shall o r".i aT a f ranrt T ian h bt7 T v �K ¢r and out aL1 when ap_]52"Oprlate t0 PT}Sitl't rnm�ry�innra xx++fir rnjniti7tpn4fnn me rec and y` an"o.-,.4Qtentia1takraECRLF. The Mtplan Ch all id n+t{x the Jnr _g rimes manitarina s azz he red=ir d ` CHAPTER 2— REVISIONS TO THE DE.IR TEXT 2-51 — FINAL EIR CYPPEss GRovEPROJECT SEP7-EpasER 2003 • All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall occur at least 20 meters(65feet)from any water body. A spill response plan must be in Place to allow prompt response to any spills. • All temporary disturbance areas shall be ie-vegetated with appropriate native species following I g project construction. • Work activities shall be completed between April I and November 1, unless otherwise authorized by USFWS. • To control erosion during and after project implementation, the applicant shall implement best management practices, as identified by the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. Page 3.5-58 of the DEIR, mitigation measure 3.5-10(a) is hereby revised to read: 3.5-10(a) Foense Pie-construction surveys for San Joaquin coachwhip shall be conducted-. T4mst swveys shall -be conductei by a qualified biologist. timing the appiopiiate 62ne mings df:14 &Pthml!detectim, 61FT407-d014 44;1Y AlvugA the beginn, 4994J). If this species is not found to occur on the project site, no further mitigation is required. Page 3.5-59 of the DEIR, mitigation measure 3.5-11(a) and 3.5-11 (b), are hereby revised to read: 3.5-I I A Fish Rescue Plan shall be prepared by a qualified fisheries biologist for the review and approval of the CDFG, NMFS, and USFWS that details measures to avoid take offish during expansion of the bridge and construction of the ou!falls and any associated cojer dam facilities. To ensure compliance and implementation of the plan, the fisheries biologist shall be rlelenf t4wilts com"tiction w2d Pumping aCHHHel ction for the bridge and oufa l er ch as cg&r dam in=llatiop de prina and adsh reset emawigns to accuse rn 17 n with minimizatian measures and maidanx of_p2gtential take ofs-='al-gatul-fish.Rgciz' 3.5-11(b) Formal consultation with the CDFG, NMFS, and USFWS shall be required in conjunction with Corps Section 404 and Streambed Alteration Agreement permitting to determine appropriate measures to avoid impacts to special-status fish species. As part of the consultation process, a Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment shall be prepared by a fisheries biologist that evaluates the proposed construction plans, oqfall design, vegetation removal, rip-rap and bank protection placement, coffer dam and water pumping best management practices, and water flow regime (includingfiow rates and timing and temperature of flow releases)from the stormwater pipeline. A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared that includes measures to avoid take of special-status fish dMi2T9 MMEM activitim. At a minimum, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the mitigation plan: CHAPTER 2 — REVISIONS TO THE DEIR TEXT 2-52 ...................... ..................................... .................................... .......... i Fi;v at.EIR CYPRESS GROVE"PROJECT t�h SEPTEmsER 2003 + If entrapment in the new pipeline is determined by the fisheries biologist to be a significant issue, a fish screen or other structure approved by USFWS, NMFS,and CDFG shalt be placed on the ou falls to preventy fish entering the pipeline system. s DAKW � rrrinr dgw 4teriga. I jurbidity and suspended sediment levels in water returned to .marsh Creek and Emerson Slough shall not exceed more than 10% above ambient levels in these water bodies. Construction shall occur between May 15 and October 15 (or other period requested by the NMFS) to work outside of the season in which juvenile or migrating salmonids are present in the system. k. t: Page 3.5-60 of the DEIR, paragraph four under impact 3.5-12, is hereby revised to read: The el r not the 10sa--of S_ 6 t of FiA an4 . trntiti r � d ti�rrr; s Although Swainson's hawks were not found occupying the project site during the j 2002 held surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates (2002b), the possibility exists that Swainson's hawks could establish occupancy on the site prior to the initiation of construction for the proposed E..,, project. Therefore, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts to ! Swainson's hawks. Page 3.5-60 and 3.5-61,mitigation measure 3.5-12(a),is hereby revised to read: 3.5-I2(a) If construction is proposed during breeding season (February-August), a fsebsed RE,; rctlnn survey for Swainson's hawk nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the 3 beginning of construction activities by a quaked biologist in order to identify active nests in the project site. f active nests are found, a buffer zone of a minimum a f one-quarter mile (approximately 1300 f eet) shall be established around the active nest. Intensive new F" disturbances (e.g., heavy equipment activities associated with construction) that may cause �= nest abandonment or forced fledging shall not be initiated within this buffer zone between March I and September 1. The buffer zone shall be increased to one ha!f anile in nesting areas away,from urban development (i.e., where heavy equipment noise is not a normal occurrence during nesting season). Trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season (September to # January). f no active nests are found during thee- onstru ion survey, no further ' mitigation will be required. Page 3.5_61 of the DEIR, mitigation measure 3.5-12(b), is hereby revised to read: i 3.5-12(b) The foraging habitat evaluation conducted by Sycamore shall be submitted to CDFG for t review _Qd mitigation for Ioss of Swainson's hawkhabitat t rcary wr1l afl be determined with technical assistanceyf rom CDF'G. >H CHAPTER 2 — REVISIONS TO THE DEIR TEXI" 2-53 Firvaz_EIRi CYPRESS GROVE PRO.iECT SE'P7-E BER 2003 x Page 3.5-61 of the DEIR, mitigation measure 3.5-13, is hereby revised to read: 3.;-13f construction is proposed during breeding season,(February-August), a focused survey for migratory and resident bird nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a quali)ed'biologist in order to identify active nests in the project site. If active nests are found, no construction activities shall take place within 500 feet of the raptor nests and 100 feet of other migratory birds until the young have fledged, u n cr B ro LIYG. Trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season (September to January). f no active nests arefound during thefoeused survey, nofurther mitigation will be required, 3.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION y. Page 3.7-15 of the DEIR,mitigation measure 3.7-1, is hereby revised to read: 3.7-I The applicant/developer shall restripe the Main StreetlCypress Road intersection asfollows: • The northbound approach shall be restriped with one left-turn lane, two through lanes, g and one right-turn lane; • The striping shall be indicated on the improvements plans submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to initiating roadway improvements; Ir • The alicant shall cielnncis_ ndttrr the imnrementatio o f wav nrov *� n*s o* h. r"yteu a d roval # h. Citv :n r iar o th avnr val ot" Final Marts . Page 3,7-17 of the DEIR, mitigation measure 3.7-3, is hereby revised to read: FFA is 3.7-3 Prior to initiating roadway construction, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer,for review and approval, plans for the widening of Cypress Road between Main Street/SR-4 and �ri-,� the ca morn orni.ct hawad= to provide one additional through lane in both { the eastbound and the westbound directions. The Cypress Road widening shall be complete !' prior to occupancy of the residential units (except the model home complex(es)). 11W `I shallgnt pagYr <rha' linrr f h rPss Road wid ninrr r�am_Lhe eastern Luz gain r pdog to the +scua ce fb rildi e CHAPTER 2 REVISIONS TO THE DEIR TEXT 2-54 t: %I c: FINAL EIR r, CYFRE.SS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEmsE.R 200.E i 3.8 AIR QUALITY Mitigation measure 3.8-1 on page 3.8-8 of the DEIR,is hereby revised to read: 3.8-1 The applicant shall provide measures to reduce emissions caused during construction activities r; by implementing the following dust control measures during the aggranriate construction activities as determined by the project contractor subject to City review and azynrnval: + Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; * Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by fx the wind; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other Ioose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet offreeboard, • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; * Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; ` ' * Sweep streets daily(preferablwith water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto t adjacent public streets; + h'ydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; + Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); * Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;and • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 3.11 HAZARDS Page 3.11-2 of the DEIR, under"Contra Costa Canal,"is hereby revised to read: s: Contra Costa Canal As noted above, the Contra Costa Canal borders the project on the north. Public access to the canal is prohibited along the project site by a�fen ee r --strand barb d r f n e to ke 7 77 T The e r gi n Y I dy `IS ITS n't. a&= Q Canal wguld r I'r Ona 1Ctn p Y(S rtV line and Canal linear fen es according IQ secdos 6 24 020 and 6.2i,2 00 of the C CWD Code of 4 � 3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 3.12-1 of the DEIR, fourth paragraph, is hereby revised to read: CHAPTER 2--REvisiONS TO THE DEIR TEXT 2-55 4 4+: ................ FINAL EIR CYPREssGRovEFRU"-jEcT SEFTEMBER 2003 Table 3.13-1 on page 3.13-3 of the DER is hereby revised to read: Table 3.13-1 CCWD Water Contractual Sources USBR at Rock Slough Permit Nos. 12725, 12726 CCWD 195,000 CCWD at Old River(Los Vaqueros Project) Application No. 20245 CCWD -195,00& Brentwood' ECCID at Rock Slough Agreement with ECCID' /ECCID 4+1090, License No. 3167 CCWD at Mallard Slough Permit No. 19856 CCWD 26,700 City of Antioch -City of Antioch at San Joaquin.River Statement No.009352 Svc.Area 7,670 City of Antioch City of Antioch at Antioch Municipal Reservoir License No.0002713 Svc. Area Unknown Gaylord Ga lord Container Ca.at San JmSWA River Permit No.019418 Container Corp. 28,000 E. 1.DuPont De Nemours&Co. E.I.DuPont De at San JoaqUm River ...... License No.000674 Nemours&Co. 1,405 Tosco Corp.Lion Oil Division Tosco at San Joa uin River License No.A010784 Corporation 16,650 USS Posco Not listed with SWRCB USS Posco 12,900 a Diversion amounts represent maximum diversion capabilities and do not reflect diversion quantities available for A years. b Diversion right at Old River for the Lm Vaqueros Project includes capacity for CVP diversions and water quality diversions, c ECCID=East Contra Costa Irrigation District. d Brentwood/CCWD Agreement of October 19, 1995. e Water to be made available its three blocks,phased over a 20-ear period(1990-2010) L Source: CCWD Future Water Supply Stud yjFinal Pkeport,1996 Page 3.13-16 of the DEIR, third paragraph, is hereby revised to read. Central Valley Proyect The Cypress Orove project site is located within the boundaries of CCWD Service Area A, as well as within the boundaries of DWD and the Los Vaqueros Project(LVP) Planning Area for receiving LVP water quality benefits. The major portion of the project located north of East Cypress Road is usI included within the CCWD's CVP contractual service area boundary. Aroremoian t Gentral VaRey Prejeet GarAreettied Serviee Are* eeewre4 on Beeember 48, 2GO2. The ffll 3MQre2ulwQ ;arelicabIr.tQ the==Q1Pdnroira: ng, • No Warr sUl be 12r 3aded hXthtDigr In a=exed lggdLuplas and to 'I wate M=IX s imilahle har use in saLdJ I znds M:dtinyr I X the DistriCt. Shed ,al,c n.R=j:d in No water figZg§W th VP sliall bt =Add- Di-4trirt or &nX Qf jU M1Wca&Je MjmJdAj=gMULn= , CHAPTER 2 —REVISIONS TO THE DER T=- 2-56 ............-.......... ................................ .............. FINAL EIR CYPREss GRo vE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 for.-use,--on lands whic"u nQt in the District's ' Area (CCWD 2003 Title S Reglat_ions Water S=fly a� d f2atesl. f { fQ t service to develo124annd nrodd the nerpc�ary e�nrn_ `r_ rn ntal or n her clocryjmenrarinn a s rs "I= D striys'11 pursu timelv and 12roan U r- Consent dscisims based on ibis do en a `on ( WL} 2003-Tilit.. 5 RemAadons Water supply and asl Page 3.13-22 of the DEIR, second paragraph,is hereby revised to read: The Cypress Grove project site is located within the boundaries of CCWD Service Area A, as well as within the boundaries of DWD and the Los Vaqueros Project (LVP) Planning Area for receiving 13 LVP water duality benefits. However, the major portion of the project located north of East Cypress Road is not included within the CCWD's CVP contractual service area boundary. Tire €"1 U.S.- of However, t1he ficial CF-QA documentation and other environmental information, including evidence of compliance with ESA and other federal regulations would need to be completed for the Cypress Grove Project and coordinated through CCWD for submission to the Bureau of Reclamation as an inclusion application. The project proponent and CCWD initiates ESA compliance through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. j Page 3.13-29 of the DEIR, endnotes section,is hereby revised to read: Endnotes } Cypress Grove Design Guidelines(Design Guidelines)C December,2001 `Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report(Oakley General Plan Background)(D September,2001 s 'Contra Costa County General Plan 0 1996 'Contra Costa County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report(D September, 1990 s Oakley 2020 General Plan,City of Oakley,August 30,2002. 6 Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,City of Oakley, September,2002. 7 ABAG City of Oakley Census 2000,bts • Lc-tu Ls abkg ca goy/cities/Oakley httn. s Projected Enrollments, 2002 to 2020 in the Antioch Unified School District, January 2003, Enrollment Projection Consultants,Table 3A. 'Oakley 2020 General Plan,p.7-15. 1d Oakley General Plan EIR,p.3-91,92. „ Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR,p.3-93. l �` 1lrban Water Mama rrrrnt Plan T)iahto ext-ter 17'esr4rr december 2D. 200 Lmi l CHAPTER 2—REVISIONS TO THE DEIR TEXT 2-59 F i1vAL EIR CYPRESS GR.0V F'ROJEC SEPTEm-RER 2003 .. i S. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Page 5-3 of the DEIR, sixth paragraph, is hereby revised to read: Hydrology and Water Quali#;y } The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in construction, which could change the existing drainage pattern for the project area. In ael4ition, the No Pr*et, Na aret5 whieh wertAd nee4 to be tresteel, m wou4ei t6c prepoft4 prejeet. 41terefore, fm hydrology mei wi+er qtta ra'n from h site err .n Dunigpmgm Allegg 'Would no ; Page S-b of the DEIR, second paragraph.under"Environmentally Superior Alternative"is hereby revised to read: 4 For this project, the environmentally superior alternative would result in development of the site under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Impacts to Aesthetics would be reduced because fewer housing units would be developed; therefore, different development schemes could be utilized for the project site such as the clustering of homes to allow for more open space. Transportation and Circulation impacts in for nroiect area would be reduced because fewer residents would occupy the immediate area; therefore, fewer vehicle trips would be made, thereby reducing Traffic, Air Quality, and Noise impacts. In addition, Hydrology and Water Quality impacts would be reduced via the Reduced Intensity Alternative because impervious surface area would be less as compared to the proposed project due to the fewer number of houses developed. Hazards would also be reduced because fearer people would be exposed to potential hazards such as pesticides and asbestos. Public Services and Utilities impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project because not as much infrastructure would be needed due to the fewer number of housing units to be constructed under the Reduced Intensity" Alternative. Conversely, impacts would still occur related to Land Use, Agriculture, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and geology. h4mreg=. 1z R d t d thus cmtribule to uda@Ln=a-yl ia tb& redo-n. Eurth=urb-an Ora a] regio- use, agdw= rMaUfg oe lo�v. 7. REFERENCES Since the issuance of the Cypress Grove Draft EIR, TERRASEARCH, Inc. prepared a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the KB Home South Bay portion of the Cypress Grove project site. The CHAPTER 2— REViSiONS TO THE DEIR TEXT 2-6G . .......................... ....................................................................................... FINAL Ee CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPT«aE 2003 </ d( Phase 11 report a been referenced 6 Chapter three of this FEIR in support of Resp2 to Comment 2 Therefore, 1 of the D R§hereby revised to read: : Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment Report, Eyp7a Creek Project, r lenks Consultants, 24 July, . ?a � Site Asseu=nt\ i2n \� � � \ . \ . � C \ . \} n , ADril 12003— . \ � � � .: \/ ^ . \ \\ ! � � . \\ . �\ . c � \\j \ \ ( r � j �) . . . \ CHAP ER 2 — REVISIONS TO THE D S R TEXT � ! 2-6! . \ \\ �r I a' COX",+EN—rS AND neS3 R� z f a ��r;��'' � �, t t Jun is 03 U?:2?p r—ithi of Uakiey ,». ..:<._t.��.�,1, S25=;:31S4 ..... F. 1 OF rt-k" STATE OF CALIFORNIA •q/ Governor's Office of Planning and Resca.r.ch ' State Clearinghouse Gra"Davi; i` Gc>vcrnor Intefiminney L7ircrtar .a J ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT LETTER. l DATE: May 29, 2003 TO: Barry Hand Post Its Fax Nota 7671 pis City of Oakley To Rrosn 3633 ,Main Street co co Oakley, CA 94561 phone RE: Cypress Grove -• Lr l! Fare • SCH#: 2001122073 This is ta acknowledge that the State Cleannghouse has received your our envtronrnental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: May 24,2003 Review End Date: July 3,2003 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Highway Patrol Caltrans,District 4 Delta.Protection Commission Department of Conservatian Department of Fish and Orae,Region 3 Department of Food and.Agriculture -1 Department of Housing and Community Development J Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Toxic Substances Control Depcnr`4rner:t of,t'Y iter Reso„+rcts Native American Heritage Commission _J }regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 2 Resources Agency State Lands Commission i The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency continents to your atrention on the date following the close of the review period. L-J) Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. 4rt r tro tcNTti 5T[trrE'T P.O.i3tJX;uaa ShCRr1tilCi\TC:.C ALti't)tt,N1A L:ihi<-3t1� 0160445-0613 ! 1Xfr}3Crr;33.xt3lk uiva.irpt.�a.Ft,ti: , _ .. 3-1 i FINAL EAR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 LETTER 1: GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING ANIS RESEARCH Response to Comment 1-1 The comment confirms that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. E: The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. 1 <] ti :5 44 .� 1.<J 1 l 't_2 L:�5 sY � c CHAPTER 3--COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-2 LETTER 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIAAf Governor's Office of Planning and Research �� ^ pn� • State Clearinghouse �'�r,��niF Gray Davis 'Tal Finney Governor interim Director j July 7, 2003 { : .I Barry Hand PECiVED City of Oakley 3633 Main Street JILL 0 9 202 Oaklay,CA 94561 CITY Or C},NKLEY Subject: Cypress Grove `< 1 SCH#: 2001122073 f-71 Dear B arry Hand: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on July 3,2003,and the comments from the responding agency(ies)is (are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c)of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are 2-1 required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need More information or clarification of the enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. is Sincerely, Terry Robbe� Director,State Clearingbouse Enclosures . cc: Resources Agency 3-3 1400 TEN'1 H STREET p.O.B7a"3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FA.X(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov _ ............................... Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base i SCh(# 2DO1122.073 Project Title Cypress Grove Lead Agency Oakley, City of Type EiR Draft ElR SDescription The applicant proposes to develop 637 housing units(641 single-family and 96 multi-family units), The application includes a Planned Development in order to address the type and quality of future residential development. The application also includes a request for approval of tentative maps and r design review to develop the 637 housing units. Lead Agency Contact /dame Barry nand Agency City of Oakley Phone 925-625-7000 Fax email Address 3633 Main Street City Oakley State CA Zip 94561 E' Project Location County Contra Costa City Oakley Region i Crass Streets Cypress Road µ Parcel No. T-awnship Range Section Base Proximity to. Highways SR 4 Airports Railways Santa Fe Waterways Marsh Creek, Emerson Slough Schools Delta Vista Middle School J. Land Use The project area is primarily vacant,currently containing a residence and associated out buildings. The project area is currently designated Light Industrial and Agricultural under the City of Oakley General Pian. Project issues Aesthatic/Visual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality,Archaeologic-Historic;DrainagelAbsorption;Flood Plainlrlooding;Geologic/Seismic;Noise; Public Services; Sewer Capacity;Soil IJ J Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circuiation;Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetland/Riparian;Wildlife;Growth inducing;Landuse;Cumulative Effects w,. 1 Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Delta Agencies Protection Commission; Department of Parks,and Recreation;Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol;Caltrans,District 4; Department of Housing and Community Developrnent; Department of Food and Agriculture;Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of - Toxic Substances Control;Native American Heritage Commission;State Lands Commission Date Received 05/20/2003 Start of Review 05/20/2003 End of Review 07/03/2003 _ i L - I 3-4 F7i`AL EI,R CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT .SEPTE t✓BER 2003 UTTER 2. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH Response to Comment 2--1 ' The comment confirm that the State Clearinghouse submitted the t)raft,EIR to selected state agencies for review and then lists the state agencies that reviewed the Dro ft.EIIi. The comment further notes Section 21104(c)of the Cal fomia Public Resources Code which states that an agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a { project which are within an area of expertise of the agency. The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DE1R. J 4 l � i. 3 t- t I ) Eh:J CHAPTER 3---COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-5 07/03/03 15:54 FAX 5102865513 SYSTEM& EGIONAI, PLANNING STATE CLEARIN00 ID041/003 LER 3 �SJ_AMT OF rAI DEPART MNT OF TRANSPORTATION F, 0.BOX 23660 0A:MA11M,GA 94623-0880 r (510)286.4444 Fb=Your pauterl (5 10) 296-44:54 TDD Be energy c�iderill Y... July 3, 2003 x . rl 2 0000462 j SCM#2001122073 Mr. Barry Hand Lill city of Oakley 36.33 Main Street ,STS Tc CLEARING HOUSE -4 Oakley, CA.94562. J1 S Dear Mr. Hand: Cypress Gro-ve—Draft Environmental 1 pact Report(DEIR.) s Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) sem,the environmental review process for the proposed project. We have reviewed the I7EIR and L IJ havee the following comments to offer: F' Water Quanta,,t4?`onitori.na,.Resources The DepartsuenVs Storrs Water Quality Handbooks can be usad as a reference during preparation of a Storm Water Roll.ution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Worlting details, instructions for selection and. implementation of construction site best management 3-1 practices (BW*s) are presented in these handbooks and the Construction Site Best Management Practices Manxial A template of the Mater Pollution Control Program may also be accessed from the following web site: vvwx .drst.c ! tzµucl�rtnrmw to lst w terl.htza ri F" The proposed project shall adhere to the conditions of rational Pollutant Discharge .. < { Eb=ination System. General Permit Criteria for Ambient Surface #000002, Order#93-08- 3-2 Department of Water Quality, for general construction activities, issued by the State Water Resources Control Beard (SWRCB). Copies of these permits may be obtained from. the. N$ SWROB web site ,at hitt)://.gwrc:b State R"o to (SR) 4/ _C_Xpress Road Intersection I The project applicant should pay for the widening of SR 4 at Cypress Road in order to 3-3 'J accommodate two left-turn lanes from castboxund SR 4 to Cypress Road and westbound SR 4 into westbound Cypress Road_ I 4 "Callrow impravw mobilit),across California" 3-6ti 07/03/00 15:54 FAX 5102885513 SYSTBM®IoNA.L PLANNING + STATE CLEARINGHO Z002/003 i Mr.Bang Rani 1 City of Oakley July.8,2003 ?age 2 , i � as .. .13 fD' Pre-empting the signals at this intersection will be necessary for railroad crossing. If 3-3 cont westbound traffic during the A-M peak period on Cypress Road is stopped on the railroad tracks and a train comes, how will this problem be handled? Turnin- Movern.ent Volumes Please provide turning movement volumes for future years, and for each alternative 34 similar in foruaat to Figure 3.7-1 for our review. mitigation:for Cumulative Tzraf{c Tnanr�rts VTe recommend the City of Oakley crease a mechanism to collect fair-share fees ]Com. 3- project developers within the Cypress Corridor area to contribute towards the mitigation of cumulative impacts to SR 4. E rr�r'ach m-ent onto State Right of W(gy Please be aware that any work or traffic control within the State right-of-way (ROW} will require an encroachment permit from the Department. To apply for an encroachment 3-6 permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans (in metric units) which clearly indicate State ROW to the following address: Mr. Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief Office of Permits California Department of Transportation, District 04 P. O.Box 23560 Oakland, Ca 94623-0660 bead.Agenc-y MitiF_at�n Monitoring Responsibilities The CEQA as amended on January 1, 2001 by Assembly EM 1847, amended Public Resources Code Section 21.081.7 to now require that "transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program adopted by a public agency" be submitted to the Department for a project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. To aid your agency in fulElling this CEPA, report;n.g requirement, file enclosed Guidelines for 3-7 Submitting Transportatian Information from a Reporting or Monitoring Program to the 17epartment of Transportation and Mitigation Monitoring Certifi.eation Checklist are provided. The DEIR lists 10 mitigation measures for transportation-related impacts (mitigation measures 3.7-1 through 3.7-10). Please complete Ld, sign. the Certincation Checklist form fox the proposed project tkat includes the above-mentioned transportation- related mitigation, measures anal return it to this office once the mitigation measures are approved, and again when they are completed. We look forward to r+ecei-wing a response to our comments at least ten days prior to certification of the EIR. pursuant to Section 21092.5($) of the CEQA- 3-7 "Caarrsns improma m.obilay across Cal;forn[a" ii07/03/03 15:54 FAX 51028$5513 SISTEM®IONAL PLANNING S`IITE CLEARINGS0 Q003/003 NJ's.Barry Hand F City of Oakley July 8,2048 Page 3 These comments are based on our initial review of the DEIR. Additional comments will follow by letter within the next week from our Design Office. Should you require further information or have any questions regar&ng this letter, please call.Liza. Carboni of my staff at (510) 622-5491. Sisk Ly , OTHY C. SABLE F District Branch. thief IGR/CBQA c: Philip Crimmins (State Clearinghouse) �':::,' Attachrsa.et�t -i� I . : 3-8 "G.mltrars�impt•cses rnulrility rsrrn�e Cat£�orrirr" t sc!e!`�t►er.. �_..i�.....,a..►+*........�.ratld@ CDetrarbnta,._�. GUIDELMS FOR s AnMN TRA NS R'TATtON INFORMATION FROM A REPORTING 0, R MONITORING PROGRAM TO THE CALIFORNIA MPARTMENT OF k; TRANSPORTATION(DEPARTMENT) ' MKODUC'ION -rU Catifomis Baviroamettal Quality Act(CEQA)at amended on lasterary 1. 2DD1. by As ably Sill (AS) 120, added a taw I t provision to Section 210180.4 of the Public Xasout6eA Cad4 ( R0) - 'fie provision requires lead agenies to WbMit Notices of Ptrepattation (Noes) to the Governor's Office of Plumin and Raicarch when they determine that an e0viom=11al impact report will'bt requited-tat approvt a pscje L c" The new law also amnded PRC. Stctim 21081.7,- which now requires that"Iranspottation infor ObOn n' suiting from a rcportitng of monitorring.prop%m adopted by a public agency"be submitted ra the Department whet a grajtct has impacts that art of rytatcwide. nagional,carat*-wide sigatilxcance. mitigation mporting or nwnitoting prograoat are tequitod Under PKC Secticmt 2M1A when public agcndes inClude envirxrtttrtanW impact mitigation as a condition of prof=approval, Reporting or monitoring-takcs place attar approval-tea s»su implemcntatitart of the prDj= in secatdanct with mitigation imposed during the a CEQA inview pttyc0W . In addition to the r quirerr mu listed above,AR 1607 obligates the Deem t at to provide guldsr+ce.for public agencies to shit their } ropotiing-err monitoring progratrtc. $ubea to those requirements, the following.gui&lim have been adopted-by ahs.Department. PURPOSE OF Moe purpose of these guidreiirtm is to establish clear and consincut startewt{isle promdurtes for public agencia to submit tsanspa"ion GUI DELtI't s mitigation reporting or monitoring.info mittitart to the vepatnmrnt, They are to be used by Mutt tt ltttt:rgavtrnttrsttal Review (10R) P o ant :Coaedinatomt for idcrttifyitg ithe sem-3rd -timing of trM%pottatioa information tom,and to identify ft"single point of contgd"-ior transmittal of rt porting or mono oting information from the lead agency to the Department, i ` i F,r 3-9 Iditig:tion Monitoring Guidelines Fekwru ry 10, 20Q3 Pap 2 PROCEDURES T110- following pracedtuces are irlwW*d for use. by pittrict IGR Program Managers a Coordinators iii dinttiaa 'teacal pad, JAM` atencies to c=ply with kc:Miert 21091.7 A. The District IGR Coordinator' will ttetity the CSQA lead ttgency.in writing about:tramportation mponing,or nwnm iwfing subInitul ft4uuretttcnts in PRC Section 21081.7 duntig either "early consultation",:the Notice of Preparation (NOP) stage. or the Initial Study(IS)phxxe of the CEQA review pegs. E. Detailed procedures for the C.:EQq lead tg nay to submit trsnsportatian reporting or monitoring inimmation to the district should be attached to the district'€ Wiricssion letter, The submittal,shall certain-the following infMMtiow. I. The harm. address, and telephone number of the CBQA lead agency contact who is respontiWe for the Mitigation txperting or fs oniwdng pmjMM ($cc PRG Section zivsi:c�.lf ti}. 2. The location and custodian of the documents or odhcr material, which constitute the tt;c,ord of proceedingss upon which the lead agency's decieloe is based (sec PRC Section 2106 d.6(al[21). I Assurances from the CHQA dead agency that tier � Depnttttttew .can-obtain copies.,of tate aforementioncel documents. nett mat=isU. if needtcd, to clarify derails or MoNe is$= related.to the mitigation-adopted (set-pRC Section 21061.7), i. Ietaiied in{annation on impact assessment tnethod*kWc3 the type of rtsitigation, Specific location, and implenwritation schedule for:tseh.trastsportation inspect - , flitigation treasure irteluded in the reporting or morihmTng program (secPRC Section 21{1dt.t l►jy: The CEQA lead Agency, at its dist ration. may submit the complete reporting: or. mmitoririg. pen r m �with the requited trltnsportatiatZ infornMion highliglitod. S. A certification section which will be signed and dated by � ,B the C8QAt lead.Ap=y and the:Depantnent ifying IIs! the fnitigmian 9MVIUM agreed qW.and idettified in the above chteklist have b= implemerttctd; and all other reporting requirwnents have been adhered to. in actordance with PKC Siections 210g 1:6 And 21061.7. i9 3-10 hat4muoz monitoring cuiwinsh Pekvary 110,2M C VAICA, the gmj= involves *rAt»etw#aMmtt pzteo a stale highway, the eardfication taction WiU be:.6 . by' thie District Permit &ig3naac. the'Natiiert''11'"dI Eiiiytatir Will retain; ' Cspy of tate "dtigtition repo titti,or rtmimring mats+t for the strict ponnit tiiesx. and btward tate originatl:docuttmt to °the District IGR Coordinator. the District MR €:oordinitor will folwad a comic to the � . I:tcPattrtieait"s 109 Pr*gi&M Miiitspt. D. When the project boas not involve anctbtichtnetnt onto a state hiShway. the et ttification sadiwi well be sigymel by the District IGR Coordinator: The Dimict lop,Coordinator will " retain the otiginal ftcuffant and fmward a cagy to the Pn Depatrtwnt's IOR Program Managar. 'N 1.I mrm Late RANDM.L H.IW Skt 1. lite t� " puty'Chf or Deputy tu=tor ting tom"Modal P--tr gr s : mainwh aace 041 Ope"bont P r., r I u�1 z3 . tibt4 V V 4x CXQA LEAS NCV CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST FORM. ' FOR SUWA"fTAL OF Z'It&li sroRTA-Tio?e m€'I'If:A'i'oN Mom-rt?mc=PORTS y L erid Agency and 54atte Ctt.rigot►mot(SCH) F;k#g' ' F'indirigs& Appm"I Ntet& t1t►Moemt.Type3c,_ L4td Agency Coronet(I+....Title,Agcy,Addreurs dr Rene): Proleet pftpone+ot(Name,T K--canlp ay.A4ddrm & Ifte re): Far each spttirsc rn"prortation Rehad MStigaAon hift"re associated with this Project, nk in hed Yes No 0 Location/Custodian Of CEQA Doculteents,Prneetdinp,Iteemrds a Dett:ripoon or now To Obtain Copies Of Abva Docateenttr Mitiption Mestere Name& ldenttj�itrg Number A Caltrrtm Encroachment rermlt Number prove was nettled) Copy of Other Aprtey Percents required toms pleasure(if needed) Meas trt Lecation Dewriptka itr Vicirsity.Map d d Lotattiot:afirapacted 5tatt Highway Compattaat(Couaty, Route.Posttnile) © Detailed Destrfpti9n oi'measure& Itt tsar-pone(attach blueprint it necessary) . Implementation Schedule& Progeeas Rtxwrft CotMPICO to Criteria{including detaW pNer4'bnweaett objeetioa} Co a lifetlon Evaluation(Including field iaspettion report:) Estimated Monetary Value of Cetnpieted lVitnasttm& % Local Agency Funded ftotog rnpb or Completed Measure Atiat:hed � Responsible Conttaaclor(Koine.Company,Addr.esr di Pham) of If'r that th"e gtftvf trpdx trtlt#Eaticr,r acesures have been im ple wswed, and all ather o Rapt berry Ad +errd ta, im Wcordulyce sritln PRCS1td&es 21091.1 and 216JI.7 d Dace: Name: CEQA L"d Agniq C,rlltorak fi"U"Wress of Trampartatiae 'Thk Cenincatisa Cleo AIN twin Is f*be mord hy public �to sahaah tttdr adtlAatiaa repartbs rt uOhNiap.MVInm a the Catitoreds D"Hwu Haat aE TIS"nallar(boaducat)Whit a Cr4k pmjcct hub boft:k"d t*live rrja*"fxtb0 Yf CkTUWiMk"W"lthat am d Ito'l"dE.l ad�rttitaocc Copus of aft ftrat.a*d fist lkowtocat GaIddlaft de+dmd prtsaaat is PstC soctwu 21KI:', sea be,tisernbtaded tthastt Nuc CAP=webdb(ltft;Hrr rw.dat.ca.anr/hBftu ..yrs a.w rt,rs.htast. co"I"yt ti►rtne milk allacited na*rirlt saw bre -walmL CM&ft sr teaed to flue*p"Prialt tieprtsr. Driertrirx titreeecr+rtarabrD,'Afteallo`saiergersrntrsea4 tierien CIGkl Canae44aatar_ ipOras vcriiees olatitaeil r„ 3-12 .................................... __. o.i► drAetasuts awarmt a' P. 0. BOX 23660 OAKLAND,CA 9"23-D&W 15 10)266-4444 (5 A D)296.4454 TDD �� July Z2,2003 CC-s-34.42 CCowsz2 --, SCH200 t t 22073 SwTy Mad Cit}of Oakley M33 Msin Stmt Oakley,CA 4456:1 Dou I.ts, Hasid. Cypress C*twvb-Draft Envirselta►teud h apsiak"rt(Drat) We offer the%1lowiattg addi wnW comments mid d""stun he a Coiiow-up to our Utter,cried i My 3,M3 fbr the review of the UEIR of"the C;ypr w Cwvw projm:t Proposed i"4"Vtow tet:is Statc N& of way 2w)meet All apPk6le C:dornit Deprttrete nt of 3-8 ? ottrtioat(Dtpartavent)standards. AN aodsting and rwopoved pedestrian fidtitiaa shsM meet American wM bi ssbrMiet Act smadartte, A MW of trv%aed Mainieatanee Agmeme nt..bettwew ter City of Oaklety ud the Doputmtatt may be requires!, Sesta Rr► +t � tr Yirwssectt ?ha proje t .amt sh0uld pay, fbw dw wiidetting of SR 4 at C ypma Robd is order to 3-9 aemmma�date me tom.-tam � tat heaadat d SR 4 to Gpre� Reid std a 4ht bsr* low AM vttdb&utrd SP,4 idowatMEi owW aceto&W Gyprew Rosa. . .. We took f'otwwid to rootiving a rasporm to ow cortttnetats at low text duyt-prior to certfficgiDift of the MR PUMMO to Se ctitaft 21092.5(x)of the CEQA. i 4"J 3-13 JW sz.2nna Poo 9 ShoWd you roqui3'eso hes`.in onmioz DT brae any quoetians regarding,this fetter, plea c W Uu Cwbcwi o€'my ttaffat(S10)522-5491 Si i TLMOTHY SABLE Dista SmImb chiaE°':. iGRIMQA c. pulip+Crdmmww(Stara Clesmowu* A� g 4 q a FINAL Ell? CYPRESS GRovE PROJECT r SEP7"EmBER 2003 LETTER 3: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Response to Comment 3�1 The comment states that the Department's Storm Water Qaality Handbooks can be used as a reference during the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The comment further states that these handbooks include Best Management Practices(BMPs). The comment does not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIR; rather, the comment provides information and recommendations for the developer's consideration in preparing the required 5WPPP. (;aResponse to Comment 3-2 J The comment states that the proposed project shall adhere to the conditions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit Criteria for Ambient Surface #000002, Order #99-08 Department of Water Quab y,for general construction activities, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRQB). The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The City of Oakley requires that F. developers comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Therefore, the DEIR does not include a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Mitigation measure 3.10-4 of the DEIR requires the applicant to submit an erosion control plan for the City Engineer's review and approval. During this review process, the project will be required to prepare a Storm "Nater Pollution Prevention flan and obtain necessary permits. Response to Comment 3-3 The comment states that the applicant should pay for the widening of SR 4 at Cypress Road in order to accommodate two left-turn lanes from eastbound SR 4 to Cypress Road and westbound SR 4 into westbound Cypress Road. The comment also states that pre-empting the signals at.Main Street/Cypress Road will be necessary for railroad crossing. The comment concludes by expressing the concern over what would happen if a train passage occurred at Cypress Road when westbound traffic during the AM peak period on Cypress Road is stopped. r The project would contribute to the cumulative degradation of the intersection; therefore, the Draft EIR requires the applicant to be responsible for the project's fair share of the cost to re-stripe the Main Street �j (SR 4) southbound approach (referred to as eastbound approach in Comment 2.3) to accommodate two left-turn lanes onto Cypress Road eastbound(DEIR, MM 3.7-7(b)). With respect to northbound traffic, the calculation tables for the TJKM Traffic Impact Analysis (specifically Appendix E and Appendix G attached thereto) show that the intersection is expected to operate acceptably with one left-torn lane on the northbound Main Street approach, even under the cumulative impacts scenario. Therefore, two left-hand turn lanes on the northbound Main Street (SR 4) onto westbound # Cypress Road are not warranted and the applicant should not be responsible to pay for adding a second left- turn lane, Mitigation measure 3.7-1 requires the applicant to restripe the northbound approach of the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection to provide one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. However, one left-turn lane already exists; therefore, the restriping would not result in the addition of a x left-turn lane. Furthermore, it should be noted that the project would not contribute to increased vehicle CHAPTER 3 --- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-15 f CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 20031 trips turning left from northbound Main Street (SR 4) onto westbound Cypress Road—those vehicles would not be traveling to or from the project and thus do not represent a project generated impact. W The impacts associated with the railroad crossing on Cypress Road are addressed in the DEIR,Impact 3.7- S. Mitigation measure 3.7-5(a) requires among other items, the interconnection of all traffic signals. Upon the widening of Cypress Road, as required in mitigation measure 3.7-3 of the DEIR, the BNSF railroad train crossing at Cypress Road would be equipped with appropriate safety traffic control devices in compliance with applicable standards. Therefore, westbound traffic on Cypress Road generated from the l project would be subject to a traffic control arra device at the$NSF train crossing, which would ensure the timely notification of any train crossings to westbound vehicles. Response to Comment 3-4 a The comment requests turning movement volumes for future years and for each alternative. The comment further requests that the volumes be in similarformat to Figure 3.7-1. l Turning movement volumes are provided in the TJKM Traffic Impact Analysis (Figures 2, 5, 8, 10, and 12), which is included as Appendix D to the Cypress Grove DEIR. Response to Comment 3-5 t i The comment recommends that the City of Oakley create a mechanism to collect fair share fees from project developers within the Cypress Corridor area to contribute towards the mitigation of cumulative impacts to SR 4. Prior to incorporation, the County collected several traffic impact fees for improvements in the Oakley Al area. Since incorporation, the City has adopted a new General Plan (2020) with Circulation Element and Growth Management Element policies requiring development to maintain traffic level of service (LOS) standards. Pursuant to these policies, the City adopted a Traffic Impact Fee program on August 11, 2003. To the extent the program includes the improvements identified in the DEIR mitigation measures to meet cumulative traffic demand on SR 4, developers would be required to pay the related fee. If identified improvements are not contained in the program, developers would be required to amend the program to include the necessary improvements. Thus, the City has a mechanism in place to collect fair share fees for SR 4 improvements related to cumulative impacts. { Response to Comment 3-6 The comment states that any work or traffic control within the State right-of-way(ROW) will require an encroachment permitfrom the Department of Transportation. Mitigation measure 3.7-1 of the DEIR requires that the applicant restripe the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection. The applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment permit from the Department of i Transportation in order to complete the necessary roadway improvements. CHAPTER 3 - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-16 i FINAL EIR CYPRESS GRo vE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003Response to Comment 3-7 The comment states that per the January 1, 2001 amendment to CEQA by Assembly Bill 1807, requires that transportation information resulting from the reporting or monitoring program adopted by a public agency by submitted h to the Department of Transportation for a project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. The comment further states that the Department has attached to their comment letter"Guidelines for Submitting Transportation Information from a Reporting or Monitoring Program to the Department of Transportation" and a Mitigation .Monitoring Certification Checklist, The Cypress Grove project constitutes a project of regional and area-wide significance. The transportation mitigation measures required in the DEIR will be incorporated into the Certification Checklist and submitted to the Department of Transportation. Response to Comment 3-8 The comment states that proposed improvements in the State Right of Way shall meet all applicable California Department of Transportation standards. The comment also states that all existing and proposed pedestrian facilities shall meet American with Disabilities Act standards. The comment expresses the concern that a new Maintenance Agreement between the City of Oakley and the Department may be required. The project will be required to meet all applicable California Department of Transportation standards and American with Disabilities Act standards. The comment does not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Response to Comment 3-9 1� The comment states that the project applicant should pay for the widening of SR 4 at Cypress Road in order to accommodate two left-turn lanes from eastbound SR 4 to Cypress Road and a right turn lane from westhound SR 4 onto East Cypress Road. See Response to Comment 3-3. It should be noted that this comment serves to clarify Comment 3-3 submitted previously. Mitigation measure 3.7-7(b) of the DEIR requires the applicant to contribute the - project's fair share toward the restriping of the Main Street southbound (eastbound) approach to provide in k part, two left-turn lanes. In addition, mitigation measure 3.7-1 of the DEIR requires the applicant to j" restripe the northbound (westbound) approach of the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection to provide in part, one right-turn lane. It should be noted for clarification purposes that the applicant would only be F required to pay the project's fair share of the cost to restripe the northbound (westbound) approach of the l Main Street/Cypress Road intersection. LL �9 } e4 CHAPTER 3 — COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-17 _ i LETTER4 k Department of Toxic Substances Control �}: c�1 Edwin F. Lowry, Director 700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200 Winston H. Hiokox Berkeley, California 94710-2721 Gray Davis Agency Secretary Governor r CaliforniaEnvironmental ? Protection Agency June 5, 2003 L �" �. E 0 2003 `_ Mr. Barry Hand ING HC)USE City of Oakley Community Development `I 8033 Main Street Oakley, California 94551 i Dear Mr. Hand: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Cypress Grove Draft Environmental Impact Report ('EIR), May 2003, SCH# 2001122073. The project includes rezoning of approximately 147 acres of agricultural land to allow i development of up to 537 housing units. �,l As stated in our letter of January 29, 2003, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) recommended that sampling be conducted to determine whether agricultural chemicals are present in the soil at levels exceeding residential standards. Ubon review of the Draft EIR, D-1 SC notes that only one of the three parcels that 4-1 comprise the project area was sampled. Sampling at the Conco South Property did detect the cirganochlorine pesticides DDE, DDD and DDT; however,they 1 were reportedly well below U.S. EPA's preliminary remediation goals for residential soils. Although pesticides were apparently used at both the i Williamson and Conco north Properties, further assessment was not considered i necessary and sail sampling was not performed. DTSC continues to recommend that soil sampling be conducted on the Williamson and Conco North Properties to verify that pesticides are not present above residential standards. 1 i 3-18 The energy chapenye facing celifornia is Mal. Every Catifor ian needs to take immediate action to reduce enemy consumption. For s list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see cur.web-site at www.dtsr,ca.gov. Mr. Barry Hand June 115, 2003 Page 2 if you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Bili Brown of my staff at (510) 540-3841 . Sincerely, 1 Barbara J. Cook, B., Chief Northern California - Coastal Cleanup Operations Branch cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Guenther Moskat CE-:QA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 z .J ; 1 3-19 C),PREss Gr o vE"PROJECT SEP7-EmsER 2003 LETTER 4; DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Response to Comment 4-1 The comment expresses the concern that only one of the three Parcels that comprise the project.area (Conco South Property) was sampled for agricultural chemicals. The comment recommends that soil sampling be carried out for the Williamson and Conco North Properties to verify that pesticides are not present above residential standards. -8, states "the Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment" concluded that no fiurther The DE1R, page 3.11 assessment for potential agricultural pesticides is warranted for the Williamson Property."to regards to the Conco North Property,the DE1R on page 3.11-8 states" ,..] according to the site assessment performed by TERRASEARCH, the presence of pesticides on the subject property was found to be negligible and therefore less-than-significant." Since the preparation of the DE1R, additional analysis was performed by TERRASEARCH (April 2003) for the Conco North Property, which detected only two 6rganochloride pesticides (DDT and DDE) in some of the surficial soil samples collected from the Conco North Property. The pesticide concentrations were found to be well below the levels established within Table A, Application of Risk-Based Screening Levels and Recision Malting to Sites with Impacts soil and Groundwater for Surcial Soil(less f than 3 meters) by the Regional Water Quality Control Board-- San Francisco Bay Region dated.December 2001 and within the Preliminary Remediation Goals established by the EPA region 1X dated 1995. The DE1R studies and the additional analysis adequately support the DE1R conclusion that any residual pesticides are well y below applicable standards. Further analysis is not required under CEQA. i =f } N 5f{ ..:j( CHAPTER 3 --- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-20 i ,Jun 19 03 t02: 22P city of cakl-e�j (825) 625-8154 p. 4 t r` LE'T'TER 5 1 e 3 ,o 2107 Main St. June 6, 2003 P.D.Box 127 , "' Oakley,CR 94561-0127 r-v� 825.625.3798 7 fax 925.825.08 4 JUN V � 2M Directors: Mr. Barry Hand .;{YyiF dAKLi`' j John H.de'rremery City of Oakley President P.O. Boa: 6 t!� Howard Hobbs Vice.President Oakley, CA 9561 Kenneth L.Crocker Edward Garcia r' Richard Head Subject: Draft EIR Comments — Cypress Grove Project . { I General manage), secretary, Dear Ba Mike Yeraka "m arlornoy: We have reviewed the Draft EIR for the subject project and believe that it Frederick Bold Jr. 5-1 accurately addresses the water system requirements for the project. � Sincerely, Mike Yeraka, P,E. General Manager cc: .ferry Brown , CCWD �l { I z tl n LJ{ 3-21 �z i Fij%,AL EIR CYPREss GRovE PROJECT .SEPTEMBER 2003 LETTER 5; DIABLO WATER DISTRICT Response to Comment 5-1 The comment states that the Cypress Grove Dra`ft EIR accurately addresses the water system requirements for the project. J The comment does not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIR, but rather affirms the adequacy r- of the document. i i f--a ; 1 , a i i CHAPTER 3 — COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-22 State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA Memorandum LETTER 6 , To : Project Coordinator Date: June 27, 2003 Resources agency RECEIVED Barry Hand, Director ' Oakley Community Development Department JUL0 2 2003 3639 Main Street CT`OF OAKLF-Y Oakley, CA 94561 A: From: Erik Vink, Assistant Director Department of Conservation — Division of Land Resource Protection UL _e- Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Cypress Grove SCH #2001122073 The Department of Conservation's Division of Land Resource Protection (Division) monitors farmland conversion on a statewide basis and administers the California. Ind Conservation (Williamson) Act and other agricultural land conservation programs, The 6-1 -` Division has reviewed the above DEIR addressing development of 637 residential units and offers the following recommendations with respect to the project's potential impacts on agricultural land. Project Impacts on Agricultural Land The DEIR notes that the project would result in conversion of 147 acres of Prime r Farmland, however, the conversion is treated as a less-than-significant impact. The reasoning for the nein-significant impact is due to the fact that the project is consistent with the certified Oakley 2020 General Plan which, in turn, is completing the i urbanization intended by Contra Costa County. The city's General Flan DER is also credited with stating that the agricultural resources in the area, are fragmented and commercial agriculture is substantially compromised, 6_2 The fact that a project is consistent with an adopted General Plan does not mean that the project's environmental impacts are Insignificant. In the case of this project, three of the parcels involved appear to be of agriculturally viable sizes (84.4, 49.7, 25.8 acres). The Division recommends that the significance of the prime farmland l conversion be reconsidered in light of the parcel sizes of land involved. LJ Mitigation Measures The DEIR acknowledges the potential for land use conflicts between the proposed use and adjacent agricultural activities. The mitigation measure proposed to address the conflict is a statement to prospective buyers disclosing agricultural activities 6-3 -{ in the immediate area. The Division recommends that consideration be given to additional mitigation measures to,address the conversion of agricultural land and land f use conflicts. 3-23 Project Coordinator and Barry Hand June 27, 2003 E, Page 2 of 3 One potential mitigation measure is the purchase of agricultural conservation easements on land of at least equal quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of agricultural land, as well as for the mitigation of growth Inducing and q cumulative impacts on agricultural land. We highlight this measure because of its growing acceptance and use by lead agencies as mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation using conservation easements can be implemented by at least two alternative approaches: the outright purchase of conservation easements tied to the k^ project, or via the donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional or statewide organization or agency, including land trusts and conservancies, whose purpose , includes the purchase, holding and maintenance of agricultural conservation i easements. Whatever the approach,the conversion of agricultural land should be 6-3 cont deemed an impact of at least regional significance and the search for mitigation lands conducted regionally, and not limited strictly to lands within the Oakley area. Information about conservation easements is available on the Department's website, or by contacting the Division at the address and phone number listed below. 4` The Department's website address is: http:I/www.conservation.ca.-g LRP/ ' Additional mitigation measures that may be feasible include the following: • Increasing home density or clustering residential units to allow a greater portion of the development site to remain in agricultural production. • Protecting nearby farmland from premature conversion through the use of less than permanent long-term restrictions on use such as 20-year Farmland Security Zone contracts (Government Code Section 51295) or 10-year Williamson Act contracts Government Code Section 51200 et seq.). • Establishing buffers such as setbacks, berms, greenbelts, and open space areas to separate farmland from incompatible urban uses. • Investing in the commercial viability of the remaining agricultural land in the project area through a mitigation bank which invests in agricultural infrastructure, water supplies and marketing. The Department believes that the most effective approach to farmland conservation and impact mitigation is one that is integrated with general plan policies. For example, the measures suggested above could be most effectively applied as part 6-4 of a comprehensive agricultural land conservation element in the City's general plan. Mitigatlon policies could then be applied systematically toward larger goals of sustaining an agricultural land resource base and economy. Within the context of a general plan mitigation strategy, other measures could be considered, such as the use of transfer of 3-24 Project Coordinator and Barry Hand June 27, 2003 Page 3 of 3 6 development credits, mitigation banking and economic incentives for continuing -4 cont. agricultural uses. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. If you have questions on our comments, or require technical assistance or information on agricultural land conservation, please contact the Division at 801 K Street, MS 13-71, Sacramento, California 95814; or phone (916) 324-0850. r. cc: Contra Costa County- RCD 5552 Clayton Road Concord, CA 94521 3-25 FINAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 F N LETTER 6: DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION'S DIVISION O LAND RESOURCE .- , PROTECTION Response to Comment 6-1 jThe comment notes that the Department of Conservation's Division of Land Resource Protection (Division) monitors farmland conversion on a statewide basis and administers the California Land Conservation (Williamson)Act and other i agricultural land conservation programs. The comment further states that the Division has reviewed Cypress Grove DEIR. t� The comment does not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Response to Comment 6-2 The comment raises concerns regarding the DEIR's conclusion that the conversion of Prime Farmland as a result of the development of the Cypress Grove project would be a less-than-significant impact. The comment notes that the reasoning for the DEIR's conclusion is that the recently adopted Oakley 2020 General Plan also concludes that Prime Farmland conversion would be a less-than-signif cant impact because the City would be completing the urbanization intended by �. Contra Costa County. The comment expresses concern that just because a project is consistent with an adopted General Plan does not mean that the project's environmental impacts are insignificant; and, the Division recommends that significance of Prime Farmland conversion should be re-considered for the Cypress Grove project due to the size f the parcels of land involved. i Agricultural land conversion was not described as less-than-significant solely because the project is consistent with the General Plan. As noted in the DEIR, the conversion of agricultural land was analyzed in the General Plan. EIR and found to be less-than-significant. Changes to the project have not occurred since fthe General Plan analysis was conducted, nor have any changes in circumstances occurred that would require additional analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, 15163. As mentioned on page 3.3-5 of the.DEIR, the project site is located within the area of the Urban Limit Line (UL,L) designated for development. The purpose of the LILL as stated in the Contra Costa County General Plan (p4ge 3-13) is stated as follows: "In general, the purpose of the ULL is twofold: 1) to ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural, open space and other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated during the term of the General Plan, and 2) to facilitate the enforcement of the `J 65/35 Land Preservation Standard." y l Page 3-16 of the Contra Costa General Plan states: "The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard was a fundamental component of Measure C— 1990. The standard limits urban development in the County through at least the horizon of this General Plan to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County and requires that at least 65 percent of all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non- urban uses." is CHAPTER 3 — COMMENTS ANC} RESPONSES 3-23 i i FINAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEmsER 2003 Page 3-77 of the Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR states: � i "Whereas the General Plan Policies and Programs presented here and proposed to be implemented, ; do preserve a buffer between urban development and agricultural land, the Oakley General Plan is � primarily completing the urbanization of this area as originally intended by the County. Sixty-five percent of the County is protected as undeveloped. The Oakley Planning Area falls in the thirty- five percent that is designated for development. In addition, currently agricultural resources are fragmented and commercial agriculture is substantially compromised. The proposed General Plan accommodates agriculture, while providing for balanced needs of the City. The incremental environmental effect of the General Plan on agriculture is determined to be less than significant upon implementation of the previously mentioned Policies and Programs." The DEIR on page 3.3-8 incorporates by reference the above Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR discussion in the impact analysis for Impact 3.3-1 regarding conversion of Prime Farmland. The conclusion of Impact 3.3-1 is in accordance with the Oakley 2020 General Plan ETR conclusion of less-than-significant. Furthermore, as a residential project that is consistent with the General Plan for which an EIR was certified, special rules limit subsequent CEQA review to effects "peculiar to the project." As the DEIR reflects, agricultural conversion is not peculiar to the project. Section 21083.3 (b) of the Public Resources Code states: "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report." Therefore,because the project site is within the area designated for development (35 percent)by the ULL, and because the DEIR's conclusions regarding Prime Farmland conversion are consistent with those of the Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR, the conversion of project site farmland has been previously anticipated and has been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR and the Cypress Grove DEIR. Response to Comment 6-3 The comment expresses concern regarding the DEIR's approach to mitigating potential land use conflicts between the proposed project and adjacent agricultural activities. The DEIR's approach is to provide disclosure statements to prospective homebuyers notifying them of nearby agricultural activities. The comment then recommends conservation easements as an alternative mitigation approach and then describes two approaches to the mitigation measure of conservation easements. The comment also expresses the concern that whatever the approach, the conversion or agricultural land should be deemed an impact of at least regional significance, and the search for replacement lands conducted regionally, and not limited strictly to lands within the Oakley area. With respect to agricultural conversion, mitigation is not required because the impacts are less-than- significant (see Response to Comment 6-2 and Impact 3.3-3 of the DEIR). With respect to potential land use conflicts, mitigation measure 3.2-1, requiring a disclosure statement, is adequate to reduce potential impacts on future residents to a less-than-significant level; therefore, no further mitigation is required. CHAPTER 3 -COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-27 .................... . ......... ..._.... ......... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ i ' FINAL EIR CYPREss GR GIVE PROJECT SEPTEm ER 2003 Furthermore, lands to the east of the project site were long planned for development prior to incorporation. These lands are similarly designated for future urban-land developments in the City's recently adopted General Plan. As reflected in the DEIR, mitigation for potential impacts are identified; however, the possibility exists that such effects would not occur, or would be eliminated upon development 7i of the property to the east of the Cypress Grove site. Response to Comment 6-4 The comment expresses that the Department o,f` Conservation believes that the most effective approach to farmland conservation and impact mitigation is one that is integrated with General Plan policies. A major focus of the recently adopted Oakley 2020 General Plan was balancing development and conservation goals. The General Plan designates the project site as Single Family Residential, High Density (SH) and Multi-Family Residential, High Density (MH). Therefore, the project site has been designated for ` development in the General Plan consistent with the type of development proposed for the Cypress Grove project. The General Plan also shows a large conservation area to the north and northeast of the project site. Comprising approximately 1,200 acres, the area was planned for development under the County. f Through the General Plan process, the City conducted the review suggested by the commenter, with the results shown in the land use patterns on the General Plan map and further reflected in the project plans. i x t, f� i t d , c 7 CHAPTER 3 -- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-28 JUL-G24--2003 TNI, 02:50 PM CCldO WATdR RESOURCTS FAY, R0, 5258885142 P, 02 ,,t' CONTRA COSTA LETTER 7 ' NATER DISTRICT rrs 1331 Concord Avenin P.O.Box H2O Conooro,CA 94524 r 928)886-90DO FAX(925)SBS-9122 July 3., 2003 tiirMre2ors Joseph L.Campbell Prati` 'i` Mr. Barry Hid ._ Elizabeth k Anaria Community Development Director Yr;a Prurddanr City of Obey `? Setts souvmun x639 Main Str=t !-__t JamesWandanriry Oakley,CA 94561 Karl rl LL,t►� Walter J.Bishop Subject: Cypress Grove Draft Environmental Impact Repoti tzsnerr�r n�ar�eser Dear Mr.Hand: f-� The Contra.Costa Water District(CCWD or District)appreciates the opportunity to provide Comment on the May 2003 Cypress Grove Dry 7-1 Environmental Impact Report(DETR.). The District met with the developer and the City on June 30,2003 to discuss the District's comments contained in } this letter. The proposed Cypress G ove project is a high-density subdivision that will result in 637 residential homes on 147 acres being located directly south of the earthen(unlined)portions of Contra Costa.Canal(Casal)in Oakley,California. This is the first residential development that has been proposed for 7-2 4 , construction in close proximity to the unlined portion of the Canal and represents a significant change in land use in this area. Since the Caw was originally constructed in the 1930's the arca has been used for agriculture purposes. A key arca of conoern for CCWD is the lack of analysis in the DEIR for the hydraulic connection that exists between the Canal and the shallow local groundwater table. This connection allows water to migrate from the unlined 7-3 Carnal to the shallow groundwater and can,allow groundwater to seep into the Canal. This hydraulic comection and the associated impacts have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated in the Cypress Grovc I.IEIR. To assist CCVD in its evaluation of the hydraulic analyses in the DM the District contracted Luhdorff and gcalmanini Consulting Engine=(LS)to 7-4 review the DEIR.and related documents provided by the City i and to,provide I ` LS nlmo reviewed Klebtbaldor Preliminary Grow-chn"I Investigatiot Report dated April 7,2000,March M,2001 and the Babnca Hydrolopics,Inc.Capons ofFohruary 204:1 when ronderin its epinioru. z 3-29 BL-03-2003 THU 02;51 PM CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX N0, 9256888142 p 03 Mr.Barry land Community Development Director City of Oakley July 3, 2D03 CCWD with expert advise as to whether the proposed project could have s significant impact on the District and, if so,whether adequate mitigation was 7`4 cont. provided. The LS report is Attachment 1 to this letter. LS found that although the shallow groundwater table is acknowledged, the DEIR.does not contain analysis on the interaction with Canal water or the significance of impacts. The DER is deficient in this regard. Based on LS expertise and familiarity with the groundwater in the area,coupled with 7-5 CCWD's experience,LS concluded that the potential for impact is significant_ . Mitigation measures would be warranted which could include hydraulically isolating the Canal from the dovelopment in a manner that is compatible with canal improvements being contemplated for other purposes. In addition to the above, CCWD also notes the following deficiencies with respect to the Cypress Grove EIR: • The project is not consistent with the 2020 City of OaUey General Plan. 7-6 For example,no mention in the DER is made for why the storrnwater pond can be located within 300 feet of the Canal and not be lined consistent with the 2020 General Plan. • The proposed flood control levee between Marsh Creek and Sellers Avenue and other project features will potentially encroach into United States Bureau ofReclamation(USBR.)property. Before permission to 7-7 construct Witton the right-of-way,consultation with USBR is required. Assuming USBR is willing to consider such encroachments,then environmentt,a] doeumerntation for this project must be completed consistent with USBR requirements before an easement or license can be granted. • No analysis is provided that addresses the potential impact from leakage of the stormwatcr crossing into the Canal. The project proposes to cross 7•$ USBR property for sterns drainage at Sellers Avenue, • The portion of the project that is located north of Cypress Road is not included within the USBR service territory. The Draft EIR repeatedly states that the property has been annexed into the Central'Valley Project (CVP)service arca. This is incorrect. Inclusion within USBR service 7`9 territory is required before CCWD cat provide raw wafter to the Diablo 'Water District to serve your project. Of utmost importance is the need to complete all of the environmental documentation including any impacts from the proposed subdivision on eadangered species. • Given the very close proximity of the new development to the Canal, additional security and safety risk is a potential impact_ This issue is not 7-10 sufficiently addressed in the DEIR. 3-3© JUL-03-2003 THU 02!51 PM CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX NO. 9256868142 P. 04 Mr.Barry Hand Community Development Director City of Oakley July 3, 2003 « The project description fails to fully describe the significance of co- locating a 637 home subdivision adjacent to an earthen canal that is the 7-1 source of drinking water for 450,000 people in Contra Costa County. Detailed comments are,provided an Attachment 1 and 2. Please be aware that CCWI7 looks forward to further dialog with the City and the developers to expedite resolution of these issues. CCWD understands maintaining the sdiedule is a major concerti for the City and the developer and we intend to continue our cooperation to avoid delays. Please contact myself at 925-688-9172 or Mark Seedall at 423-688-8119 should you have any further questions on these comments. :J Sincerely, Jerry Br (W Directo f Planning MS1sir-3 Attachments cc: David Young: United States Bureau of Reclamation: Fresno Mark.Seedall: CCVM f P-`F C$3 f j I 3-31 JUL-03-2003 THU 02:51 PM DDWD WATER RESOURCES FAX 0 92SB885142 P, 05 LUH1D0Rf=F & SCALMAN!N! c�u1v -war �a au Es C 0 N 5 U L T I hl C: E N 3 1 N E E R E N N4&S.%*WY I MEMORANDUM t July 1,2003 File No. 03-1-025 TO: Jerry Brown Director of Planning Contra Costa Water District 1331 Concord Avenue P.O. Box H2O Concord,CA 94524-20999 j FROM:: Tota'Elson Jahn Fawcalt Vicki Kretsinge r I SULTECT. REVIEW OF DEM��y y�y 9�� CY'P'Rl c✓ GROVE PROJECT, Cr f 1 OF{31'j KLEY _S Sunmary E' 1 I In response to your request, we have reviewed a draft enviro=enthl impact report(DEM) for the development known.aL`Cypress Grove Mancy Planning&Management, Inc. May 2003). This memorandum summarizes our findings to date concerning the potential impacts to hydrology and water quality by the project, which are specifically addressed in Chapter 3.12 of the DEIR. We also reviewed three referenced reports conceming geotechnical and hydrologic investigations: Kleinfelder (April 2001), KC'Engineering Company (March 2001), and Balance Hydrologics (February 2003). 7-12 As you arc aware, we have experience in various ground-water matters in the vicinity of this r project and have gathered data, reviewed reports, and conducted field investigations on subsurface geologic and ground-water conditions. Based on this experience, we would anticipate that many tyles of developm!a activities in close proximity of the unlined portion of the Cancra Costa Canal would have the potential to influence, or be influenced by, the local shallow ground-wraterr table:. The subject project, which involves a housing subdivision situated adjacent to approximately 2,500 feet of the canal, falls in the category of an activity that has i1 such potential. �t.i"5 =i Sue ;rr•z•zE•r. 1tth.4t�cSt;.v' C:A =_15:1 3'=>.4'ds rm r ,.v, 7*,7f, llas.1r.1t;; i f 3-32 JUL-03-2003 THU 02.51 PM GCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX N0, 6256$88142 P, 06 ;1T i* Jerry Brown i July 1, 2003 Page 2 Specifically, we believe that the potcatW emits for excavating activities, construction of structure foundations, and changes in the quality and collection of runoff could potentially interact with shallow ground water. The significw=of this potential is that the unlined caul, 7-13 under certain conditions, may either intercept, or seep into, shallow ground water and therefore represents a pre--existing feature of the local hydrology. Since it is unlined, seepage 'k from the canal would be of particular concern to adjacent development activities. { Based on the above, we reviewed the cited documents to assess whether 1) the project has the potential to impact the existing ground-water hydrology and quality and 2) whir proposed mitigation measures would appear to adequately address that potential. Our pritttary conclusion is that the documents, while acknowledging the presence of shallow ground water directly on the site, do not provide any basis to judge whether adverse impacts to ground-water 7-14 hydrology, including seepage into aid out of the canal, would occur. Based on our knowledge of the setting, we expect, for example, that there would be potential impacts relaters to seepage from the unlined canal on the adjacent development, Furthermore, the proposed unlined stormwater basin represents a potential threat to local ground-water quality due to the contact ¢' and percolation of urban runoff into the ground-water system. : As a result of the lacy of characterization of ground water on the project site, it is difficult to } judge what types of mitigation rneamures might be appropriate to allay various potential coact =. For example, the DER does not provide information to assess whether an offset, cutoff wast, interceptor drain, or other method, would be effective in this setting. On the matter of the unlined stormwatcr basin, while the DEIB suggests that the project design}will 7-15 result in an overall improvement in water quality due to re-ranrting of runoff, the study does not recognize any potential for ground.-water degradation through the stormwater basins. This potential, along with the potential for seepage from the canal,may warrant mitigation measures designed to hydra ulically isolate the canal from the subdivision, Background The l7'EIR indicates that the planned residential development will affect surface water hydrology on, and in the vicinity of, the 147-acre project site. The development will result in land clearing and lass of vegetation associated with the historical agricultural land use, soil `I compaction, modification of previous drainage patterns for 117 acres of development located within a 537-acre drainage area. Rela�tiive to existing conditions, the development would result 7-1g in increased runoff in the project area titre to impervious cover such as rooftops and roadways increastd impervious cover ori urban areas Ieads to increased volumes of runoff, increased t, peak flows and flow duration, and can also lead to greater velocities in nearby surface water courses during storm events. These aspects are addressed through the design of the stormwater system, a 1. n-4rsCZTFr' ,C:ALMP-N1NI 3-33 g 1 s } X.1-03-8003 THU 02;51 PM CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAY N0, 9258888142 P, 07 I` Jerry Brown July 1, 2M3 Page 3 The project is situated adjacent to a Portion of the Conga Costa,Canal. In this area, the canal is an earthen unlined stru=e that, under various hydraulic conditions, will either intercept or �-17 seep into sh21low ground water. The project proposes to address stormwater managemenit with the inclusion of a storm water detention pond {also referred to in anter ways in the draft Elk, including a "water-quality wet 7-18 pond"}and associated operations that would captures storrnwater from the residential area for r ti detention in the wet pond and, after "treattmeW, would subsequently be discharged to Emerson Slough.,The project does not address the potential for impacts arising from seepage into or out of the unlined canal. a By virtue of the presence of shallow ground water evident from geotechnical investigations for t the project, we would anticipate that there would be potentiall impacts by the project to and by the canal.. However, the DEIR does not provide a description of subsurface conditions alai 7-19 possible mctigatiou measures, This deficiency is discussed further'below in terms of characterization of ground-water hydrology, identification of seepage from the canal, design of the stormwateT system, and stortnwate r characterization. Ground-Water Hydrology Chapter 3.I2, Bydrology and Water Qwtuality,,lacks discussion of ground-water hydrology, particularly a physical description, or conceptualization,of ground water. Shallow ground water is known to occur locally and is lilcaly part of a regional ground-water system that discharges to the Mita. CCWD has previously found evide=that ground-water seepage may be a source of dtpwistion of water in the canal in the vicinity of the project area for certain hydraulic conditions. It has also found that seepage from the canal to shallow ground water can also occur. As a result, it is anticipated that shallow ground water occurring beneath the project site has the potential its directly interact with water in the�l and viae versa. '�_2p Based on local experience, ground-water hydrology is considered a potentially key element in 1. the assessment of env wortmental impacts by the proposed and other land use-changes in the area.. For the subject project, a sgeciftc point of concern is seepage from the canal into the E subdivisions which may increase shallow ground-water levels when houses arc to be built. In ` addition, the unlined stormmwater detention basin represents a direct conduit for urban runoff to � . iateratcx or percolate: into the ground-water system. The presence of shallow ground water at the project site is verified in Chapter 3.10 which cites ground water encountered in field borings in investigations by Kleinfelder and KC Engineering. Despite evidence that ground water is present at rise site, Chapter 3.22 disregards seepage from the canal and does not address the potential interaction of stormwader collected from the 7-21 developed lands with ground water and then the potential for ground water to interact with 3-34 JUL-03-2003 THU 02:51 PM CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX NO, 9258888142 P, 08 Jerry Brown July 1, 2003 Page 4 ; surface water in the Contra Costa Gana€. As a result, there is no analysis of potential impacts to local ground-water hydrology or groundwater quality by the project with respect to the stormwater system and the existing Contra Costa Canal structure. The deficiency in Chapter 3.22 includes the lack of a description of the physical relation 7-21 cont. between the Contra Cresta.Canal and subsurfaca conditions underneath the project site. At a minimum, rneasuretnx and baseline tnortiwruig ofgroin-grater conditions at the site are it needed a W cross sections depi&mg the relationship betwom water in the pones, ground water, and surface waters(e.,g., canal and sl h). Withow this infatmtion, it is difficult to dibcdvcly judge the related impacts and needed mitigation of the project on ground-water hydrology. Seepage C.anxrol in vidulty of Centra Costa Canal The unlined Contra Costa Caaial has the potential to act as a sink(intercepting shallow ground water) and a source(cause seepage to ground water) depending on hydrologic conditions which,vary seasonally and as impacted by local land use(e.g.,as impacted.by irrigation pmatim and runoff control). Many of the issues cited above would be associatesl.to hydrologic conditions in which the canal acts as a sink; i.e., it intercepts shallow ground 1 water. Significantly, there are potential impacts for conditions when the canal acts as a source of water; i.e., seepage to ground water ocatrs. With the evident potential to interact with the 7-22 canal through ground water, the:DEM is deficient in providing a description of subsurface conditions and mftigatioas of passible impacts due to seepage from the canal. For example, could seepage, or flow from the c" towards the development cause a rise in the shallow i ground:-water cable and i act the proposed development?Possible issues experienced in other areas are damage to foundations, limits to excava tions, includin&-swirrun ng pools, and other high wamrlmoisture problems. The bEtR neither warns of the potential nor proposes mitigation measures to address seepage into the subdivision,yet CCWD raised this concern in January 2002 in a written response to the project NOP. Possible mitigation of seepage from the cabal include linings, cutoff walls, interceptor drains, and others. Design of such mitigation rrieasures would mpirc characterization of subsurface hydrology, ' as cited above, is lacking in the ASR. Same parameters of interest include 7-23 whether shallow ground water is perched, where, if any, the perching layer occurs, the direction of ground-water flow, seasonal elevation changes and irdluences, etc. Proposed Storanwater System The DEIR. addresses surface water hydrology in terms of the project stormwater system. 7-24 Currently stormwater runoff is routed to the canal or to Marsh Creek. The flaw to the canal occurs because the site generally slopes to the north, and the canal alignment in the vicinity l.tJt tiCfCt�it-w' :: 3C:n;MnNlnt# 3-35 i J -03-2003 THU 02:52 PM 00WD WATER E OURCFS FAX NO, 8256888942 T Jerry Brown ,July 1, 2043 Page 5 corresponds to the northern boundary of the site. The site runoff, in the farm.of sheet flaw generally flows to the north and encounters a tee drain at the base of the CC Canal. levee (rhe 1 levee is higher in elevation than the proposed.site). The ditch, or tae drain., that contains the sheet flaw is connected to the canal. The flow to Marsh Creek iR pumped there from detention ponds currently looated on the site. p The proposed stormwater system would be comprised of a system of pipelines mid stormwater inlets capable:of conveying a teen-year storm to the storinwatet pond. The pond covers an area of 3.6 acres at the normal water surface elevation.of +2.0 feet(refere= elevations are assumed to be a sea level datum). The maximum allowable surfaw elevation is +6.5 feet, - , Pond levels are controlled by a pump system that would discharge through a proposed 36-inch f pipeline that runs pamUeel along the canal some distanoe before crowing the canal and dischargmg to Emerson Slough. The pump system would have redundant pumps and a back-up 7-24 cont. emergency power source. The proposed system would not result in a direct surface connection j between runoff and the canal as apparently exists now and, in that regard. it is stated that there is a potential improvement in the quality of the canal watts.Other design elements of the stormwater system are: Flood Gomenol. The project would be enclosed by berms on three sides to protect against a flood. The north side the proposed berm is along the; canal and is at an elevation of +10 feet. Figure 3.12.5 shows that the existing canal levee is higher than €: the flood control berm, to water 1 cterltiaa Pond: The pond has a bottom elevation of-4 feet and the water L, level would be maintained at +2.0 feet. The top of the pond is at +6.5. In a storm e gent, the pond will be allowed to rise to +3.1 before triggering a pump to start. From historic rowrds, the Contra Costa Canal levee is at a minimum of +10.5 feeet, and rhe elevation of the bottom of the caval is about -10 feet. 'Ibc DER states that the ground- water level is at or above +2.0 ft, along the northern edge of the:property. Qf particular concerti with respect to the tack'of gro4nd-water characterization is that a major feature of the storrawateer system is the unlined detention pond which would potentially incise r shallow ground water at the site as evident from the elevations cited above. This concern is further supported by statements in Chapter 3.10, which indicate the presence of permeable soils at depth and seasonally variahle ground-waxer elevations. It is therefore apparent that 7-25 runoff to the pond would either: 1) directly percolate to ground water, or 2) interact directly with ground water in the Basin (Le., when the ground-water table is greater than or equal to--4 feet elevation). 3 The following matters regarding the storrnwater system 'would be considered pertinent based on the conditions cited above and were not apparent in the DEIR or related documents. 7-26 t,i ss.Clgk++-F ,^, w.t::at Mah,tYui 3.36 JUL-03-2DO3 THU 02:52 Ply CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX NO, 925BB88142 P, 10 � I 1 A4 Jerry Brown July 1, 2003 Page 6 • Depending upon the water level in the Contra Costa Casal, what direction would the shallow ground-water gradient be between the pond and canal? From I the Uraited information in the DEM. it is concluded that it may change ( 7-26 cont. 4 seasonally and result in either seepage from the canal toward the pond or from the pond to the canal. For the latter, what are the potential ground-water quality impa=! Will any chemical be used to control vectors,such as mosquitoes in the pond 7-27 that would have a potential to enter ground water and migrate to the canal? • Did the cautions for the stormwater pond consider a ground-water flow iJ component in additional to the storruwater component of flaw into the pond? 7-2$ Without additional explanation, it can be interpreted that the ground water table will be high (and the ground.-water flow component highest) at the same time � that there will be a significant amount of stormwater runoff entering the pond. • The report states that the pond functions to control water quality. What are the expecte( ranges of detention times (the time that the water eaters the pond before being pumped out)? Is this adequate for dropping out sediments? ''What 7.29 are the minimum detention times need to remove other stormwator quality , chemical constituents of concern via the inferred biological treatment or other removal mechanisms discussed in the report?Is this detention time achieved for all conditions? • During constr=lon and. site grading activities, where will the run-off be ' routed? 7-30 Mater will be collected and sent to the Ironhouse W WTP vita a force train. Could an accidental release from the sanitary sewer result in a ground-water 7-31 � quality impacts and subsequent impacts to the canal? What mitigations arc `; practical in this setting (e.g., offsets)? • Constructing a 35-inch stormwater pipeline(force main) parallel to the canal could potentially atter shallow ground-water flow by acting as a conduit. Is 7_32. t dewatering required during construction?Were structural impacts to the canal as a result of such activities considered? • Should a buffer area around the pond that considers the potential for increased � water table elevation due to ground-water mounding and backup structural 7-33 controls for extreme wet weather events and safety in the event of pond " discharge malfunction be employed? Stormwater Charaeterization A wet pored, as proposed in the project design, is typically used for stormwatcr managGmznt 7-34 for moderate to targe drainage areas and is defined in Law and Band (1448) as a "perrnanant pool of water that tcrnporarily stares runoff and allows particulate pollutants 10 settle out and 3-37 `s k 4t)L-06-2003 THU 02:52 PM COWD WATER RESOURCES FAY, ND. 8256888142 P, 1� f Jerry Brown July 1, 2003 Page 7 � 1 dissolved pollutants to be removed by biological uptake or other decay processes. Stormwattr is released at a controlled rate." 'Water quality, particularly sediment loading, is recognized in the DEM as an important issue, however, bused on our experience in the area, we would be >' concerned over possible degradation of shallow ground water through the wet pond.. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) studies conducted in the early 19P80's 7-34 cunt. (U'SEPA, 1983) showed that urban runoff quality is extremely variable depending on the land use, there are many sources of urban runoff contamination. Polhmats are greatest from industrial and commercial areas, however, and,as admowledge d in the draft Cyprus Crave EIR, residential Land use can also contribute pollutants to stormwater rurieff. Major categoriess-of urban pollutants include sediments, nutrients, microbes, and tdxic metals and organics(including ails, greases, and petroleum and other hydrocarbon&) (Maketpeaace at. al., 1:995; Pitt er, al., 1995, and U.S. EPA, 1983). Sit concentrations in urban runoff can be particularly problematic, and other pollutants, e.g..trace,metals or other constituents may also bond to or be tramported with sediment particles, Microbes are ubiquitous and 7-35 generally detected at high concentrations in urban stormwater. Malty are beneficial, while others can be padyogenic or indite a potential risk for water contamination (e.g., fecal coliform baamria). They can be present naturally or contributed from resid-ndall sources(e.g., animal waste products including waste from domestic pets and also wild animals attracted to residential developments rear lands used for other purposes. The increased sediment in urban runoff, if not adcquately addressed through RMPs, may cause significant biological. chemical, and physical changes in receiving waters, in this case Emerson Slough; and, in the; event of failure to contml storrawater during flood events, may h also affect the Centra Costa Canal. The importance of sediment control is generally addressed in the draft EIR; however, it is not addressed in terms of the tinting of storms, capture o1 stormwater in relation to morntwater pond capacity (including evaluation of reduced pond 7-36 capacity during wet weather periods when shallow ground water may reduce pond storage capacity), stormwater detention period required to accomplish sufficient settling of sediment prior to discharger to Emerson Sloes, type of vegetation planned to accomplish treatment, and shape of stormwamr basin(Le„ rationale for length/width rates for settling of anticipated sediment load). Section 3.12-3 describes the proposed stormwater pond as an effective overall EMP for the site functioning as a waren-quality wet pond wherein the "natural physical, biological, and chemical processes of the wet detention basin would remove pollutants, Sedimentation processes would remove particulates, organic matter, and metals, while dissolved metals and nutrients would be removed through biological uptake", Brown and Schue:ler (1997) reported �`3� that the pollutant removal efficiency of structural EMPs such as wet ponds and sand filters can remove significant amounts of sediment and phosphorous in urban runoff, but these BMP& haver a much lower ability to rcrnover nitrogen. Pollutant removal data are limited or t � a LaIA It N:�.JNrf• ,� ;::C:n, MAWNI j 3`38 JUL-03-2003 THU 02:S2 PM DOWD MATER RESOURDES FAX N0, 9258863142 P, 12 , i Sorry Brawn July 1, 2003 ; Page 8 unavailable for bacteria, hydrocarbons, and dissolved metals, as these parameters were only measured in about 7-o pe=nt of the BMF'perfamunce,studies summarized in the 1997 report.. Of the data summarized, most BMP performance studies have shown a moderate to high 7-37 cont. ability to remove total lead, zinc, and petroleum hydrocarbons from urban runoff, but only a moderate ability to remove organic carbon. Notably, the shallow ground-water conditions at the Cyprus Grove project site and the proposed stormwater pend create the potential for discharge to ground water with: little to no treatment capacity offered by soil beneath the pend area, Detention time in the pond may also } be constrained by a combination of factors, including the shallow water table and reduced pond storage capacity and the frequency and duration of storm.evems. Additionally, hydraulic 7-38 conditions associated with the proposed wet pond may also contribute to radial transport of nutrients, microbes, and other constituents away from the pond in shallow ground water, includiug in the direction of the Contra Costa Carnal. These factors have potentially direct adverse impacts to rhe conveyance of surface water in the canal. r Storsnwater studies suggest design characteristics and envirounental conditions may affect BMP performance and should be comprehensively considered when evaluating pollutant removal capabilities. BMP performance can be quite variable, and detention facilities male act as a sink.for some pollutants. Detention ponds can also act as it net source for other constituents, The draft Cyprus Grove EIR generally concludes that there will be irnproved downstream water quality as a result of EWs (Section 3.12-9);however,there is no monitoring program proposed to demonstrate the net effectiveness of the Blvd's downstream or otherwise. Specifically, there is no plan for the following; F • monitoring baseline surface and ground-water quality at the project site and/or 7-39 �..' at locations under the influence of proposed BMP operations; i evaluating sediment and chemical loading due to stormwatcr discharge to the � pond; evaluating subsequent setlirnent andlor chemical loading to the Slough; evaluating treatment effectiveness due to the opportunity for physical, biological, and chemical interactions and processes to occur while starmwater is detained in the wet pond; monitoring to ensure that best management practices (BMPS) are effective, �... Concluding Remarks r We have found that certain potential impacts from the proposed project on local hydrology and water quality, particularly as they relate to the Contra Casty Canal, cannot be quantified for 7-44 the purpose of mitigation design as a result of a lack of a description of ground-water E hydrology at the project site and vicinity. Based on local experience as well as the geotechnical -1 1 L4f`•EC7'?;q�'F :: wr;,:n;,MRvtM u- 3-39 I` i JUL-03--2003 THU 02:52 PM CUWO WATER RESOURCES FAX NO, 5258888142 °, 13 Jerry Brawn July 1. 2003 j Page 3 " I investigations cited in the DEIR, shallow ground water is known to occur and is hydraulically connected to the canal. The most significant concerns have to do with potential seepage from the canal and how that seepage will affect local ground water elevations. Based on the general setting, seepage could cause shallow ground water to rise and affect building foundations and 7_40 cant. ether features in the subdivision. A possible requirement would therefore be to include mitigation measures that hydraulically isolate the canal from the subdivision. This would also address the related concern that urban stonnwater runoff has the potential to mix with ground water and seep into the canal under certain hydraulic conditions. i 2 I 3-40 JUL-03-2003 THU 02:53 PM CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX NO, 9255988142 Attachment 2 ' r-a CCWD Detailed Comments July 3,2003 Cypress Grove Draft Elk F (e Draft Environmental Impact Report Cypress Grave,Oakley Cantor»la i Detailed Comments of the CCVM July 3,2003 ? CCWD provides these detailed c.ommonts to the City of Oakley for its consideration of the Cypress Grove Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please contact Mark Seedall at 925-688-8119 for any questiarns on the comments below. 4 Chapter 1: Introduction, Scope ofRIP,Enwmu&e Summary E Page 1-10: Giant Garter Snake CCWD is working with the Cypress Grove Biologist for the purpose of allowing surveys for the Giant Garter snake. Until such surveys are completed,it is unknown whether 7-41 there will be a nccd for a buffer area relative to the Canal to protect endangered Giant Cramer Snakes. Page 1-12: Hazards No mention in this section of the Coxnra Costa Canal and the need for protections to 742 ensure public safety and to secure the Canal as a water supply for 450,OOO residents of Contra Costa County. Page 1-12 and 1-13: Hydrology and Water Quality Luhdorff&Scalmanini (LS)have prepared a report addressing this arced. This report is f dated July 1, 2003 and is attached to these comments. The IS report purpose its to evaluate Hydrology and Water Quality issues and CCWD requests that the Final Cypress Grove ETk consider all of the ccsrruments in the attached LS report. The summary sections of the DEIE.shuruld include an overvie%,of the impacts from the new development: • on ground water hydrology, ' . on ground water impacts from the development towards the Canal; 7-43 . on impacts from the Canal towards the new development; i>- + and whether the stormwater pond and drainage system will not further affect groundwater and water quality in the Carnal. No mention in this summary is made of why the storm water pond can be located within 300 feet of the Contra Costa Canal and not be lined consistent with the 2020 Oakley General Plan. 2020 Oakley General Plan allows unlined detention basun 1000 feet boym)d the Canal property line. a Page 1 3-41 j JL-D3-2003 THU 0253 PH CCWD WATER RESOURCES FFAli N. 925688814E P. 15 Wi CCWD Detailed Comments July 3,2003 Cypress Grove Draft EM Page 1-13: Public Services and Utilities No mention is made in this section that the DiWo Water District is a raw water customer 7-44 of CCWD and that absent inclusion for the Cypress Grove Development in the Central V alley Project(CVP) Service area that CCWD cannot provide the Diablo Water District with raw supply for this project. Page 1-15: No Project/No Development Alternatives 7-45 This section asserts that absent the project that drainage impacts to the Contra Costa ' Cana; from the Agricultural Drains will be greater than from the proposed subdivision. There is no factual evidence in the DEIR to support this assertion. Page 1-15: Reduced intensity development alternative CCWD believes that such an alternative could have a lower impact on the Canal,relative 7-46 to the proposed project. Creating a buffer zone from the unlined Canal will greatly reduce potential impacts. Chapter 2: Project Description Page 2-1: Cypress Corridor Pla¢ining Process No mention is made of CCWD's interest and involvement in the Cypress Corridor Planning process or how the Contra Costa Canal fits into this planning,process. CCWD z has had a strong interest and concern with development along the Cypress Corridor since its inception,as the earthen portion of the Contra Costa.Canal resides along the majority 7-47 of the Cypress Corridor. The Cypress Corridor Planning Process should reflect CCWD's interest in the Cypress Grove project- a A NOP scoping meeting was held on January 9, 2002 at the Delta Yisur Middle School. The sole attendee at the scoping meeting was the Contra Costa Water District who was t . primarily in attendance to,gain an understanding of the proposed project(January 17, 2003 City of Oakley Revised,Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Cypress Grove). 4,! Page 2-2: Project Objectives No mention is made in the list of project objectives to protect the Contra Costa Canal the 7-48 source of drinking water for 450,000 residents in Contra Costa Cotmty from impacts associated with this major new development. 3 Page 2 f 3-42 t J -03-2003 THU 02',53 PH COWD WATER RESOURGES FAX NO, 9258888142 UL P, 16 CCWD Detailed Commeats July 3,2003 C\rprtss GTove Draft EIP, &J, Page 2,14: InfrastructuTe Plans Storm Drain The four-36"pi4>e-drainage system of which Cypress Grove uses one of these pipes may 7-49 require that an easement or license be obtained from the Unitzd Suacs Bureau of Reclarnation (USBR)to cross the Canal near Sellers Avenue. National Eaviroranental Policy Art(NBPA�)review will be required for this approval. Page 2.15- Flood Control Levee Im", Mention is made of the need to wnstruct a flood control levot.along the "...northern boundary south ofthe existing CCKD levee, and along Sellers Avenue,from the CCWD canal to C)press Boat:Z- CCWID understands ftom Febrilary 20,2003 plans provided by Carlson,Embee &Gibson,Inc, that the proposed levft will exiend into the Canal Property(owned by USBPQ as a nmns of ensuring that drainage will flow away &0m.the frtshwaters of the Canal consistent with CCWD(6.24.110)and Contra Costa County (914-2.006)regulations. No disaus]sion is made,however,for the need to obtain a license or easement from USBR to support%he proposed levee. liowever,CCWD's regulation Each permanent structure or encroachment on the Right-of-Way shall, to the greatest extent practical, be at right angles to tht length of the Right-of-way. Longitudinal use of the Aighi-of-way will bepermitted only when necessary to accommodate I public works that cannot reasonably be located eLmwhare (CCWD 7-50 Code ofRegulation 6.24,050). CCArD and USBR Amendmeat No. I to Memorand=of Agreement with US;BR for Oporation and Maintenance of Contra Costa Canal requires the following with respect to longitudinal encroachments: To thefullwi artent possible, right-of-way encroachments shall be approximately perpendicular to the Canalright-of-way, rather than longitudinal. Any requests for longitudinal encroachments shall be rrviev�and approved by the Bureau prior to the preparation of the document(CCRT and USBR MOA,June 28, 1972). Onze US BR provides its S==l approval of O)t proposed lougiWinal en=aahrnem, then it will be appropriate to prepare NEPA documentation. Neither USBR or CCWD will be able to provide a license or easement for the use of this property until all environmental documentation is approved. Page 2-16 Water The DEIR incorrectly asserts that the major portion of the project sitee located north of East Cypress Rd was annexed to the Contra] Valley Project(CVP)Contractual Service 7-51 11-tj area in D==ber 2002. This is not true. The Cypress Grove Projer is not p at art of the Page 3 3-43 .)"JL-03-2003 THU 02:S3 Ptd DOWD WATER RESOURCES FAX N0, 9256868142 P, 17 `i CCWD Detailed Comments July 3,2003 Cypress Grove Draft EIR CVP project and it must be included in the CVP service arca to receive water service. 7-51 cont. , The Cypress Grove Project is part of CCWD service area, , e In terms of the provision of water to the Diablo'Waxer District in support of the Cypress Grove Development the following applies: No renter furnished by the CVP shall be provided by the District or arry Qf its wholesale municipal customers for use on lands that are not in the.District's o p Service Area unless and until the Secretary gives written consent to the inclusion of such land in the District's CVP Service Area (CCWD 2003 Title S Regulations). 7-52 ,At the time annexation is sought for the purpose of receiving treated water from the.District, or an application is made for treated water service for lands i previously annexed to the District, the District will notify the proponent of the annexation of the applicant far water service that the written consent of the Secretary is required before CYP water can be made available for use on the subject land, It shall he the responsibility of the proponent of the annexation or the applicant for water service to develop rind provide the necessary . environmental documentation necessaryfor such written consent(C'CWD 2003 Title S Regulatiomi )t. Page 2-17: Parks and Trails ; i In the event that a portion of tho new lova is located within CCWD Right of way and 7-53 therefore USSR land, its is important that this be destxibod within the project description clearly. Page 2-20: Rcquimd Public Approvals 7-54 Necd to include: U.S.Bureau ofReelamation: Approval of encroachment by the Cypress Grove project onto USSR,property. Chapter 3.2: Land Use i Page 3.2-13: Consistency with the General Plan To ensure consistency with the City of Oakley 2020 General Pian,Oakley included m. planning relaxed to protecting the Contra Costa Canal. Rased on concerns that CCWD 7-55 expressed in the City of0akley General Platt process,CCWD underrstands that Oakley adopted the guidelines in its 2020 Genml Plan to ensure that its;land use policies were consistent with co-locating adjacent to the earthen canal. The DEIR land use chapter nrcd.s to discuss how the project is consistent with the City of Oakley General Plan. Ou r b. Page 4 3-4-4 1 JUL-03-2003 THU 02:53 PM CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX 0 8258888142 P. 18 CCWD Detailed Comments July 3,2003 a. Cypress Crrove Draft ETR Chapter 3.5: Biological Resources Page 3.5-55: Giant Cxarter Snake: CCWD has provided Karen Swain an encroachment 7-56 permit for the purpose of conducting a survey's that will establish whether the Canal - contains the Giant Garter Snake. CCWD believes that it will be very important to get an opinion from US Fish and Wildlife after the Giant Garter SrAe surveys are completed. The US Fish and Wildlife Opinion will be important for t7SBR's consideration of the levee ancroachment. Chapter 3.10: dopy Page 3.10-6: Loss of structural support due to potential liquefaction 7-57 This section contains a statement that CCWD has raisers concerns regarding the potential for the Canal to impact groundwater levels in the subdivision. Including this issue in the section discussing liquefaction is not sufficient:. The hydraulic connection between the Canal and the groundwater is a significant issue and the DEM needs to be revised to fully { describe, a..- lyze and mitigate the potential impacts. i Chapter 3,11: Hazards Page 3.11-2: Contra Costa Canal This section needs to include a statement as follows: 7-58 7 { The boundary between the LISBR Contra Costs Canal and tho Cypress Grove development is currently fenced with a three-stand barbed wire fence to keep out cattle, reflecting the current abutting rural land uses. Residential development adjacent to the Canal will require construction of property Line and canal liner fences according to sections 6.24.090 and 6.24.100 of the CCWD Code ofRegulations. Page 3.1.1-2: Construction of additional residencrs near the Contra Casts Canal and stormwater detentign pond could expose residents to safety hazard . i CCWD agrees that by introducing the public to very close proximity to the earthen Canal that safety is a key consideration. The DEIR does not elaborate on the details of safety fencing along the Canal. This is the first major development adjacent to the earthea J Canal. The Canal in this area is wider and more isolated than rather portions of the Card., 7-59 ;wv= though the proposed bicycle, path will not be located on USBR property, CCWD experience is that the Canal may be attractive to many who do not realize its dangers, The developer must conform to property line and canal liner fences consistent with a; sections 6.24.D90 and 6.24.100 of the CCWD Code of Regulations. CCWb is also concerned that it may be necessary to construct safety fencing on both sides of the Canal and it may also be appropriate to extend the safety fencing all the way to Sellers Ave at the time of the Cypress Grove Development. Page 5 3-45 01-03-2Da3 THU 02:53 FM OND WATER RESOURCES FAX NO, 9256BB8142 19 CCWD Detailed Corrantau July 3,2003 Cypress Grove Draft ETR CCWD requests that a mitigation measure be added to include applicant plains for a safety program as it relates to the Contra Costa Canal. CCWD should be a reviewer and 7_59 cont. approving entity in addition to the City Engineer when plans for a safety program are presented for the Contra Costa Canal. No mention or discussion in the hazards section or elsewhere in the DEIR with respect to the passibility of mold or fungus developing within the new homes as a result of high 7-60 groundwater levels in the area and due to the close proximity of the unlined Carnal. Chapter 3.12 Hydrology and Water Quality CCWD hired Luhdorff&Scalmanini (LS)Consulting Engineers to review this section of 7-61 the DEIR- LS are Ground-Water Resources experts. A copy of the July 1, 2003 memorandum from LS to Jerry Brown is attached to these comments. CCWD expects that the City of Oakley to camfuUy review the LS comments and to respond to the concerns that are expressed in the technical report. The DMR makes reference to ground water levels. As noted in the Kleinfelder Report,groundwater at the project site exists about S Beer below the ground surface(Cypress Grove EIR Page 3.10-6). However, CCWD notes that there is strong evidence that the ground water levels at tho site vary considerably and that such evidence may not have been considered in the DEIR: The Balance Hydrologics,Inc report dated 2-24-03 indicates that: It is important to note ground-water elevations along the northern edge of the 7-62 project have been found to persist at or above 2.0 jeer(Page 10 Balance hlydologics,Inc.,Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, Cypress Grave Project, February 2003). Nate especially the relatively high ground-water elevations in the northern portion of the project watershed,just west of the location of the proposed pond (Balance Hydrologies,Inc Figure 14. Ground-water elevations at the Cypress Grove project, February Z003). CCWD also nates there is a hydraulic gradient between the Canal and the groundwater that f3 uctuates with tidal change. Recent measurements by CCWD indicate that groundwater elevation near the Canal ranges from +1.0 to+3.5 feet mean sea.level (MSL) and Canal water surface elevation ranged from -1.7 ft. to+5.2 feet MSL, Please note that these measurements would vary depending on hydrology and Canal water demand and the EER needs to evaluate the full range of possibilities. Page 6 3-46 JUL-03-20D3 THU 02:54 PH CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX N0. 9258888142 P. 20 CCWD Detailed Comments July 3,2003 Cypress Grove Draft EER Page 3.12-1: Drainage Area. CCWD regulation 6.20.040(l 1)prevents urban drainage to 7_63 the Canal and this should be described in the first part of this chapter. Page 3.12-8: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts: . i CCWD does not develop Flood Control Standards in Contra Costa County,rather, Contra 7`64 Costa County Flood Control develops these standards. Page 3.12-11: Exposure of future and adjacent residents to flood hazard. This section describes the proposed flood hazard that results in a "a now levee width 7-65 between Cypress Road and Contra.Costa Canal...". The Canal levee is not a flood control levee. The proposed new flood control levee and its encroachment onto USER property are subject to approval by USBR. Fake 3.12-12: Exposure of future and adjacent residents to flood hazard. This would be a very good area to expand the description of the proposed levee and 7-66 whether it will encroach onto USBR property. A detailed map showing the Contra Costa Canal ROW, proposed levee within the ROW as well as any other features that impact the USBR ROW is necessary. The potential for CCWD levee failure of the Contra Costa canal mentions that CCWD can shut oft the water supply at the nearby pump station#1 in the event of levee failure. 7-67 This would not help the Cypress Grove devolopmcnt as Pump Station 141 is downstream, of Rock Slough. There is no shut off gate at the Rack Slough entrance. Pages 3.12-12 to 19: Describes the Storm Drainage System: CCWD basic concern with this section is that there is a lack of discussion of ground-water hydrology, and how this 7-68 will affect the unlined stormwater pond and the Canal. See the July 1, 2003 Luhdorff& Scalmanini report for the full extent of CCWD's concerns. Page: 3.12-17,Figure 3.12-8. This is the Proposed Outfall Structure to Emerson Slough. The drawing needs to identify the property ownership and whether necessary easements are in place to allow this structure. • The drawing indicates an eleven foot rack foundation for the 36"four-pipe outfall structure. CCWD understands that the four pipes may be intended 7-69 to'bc laid over its Carnal near Sellers Ave. Is this permissible tinder the City of Oakley General Plan vs. placement of the pipes under the canal or • liven if the general Plan permits the pipes to travel over the Canal,is there adequate room to allow this system to travel over the canal with suffici=t support without damaging the canal itself? , i Page 7 3-47 �JL-03-2003 THU 02'54 PM OND WATER RESOURCES FAX h10, 9258888142 P 21 CCWD Detailed Comments July 3,2003 Cypress Grove Draft ETR. , Page 3.12-19 to 21: Water quality in the Contra Costa Canal and Emersou Slough This section notes that Agr'ieuitural runoff that now enters the Canal through two culverts 7- 70 on the northern end of the property will be closed and that this flow will be redirected to Emerson Slough and then to its "historic" destination the Delta. See the Ludhorff & Scalmanini comments dated July 1, 2003 for further concerns regarding water quality impacts from this project and the unlined detention basin. Further details on the impacts of the drainage water into Emerson Slough should be included in the Draft Elk,as it pertains to Emerson Slough's future use in the CALFED 7_71 Dutch Slough Restoration project. This project intends to flood the entire area north of the,Canal and make it into a*estland. Page; 3.12-24, Figure 3.12-10. Figure 3.12-10 illustrates the four areas that will be collected by the corresponding four outfall pipes that are included as part of this project. �? However, the cumulative impacts of the collective discharges is not address nor are the cumulative impacts of fvsther development within the Cypress Grove area. In particular, 7-72 Area 2 and Area 4 are adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal and extend the areas of development that are in close proximity of the Canal and that may be affected by high groundwater levels. Any mitigation measures for the interaction between the Canal and the groundwater must take into consideration the future development planned for the area, and other projects and land use in the vicinity of the development. Page 3.12-25: If the outfall system will cross the Contra Costa Canal, an easement is needed from USSR before such a drainage system can be installed. The Emerson Dairy 7-73 drainage is discussed again on page 3.12-25 and CCWD would like to make sure that notations are made that if the crossing is through USER property thea appropriate USBR permission is required.. Chapter 3.13: Public Services and Utilities Page 3.13-2 through 8: Bxisting Setting CCWD notes several portions of this section have incorrect facts: CCWD's arrangement with ECCID has been updated relative to the discussion on page 3.13-2 and 3, For example CCWD has an agreement 7-74 with ECCID for up to 8200 acre feet per year and up to 4000 acre feet per year in shortage years through groundwater exchange. ' • The report references CCWD supplies of 242,700 acre feet and firm near- term water supplies of 229,400 acre feet. This is not correct" CCWD � f estimated reliable normal year water supply is 174,000 foot (CCWD 7-7t� Future Water Supply 2002 Update) Page 8 3-48 JUL-03-2083 THU 02154 Phi CCWD WATER RESOURCES FAX NO, 92'6888142 P. 22 CCWD Detailed Comments July 3, 2003 Cypress Grove Draft ET, 3.13-1 Adequate water supply and delivery for new residents: Within section 3.13-1 it is important to note cc*D's regulations regarding inclusion of lands to the Central Valley Project (CVP): No water shall be provided by the District to annexed lands unless and 7 until water supply is available J�r use on said lands, as con-firmed in writing by the I>istrict. No water�umished by the Com'shall be provided by the District or any of its whgterale municipal czalamers for use on lands which are not in the Dissr2q"s CYP Service Area unless and until 7-76 the Secretary gives written consent to the inclusion of such land in the District's CVP Service Area (CiPWD 2003 Title 5 Replutions later Supply and Rates). -It shall be the responsibility of rhe proponent of the annexation or the applicant for water service to' develop and provide the necessary environmental or tither document4tion necessary for such written consent. Thr; Dist7ict will pursue timely ;and prompt written consent decisions -., based on this documentation (CICWD 7003 Title 5 Regulations Fater i Supply and Rates).. i Page 3.13-16: Central Valley Project(CVP) The regulatory context of this section should lie expanded to indicate that the 'United States Bureau of Reclamation owns the Contra Costa Canal abutting the northern 7.77 ' botmdary of the Cypress Grove Development. , ny encroachment by the levee or outfall pipes will require USER approval and National;Environmental Policy Act review. The proicct must comply with all CCWI.D Code of gulations related to drainage into the Canal and property line fencing. The DETR. sets forth that the a=cxation to the CVP service area occurred on December 18, 2001. This is incorrect. t Page 3.13-22: The area north of Cypress Rd A thin the Cypress Grove project mos Wt 7-78 been annexed to the CVP service area and approved by USER.. Please remove this language. t. Chapter 4: Statutorily Required Sections Page 4-10: dater Quality Downstream z The proposed project asserts that the proposed design for the Cypress Conidor drainage arca"which would prevent pollutants from entering the downstream channel." 7_79 + CCV►i'D does not believe that then' is adequate information within the EI.R in terms of the stc�rmu alcr man.ag m t plan to make this assertion Page 9 3-49 >,;'jL-D3-20O3 THU 02,54 PM COWD DATER RESOURCES FAX NO, 8258888142 P, 23 CCWD Detailed Comments July 3,2003 4 Cypress Grove Draft EIR 3 • CCWD also nates that stonnwater•lwil,interact with ground water and this could be a source of contamination°to.ground water in the area and the 7-80 Contra Costa Canal, the drinking; water source for 450,000 residents in 4 Contra Costa County. ' ^' Chapter S. Alternatives Analysis Wage 5-3: Hydrology and Water Quality This section sets forth that the No Project alternativoiNo Development Alternative "would result in decreased impacts on hydroloo and water quality". This is in contrast 7-81 to assertions made on page i-1 S that the 637-unit',development improves water quality in the Contra Costa Canal. The Hydrology and Water Quality Section shoWd however, discuss alternatives with respect to the detention basin locations and whet4er the detention basin should be lined or] r 7`82 unlined. Somewhere within the Alternatives Section the a should be discussion on the variczzs designs and approaches for the FEMA flood Con*ol Levee. 7.83 •MAS/JS-c•lr«3 14. F } : Page 14 FINAL. EIR C)IRRESS GROVE PROJECT SEprEmaR 200 LETTER 7: CE)itii'IRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT Response to Comment 7-1 jThe comment states that the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on i the Cypress Grave Draft EIR and that CCWD met with the developer and the City on June 30, 2003 to discuss CCWD's j comments contained in this letter. r' # I The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Response to Comment 7-2 The comment first gives a description of the Cypress Grove project, The comment notes that the first residential r development has been proposed for construction in close proximity to the unlined portion of the Canal and represents a significant change in land use in this area because the area has traditionally been used for agricultural purposes. The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Specific issues related to development near the Canal are contained in later comments and are hilly addressed in the related l responses. Response to Comment 7-3 The comment states that a key area of concern is the lack of analysis in the DEIR for the hydraulic connection that exists between the Canal and the shallow local groundwater table, The comment now that this connection allows water to migrate from the unlined Canal to the shallow groundwater and can allow groundwater to seep into the Canal. 9 Referring to CCWD's comments on the.Notice of Preparation(NOP)related to seepage and drainage from the project and potential effects on water quality, the DEIR recognizes the proximity of the. Canal and f identifies the potential water quality impacts from the project (Impact 3.12-3). The DEIR also discusses aspects of the project—notably the stormwater management system—that would address these potential impacts through treatment of the project runoff, and concludes that the project would have a less-than- significant impact on water duality in the Canal. The DEIR also analyzes the potential for liquefaction and expansive soils impacts related to the shallow groundwater levels. Impact 3.10-2 addresses liquefaction and includes mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant by including design level �j geotechnical solutions in the project improvement plans. Similar mitigation is identified for Impact 3.10-3 addressing potentially significant expansive soils impacts. With these discussions, the DEIR adequately analyzes the general effects of shallow groundwater. The City further notes that the hydraulic connection between the proposed project, Contra Costa Canal, and the shallow groundwater table is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts of the project not already addressed in the Draft EIR or the proposed mitigation measures for ,.. several reasons, LJ First, baseline groundwater assessment data completed after preparation of the DEIR demonstrates a negligible flaw of groundwater from the project site to the Canal and almost no influence on groundwater levels at the project site from the Canal. This groundwater monitoring conducted by Kleinfelder, Inc. from CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS AND 11RDSPONSES 3-51 F-INA L E/fi? CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT" SEPTEMBER 2003 April 2002 to July 2003, indicated that baseline groundwater elevations fluctuate seasonally, with maximum levels recorded in December and January (see Appendix A of this FEIR). The highest elevation recorded on the northern portion of the project site (approximately 170 feet south of the Canal edge) was 3.61 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The highest elevation recorded on the southern edge of the site (approximately 900 feet south of the Canal edge)was 6.34. The gradient on the site is calculated to be to . the northeast. Throughout the monitoring period, the gradient appeared to remain consistent. This j consistency in gradient demonstrates that the Canal likely would not, .even under extreme conditions, influence groundwater levels at the building foundations. This conclusion is also supported by the low piezometer (piezometer is a device used for measuring pore water pressure) levels close to the Canal, Higher groundwater levels (mounding) near the Canal would indicate seepage or recharge to groundwater from the Canal. This was not the case. Instead, the data suggests that the Canal does not significantly influence the regional groundwater flow (Appendix. A). In addition, the baseline data demonstrates a relatively low gradient,which was calculated to be approximately 0.001 feet/foot toward the northeast. If the Canal were operating as a sink, the gradient might be expected to be altered and direction of groundwater migration would be more direct. Second, existing data on urban stormwater runoff demonstrates that, even in relatively shallow and permeable soils, the majority of contaminants attenuate and do not migrate to groundwater or other hydraulically connected water bodies. Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, for example, have shown that all constituents of concern in urban runoff are sequestered in the top 6 to 8 inches of soil, even inside stormwater basins handling runoff from industrialized catchments (U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 94-41.40). This conclusion is further supported by the Fresno Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Project (May 1984), prepared for the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District by Brown & Caldwell. Conducted over a three year period, the Fresno project's soil and water sampling data demonstrated that recharge of the groundwater basin with stormwater runoff did not impact groundwater quality. Instead, the soils in the recharge basins provided a high degree of removal of storm runoff contaminants, thereby protecting groundwater quality. At Cypress Grove, the majority of the project site is covered by Sycamore Silty Clay Loam, a soil type with a relatively low infiltration rate of 0.2 0.6 inches per hour(DEIR, p. 3.12-5). Due to these low infiltration and high attenuation rates expected on the project site, it is unlikely that water quality at the Carnal would be affected by stormwater or landscape runoff at the project site. Third, the project is expected to reduce the present level of agricultural drainage to groundwater and directly to the Canal, which would improve rather than impair water quality in the Canal. Untreated stormwater presently discharges directly to Marsh Creek and Contra Costa Canal from the project site, and that stormwater includes both urban runoff`and agricultural drainage. Prior agricultural drainage is also ;.. confirmed by groundwater samples at the site showing elevated levels of total dissolved solids, nitrates, sodium, chloride, and sulfate, along with other detected concentrations of contaminants possibly associated with agricultural drainage. The project would eliminate this untreated discharge through BMP`s and then convey that treated stormwater to Emerson Slough, not the Canal. The fact that the project would reduce the present level of agricultural drainage directly to the Canal and to groundwater is expected to improve water quality in the Canal from existing conditions. Fourth, the project building pads are proposed to be constructed at elevations well above the highest recorded groundwater levels in the area and in a fashion that addresses geotechnical concerns such as liquefaction and expansive clays that may expand with soil saturation from the presence of moisture. As CHAPTER 3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-52 i FINAL E/R CYPRESS GpovE PROJECT SEI'TEA4sER 200.E noted above, the DEIR expressly considers the shallow groundwater table and its effect on liquefaction (Impact 3.10-2) and on expansive clays and foundation integrity (Impact 3.10-3). The DEIR concludes that, with the implementation of certain mitigation measures (such as the use of post-tensioning.,slab foundations), the potential geological and hydrological impacts related to shallow groundwater would be less-than-significant (DEIR, 3.10-6). In addition, the lowest building pad elevation near the Canal (Proposed Lot #240 Subdivision 8680) is approximately 8.8 feet and the highest recorded water elevation in the Canalis approximately 5.2 feet. Given the relatively low groundwater gradient, any seepage from the Canal would be anticipated to attenuate with distance rather quickly. Even if the Canal reached its previously reported high water level of 5.2 feet, the lowest building pad elevation would remain well above potential groundwater levels. Given this situation, coupled with the fact that all homes would be supported on stiff,post-tensioned slab foundations, the potential for high groundwater levels to impact the foundation support is remote. As for groundwater influence on roadways, utility excavations, and other construction r.J features, the DEIR requires that design-level geotechnical recommendations be included in roadway and infrastructure improvements as well as building and foundation design (mitigation measure 3.10-3 of the DEIR j Since the issuance of the DEIR, the applicant has proposed that the stormwater pond be clay-lined, which would further reduce impacts. Therefore, although impacts of the proposed project on groundwater and the Contra Costa Canal are considered less-than-significant, the clay liner in the stormwater pond would J, hydraulically isolate the pond from the groundwater table. Thus, with implementation of the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR and with the stormwater pond's isolation from the groundwater, the project's impacts associated with groundwater and the Canal would be less-than-significant and no further mitigation would be required. The project applicant, nonetheless, is encouraged to work with CCWD to i identify additional opportunities to enhance protection for the Canal. E, Response to Comment 7-4 i 5 The comment states that CCWD contacted Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LS) to review the DEIR and related documents provided by the Civ and to provide CCWD with expert advice as to whether the proposed project could have a significant impact on the CCWD. Should a significant impact be identified, CCWD requested LS to assess whether adequate mitigation was provided in the DEIR. The comment further states that the LS report is provided as Attachment I to the CCWD Ietter. The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Individual concerns raised in the LS report will be addressed below. Response to Comment 7-5 L The comment states that LS found that the DEIR does not contain an analysis on the intersection between the Canal and the shallow groundwater table. The comment expresses LS's concern that the interaction between groundwater and the Canal would have potentially significant impacts to the project, and that mitigation measures would be warranted such as hydraulically isolating the Canal ficin the development. 7` Please see Response to Comment 7-3. k CHAPTER 3 —COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-53 Ffr'VAL, EIR CYPRESS G:ROVE PROJECT SEPTEMS R 2003 Response to Comment 7-6 3, The comment states that the project is not consistent with the 2020 City of Oakley General Plan and dives the example �3 that no mention is made in the DEIR for why the stormwater pond can be located within 300 feet of the Canal and not be lined consistent with the Oakley General Plan, The consistency of the Cypress Grove project with the Oakley 2020 General Plan is addressed under Impact 3.2-3 of the DEIR, which finds the project consistent with the General Plan. The comment does not cite a particular policy requiring ponds within 300 feet of the Canal to be lined. Furthermore, page 4-26 of the Oakley 2020 General Plan states that "Currently no definitive rules are required for the design of the detention basin. Each is designed as its own project and for its own dual use facilities. This is partly due to the individual sizing requirements for each basin."The detention basin proposed for the project is consistent with the policies and programs in the General Plan pertaining to detention basins,including but not limited w to: ! • Policy 7.6.2 - Provide adequate access (pedestrians, bicycle and equestrian) to detention basin park sites to encourage diverse uses; • Policy 7.6.3 - Place detention basin parks within close proximity to complementary uses such as residential development, schools,natural areas, and public resource facilities; • Policy 7.6.4- Use fencing and gates to maintain safety and restrict access to unsafe areas such as t; pump stations; and v • Program 7.6.A- Place new basins adjacent to schools and parks for dual usage. Furthermore, the only policy in the Oakley 2020 General PIan specifically related to the development of structures near the Contra Costa Canal is Policy 4.$.14, which states, "All proposals for development, including requests for building permits, within 1,€00 feet of the Contra Costa Canal property line shall be referred to Contra Costa Water District for comment to ascertain the District's standards for the proposed development project." Because the project plans were submitted to the District early in the Cypress Grove planning process, thereby enabling the District to review the development and provide comments, and because the developer {` and City are continuing to consult with the District, the project is consistent with this policy. In any case, the City notes that the applicant has proposed to line the stormwater pond (see Response to Comment 7- 3). Response to Comment 7-7 The comment egresses the concern that theproposed flood control levee between Marsh Creek and Sellers Avenue in addition to other project features will potentially encroach into United States.Bureau of Reclamation (USBR,)property, � The comment notes that consultation with USER is required before construction within the right-of-way commences. The comment does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, rather clarifies the permitting requirements. The flood control levee would require an encroachment permit, license, or easement from CCWD and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for construction and placement of the levee within the CCWD right-of- CHAPTER 3 -COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-54 GYPREss GRAVE f fi?o IEcr SEPTEMBER 2003 way—owned by USER---at two particular points: (1) the Marsh Creek levee work would extend longitudinally into the right-of-way for the purpose of conforming grades; and(2)the levee along the Canal would fill and thus eliminate the void area between the Canal berm and the top of the new levee to eliminate areas without drainage and to ensure berm integrity. As noted by the comment, compliance with i the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act(BSA)are necessary before issuance of the permit, license, or easement. Tose environmental impacts associated with construction of the levee are addressed in Chapter 3.S of the DEIR (Biological Resources), including the Cf Site Analysis for the Proposed Cypress Grove project (Sycamore Associates LLC, 2003b, available at Oakley City Hall), Chapter 3.10 (Geology), Chapter 3.11-9 (Hazards), and pages 3.12-12 and 3.12-20 through 3.12-23 (Hydrology and'mater Quality). i` Response to Comment 7-8 71e comment expresses the concern that an analysis is not provided in the DEER that addresses the potential impact .t resulting from leakage of stormwater into the Canal at the point cohere the proposed stormwater system pipe crosses the Canal. As described in the DEIR, the applicant ro uses to replace the unlined., uncovered, and artificial drainage p p P g ditch along Sellers Road, which presently conveys untreated urban and agricultural runoff, with a 36-inch l diameter pipe that would convey treated stormwater to the outfall at Emerson Slough. The treated { ,.' stormwater, in turn, must meet requirements set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in order for the project's stormwater to obtain Water Quality Certification. Thus, while the volume of stormwater may increase, the quality would be improved substantially as compared to present conditions. Common construction practices such as the use of Basketed pipe all but eliminates the potential for leakage into the Canal. Because the pipe would place treated stormwater into a closed pipeline system in accordance with the Draft EIR (DEIR., 3.12-12 through 3.12-19 and 3.5-64), any potential impact from the stormwater pipeline crossing on Sellers Avenue would be considered less-than-significant,and no mitigation is required. Response to Comment 7-9 The comment expresses the concern that the portion of the project located north of Cypress Road is not included within the ,w United States:bureau of Reclamation(USSR)service territory. The comment notes that the DEIR states that the property has been annexed into the Central Valley Project(CVP)service area; however, the comment states that this information is incorrect. The comment further states that inclusion within USER service territory is required before CCWd can provide racy water to the Diablo Water District to serve the Cypress Grove project. The comment appears to be referencing pages 2-16, 3.13-16, and 3.13-22 of the DEIR, which are incorrect,stating that the major portion of the project located north of East Cypress Road has been annexed within the CCWD's CVP contractual service area boundary. However, according to page 3.13-22, the i DEIR correctly indicates that, " the major portion of the project located north of East Cypress Road is not included within the CCWD's CVP contractual service area boundary."Therefore, the DEIR is.inconsistent on this matter and will be revised to reflect the correct information as provided by CCNU. The DEIR, } however, consistently states the need for an inclusion application. It should be noted that the applicant and the applicant's consultant, Sycamore Associates, met with USBR personnel on July 14, 2003. During this meeting, USER indicated that environmental documentation concerning the levee encroachment, .Marsh. l Creek bridge expansion, Emerson Slough outfall, stormwater detention pond, and safety fencing would all CHAPTER 3---COMMENTS AND RI ES?ONSES 3-55 FINAL. EIH CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT .SEPTEfWBER 2003 1 suggests that any existing interaction is minimal. Further, the project's comprehensive storm water drainage system is designed to direct runoff to the treatment pond; therefore construction activities are not expected to have significant effects on groundwater. Linder the California Water Code and State General Stormwater Permit, the project at all phases must be constructed in compliance with a site-specific Storm Fater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP addresses water pollution control during construction and requires that all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity, where clearing, grading and excavating results in soil disturbances, must be free of site pollutants. Moreover, the Draft EIR addresses erosion and water quality impacts of r project construction and operation in Impacts 3.10-4 and 3.12-3. Mitigation measure 3.10-4 further requires that, before issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit an erosion control plan to limit or avoid any adverse impacts from construction activities. The project drainage control features contained in the erosion control plan and SWPPP adequately address changes in the quality and collection of runoff during construction. Therefore, further analysis or mitigation is not required. # f This comment also states that seepage from the Canal would be of particular concern to adjacent development, presumably through groundwater impacts to building foundations. Seepage from the Canal, however, is not anticipated to impact the project as previously discussed in Response to Comment 7-3. The DEIR requires that a design level geotechnical study, be completed and its recommendations be incorporated in specific building designs to mitigate the possible effects of expansive clays(for example,the building foundations may be constructed with post tensioning methods to address this issue) (DEIR, MM. 3.10-3). Moreover, groundwater and Canal water elevations at the site are well below the levels needed to potentially impact the proposed building foundations (Please see Response Comment 7-3). i� Response to Comment 7-14 The comment gives LS's conclusion that based upon their review of the DEIR and related documents(see the LS letter for i a list), the documents do not provide any basis to judge whether adverse impacts to groundwater hydrology, including seepage into and out of the Canal would occur. The comment states LS's conclusion that potential impacts related to seepage,from the unlined Canal and the unlined stormwater basin would occur on the adjacent development. Groundwater monitoring data suggests that project impacts to groundwater hydrology will be less-than- r significant. Please see Responses to Comments 7-3 and 7-13. Response to Comment 7-I5 The comment states that potential seepage from the Canal and/or the stormwater basin may warrant mitigation measures, but it is difficult to judge what types of mitigation measures might be appropriate because of a lack of � t characterization of groundwater on the site. As further discussed.in Response to Comment 7-3 and 7-13, the project's impacts on shallow groundwater a and the Canal would be less-than-significant, and no further mitigation would be required. CHAPTER 3 — COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-58 1 ti ANAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEA118ER 2003 Response to Comment 7-16 The comment provides the background of the Cypress Grove project including a description of the project. The comment also states that relative to existing conditions, the project would result in increased runoff in the project area due to i impervious surface cover such as rooftops and roadways; and, that these aspects are addressed through the design of the stormwater system. The comment provides information consistent with the information provided in the DEIR. Response to Comment 7-17 4- The comment states that the project is situated adjacent to an unlined portion of the Contra Costa Canal, which under various hydraulic conditions, will either intercept or seep into shallow ground water. The comment asserts that the Canal would intercept or seep into shallow groundwater. See Responses to Comments 7-3 and 7-13 regarding interaction between the Canal and shallow groundwater. Response to Comment 7w18 ;.. The comment expresses the concern that the DEIR does not address potential impacts resulting from potential seepage of ;. the Canal into the proposed stormwater basin. Please see Responses to Comments 7-3 and 7-13 regarding seepage into and out of the Canal. Response to Comment 7-19 The comment states that due to the presence of shallow groundwater on the site as evidenced in the geotechnical investigations, the possibility exists for the Canal to impact the project andlor the project to impact the Canal. The comment expresses the concern that the DEIR does not provide a description of subsurface conditions and possible mitigation measures. Please see Response to Comment 7-3 and 7-13. This comment refers to the existing conditions concerning L' groundwater table elevation and does not consider the fact that grading and flu at the site would substantially increase the difference between soil surface and groundwater table elevation (DEIR, Impact 3.10-5). Based on the groundwater monitoring records developed by the project consulting environmental engineer and the tentative subdivision maps furnished by the applicant, all finished pads would have ample vertical separation from the groundwater table(approximately four feet or more)to avoid any impacts to or from near surface groundwater at the site. Please see Appendix B attached to this PEIR for fuer ` information regarding the above issue. Response to Comment 7-20 The comment states that Chapter 3.12, Nvdrology and Water Quality, lacks a discussion qf groundwater hydrology, particularly a physical description or conceptualization of groundwater. The comment further states that CCWD has reviousl ound evidence that groundwater seepage m he a source o degradation o water in the Canal in the vicinity p J'.f g }' ,f g .� }' of the project area for certain hydraulic conditions. The comment expresses the concern that,for the Cypress Grove project, �s CHAPTER 3----COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-59 4 F,,NAL_EIR k CYPRESS GRo✓E PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 � a key issue is seepage from the Canal into the subdivisions, which may increase shallow groundwater levels where houses are to be built. Please see Response to Comment 7-3 and 7-13. According to the tCityIs baseline monitoring data, groundwater elevations at the project site range from 0.93 feet to 5.34 feet.Seasonal fluctuations have been noted with the highest groundwater levels recorded between December and January and low groundwater levels recorded between .April and June. The groundwater flow direction has been calculated to be northeast with a gradient of 0.001 feet/foot. The low groundwater gradient and the fact that the project t would reduce the present level of agricultural drainage directly to the Canal, would be expected to improve water duality in the Canal from existing conditions. Studies concerning the percolation and migration of contaminants from urban stormwater runoff also suggest that such is not an issue to groundwater and the Canal. In any case, the applicant proposes to line the stormwater detention basin with a clay liner,thereby _ nearly eliminating the hydraulic connection of the stormwater system from groundwater. It should be noted that the Kleinfelder Analysis, Appendix A, includes a letter from CCWD detailing groundwater monitoring. The CCWD letter supports minimal hydraulic interaction between the Canal and groundwater. Response to Comment 7-21 The comment expresses the concern that an analysis of potential impacts to local groundwater hydrology or groundwater quality by the project with respect to the stormwater system and the Canal does not exist in.Chapter 3.12. The comment also notes that the deficiency in Chapter 3.12 includes the lack of a description of the physical relation between the Canal and subsurface conditions beneath the project site. Please see Responses to Comments 7-3, 7-13, 7-19, and 7-20. l: Response to Comment 7-22 The comment expresses the concern that the DEIR is deficient in providing a description of subsurface conditions and mitigation of possible impacts due to seepage from the Canal, which could include seepage from the Canal causing a rise in the shallow groundwater table, thereby resulting in impacts to the proposed project. Please see Responses to Comments 7-3, 7-13, 7-19 to 7-21 for discussion regarding seepage to and from the Canal. i Response to Comment 7-23 The comment states that possible mitigation measures reducing seepage from the Canal include linings, cutoff walls, interceptor drains, and others. The comment further states that the design of such mitigation measures would require the characterization subsurface hydrology, which is lacking in the DEIR. Please see Responses to Comments 7-3, 7-13, and 7-19 to 7-22 for discussion regarding seepage. Further mitigation is not required. CHAPTER 3 —COMMENTS AND RESPONS`S 3-6u i . FINAL EI.Fi' CYPRESS GRo vE PROJECT j. SEPTE-mBER 2003 Response to Comment 7-24 The comment states that the DEIR addresses surface water hydrology in terms of the project stormwater system and continues by outlining the proposed stormwater system for the Cypress Grove project. The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Response to Comment 7-25 The comment notes that of particular concern with respect to the lack of groundwater characterization is that a major feature of the stormwater system is the unlined detention pond, which would potentially result in the percolation of t : stormwater into shallow groundwater at the site. Please see Response to Comment 7-3. The comment states that the unlined detention pond would result in percolation or ether direct interaction between runoff and groundwater. As noted in earlier responses, the f applicant has proposed to line the pond,precluding the interaction asserted in the comment. Response to Comment 7-26 The comment states certain matters regarding the stormwater system(discussed in Responses to Comments 7-26 to 7=33) would be considered pertinent based on the conditions cited previously in the comment letter(see Responses to Comments 7-12 to 7-25). The comment discusses the first matter, which includes a request for determining what direction the shallow groundwater gradient would be between the pond and the Canal. In addition, the comment requests that the DEIR discuss what potential groundwater quality impacts would result from the seepage of the pond to the Canal. Please see Responses to Comments 7-3,7-13, 7-19, and 7-20. i. Response to Comment 7-27 The comment includes a question as to whether any chemical will be used to control vectors, such as mosquitoes in the pond because the chemicals could have a potential to enter groundwater and migrate to the Canal. Vector control, specifically mosquito control, is discussed in Impact 3.12-4 of the DEIR and in the i Operation and Maintenance section of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, Cypress Grove Project (February 2003) prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. (page 21 of Section 6.2, available at Oakley City Hall). Control measures would be set forth in the storm drain management plan per mitigation measure 3.12-4 >y and would he implemented on an as needed basis under the direction of the Contra Costa County Mosquito and Vector Control District. Chemical control methods are generally considered if, and when, other control measures have failed. Response to Comment 7-28 The comment includes a question as to whether the calculationsfor the stormwater pond considered a groundwater flow component in addition to the stormwater component of-flow into the pond? CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-61 FINAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 E tf Groundwater inflow to the pond was not explicitly included in the hydrograph routing of the detention T analyses, although such calculations are not necessary because the clay liner would effectively isolate the stormwater pond. Potential inflows to the pond (such as low-intensity rains preceding a large storm)would be discharged by the water-quality pump at a regulated rate such that the entire detention capacity is `t available prior to a large rain event. . Response to Comment 7-29 The comment includes a question asking what the expected ranges of detention times are and whether these times are adequate for dropping out sediments? In addition, the comment asks what are the minimum detention times needed to remove other stormwater quality chemical constituents of concern via the inferred biological treatment or other removal meehanU*=mentioned in the report? As described in Section 3 of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, Cypress Grove Project (February 2003) prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. (available at Oakley City Hall), the pond has been designed as a multi-fimction facility, with one such function being enhancement of runoff water-duality. The design criteria employed with respect to water-quality follow the most recent guidelines from the California ; Regional Water Quality Control Boards(RWQCB). In fact, the overall goal of treating 85 percent of mean annual runoff has been applied at Cypress Grove, which is a stricter standard than that currently employed by the Central Valley RWQCB. The water-duality volume (approximately 4.0 acre-feet, roughly equivalent to the runoff from a 0.5-inch rainfall)would be discharged over a period of 48 hours. However, given the fact that the permanent pond volume (7.3 acre-feet)is larger than the water-quality volume, the effective residence time would be significantly greater. The past experience of Balance Hydrologics, Inc. x> regarding similar pond designs, indicates that the proposed configuration would have a very high sediment ki trap efficiency and be capable of removing essentially'all sediments larger than fine silt. Please see Appendix B attached to this FEIR for further information regarding the above issue. ! Response to Comment 7-30 The comment asks where runoff"twill be routed during construction activities. Runoff collection would be set forth in the project SWPPP containing all construction-phase stormwater control guidelines. In addition, the DEIR explicitly describes many of the erosion control BMPs for soil, t wind, and water erosion, and requires that an erosion control plan be submitted and approved by the City Engineer before issuance of a grading permit(DEIR,,MM 3.10-4). Response to Comment 7-31 The comment nates that wastewater will be collected and sent to the Ironhouse W WTP via a force main. The comment asks whether an accidental release from the sanitary sewer could result in groundwater quality impacts and subsequent impacts to the Canal?In addition, the comment asks whether any mitigation measures are available to erasure protection in regards to above issue? The sanitary sewer system conveys wastewater to the Ironhouse Waste Water Treatment Plant via a force k main. The sanitary sewer conveyance system for the project would be constructed with gasketed pipes and the force main line would remain approximately several hundred feet from the Canal along the main's CHAPTER 3—COMrv1ENTS AND RESPONSES 3-62. a R Filum.EIR C'YP'RESS GROVE PROJECT I SEPTEMBER 200.3 4 i entire length. The likelihood of accidental release from the force main is considered low and even if an accidental release occurred, ample separation exists to allow for detection and remediation. Therefore, significant impacts are not anticipated and no further mitigation is required. a Response to Comment 7-32 The comment states that constructing a 36-inch stormwater pipeline parallel to the Canal could potentially alter shallow I groundwater flow by acting as a conduit. The comment asks whether dewatering is required during construction and, whether structural impacts to the Canal as a result of such activities was considered? Except for reducing agricultural drainage, the 36-inch force main parallel to the Contra Costa Canal would >r not impact shallow groundwater. The force main would be water tight, keeping stormwater from accidentally releasing. The force main would also be constructed inboard of the new levee, such that ¢ structural impacts would not occur to the Canal. In addition, due to shallow placement of the farce main, any dewatering during construction would be negligible. The DEIR identi£led project construction and possible structural impacts and concluded that, with certain mitigation measures (including further geotechnical analysis), potential impacts from construction and placement of structures would remain less- than-significant (DEIR, MMs 3.10-2, 3.10-3, 3.10-4). Response to Comment 7-33 The comment questions whether a buffer area around the pond should be considered to ensure protection from groundwater mounding and whether backup structural controls should be considered? Back-up controls at the pond for extreme wet weather events or equipment malfunction were discussed in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, Cypress Grove Project (February 2403)prepared by Balance Hydrologics, .. Inc (Section 6.3, available at Oakley City Hall). The pond as proposed is surrounded by a buffer in the form of park lands and adjoining streets. Extreme events were explicitly modeled using Centra Costa County Flood Control hydrographs for 100-year design storms up to and including the 96-hour duration storm. An added margin of safety exists in this regard through the Contra Costa County guideline which requires that 70 percent of the detention volume be recovered within 24 hours of the peak inflow. The stormwater pumps would be capable of draining the pond from the peak 100-year water surface in somewhat less than 7 hours. Redundant systems would include a back-up stormwater pump and emergency power supply in the form of a diesel generator. Response to Comment 7-34 k The comment expresses the concern that possible degradation of shallow groundwater could occur as a result of the stormwater pond. The comment states that many sources of urban pollutants exist in stormwater rano Please see Response to Comment 7-3. As the comment acknowledges, the Nationwide Urban Runoff '! Program (USEPA, 1983) studies found that urban stormwater runoff quality from residential areas is less than that of industrial or commercial areas. Moreover, the project's stormwater system is designed to collect the project's urban runoff, treat the urban runoff through BMPs, and convey the treated stormwater to the outfall at Emerson Slough. This system is anticipated to improve the present stormwater system that { s drains agricultural runoff untreated to Marsh Creek, Contra Costa canal, and Emerson Slough. In addition, �ruf CHAPTER 3 — COMMENTS AND RESPONSES i 3-63 f- FINAL EIR CYPRESS GRovE PPOJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 quantified. The concluding comment states that the most signifr"cant concerns have to do with potential seepage from the Canal and how that seepage will affect local groundwater elevations. r Please see Response to Comment 7-3 addressing seepage issues, and Responses to Comments 7-12 through 7-39 addressing the LS comments and issues. E Response to Comment 7-41 The comment notes that CCWD is working with the Cypress Grove biologist for the purpose of allowing surveys for the Giant Garter snake. The comment states that until such surveys are completed, it is unknown whether a buffer area relative to the Canal will be needed to protect the snake. The applicant has applied to USACE for two Nationwide Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As part of that application process, USACE must consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (UFWS) if the project "may affect" a.species listed as threatened and endangered. USACE has preliminarily determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect the Giant Garter snake, and has initiated consultation with UFWS. The lead agency for the project received a letter written by USACE to }t. the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, dated May 13, 2003, regarding this issue.The letter specifically states: "Based on the available information, we have determined the action may affect the Federally-listed California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), or designated critical habitat. We believe this project is not likely to adversely affect these species." Please also see ? . Response to Comment 7-9, Response to Comment 7-42 The comment notes that on page I-12 of the DEIR, Hazards section, mention is not made concerning the Contra Costa r Canal-and the need for protection to ensure public safety and to secure the Canal as a water supply for 450,000 residents s. of Contra Costa County. The DEIR describes theP } safety-related ro'ect's Canal safet lated ismP acts, namely access to the Canal (DEIR, 3.11-9), ' and concludes that the impacts would be less-than-significant because the project would install a six-foot chain-link fence at the property line to prohibit access. In addition, the DEIR addresses the potential flood hazards to local residents (DEIR, 3.12-11), and concludes that impacts would be less-than-significant. Construction of the levee improvements along the Contra Costa Canal would appreciably improve the structural integrity of the Canal berm and flood protection south of the Canal. It should also be noted that the present Canal berm has survived since the 1950's—without incident—despite several large flood events '°° in and around the Delta since that time. The DEIR also concludes that the stotmwater pond proposed for the project would ensure that downstream water quality would be acceptable (DEIR, 3.12-26). f. Response to Comment 7-43 � d The comment references pages 1-12 and 1-13 of the DEIR and the LS report, and states that in view of the LS report the DEIR should include an overview of the following in the summary section:groundwater hydrology; groundwater impacts h„ from the development towards the Canal; impacts from the Canal towards the new development; whether the stormwater l pond and drainage system will not further affect groundwater and water quality in the Canal. t CHAPTER 3- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-66 E l FINAL EI C),fowEss GRovs PRoiE."cT .`aµEPTEMsEP, 2003 Please see Response to Comment 7-3. The DEIR identifies the project's water characteristics with respect to recharge, surface flows,flooding, and associated water quality in and around the project site (DEIR, 1-12 and 1-13). The project is not expected to result in significant impacts to ground water hydrology or the Canal, and impacts associated with the shallow groundwater table, if any, have already been adequately addressed in the Draft EIR and the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (February 2003) report prepared by fBalance Hydrologics, Inc. (available at Oakley City Hall). Please see Response to Comment 7-6 regarding General Plan consistency. Moreover, the stormwater system is consistent with the Oakley 2020 General Plan as the applicant is presently in consultation with CCWD concerning the stormwater pond. Policy i 4.8.14 of the Oakley 2020 General Plan states: ".Alt proposals for development, including requests for building permits, within 1,000 feet of the Contra Costa Canal property line shalt be referred to Contra Costa Water District for comment to ascertain the District's standards for the proposed development project." Response to Comment 7-44 The comment states that on page 1-13 of Chapter I of the DEIR, mention is not made that the Diablo Water District is x! a raw water customer of CCWD and that without inclusion of the Cypress Grove project in the Central Yalley Project (CYT')Service area, CCWD cannot provide the Diablo Water District with raw supply for the Cypress Grove project.. The purpose of Chapter I of the DEIR is to introduce and summarize the contents of the DEIR. Chapter 3.13 provides the information requested above on pages 3.13-8, 3.13-16,and 3.13-22 as revised in Chapter 2 of this FEIR_ Response to Comment 7-45 f The comment states that the discussion on page 1-15 of the .DEIR in regards to the No Project Alternative, is lacking information to support the claim that under the No Project Alternative, drainage impacts to the Contra Costa Canal from the Agricultural drains will be greater than those from the proposed subdivision. The presence of the agricultural drains, which empty into the Canal without passing through any BMPs, implies that the Canal has routinely received runoff from the surrounding fields. This contrasts with the project's proposed stormwater management strategy, which would incorporate a number of BMPs, including a lined stormwater pond sized such that the pond design anticipates future standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the stormwater pond would route all runoff`past the Canal to Emerson Slough.Therefore, concluding that the project would likely improve, rather than impair, water quality in the Canal, is documented in the DEIR discussions and is reasonable. Response to Conn hent 7-46 The comment states CCWD's belief that the Reduced Intensity Alternative could have a lower impact on the Contra Costa Canal, relative to the proposed project because a buffer zone from the unlined Canal could be created. Please see Response to Comment 7-3 which identifies that the proposed project is not expected to impact the Contra Costa Canal. The comment does not specify how the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts to the Contra Costa Canal. The proposed buffer, for example, would reduce the ; s - CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS ANIS RESPONSES 3-67 FINAL Elf; CYPRE s GRovE F'ROJECT SEY7EMBER 2003 r amount of storm water collected and treated in the storm water system, causing additional untreated storm water to percolate to ground water or discharge directly to the Canal. In addition, a buffer zone would eliminate the proposed levee adjacent to the Canal berm and thus increase the potential for that berm to fail during an extreme storm event. �J ;. Response to Comment 7-47 `r The comment expresses the concern that on page 2-1, Chapter 2 (Project Description) of the DEIR, mention is rot made of CCWD's interest and involvement in the Cypress Corridor planning process or how the Contra Costa Conalfits into this planning process. The comment states that the �vpress Corridor planning process should reflect CCWI)'s interest in the Cypress Grove project and gives an example of this interest by noting that the sole attendee of the NOP scoping meeting for the project held on January 9, 20032 was a representative of CCWD. Although page 2-1 of the DEIR does not specifically mention CCWD's interest and involvement in the Cypress Corridor planning process or how the Canal fits into this process, subsequent chapters of the DEIR do address CCWD's interest in the planning process. Icor example, Impact 3.12-3 of the DEIR on page 3.12-19 states that CCWD commented that drainage and seepage originating from the housing " developments could impact the Canal's water duality. The proposed stormwater system for the project would ensure that these impacts are less-than-significant. Any specific concerns that CCWD believes were not addressed in the DEIR as specified in their letter, will receive responses in this Final EIR. Furthermore, ` the City of Oakley assumes that all affected agencies have an interest in the Cypress Grove planning process such as Ironhouse Sanitary District, Diablo Water District, etc. Response to Comment 7-48 The comment states that on page 2-2 of the DEIR, under"Project Objectives,"mention is not made in the list of project objectives concerning the protection of the Contra Costa Canal, which is the source of drinking water for 450,000 residents in Contra Costa County. Under CEQA, this DEIR must provide a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project, which includes the underlying purpose of the project(CEQA Guidelines, section 15124(b)). Comment 7-48 seeks to include protecting the Contra Costa Canal as an underlying purpose of the project. The project would include measures to protect the Contra Costa Canal, including levee improvements and the new stormwater system., which would collect and divert stormwater that presently drains untreated into the r.. Canal (DEIR, 3.12-19). Response to Comment 7-49 The comment states that the point where the .36"drainage pipe is proposed to cross the Contra Costa Canal near Sellers Avenue may result in the applicant having to obtain an easement or license from the USER. Subsequent, review under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)would be required. The applicant's engineer, Carlson, Barbee, and Gibson, Inc. (CBG), have indicated that the precise routing of the drainage pipes may be altered such that no easement or license from USER would be required (see Appendix C). Nonetheless, the applicant will consult with USBR, CCWD, and the City to ensure that any y.: CHAPTER 3 —COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-665 J CYPRE'SSGRovE PROJECT 5EPTEA4BER 2003 entitlements necessary for placement of the pipes are secured prior to construction. Please see Response to Comment 7-7 and 7-9. Response to Comment 7-50 �11 ,1 The comment states that the levees proposed along the northern boundary of the site and along Sellers Avenue may encroach onto United States Bureau of Reclamation (USER)property, thereby necessitating that the applicant obtain a license of easement from USER. The comment gives CCWD and USER regulations concerning this process. w, Please see Response to Comment 7-7. Response to Comment 7-51 The comment expresses the concern that the DEIR incorrectly states that the portion of the project site north of hast Cypress Road was annexed to the Central Valley Project(CYT') Contractual Service area in December 2002. The comment states that the Cypress Grove project is not part of the CYT'project and it must be included in the CVP service area to receive water service. The comment concludes by noting the project site is part of the CCWD service area. Please see Response to Comment 7-9 and related revision in Chapter 2 of this FEIR. f Response to Comment 7-52 The comment states that water furnished by the CVP shall not be provided by the Diablo Water.District or any of its wholesale municipal customers for use on lands that are not in the District's CVP Service Area unless the Secretary gives written consent to the inclusion of such land in the District's CVP Service Area. The comment further states that it is the responsibility of the proponent of the annexation or the applicant for water service to develop and provide the necessary -S environmental documentation required for written consent of the Secretary, thereby allowing CYP water service. S `F The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR; rather, the comment discusses the process by which a developer must comply in order to receive CVP water service. Please see Response to Comment 7-9 for further information. Response to Comment 7-53 The comment expresses the concern that in the event that a portion of the new levee is located within CCWD right-of-way and therefore within USER land, the project description should be revised to include this information. Please see Response to Comment 7-7. Response to Comment 7-54 The comment states that page 2-20 of the DEIR, Required Public Approvals, should be revised to include approval of encroachment permit by the Cypress Grove project onto USER property. 'i S t.c= M CHAPTER 3- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES J-69 r INAL EIR CYPfi ESS GRo vE PROJECT SEPTE,BER 2003 The list of required public approvals on page 2-20 of the DEIR will be revised per the above comment. It should be noted that the applicant has met with LISBR to discuss the potential need for an encroachment „j permit. Therefore,page 2-20 of the DEIR, is hereby revised to read: `7 This ETR is also intended to serve as the environmental document by which the following agencies would rely upon to ensure compliance with CEQA when carrying out actions potentially required of them by the proposed project. The agencies and their associated actions potentially required by the proposed project are listed below: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Section 404 permit • California Central Valley Water Quality Control Board--401 Water Quality Certification • Diablo Water District—off-site water line • California Department of Fish and Game — A Streambed Alteration Agreement, pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. °= • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - Approval of the inclusion application and encroac m nt j2grmit Response to Comment 7-55 The comment states that it is CCWD's belief that based on their concerns expressed in the City of Oakley General Plan. process, Oakley adopted guidelines in the Oakley 2020 General Plan to ensure that the City's land use policies are consistent with co-Iocating adjacent to the earthen canal. The comment expresses the concern that the DEIR land use chapter needs to discuss this issue. Policy 4.8-14 in the (Oakley 2020 General Plan specifically related to the development of structures near the Contra Costa Canal states: 01 "All proposals for development, including requests for building permits, within 1,000 feet of the Contra Costa Canal property line shall be referred to Contra Costa Water District for comment to ascertain the District's standards for the proposed development project." Because the project plans were submitted to the District early in the Cypress Grove planning process, thereby enabling the District to review the development and provide comments, the project is consistent with this policy. Furthermore, the project site is located within the Cypress Corridor Special Planning Area(see Figure 3.2- 1 in the DEIR). The Oakley 2020 General Plan discusses the Cypress Corridor Special Planning Area in detail, including but not limited to the following: ' V Description r The Cypress Corridor Area has been the subject of various development proposals and includes the recently constructed Delta Vista Middle School located on the north of East Cypress Road. CHAPTER 3 -COMMEI I S AND RESPONSES 3-70 FNAL. ElR CYPRESS GRo vE PROJECT SEf'(EmSER 2003 Development interests have submitted applications for predominantly single-family residential homes surrounding the new Middle School. The Cypress Corridor Area includes approximately 1,519 acres located to the north of the Contra � Costa Canal. This portion of the Area, generally referred to as Dutch Slough within this General jPlan,is not proposed for urban development and is anticipated to remain as open space and possibly restored as marsh.habitat. Development Vision The Cypress Corridor Area is envisioned as a primarily residential area with supporting commercial and public uses. The intersection of East Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue is designated for higher intensity uses, including a node of commercial uses at the intersection with multi-family or high €` density single family surrounding. Cypress Road is proposed as a four lane divided arterial and will include substantial landscaping and multi-use trails along the road frontage. Not only is the Cypress Grove development referred to in the General Plan ("residential homes surrounding the tnew Middle School") but the dwelling unit densities proposed for the Cypress Grove project site are LJ consistent with the land use designations established for the site by the Oakley 2020 General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City's vision of development for the project site. The press Corridor Area as listed in the General Plan deal in part with constraints to development for the Cy nearby Marsh Creek and the Delta and associated flood 'issues. However, the proposed project includes the establishment of levees along the northern and eastern project boundaries and the improvements of existing Marsh Creek levees to ensure flood protection. Response to Comment 7.56 The comment now that CCWD has provided Karen Swaim an encroachment permit for the purpose of conducting surveys that will establish whether the Canal supports Giant Garter Snakes. The comment states the belief that it is very � l important to get an opinion from USFWS of the survey results, The commenter believes that the opinion of USFWS will µ help determine whether or not to permit levee encroachment. Mitigation measure 3.5-$(a) requires that focused surveys be conducted for Giant Garter Snake during the appropriate time of year by a qualified biologist. Furthermore, mitigation measure 3.5-$(a) states that the results of the surveys will be provided to the Corps and USFWS as part of the Corps Section 404 permit .'. application, and if the Corps determines that the project may affect the GGS under Section 7 of the ESA, formal consultation and appropriate mitigation measures approved in consultation with the USFWS will be required. As noted in Responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-9, USER must also comply with Section 7 of the ESA for both the levee encroachments and inclusion application. t`"I Response to Comment 7-57 The comment states that page 3.10-6 of the DEIR contains a statement that CCWD has raised concerns regarding the t , potential for the Canal to impact groundwater levels in the subdivision. The comment expresses the concern that by ie including this issue in the liquSaction discussion is not sufficient, the hydraulic connection between the Canal and the LJ CHAPTER 3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-71 FINAL EIP CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SE'PTEMBE'R 2003 i groundwater is a significant issue and the DEIR needs to be revised to fully describe, analyze, and mitigate the potential 3 impacts. P The Draft EIR identifies liquefaction as a potentially significant impact concerning the project under Impact 4` 3.10-2, and more specifically, raised the issue of ground water depth as a factor (DEIR, 3.10-6). As w mitigation for Impact 3.10-2, a design-level geotechnical report must be prepared and the applicant must i. incorporate the recommendations from that report into the project's improvement plans (DEIR, MM 3.10- 2). The shallow groundwater and its impact on liquefaction potential would be addressed in the geotechnical study and in the design review stage, and any such risks are expected to be mitigated through design measures such as post-tensioned slab foundations. Therefore, the DEIR concludes that, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, project impacts related to groundwater would be less-than-significant with respect to hydraulic connection between the Canal and the groundwater (please see Responses to Comments 7-3,7-13, 7-19 to 7-22). Further analysis is not required under CEQA. r.. Response to Comment 7-58 The comment states that page 3.11-2 of the DEIR needs to include a statement to address the fact that the existing i boundary fences between USER Contra Costa Canal property and the Cypress Grove project site meed to be replaced with fences consistent with sections 6.24.490 and 6.24.100 of the CCWD Code of Regulations. The project will be required to install fences consistent with sections 6.24.090 and 6.24.100 of the CCWD ' Code of Regulations, and therefore the DEIR will be revised. Therefore, page 3.11-2 of the DEIR, under Contra Costa Canal, is hereby revised to read: Contra Costa Canal As noted above,the Contra Costa Canal borders the project on the north. Public access to the canal is prohibited along the project site by a elan-h4 fen t„hmo-strand b rb d y Ie�n c to keen out fx s de of Response to Comment 7-S9 The comment expresses the concern that the discussion under Impact 3.11-4 of the DEIR does not elaborate on the details of safety fencing along the Canal. The comment states that the Cypress Grove project is the first major development adjacent to the earthen Canal and that the Canal in this area is wider and more isolated than other portions of the Canal. In addition to constructing fences in accordance with sections 6.24.090 and 6.24.100 o,f`the CCYt'I.7 Code cf Regulations, the comment expresses the concern that it may be necessary to construct safety,fencing on both sides grthe Canal and it may also be appropriate to extend safety fencing all the way to Sellers avenue at the time of the Cypress Grove development. The comment concludes by requesting that the DEIR include a mitigation measure requiring the '`1 applicant to develop a safety program for the Contra Costa Canal. Please see Response to Comment 7-10, The Draft EIR identifies the proximity of residences to the Contra Costa Canal as a potential hazard in regards to drowning. The project, as proposed, would install a six-foot, CHAPTER 3 —COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-72 I FINAL. EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT ' .SEPTEMBER 2003 chain-link fence at the property line to prohibit access to the Canal. The fence is sufficient to ensure that the identified safety impact is less-than-significant(see Impact 3.11-4). The City notes that the fence would comply with any applicable regulations, including the CCWD Cade of Regulations and any safety standards provided in the regulations. t ; Response to Comment 7-60 The comment expresses the concern that mention is not made in the hazards section of the DEIR or elsewhere in the DEIR 1 with respect to the possibility of.mold or fungus developing within the new homes as a result of high groundwater levels in the area and due to the close proximity of the unlined Canal. t � The possibility of mold or fungus within new homes is more a function of vapor-proofing measures carried out during construction rather than the proximity of groundwater. Moisture barriers or geotextiles are commonly employed at the building design phase to address mold potential. This is not considered a um potentially significant impact. ' Response to Comment 7-61 The comment states that CCWD hired LS Consulting Engineers to review the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the DEIR(Chapter 3.12). The comment also states that a copy of the July 1, 2443 memorandum from LS to Jerry.Brown is attached to the comments provided by CCWD, and that CCWD expects the City of Oakley to carefully review the LS comments and to respond to their concerns. This Final EIR responds to comments generated by Luhdorff& Scalmanini in Responses to Comments 7-12 to 7-4-0. Response to Comment 7-62 X The comment notes that the DEIR on page 3.10-6 references the Kleinfelder Report and states that groundwater exists about 5feet below the ground surface. The comment expresses the concern that groundwater levels at the site vary considerably this may not have been considered in the DEIR; the comment subsequently references the Hydrology Report prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. to support their concern. The comment also expresses the concern that a hydraulic .. gradient exists between the Canal and the groundwater that fluctuates with tidal change and that this needs to be addressed in the DEIR. Please see Responses to Comments 7-3, 7-13,and 7-19 to 7-22 regarding shallow groundwater data. Response to Comment 7-63 The comment states that page 3.12-1 of the DEIR does not describe that CCWD regulation 6.20.040(l1) prevents urban drainage to the Canal. The comment is noted and the text of page 3.123 is hereby revised to reflect the above information. t> Therefore, page 3.12-1 of the DEIR,fourth paragraph, is hereby revised to read: , t CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-73 FwAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROj C T SEPTEMBER 2003 The drainage area includes the project site and encompasses a total of 537 acres, ranging in elevation from 25 feet at the southern end to 3 feet on the northeast corner. The drainage area £• drains to the north, with a portion of the stormwater runoff draining into the Centra Costa Canal €.: and a portion of the runoff draining into Emerson Slough through a culvert spanning over the Contra Costa Canal. v Natural streams and creeks do not exist within the project site or drainage area; all runoff travels through overland flow until intercepted by roads and developed drainage ditches. Response to Comment 7-64 The comment states that the first sentence under"Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District" heading on page 3.12-8 of the DEIR is incorrect. The comment states that CCWD does not develop Flood Control Standards in Contra Costa County; rather, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District develop a these standards. The comment is correct and the first sentence under "Contra Costa County Flood;Control and Water Conservation District"heading on page 3.12-8 of the DEIR is hereby revised to read: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District The design of the drainage system for the Cypress Grove area is based on the Contra Costa County Flood Control Standards manual developed by the Contra Costa Wa+e_ T"_ _i QQ ntv Mood n 7 pl and A=Cznaerxi=iq. Response to Comment 7-65 The comment states that Impact 3.12-1 on page 3.12-11 of the DEIR describes the flood hazard to the project, which would result in a "new levee width between Cypress Road and Contra Costa Canal (...J." The comment expresses the concern that the Canal levee is not a flood control levee and that the proposed new flood control levee and its x encroachment onto USBR property are subject to approval by USSR. Please see Response to Comment 7-7. Response to Comment 7-66 The comment states the discussion under Impact 3.12-1 would be agood place to expand the description of the proposed levee and whether the levee will encroach onto USBR property. The comment recommends that a detailed map showing the Canal right-of-way(ROW), proposed levee within the ROW, as well any other features that impact the USBR ROW is necessory. z°2 A map delineating ownership is not necessary to assess the potential environmental impacts of the project. ' Per the applicant's agreement with CCWD and USBR, a map delineating the right-of-way and USBR ownership would be provided as part of the environmental and technical documentation necessary for approvals of the right-of-way encroachment and CVP inclusion. CHIAPTER 3 -- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-74 FINAL EIR CYPRESS t"-.rROVE PROJECT SEPTEmL3ER 2003 Response to Comment 7-67 i The comment expresses the concern that the DEIR on page 3.1.2-I2 mentions that CCWD can shut off the water supply to the Canal at the nearby pump station #1 in the event of levee failure;however, this would not help the Cypress Grove development as pump station #1 is downstream of Rock Slough. The comment states that a shut of°gate does not exist at the Rock Slough entrance. The location of the CCWD pump Station#1 and CCWD's ability to shut off the water supply at that pump station but not at the Rock Slough entrance----upstream of the project---does not alter the DEIR's {; conclusion that the flood hazards to residents is less--than-significant. Construction of the levee improvements along the Contra Costa Canal would appreciably improve the structural integrity of the Canal berm and flood protection south of the Canal. It should be noted that the present Canal berm has survived since the 1954's----without incident—despite several large flood events in and around the Delta since that time. Response to Comment 7-68 The comment states that the DEIR's description of the project's storm drain system on pages 3.12-12 to 3.12-19 lacks a discussion of groundwater hydrology, and how this will affect the unlined stormwater pond and the Canal. The comment refers the reader to the LS report for the full extent of CCWD's concerns. -3, 7-13, and 7-19 to 7-22 regarding the above issue. Please see Response to Comment 7 Response to Comment 7-69 The comment identifies proposed inadequacies with Figure 3.12-8 on page 3.12-17 of the DEIR, which diagrams the t proposed outfall structure to Emerson Slough. Delineating property ownership is not necessary to addressing the environmental impacts of the project, r , however, a plat or map.delineating the right-of way and USSR ownership is provided in Appendix C to this FEIR. The four pipes are intended to be laid within the 20'pipeline easement or right-of-way along Sellers Avenue, and would replace the existing unlined, uncovered, drainage ditch that conveys untreated stormwater to Emerson Slough. The Oakley 2020 General Plan does not require that the four pipes be routed underneath the Canal. A profile of the pipes and the Canal siphon has been studied and demonstrates that sufficient room exists for the pipes along Sellers Avenue. Final construction details j would be subject to approval from all pertinent agencies. t Response to Comment 7-70 E The comment notes that the discussion under Impact 3.12-3 0-f�'the DEIR states that agricultural runoff that now enters the Canal through two culverts on the northern end of the property will be closed as part of the project and that the flow will be redirected to Emerson Slough and then to its"historic"destination to the Delta. The comment recommends that the LS report be reviewed for further concerns regarding water quality impacts from this project and the unlined detention basin. S Please see Response to Comment 7-3, 7-8, 7-14, 7-25, and 7-34 regarding the detention pond. CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-75 FINAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 U Response to Comment 7-71 The comment recommends that the DEIR should include-further details on the impacts of project drainage water into 't Emerson Slough as the mater pertains to Emerson Slough's future use in the CALFED Dutch Slough Restoration project. ' The project proposes to construct a stormwater outfall, which would convey stormwater runoff treated with BMP's to Emerson Slough. The Emerson Slough outfall and its relatedd impacts are described in the DEIR, pages 2.14, 3.5-1, 3.5-64, 3.12-4, 3.12-14, 3.12-19, and 3.12-21, as well as in the Off-Site Analysis for the Proposed Cypress Grove Project (Sycamore Associates LLC, 2003b, available at Oakley City Hall). Stormwater discharge from the outfall must comply with RWQCB regulations for Water Quality Certification to be issued by the RWQCB. After consideration of water quality in ;Emerson Slough, the DEIR concluded that, with the adoption of the stormwater control measures proposed as part of the project, the project's impacts related to stormwater quality would be less-than-significant (see page 3.12- 21). In addition, because the CALFED project is an enhancement project, cumulative effects do not emst which warrant additional CEQA analysis. Response to Comment 7-72 �i The comment expresses the concern that although Figure 3.12-10 illustrates the four areas that will be collected by the corresponding four outfall pipes that are included as part of the Cypress Grove project, the cumulative impacts of the s` collective discharges is not addressed in the DEIR. The comment highlights Areas 2 and 4, as they are adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal. The comment also recommends that mitigation measures for the interaction between the Canal and the groundwater must take into consideration future planned development in the area. The cumulative impacts associated with the build-nut and collective discharge from Areas 2 through 4 were outlined in the DEIR and were determined to be less-than-significant (DEIR, 3.12-25 and 3.12-26). Moreover, the City of Oakley General Flan EIR generally addressed impacts associated with the build-out ' of the Cypress Grave corridor, including Areas 2 through 4, and determined that residential development planned near the unlined portion of the Canal "would not pose a significant environment threat to the quality of water in the Contra Costa Canal" (Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR,page 3-123 (Sept. 13, 2002)). Response to Comment 7-73 The comment expresses the concern that if the outfall system crosses the Canal, an easement is needed from USRR before such a drainage system can be installed. i Please see Response to Comment 7-7. Response to Comment 7-74 The comment notes that CCWD's arrangement with ECCID has been updated relative to the discussion on page 3.13-2 sg; and 3 of the DEIR. The comment states that CCVJ1D has an agreement with ECCID for up to 8200 acre feet per year and up to 4000 acre feet per year in shortage years through groundwater exchange. The comment is noted and page 3.13-2,fifth paragraph, second sentence is hereby revised to read, CHAPTER 3 - CO MENTS ANL} RESPONSES 3-73 r ti FINAi SIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT .SEPTEMBER 2003 " In addition to its existing CVP contract, CCWD also receives minor supplies from pumped diversions at.Mallard Slough and through pumping at the Mallard Well Fields. In addition, CCWD has obtained an agreement with Fast Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID)to use'up to24,00 €3 ac-ft/yr and Ig AQQQ ag-&431dWjn4=ghggj4g&jMMg of ECCID water supply to service municipal and industrial demands in portions of ECCID that are now or potentially may be,within the CCWD Service Area. An agreement with the City of Brentwood provides for the transfer of 7,000 ac-ft/yr to Brentwood for its future water needs. A review of water rights in the current '+ CCWD Service Area identified the City of Antioch, the Gaylord Container Corporation, and the Tosca Corporation as having significant surface water rights. Table 3.13-1 lists water rights currently held within the CCWD Service Area, along with respective annual diversion entitlements. In addition,Table 3.13-1 on page 3,13-3 of the DEIR is hereby revised to read. t Table 3.13-1 CCWD Wate�pr, Contractual Sources ?t k r ix t pE w t r Jc 4i Sope r �d s r x& tk , ^ ,• h sk ° 1 r Yf� +RS5x,ti. yty k"W t..`;3 USSR at Rock Slough Permit Nos.12725, 22726 CCWD 195,000 t: CCWD at Old River(Los Vaqueros Project) Application No. 20245 CCWD -195,000, Brentwood ECCID at hock Slough. Agreement with ECCID` /ECC1D 4+1000``$22 License No. 3167 t i!` CCWD at Mallard Slou h Permit No. 19856 CCWD 26,700 City of Antioch City of Antioch at San Joaquin River Statement No.009352 Svc.Area 7,670 City of Antioch Cq of Antioch at Antioch Munici al Reservoir License No.0002713 Svc.Area Unknown ' Gaylord Cts Iord Container Corp.at San Joa uin River Permit No.019418 Container Corp, 28,000 E.1.DuPont lie Nemours&Co. E.1.DuPont De ,* at San Joa ufn River License No.000674 Nemours&Co. 1,405 Tosco Corp.Lion Oil Division Tosco � Vrs at San Joaquin River License No.A610784 Co oration 16,650 USS Posco Not listed with SWRCB USS Pasco 12,900 a Diversion amounts represent mwdmum diversion capabilities and do not reflect diversion quantities available for all years. t p'' b Diversion right at Old River for the Los Vaqueros Project includes capacity for CVP diversions and water quality diversions. c ECCID r East Contra costa irrigation District. d 1lrentwood/CCWD Agreement of October 19,1995. e Water to be made available in three blocks,phasedaver a 20-year period(19902010) Source: CCWD Future Water supply Study,final Report,1996 Response to Comment 7-75 The comment states that the DEIR is incorrect in stating CCWD has water supplies of 242,700 acre feet and from near- term water supplies of 229,400 acre feet, 7he comment states that the CCWD estimate reliable normal year ester supply CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-77 t;'. FINAI E1R C YPR SS GRo vE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 �. is 174,000feet(CCWD Future Water Supply 20102 Update). The comment does not change the conclusions regarding adequate water supply to serve the proposed project.However,the comment is noted and page 3.13-3, first senteiice,,is hereby revised to read: Under ideal conditions, current agreements entitle CCWD to a total annual supply of 244-,408 ; ac-ft/yr, plus an additional 3,00 0 ac-ft produced from wells (owned by CCCWD and i others) in the District's Service .Area (see Table 3.13-1) (COND FW ,r.,cWafer ,U, R ' . In reality, however, the full amount of supply is not always available due to deficiencies, i such as CVP supply shortages and water quality conditions in the San Joaquin River. Firm near- term water supplies, absent any restrictions, total 229,400 ac-ft/yr. [...j Response to Comment 7-76 The comment states that under Impact 3.13-1 of the DEIR it is important to note CCWf}'s regulations regarding the inclusion of lands to the Central Valley Project(CYP). r The comment is noted and the requested information would more appropriately be located in the Regulatory Context section of Chapter 3.13. l,. Therefore, page 3.13-16 of the DEIR,under Central Valley Project,is hereby revised to read. Central Valley Project z The Cypress Grove project site is located within the boundaries of CCWD Service Area A, as well as within the boundaries of DWD and the Los Vaqueros Project (LVP) Planning Area for receiving LVP water quality benefits. The major portion of the project located north of East Cypress Road is Ag included within the CCWD's CVP contractual service area boundary, Amftexatien tW--the to n XCVP S f' Ual4 nd Rates). Response to Comment 7-77 The comment states that the Regulatory Context section of Chapter 3.13 should be expanded to indicate that the United CHAPTER 3 - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-?'3 FINAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT ' ,SI PTEMSER 2003 ` i ' States Bureau of Reclamation owns the Contra Costa Canal and that any encroachment by the levee or ou�fall pipes will require USBR approval and National Environmental Policy Act review. Please see Responses to Comments 7-7, 7-49, and 7-53. Response to Comment 7-78 The comment states that the DEIR is incorrect in stating that the annexation o f`the area north of Cypress Load to the CVP service area occurred on December 18, 2002, Please see Response to Comment 7-9. c° Response to Comment 7.71 The comment expresses the concern that adequate information does not exist in the DEIR to conclude (see page 4-I0 of the DEIR)that the storm drainage system proposed for the project would prevent pollutants from entering the downstream s � channel. Please see Response to Comment 7-3. Impact 3.12-8 of the DEIR and the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses � report (February 2003) prepared by Balance H drolo ics, Inc. (available at City Hall), identify a stormwater management strategy that anticipates Future standards for water-quality control. Moreover, under the Clean Water Act, the RWQCB must review the project and issue a 401 Water Quality ' Certification, assuming that the project meets certain water quality standards. RWQCB certification would be conditioned upon adequacy of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan (SWPPP). The Applicant would prepare and submit a final SWPPP as part of the 401 Certification process already underway. Given these regulatory requirements and the stormwater management system already described in the Draft EIR, the project's impacts on downstream water quality would be considered less than significant. Response to Comment 7-80 The comment states that CCWD also notes that stormwater will interact with groundwater and this could be a source of contamination to ground water in the area and the Contra Costa Canal_ Please see Responses to Comments 7-3, 7-13, and 7-19 to 7-22 regarding this issue. Response to Comment 7-81 { lr, The comment notes that page S-3 of the DEIR states that the No Project AlternativelNo Development Alternative would result in decreased impacts on hydrology and water quality, and that this is in contrast with the statement made on page 1-I S of the DEIR concerning the same issue. The comment is correct in noting the discrepancy in the DEIR between conclusions provided on page I-1 S and page 5-3. The conclusions made regarding hydrology and water quality impacts under the No Project { Alternative are correct on page 1-1 S. Therefore,page 5-3 of the DEIR, sixth paragraph,is hereby revised to read: CHAPTER 3 —COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-79 FwA1 EER CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 20703 Hydrology and Water Quality �<; The J No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in construction which `could change the existing drainage pattern for the project area. ,. -11) Me NO pr*et�Ne egillt in the&yflq=gutathcsiJg_ it&puld not v ` Response to Comment 7-82 The comment states that the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the DEIR should discuss alternatives with respect to the detention basin locations and whether the detention basin should be lined or unlined. Alternative locations for the stormwater pond were indeed considered as part of the early design work for the project. In fact, an early conceptual representation had the pond located immediately adjacent to the ,proposed levee along the Contra Costa Canal. At the request of CCWD, the pond was moved as far from the Canal as possible, given the constraint that the pond must be located at a low point to receive drainage from the conventional gravity-flow storm drain system. And as mentioned previously, the detention pond would be constructed with a clay liner. Please also see Responses to Comments 7-3 and 7-13. Response to Comment 7-83 i The comment states that the Alternatives section of the DEIR should discuss the various designs and approaches,for the FEM .flood control levee. i The FEMA flood control levee proposed along Marsh Creek, the Contra Costa Canal, and Sellers Avenue must be constructed according to FEMA standards and requirements set forth by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Moreover, the levee constitutes a mitigation measure for ; potential flood hazards and.the EIR need not consider alternative mitigation measures that would not in any ' way avoid or lessen any significant impacts of the project. Alternatives to the levee, such as fillir:g the entire site or setting back the levees, would not in any way avoid or lessen any significant impacts of the project. For example, a levee set-back at the Contra Costa Canal would create a void between the Canal berm and levee such that berm integrity would be lessened and the new area would have no stormwater drainage (or alternatively, would continue to drain to the Canal). Because these mitigation alternatives clearly do not avoid or lessen any significant effects of the project, they need not be considered in the EIR. j CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES- 3-80 i j LETTERS EAST CONTPA COSTA, FIFE PROT=11OA1 DISTRICT t 34 0,-:,,k Street 3,,-enrfvoo-,;, CA,, -041517 3RECEIVED Tulp 2,2003 „ ., O nit l G Post-It*Fax Note 7671 Date Mr.Barry Hand, Community Development Direc To �. c ages 1` .� 3633 Main Street coJDept. Jr rrom C?aldey,CA 94561 Phe co. Phone Pax .2 Dear Mr.Hand: am;e Thank you for the chance to respond to the draft EIR for the Cypress Grove development P .' The proposed development is beyond two miles from any existing fire station.This precludes a 8-I timely at rival of emergency responders to an eme acy in that area At the present time,the Fire tDistrict cannot provide an acceptable level of fire protection or timely medical response to the �„J ::. site. The closest fire station is Station 93 in Oakley and it is staffed around the clock with two career a firefighters,supplemented with approximately 18 paid-ori-call firefighters that can be recalled for incidents.The second-due station is a paid-on-call staffed fire station with approximately 18 personnel Current State law requires that there be a total of four firefighters at the scene of a _ i structure fire:before interior firefighting op=wns can take place unless there is a known rescue sitmtion.The distances involved,combined with new regulations on the fire service,combine to farm a significant impact on the delivery of an acceptable level of fire and emergency medical c services to this proposed development.The following requirements would mitigate or minimize the conditions described above. E w, 1. The developer shall provide a minimum one-acre parcel in a location acceptable to the Fire District within 1000 feet of the intersection of E.Cypress Road;and the entrance to the development The site shall be a minimum of 210 feet by 210 feet,and not be co- $_3 looted with a s=tary server lift station, well,utility or corporation yard,or designated wetland area.The site shall be appropriate for residential development 2. The developer shall build,equip,and fsr>s risk it new fire station to the standards ctaxzendy in use by East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.If the construction of the s fire statues has not started before issuance of the initial building permits,the developer ' shall provide a faithful performance bond,anal a labor and rrxat erials band,each in the amount of$1,500,000 to the District,that can be used to construct the station if the 8-4 developer has not started building the fire station before the issuance of the 320'building per=Construction sal be completed w-,:d one year of commencement of grading for the station sits.Developer shall pap all costs associated with the building of the fire station including a District approved contrast manager and construction manager. 3. The developer shall pay for the purchasing of a felly, equipped,type-1 fire engine meeting the specifmtions of East Contra Costa.Fire District:.Specification writing,RFS' a disti:iaution,vendor selection shall be completed by the Fire District.The District will 8_5 supply the developer with an invoice for the cast provided by the lowest response ,25-6.34-3 0.0 $f • Page 2 J+,tly 3,2003 bidder that meets the specifications of the RFP.The invoice for the ecyaTped enn ne shat 8-5 be paid in full before the issuance of the 3206 building permit 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the developer shall conduct a Proposition 218 compliant election that approves a$200 per year;,fire services parcel assessment that will 8_6 supplemeart the operational cost of this fire station. This assessment shall be withdrawn if i a Fire District wide assessment is approved by the voters. 5. All homes shall be equipped with residential life safety fire sprinklers complying to NTPA 13D, 1996 edition-with the addition of an exterior water-flow alarm bell,a double pole flow switch that disconnects power t o the nri tion timet, spririEer protection of any �-7 vehicle gage,and a single sprinkler herd mounted above any attic mounted heating/air conditioning unit A potential life safety hazard exists surrounding the intersection of Cypress Road and Main Street,anal the BNSF railroad tracks.As development in this area continues,there may be increasing interaction between vehicles,pedestrians,and the railroad trains.A possible 8-8 mitigation would be the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks and Maui Street Tank you for your consideration_ Sincerely, Hein Assistant Chief j; 3-52 FNAL Elf-' CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPT'EA4BER 2003 j3 LETTER S; EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Response to Comment 8-1 F The comment expresses the concern that the proposed project is beyond two miles from any existing fire station and that this precludes a timely arrival of emergency responders to an emergency in the area. The comment further states that at ° the present time, the Fire District cannot provide an acceptable level of f re protection or timely medical response to the project site. The comment correctly states information regarding the need for a fire station in the vicinity of the Cypress Corridor, Please see Impact 3.13-4 of the DEIR and its associated mitigation measure requiring the project to pay its fair share for new fire protection facilities. FR Response to Comment 8-2 1 y� The comment states that the closest f re station to the project site is Station 93 in Oakley and the station is staffed around j the clock. The second-due station is a paid-on-call staffedfre station with approximately 18 personnel. The comment then states that current State law requires a total of four fireghters be at the scene of a structural f re before interior firefighting operations can take place unless there is a known rescue situation. The comment expresses the concern that with the distances involved, combined with new regulations on the fire service, acceptable emergency response times would be unacceptable at the project site. Comments 8-3 to 8-7 below address how the Fire.District says the above issue can be mitigated, J Consistent with the comment, Impart 3.13-4 of the DEIR identifies fire protection impacts as potentially significant. Mitigation suggested by the District to reduce fire service impacts to the proposed project are discussed in Comments 8-3 to 8-7 and responded to therein. s .y Response to Comment 8-3 The comment states that the developer shall provide a minimum I-acre parcel in a location acceptable to the Fire District within 1000 feet of the intersection of East Cypress Road, and the entrance to the development. The comment includes further details regarding the requested site. The Eire District intends on preparing a Master Plan for provision of fire protection services to the District, The Master Plan process would review all potential fire station locations and be an appropriate mechanism to determine where a fire station would be located. The City has indicated its willingness to work with the Fire District in determining the location of the needed fire station. The DEIR, mitigation measure .3.13-4, requires the payment of fair share fees for the provision of.fire protection services. The payment of fees,in conjunction with the District's preparation of a Master Plan, ensures the project's impact will be less-than- significant. The City will cooperate with the Fire District regarding the enactment of fire impact fees, collection of such fees from new development, and transmittal of such fee revenue to the District for provision of the infrastructure identified in the Master Plan. CHARTER 3---COMMENTS AMD RESPONSES 3-83 FINAL EIR CYPRESS GRCvE PRojrc7- SEP7rEmSER 2003 -i Response to Comment 8-4 The comment states that the developer shall build, equip, and_furnish a new fire station to the standards currently in use ! by East Contra Costa County.Fire Protection District.-The comment,further states that the developer shall pay all costs associated with the building f the f re station including a District:approved contract manager and construction manager. Mitigation measure 3.13-4 of the DDEIR requires the project to pay its fair share toward the provision of new fire protection facilities and services. The current fee is approximately $700 dollars per dwelling unit, which would ensure the project's fair share contribution towards fire protection facilities and services and reduce the project's impacts to a less-than-significant level.The City will consider amending the current fee once the Fire District provides the City with a Master Plan showing the need for infrastructure and equipment for new development. Response to Comment 8-5 The comment states that the developer shall pay for the purchasing of a fully equipped, type-1 fire engine, which meets the specifications of East Contra Costa Fire District. Please see Response to Comment 8-4. Response to Comment 8-6 The comment states that prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall conduct a Proposition 218 compliant election that approves a$200 per year,fire services parcel assessment that will supplement the operational cost of there station requested by the District. The comment further states that the assessment shall be withdrawn if a Fire District wide assessment is approved by the voters. The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The City will consider a funding mechanism, such as an assessment or special tax, for the project's fair share contribution toward the need for fire protection services once the City is provided with information from the Fire District regarding the need for such funding. The approximate $700 fee currently imposed at the time of building permit issuance is an impact fee for infrastructure (stations and equipment)and not a fee for services. Response to Comment 8-7 i The comment states that all homes shall be equipped with residential l fe safety fire sprinklers complying to NFPA 13D, 1996 edition with the addition of an exterior water flow alarm bell, a double poleV flow switch that disconnects power to the irrigation timer, sprinkler protection of any vehicle garage, and a single sprinkler head mounted above any attic mounted heating/air conditioning unit. The City acknowledges the importance of fire sprinklers in home safety. However, the City of(Oakley has not adopted an ordinance supplementing the Building Code requiring the installation of home sprinkler systems. CHAPTER 3 - COMMENTS AND RF SPONSES 3-84 i FINAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 Response to Comment 8-8 The comment states that a potential life safety hazard exists surrounding the intersection of Cypress Road and Main, and V41 the BNS1:railroad tracks. The comment further states that as development in the area continues, interaction between vehicles, pedestrians, and railroad trains would likely increase- and, that the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks and Main Street may mitigate this issue. Page 2-16 of the DEIR States that Cypress Road would be improved from SR 4 to the eastern boundary of the project (see Figure 2-8 of the DEIR). The intersection at SR 4 would be modified from its current rural configuration to a more urban, pedestrian friendly intersection with median islands and shorter pedestrian crossing distances. Turning movements would be unproved and the existing signal would be modified to accommodate these changes. Cypress Road would be widened to provide two lanes in each direction, shoulders, and a median island with tum pockets where appropriate. This would include a widening of the existing bridge at Marsh Creek as well as a widening and modification of the existing railroad crossing and signal. New traffic signals would be constructed at the project entrance to Subdivision 8680 (Cypress Road/Street A) and the school entrance at Frank Hengel Way, which also serves as the project entrances to . Subdivisions 8678 & 8679. A new pedestrian actuated signal would be constructed where the East Bay J Regional Parks District Trail along Marsh Creek intersects Cypress Road. The proposed project would improve the existing Marsh Creek Trail undercrossing at the BNSF railroad. In addition, a trail system would be constructed to connect the parks and neighborhoods to the regional trail along Marsh Creek as well as.the future improvements in the Cypress Corridor. The trail system would involve constructing trails along the north and south sides of Cypress Road, reconstructing the existing Marsh Creek Trail along the project boundary, constructing a trail and landscape corridor along the northern edge of the project and providing safe pedestrian circulation to and from the school. F VIA baa:: r" ay. t s CHAPTER 3 — COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-85 is I � 1 I i j TUL. 3.2003 4:17PM CCC PUEiL.I C WORKS NO.408 P.2 +l P Contra Costa County Mau&&N. Shid r FLOOD CONTROL ex�r;o Chi;Bnpier Dfive,& Water Conservatiob District 255 Cka er Telephone:(gM) 313 Dao $4563.4825 54825 FAX 025)313.23 3 July 3,2043 LETTER 9 Barry Hared Communiry Development Direr.tor City of Oakley I 3653 Main Stt:ewt ��. P.O.Box 6 Oakley,CA 94561 t. l Our piles: 97-74,Cypress Grove Dove meat � 10 2�-8678 � 10 2-8579 � 1002-8680 I Dear fir.Head: ... We have reviewed the Dmft Euvirormi ital act Report (DEIR) for the p i 7aa�p � {D` ) Cypress Grave l�eveld m Plan � located at East Cypress Road and east of Highvray 4. Our office received the DEIR on May 29, 'op and we submit the following comments: 1. No pert of this project should drain westerly to Marsh Creek. The third paragraph on page 3.12-14 under Section 3.12-2 correctly proposes to route: project drainage toward the northeast, w ` h is the 9-1 historic drainage pa<ttetn. The DEIR states drainage from the developed areas on. the west si a of the project will be collected and conveyed to a detention basin located at the northeast comer of th project and.thm dischwged into Emerson Slough, Stormwate:r froth the eastern project portion will be ollected and conveyed along Sellers Avenue to Esmm-son Slough. 2. For our furdw iView, p1 me provide a copy of the "Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, Cypress Grove Project, City of Oakley, CaMmiar dated February 2043 by Balance Hydrologics as entior3ed in the ix&oduction paragraph under Section 3.12, page 3.12-1,At the City's request, we are av ' le to - review the existing flow rate to Emerson Slough Versus post-project development flaw, as w Il as the design assasmptions for the stoxmwatw pored. 3. We recommend that all hydrology and hydraulic maculation, as well as design and con sttetion of 9-3 I drainage facilities, conform to District stwulards or practices of Contra. Costa County (CCC euad the - Contra Costa County Flood C=trol and Water Conservation Distdat(CCCI~C and WCD). 4. Hydrology calculations should be oalculate-d using the Contra Costa County Unit Hydrogre►ph which is specific to our geographic ama and rainM chsraoteristics. The Cocmty's Hydrology Dept care perform the calculations and produce the appropriate flood hydrographs using the County's omp=r 4 model at a nominal cost Please contact Mary Halle of our Hydrology Section at {325} 313 2327 for more informaticm on this service. i S. 9)EIR Figure 3,12-9 includes a preliminary stormvvater pared plan on page 3.12-18. pto the Z certiftcalion of the EIR, we recommend the developer provide stage-storage curves and, a p clitninary 9-5 basin routing g study for the City engineer's review. Thane calca lations will pro'ba'bly be adeq a for the 3-36 TUL. 21.2003 4:17PM. CCC PUBLIC C WORKS NO,40E P,3 j Barry Hand July 3,2003 Page 2 of 4 m however we suggest that the City require a more detailed analysis prior to the approval of the first " tentative map so that the basm area is more accurately determined before map accepts Q4 It is Coat arn important that an adequate oimt of area is reserved for the development of the stormwa*r pond mentioned in Section. 3,12-2 on page 3.12-14. The District is available to review the stege,storage curves and stormwater basin routiag report upon request 4. We recomsuiend the stormwater pond be designed per the Contra Costa County Floud Control aria Water Comervation District"Detention Basin Guidelines"did February 15, 1991, The Distciat is avdgablc € to review the Aormwatm pond design upon request.Any design deceptions should be subject to view and approval of the Flood Control District. We hie i.ght the following guidelines: a. The stormwater pond should be sized to contain the design storm for the upper watersb (using the most conservative storm dgration)and the I OBD-year snorts should be routed through U ic: basin. Additionally,the stvnnwater pond should be sized to contain the 100-;year a.�verag j recnrrenoe interval runoff unless it can be shown that a 100-year average recurrence interval .F. runoff can be safety passed through the stormwater pond without damage to the pond or 9-6 downstream properties or conveyaaae systCM- I b. Tlu stormwater pond should be sized so the maximum water surface elevation(due to a l 0Q-year storm)is 2(two)feet below the lowest part of the basin. DEM Figure 3.12-9 on page 3-12-1 shows the 104-year stoma water surface elevation is ai the top of the;bark. We reco d 2 (two)feet of freeboard be added to the stormwater pond. 3 c. The stontwater pond should also be oversized to provide adequate volume for a 5-year accumutatie►n of sedhnent. That volume necessary for sediment storage will be dctemiino by the sediment removal sclxedule as dictated by the Operation&Main t once manual discussed below. d_ AAditionally,the engineer should include provisions for a perimeter service road,4:1 side slopes., adequate stormwater pond access,a standard perimeter fencce and a trash rook facility at the location of the primary pump structure. i 7. As a mitigation measure,tbr.FSR should reunite the developer's wgineer to develop an 4per*on and Maintenance manual., which addresses sediment accumulatm and idcatiftes a storrnwz* pond- �h451 monitoriug schedule, which requires as annual insspeotion at the minimum. This manual should address all aspects of the stormuster pond's maintema we, such as dessiltiug, weed and trash 4atcmerd, excessive Tepetation gmwth at the outfaIlllow flow chaxmel maintemroe of inlet and outletctures cmbnkment msiatena�, acceptable cliea iml use: w the basin, provisions to linut habi�, basin ��� acss,possible peamit from regulatory agencies,ate. In order to determine the rate of soil loss erosion in the tapper reaches of Ott watershed, the rnivermal Soil lass Equation(USLE)developed by the Agricutcural Rzscarch Service(W-isohmeicr and 4with, f .3-67 4:1 r7PM CCC PURL I C WORKS NO.408 P.4 3 Barry Hand July 3,2003 V Page 3 of 4 ' 111 3 i 1365)hes been used it the past Settlement and debris load in the basin cin be calculated with ABAG 9-7 and Distract standards, Calcula'tiorus of erosion and settlement rate affecting the basun Swill be TU-cessary cont. to determine the accurnYulation rate and hence the removal. frequency. The manual should be w itten in � such a mamm that it could be given to the crew of any mkintenarim entity and Amction as a mplete geode to maintm=oz requirements of the basin.. Mitigatioa Measuze 3.12-4 should be expaaded to address these issues. 1 1 I 8. The four outfalls into Emerson Slough should be designed witb County Standard Type M walls 9-8 =' (CD 52i)with flay Ates rather than the standard CD 501 otutfalls. 9. As a mitigation tneasuure, the Ea should require a.iiomsed geotechnical engineer to specifically address the basin in regards to permeability, groundwater, slope stability,effects of storrawa�ter pond.a avation 4j on water table:,safe pond side slopes with respe d to rapid draw clown or wave action,sediment I ransport 9-9 from upstream watershed, and liquefaction couceros. We recommend a gtoteclaiical report sp Cificany addressing the ibility of the gond be required to allow the City to make an accurate assessor of the 1 pond.. 10. While sec;tim 3.12-4 discusses the nWntena= of the. sto=water pond, the ER should i 'fy the maintenance entity and gerpotual finding sc» for maintaining the detwtion basin and the stc rm drain 9-I0 i :facilities. A mitigation measure thatt establishes the unnaintenance entity for the basin sbould be included in the EIR., 11.DEIR section 3.12--2 on page 3.12-14 states the entire project area including the school sil will be mod through a conventional gravity system to the northeast corner of the site to a mormwa er pond, r which will then be pumped to the Emerson Slough.. The existing Delta Vista Nfudoue So I has a temporary storm drain connecdon to Marsh Creek and. the EM should address the el` ` 'on or 9-11 abandoranent of This ternporary connection, As a mitigatiem mat, the EIR should i 61,de a requirement for the developer to remove the temporary outfall into Marsh Creek and ob a Flood Control1'exmit for any work in the District's right-of-way, Leve work and the Marsh C trait connection mentioned in Section. 3.12-1 on page 3.12-12 also needs to be covered by a Flo 10 Control Permit. The applicant should oozitW Bob Hendry az(925)646-1607 to request a Flood Conntrol�Pomsit 12,The OWdey School District currently has an illegal encroachment outs►Mood Control Distti right-of. way. The tuuapproved trail corunection.from Delta Vista Middle School to the harsh Cry m te2uance } rowel has been a long outstwding issue that needs to be resolved. The ER should address the oval of 9-12 the illegal.trail oormection and include this issue when it looks at pedestrian oircualaiion of a project site. 13. Can Page 3,128, Under "Regulatory Covwxt", "Contra Costa County Flood Control d Vater Conservation Di.striet", the fust senterxce should be revised to the following., "...the Co Costa 9-13 County Flood. Control Stdards manual developed by the Comm Casser County Kood bol and p Water Conservation DistHct". -z i I 3FBF3 JUL. 3,r 005 4.1SpM CCC PUBLIC WORKS tVC.4060 !�.? Cindy Gnos 'February 4, 2003 Page 2 ' showing the area of any needed tasements from the Flood Control District to the WatcTi Dist, We also offer the follovari cg additional oomments regarding this project,, I 1. We previously coz numted on the Notice of Preparation (NCp) for this development bi f have not received the DEM, for our review, Please forward a copy of the. DFZK whctt ilk bec=aes available. The enclosed letter dated January 7,2002 contains our comments to NOP. 2. we recommend that the developer desip and eon=ct storm draw facilities to adequately collect and convey storm^water numffi vrithout diversion of the watershed, enteria2g 'r originating within the devoloprnent to the mea=t natural watercourse or adequate man-ma le d'raisnage fa 4hty, The applmax-d should"verify the capacity of the downstream system, We appreciate the opportunity to review plans involving drainage matters and welcome pontiaa , coordinatim We look forward.to reviewing the x nprovem.ew plans,right of way traasfer proposal and the DEM for Haase proj=ts once they are available. if you have any questions,you raay reach me at(925)313-2394 or-Haunab Wong at(925)3132381. i II 'fiery truly yams, K # Pwil P—De§ens Associate Civil Enr Flood Control Engbecr ng � i �'l1C�O�SiFp i i f I edYG�lkl�ylC:ypr c GM"%Mt*V*naps SMAMAMAM BADY 14Md,QW sof Y ji r i 4 FF 1 I I z l INAL E"IR CYPRESS GRo vE-PROJECT ,SEPTE mBER 2003 LETTER 9: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Response to Comment 9-1 r� The comment states that no port of the proposed project should drain westerly to Marsh Creek. The comment points out that the proposed storm drainage system would correctly route project drainage toward the northeast, which is the historic i drainage pattern. 4 l The comment does not raise concerns regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The comment correctly describes the storm drain system proposed for the project. Response to Comment 9-2 The commenter requests a copy of the "Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, Cypress Grove Project, City of Oakley, California"dated February 20073 by Balance Hydrologics. The report is referenced in the introduction paragraph of ., Section 3.12, page 3.12-1. The commenterfurther notes that at the City's request, Contra Costa County Flood Control Water Conservation District is available to review the existing flow rate to Emerson Slough versus post-project flow rates. The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. A copy of the "Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, Cypress Grove Project, City of Oakley, California" dated February 2003 by Balance Hydrologics has been sent to CCCFCD. It should be noted that this document is available at Oakley City Hall. Response to Comment 9-3 r The commenter recommends that all hydrology and hydraulic calculations, as well as design and construction of drainage facilities, conform to District standards or practices of Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. for the Cypress Grave project, states on page 14 that the modeling work for the project focused on predicting the response of the stormwater pend when subjected jto Contra Costa County Flood Control District (CCCFCD) 100-year and 10-year design storms of various - durations. The Hydrologic Analysis further states that per standard practice in the County, the final pond and pump station design will be based on the runoff hydrographs for the proposed project conditions using CCCFCD's Hydro software. Response to Comment 9-4 The comment states that calculations should be made using the Contra Costa County Unit Hydrogroph and that the County's Hydrology Department can perform the calculations. The comment provides a contact number regarding these services. CHAPTER 3 •--COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-92 FIIVAL EIR CYPRESS"3R0 VE PROJECT SEPTE,,,%48ER 20103 F. 1E The comment does not raise questions regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. Please see response to Comment 9-3. Response to Comment 9-5 S The comment recommends that.that the developer provide a stage-storage curves and preliminary basin routing study for the storm water pond proposed for the project for the City Engineer's review. The commentM further suggests that the City require a more detailed study prior to the approval of the first tentative reap so that the basica area would be more accurately determined before map acceptance. The comment does not raise questions regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The stage-storage curves and stormwater basin routing report suggested by the Flood Control District is provided in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, Cypress Grove Project(February 2003) report prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Please also see Response to Comment 9-3. R. ; i Response to Comment 9-6 The comment recommends that the stormwater pond be designed per the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District `Detention Basin Guidelines"dated February 15, 1991, and that any design exceptions should be subject to review and approval by the Florid Vontrol District. The comment highlights four sections of the Guidelines. The first guideline from the Detention Basin Guidelines highlighted in the comment states that the stormwater pond should be sized to contain the design storm for the upper watershed and the 100-year storm should be routed throughthe basin. Page 12 of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. states that the treatment volume of the stormwater pond for the Cypress Grove Project should be on the order of 4.0 acre-feet, and that this volume was determined for the entire watershed draining to the pond. 4 i The first guideline (a) highlighted in the comment also states that the stormwater pond should be sized to contain the 100-year average recurrence interval. The stormwater pond proposed for the Cypress Grove Project has been designed to contain the most restrictive 100-year storm. Page 16 of the Hydrologic Analysis states that the most restrictive storm is the 1130-year, 12-hour event where the maximum pond ` level would be on the order of 6.49 feet NGVD. The top of the sloped bank of the stormwater pond proposed for the project is 6.5 feet NGVD. A pump station is also proposed as part of the project's stormwater system to Deep the water surface elevation of the stormwater pond below 6.5 feet NGVD. Therefore, the stormwater pond for the Cypress Grove Project has been sized to contain the 100-year average recurrence interval. The second guideline (b) highlighted from the Detention Basin Guidelines states that the stormwater pond should be sized so that two feet of freeboard would exist above the maximum water surface elevation generated by a 104-year storm. Balance Hydrologics, Inc. determined that the maximum water surface t elevation, which would be generated by the 100-year, 12-hour event, of the stormwater pond proposed for the project, would be on the order of 6.49 feet NGVD. As mentioned above, as currently proposed, the pond is capable of containing a maximum surface water elevation of 6.5 feet NGVD. Therefore, as currently proposed, the stormwater pond for the Cypress Grove Project does not provide two feet of freeboard above the maximum water surface elevation generated by a 100-year storm. However, a pump CHAPTER 3 —COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-93 l' 1 S mow, F INAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEA�reER 2003 station would be located north of the stormwater pond, which would meet all CCCFCD Hydro software guidelines by providing a minimum total capacity of 33.8 cubic feet per second (ds) (15,200 gpm) (see Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, p. 16). This pumping capacity would retain the maximum water surface elevation of the stormwater pond below 6.5 feet NGVD at all times. It should also be noted that per standard practice in the County, the final pond and pump station`design would be based on the runoff hydrographs for the proposed project conditions using CCCFCD's Hydro software (see Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, P• 14). Therefore, due to the capacity of the pump station proposed for the Cypress Grove stormwater pond and the fact that the final pond and pump station design would be established using CCCFCD's Hydro software, final storrawater pond design would be satisfactory to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in regards to this comment. The third guideline (c) highlighted in the comment states that the stormwater pond should be oversized to provide adequate volume for a 5-year accumulation of sediment. Page 22 of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. states that the amount of sediment entering the pond - ;, annually would be small compared to the total available volume. Page 22 further states that sediment e,..t removal would likely be required no more frequently than every ten years, and that sediment removal should be scheduled whenever the depth of the pond has been reduced to four feet or less over large areas. In addition, mitigation measure 3.12-4 of the DEIR requires the project engineer to develop a storm drain system maintenance program subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, which would address among other issues,pond sediment removal.The development of storm drain system maintenance program would ensure that impacts resulting from sediment accumulation would not adversely impact the efficacy of the stormwater pond. y ' The fourth guideline (d),highlighted in the comment states that the engineer should include,provisions for a perimeter service road, 4.1 side slopes, adequate stormwater pond access, a standard perimeter fence and a trash rack- facility at the location of the primary pump structure. Page 20 of the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. states that routine maintenance activities required for the stormwater pond would be facilitated by the ease of access to the pond and surrounding areas. In addition, as indicated below(Response to Comment 9-7), the Operation and Maintenance Manual to be prepared for € ' the stormwater pond will address basin access. Therefore, the project as proposed would provide adequate maintenance access to the stormwater pond. Figure 3.12-9 of the DEIR shows that the proposed stormwater pond would have side slopes of 2A at the bottom portion of the pond and then 3:1 towards the k;+ top; therefore, maintenance activities would be feasible. Page 23, number 3, of the Hydrology Report states that the pump station would have a trash rack, which would be inspected weekly during the rainy season. Mitigation measure 3.11-4 of the DEIR requires the project engineer to submit a safety program for the review and approval of the City Engineer. The safety program is to address the public safety concerns associated with the development of the basins including but not limited to bank stabilization and restricting public access to the basins. Responses to Comment 9-7 's The comment expresses the concern that mitigation measure .x.12-4 of the DEIR, which requires the development of a <, storm drain system maintenance program, should be expanded to address more issues, which the commenter includes. } i 4.u.1 CHAPTER 3—CCSMMETVTS AMD RESPONSES 3-94 1 , FWAL FIR CYPREss GROVE PF?Q.l= .SEPTEMBER 2003 s, IY Mitigation measure 3.12-4 of the DEIR is broad in scope and the above comment serves as a clarification to the specific issues, which will be addressed in the storm drain system maintenance program. Mitigation measure 3.12-4, on page 3.12-22 of the DEIR, is hereby revised to provide the clarifications requested. .3.12-4 .Prior to Improvement Plan approvals for any of the three subdivisions,the project engineer shall develop a ston. cbain syttern maineenance d ra jon and MaY on schgduk,_w�i'�'res_nn apnual in.m. I aan111111t .. m`nt The =t7ir2tclance-PrOVI UM shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer. *nd4 4td&t1Te scorn rend sediment re...aral, T Man 3 chi 1add , r.r all n .rr the }Ya r Y nd'� an { t -4 lb7 ; i remove—rem the rrorater ngnd Response to Comment 9-8 The comment states that the four outfalls into Emerson .Slough should be designed with County Standard Type M I-Ieadwalls(CD 52i) with,f7apgates, rather than the standard CD SOi outfalls. Consistent with Figure 7 in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc., l Figure 3:12-8 of the DEIR shows a modified Contra Costa County CD 54i outfall detail. Page 3.12.19 of the DEIR therefore states that the outfall structure for the project would be a modified Contra Costa County Standard CD50i outfall. The comment does not explain why the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District would prefer the outfalls to be designed with a County Standard Type M Headwalls (CD 52i)with flapgates rather than the standard CD 5Qi outfalls proposed as part of the project. The DEIR discusses the project, as proposed, and concludes that it would result in less-than- significant environmental impacts at peak stormwater flows. Nonetheless, the applicant is encouraged to consult with all pertinent agencies, including the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, before implementing a specific outfall design. Response to Comment 9-9 The comment expresses the concern that the DEIR should include a mitigation measure, which reuuires a licensed geotechnical engineer to specifically address the basin in regards to permeability, groundwater, slope stability, effects of CHAPTER u —COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-95 s` XX l CYPRESS GRo vE PROJECT r .SEPTEMBER 200.E i stormwater pond excavation on water table, safe pond side slopes with respect to rapid draw down or wave action, - sediment transport from upstream watershed, and liquefaction concerns. The geotechnical reports prepared for the Cypress Grove Project assessed liquefaction concerns and the effects that groundwater underlying the project site could have regarding liquefaction potential. Mitigation measure 3.10-2 of the DEIR requires that a design level geotechnical report be completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit to ensure that liquefaction impacts to project structures would be less-tlm- t significant. In addition to liquefaction, the report should address permeability, groundwater, slope stability, f effects of stormwater pond excavation on the water table, safe pond side slopes with respect to rapid drawdown or wave action, and sediment transport. In addition, mitigation measures 3.12-4 and 3.12-5 require maintenance programs for the stormwater pond and storm drain system generally. The requested issues would be addressed in the programs for project implementation. Response to Comment 9-10 The comment states that while the impact discussion for impact 3.12-4 addresses maintenance of the stormwater pond, t the DEIR should identify the maintenance entity and perpetual funding source for maintaining the detention basin and ' the storm drain facilities. The comment further recommends that a mitigation measure should be included in the DEIR specifying this information. i. _ Please see response to comment 9-7. The Operation and Maintenance Manual required under mitigation measure 3.12-4 is required to include the maintenance entity and funding source for maintaining the basin and storm drain facilities. Y Response to Comment 9-11 }. The comment expresses the concern that because the proposed project would direct drainagefrom the school site to the i stormwater pond, the existing storm drain connection to Marsh Creek, which currently drains the school site, should be } eliminated or abandoned. The comment states that the DEIR should address this issue and require a mitigation measure, F� which would require the developer to eliminate or abandon the Marsh Creek connection. The comment further states that any levee work and the Marsh Creek trail connection mentioned in Impact 3.12-1 of the DEIR needs to be covered by a Flood Control Permit. The stormwater system proposed for the project would serve to collect stormwater from the project, as well as the Delta Vista Middle School site. As part of the design plans, the stormwater system would entail the elimination and abandonment of the temporary storm drain from Delta Vista Middle School to Marsh Creek, and the diversion of the stormwater from the school site to the detention pond for treatment and G discharge to Emerson Slough. Elimination of the discharge of untreated stormwater to Marsh Creek is expected to have a beneficial impact on the water quality of the creek. In addition, the size of the school site in relation to the watershed of Marsh Creek is so small that the elimination of the discharge of G' stormwater from the school site to the creek is not expected to have a significant effect on the flow or quality of water in the creek. Any applicable permits for removal of the existing outfall to Marsh Creels, including any permits for work in the District's right-of-way, shall be obtained prior to outfall removal work. CHAPTER 3—'COMMENTS AND RESPONSES i FINAL E IR CYFRESS GRC i✓E PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 �x Response to Comment 9-12 The comment expresses the concern that Oakley School District has an illegal encroachment onto Flood Control District a right-of-way. The comment states that the DEIR should address the removal of the illegal trail connection from Delta Vista Middle School to the Marsh Creek maintenance road. The DEIR addresses improvements to the Marsh Creek trail proposed as part of the Cypress Grove project on page 3.12-12. The trail connection is an existing condition and outside the project boundaries. Improvements to the Marsh Creek. trail ,must be consistent with legal entitlements and any applicable permit conditions. Response to Comment 9-13 The comment states that on page 3.12-8 of the DEIR, under the "Contra Costa County .Flood Control and Water Conservation District"heading in the Regulatory Context heading, the first sentence should be revised to the following: ; the Contra Costa County Flood Control Standards manual developed by the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District." The comment is noted and page 3.12-8 of the DEIR is hereby revised to read: Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District The design of the drainage system for the Cypress Grove area is based on the Contra Costa County Flood Control Standards manual developed by the Contra Costa Alete_ Distri -co=gl and Wat o rvatirsn I};strict. 't Response to Comment 9-14 4: The comment states that the proposed project is located in Drainage Area 74, an unformed drainage area; therefore, drainage area fees are not due at this time. The comment does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the DEIR; rather, the comment provides I information. Response to Comment 9-15 E The comment states that the District previously received the tentative parcel map and tentative map for Subdivisions 8678,8679,and 86801 for the Cypress Grove .Project, and the District submitted comments to the City on February 4, 2003. The comments received from the District on February 4, 2003 have been considered in the Cypress Grove DEIR. i. l b CHAPTER 3 ---COMMENTS AND R-SPONSES 3-9-7 a i ,lu1-u3-U$ 15 It Ftam-STCEL RIVES LLP SF OFFICE td156T88ttOD T-9Z8 P.ODZ/011 F-477 LETTER 10 III SlAw Simi.Suite STOEL ;M%�raasttm.CoAWmd 9rtt�r RIVES phunr L L f' Sae 415.676.3006 !p watw,aWtl,CDin j A SvrApbs'uu+n wren 111< Washburn,Brsaczsr S McCarthy f CHRMTIAN L.MAXV ( Direct(413)617-8938 ,:, July 3,2003 chnarsh rQstoct.com y v'LA,FAcsnwME AND U.S.MAIL Burry Hand ' Community Development Director City of Oakley 3633 Main.Street j P.O.Box 6 ' Oakley, California 5+4561 Re= Cypress Grove Project; Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. H nd: Thmslr u for the o orhmit to provide comm=ts on rite Draft Envirozxrnental Impact Report � you PP Y P P ep ("bETIZ'r preparers for the Cypress Grove project located in th.-City of Oakley. These c rtu encs are submitted on behalf of the project applicants,13 Home,Western Pacific Housing, and Pacific CC+XnCmunities,LLC. Generally,we believe the Draft EIR meets the requirements of CEQA. It is important,however, to consider the substantial benefits that the project will bestow on the City of Oakley and the surrounding community. For example,muds of the roads and intersections sttrrouading the Cypress Road project will,upon build-out of prnently approved projects, exceed acceptable levels of service without the roadway improvements outlined it the Draft Elk. The project will provide much needed improvements to flood protection and stormwater drainage from 10-1 surrouuding properties that otherwise would not be available. Public parks and intemonne=ctiosns to a regionzI trail are added benefits of the Cypress Grove project. And most impor=t,the Cypress Grave project will conttibuse significantly to the community's housing and revenue needs,and will create a gateway to future projects within the Cypress corridor. With those z benefits in mind,we offer the following technical commet><ts for your considerations as you E " prepare the final BIR fb r o=ification and approval. Please mite that any comments concerning parciculaz mitigation measures apply to both the mitigation measure as it is included in the individual sections(e.g.,Biology, 3.5)and as 10-2 1 summnarized in Table 1.1, i r �T; woo�ffmien Csttt'orntt U to h .": SnaFrun-144$14.2 Idaho w,sninginrt O.C. Jul-03.08 16:32 From-STOEL RIVES LLP SP OFFICE +415676SW T-8Z9 P 003/011 F-47 Barry Hand July 3,2003 2. PROJFCT DESCRIPTION j Section, Page Comments Mitigation Measure or Table § 2.2,Project 2-2 The present list of project objectives includes several. ! � Objectives itaportant objectives,brat omits the;central purpose for developing the project(to provide housing). Thus,the ��_ objectives should include: "Develop 637 quality single f=ity and multi-family residential housing units for the: Ci s t aractina o ulation." k l';< 3.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Section, Page Comments Mitigation Measure or Table NIM 3.5-7(b) 3.5-54 ( This mitigation measure references a"protocol survey,"every though no protocol survey is warranted or otherwise � identified- According to the:Sycamore biological assessment, a pre-cOnstmotioh Survey is sufficient because the species is not likely to occur ori-site or in surrounding ' areas and C1tLF are already included in the Section 7 10-4 ,.. consultation process identi5. it W 3.5-7(a). A,pre. cozzwtion survev has been recommended as a precautionary measure and should replace the reference to a Tolocol survey. MM 3.5-7(b) 3..5-55, This mitigation measure suggests that a biological monito,- ! bullet shall be present can the pmject site during the:entire construotion period,uvea when such presence is not s necessary. Thmefore,this bullet point should read:"A 10-5 biological monitor shall oversee those critical aspetms of construction of the bridge,levees, and outfall when s s appropriate to ensum compliance with minimization J ! measures and avoidance of otential take of CRT,F." E; 5anfr�n-l4aBr4.2 b050�26-Ot30Q1 �, Pi;: . JuI15:32 From-STOEI RIVES LLP SF OFFICE P ppk/pii F-477 �y Barry Hand July 3, 2003 Page 3 { Section, Page Comnmen is lV�tigati�n # 1 Measure or 4` Table Mlvi 3.5-10(a) 3.5-58 A"focued survey"and"pre-cosistructian" survey are distinct surveys. Therefore,the terra"focused pre- construction survey"should be simply stated as'`pre- construction survey." r 10-6 Since a pre-construction survey is conducted prior to .m construction„tlris mitigation measure should omit the ` follo-wing language:". during the appropriate time of year for optimal detection(April or early May through the begimung of August Juin s and Ha cs 1994j}'+ W�.5-11(a) 3.5-59 The mitigation measure suggests that a biological monitor shad lrc present during the entire construction period for the bridge and outfall. This measure is excessive and unnecessary, as it would result in a biological monitor being present eve when not necessary to avoid unpacts to fish. :. 10-7 f t The mitigation measure should i=cad read:"A biological 1 monitor shall oversee critical aspects of oonstruction for the bridge and outfall such as coffer dash installation, dewauering, and fish rescue operations to assure compliance with min�ation measures and avoidance of potential take ,< of ' -Cratus fish ecies", I 3.5-11(b) 3.5-59 Delete"during Construction activities"since the first bullet Fj applies to long-teen measures. w 10.8 Acid "During construction,dewatering„before"Turbidity" in the second bullet,to specify that such turbidity applies to cu �ic�n-x�lamd aot�virirs. § 3.5-12 3.5-60,13 Delete: "fihe d*t=mination of whether or not the loss of I Swainson's hawk foraging habitat would require mitigation in this case would ultimately be made by the California 10-9 Department of;Fish and Game. In addhi.on, . , In all cases, the City is responsible us►dcr Cl✓ A for determining whether x a i �`"` Scni*:axs-t+s4B1�.:4Q50526-{�Dt5D2 3.100 Jul-D3-D3 15:3"s Fram-STOEL RIVES LLP SF OFFICE +4156763DDE 7-;Z8 P DOSAI I F-477 Barry Hand , July 3,2003 page 4 L n, page Comments fiane ore a particular impact is significant, and whether mitigation is 10-9 coin necessary andlar feasible to reduce that impact to a less thin r; si cant leve L MM 3.5-12(a) M-60 and 61 Since this mitigation meas=calls frit surveys"30 days prior to the beginning of construction,"the two references to � "focused surveys" should be replaced with the phrase "pre- 10-10 construction surveys." MM 3.5-12(b) 3.5-51 This mitigation measure appears to impermissibly defer mitigation to CDFG,even though the DEIR.language on page 3.5-50 suggests that such"cumulative impacts of the proposed project are not Likely to sigaificEi tly affect the nesting success of a pair of Swa.insc~:t+'s hawks at the nest site,"and thus would presu=bly not require mitigation for foraging habitat(see the evaluation of Swainson's hawk 10-11 foraging habitat conducted by Sycamore). We therefore recommend omitting this mitigation measure entirely. Alternatively, if the DEM determi=s that impacts to foraging habitat are instead"pate atially significant,"we would suggest the fallowing language: "The foraging habitat evaluedoss conducted by Sycamore shall be submitted to CDFG for review, and mitigation for loss of Swainson's ' hawk foriging habitat,to the extent necessary,shall be s> domed with tecbnicil assistance from.MFG." MM 3.5-13 3. -61 Since alt=.ative measures may be equally-effective in avoiding or minimizing take,this mcawre should be revisal as follows: "If active nests are found,no construction activities shall take place within 500 feet of raptor nests or 10-12 100 feet of rather migratory birds until the young have fledged,unless altmmative measures to avoid and minimise t&;are develpj2ed with technical assist cc om CDFG." ! k 3a: LZ.t SanFsan-144$14.7 C}rt3452S5-ODDp3 �. 3-101 � I µ ' Jul-0-1)3 #5032 From-STOSL RIVES LLP 5F OFFICE 4415eT63000 T-926 P IRDS/DII F-477 Barry Hand July 3, 2043 Wage 5 3.7 TR.A.NSPCAI`' TA ori AND CSRCULAXION Mitigation Measures 3.7-1,3.7-3, 3.7-4(a), and.3.7-5(a) '~ Each of the above referenced mitigations measures includes a particular milestone for completion(e.g.,prior to occupancy of any residential units or issuance of building permits). in 10-13 each circumstance, construction or sale of individual units would be prohibited until The roadway and intersection improvements are completed. For the reasons stated below,however,these n_ particular milestones are potentially infeasible, • The milestones depend on approvals from other agencies(namely Caltrans,utilities, and/or the Burlington Northern.Santa Fe R ilroad). Should:these other-agencies fail to r. timely issue the permits and rights-of-way necessary to implement the roadway improvements,the project would be uzunecessarily delayed.. A mitigation measure may �0-14 be deemed infeasible or rejected altogether if the measure is not within the City's responsibility or jurisdiction to:hose. • Should these other agencies belay comttruction atuilor occupancy,that.delay would jeopardize the=onornic viability of the project and eliminate revenue necessary to 10-15 simultaneously con=ct the transportation and circulation=prov:ments. ,;._ • Even without the Cypress Gmve project,surroundmg developments will eventually cause a Cypress Road(including the Burlingwn North=railroad crossing and intersections with Main Street,State Route 4,Street lei, and Frank Rengel Way),to exceed acceptable levels of service. Since traffic and circulation impacts have largely been created by surroundiag development,the Cypress Grove project should not(and cannot)be required to delay its 10-16 eutire project until all of the improvements are couxzpleted because such a delay would impose on the Cypress Grove pmject a dispropordonaaze burden,for mitigating the region's cttmu.lattive impacts on talc and circulation.t ? • Some of the improvements are not ntctssary in the short-term to address certain traffic and circulation impacts (e.g., 3.7-1,3.7-3, and 3.7-4). For example,assuming th=cern 10-17 t The traffic and circulanon mitigation tn=sures regtu=the Cypress Grave project to - > pay its "fair share" for roadway improvements. While unspecified in the Inft E3R, i€should be noted that these costs are limited to an amount roughly proportionate to the tic burden created by the Cypress Grave project---Cypress Grave cannot be held finmaislly responsible for =A%igatint,cumulativo impacts cr-�by oti-mr devctopmcat prtsjacu. S�hF't�n�t�+t814.2 tiU5b526-QOtl�t 3-102 Jul-D3-B8. 15.33 Frasr-STOEL RIVES LLP SF OFFICE +41587o3DDD T-828 P.DD71Dtf P-477 I ' ;i Barry Hand July 3, 2003 Page 5 presently approved projects are only partially constructed in 2008,the project's impacts 10-17 on traffic and circulation on Main.Street and at the Cypress Road/Frank Reagel Drive Cont.. iatersection would remain less thou.significant. (See Supplemental Traffic Analysis by TJMA,July 2003). Also, according to the evaluation conducted by TJKK signaiization at Cypress Read/Sucet A is not necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service at that intexseatim. Section, Page Comments Mitigation Measure or Table ASL 3.7-3 3.7-17 Further examination by TMA has revealed that only a few prof eat tips would come fro=//to the east on Cypress Road;the majority of the project trips would come from/go ; to the west(Supplemental Traffic Analysis by TXM,July 2003). Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant be required to widen.Cypress Road from Main.StreetlSK-4 to the eastern project boundary Manly, and pay its fair share,for 10-18 she widening of Cypress Road between the eastern project j boundmy and.Sellers Avenue. Thus,rhis measure should react as follows; ". . .plans for the widening of Cypress Road between Main 5tr=VSR-4 and the eastern .Mrct bounder-v SeAm A*eae to provide.. " r § 3.7-4 and 3.7-18 Evaluation by TJ?LM has revealed that the Caltrans Signal MM 3.7-4(a) Watraat is not met at Cypress Road and Street A (Suppkmezttal Traffic Analysis by TJ'M July 2003). I 10-19 Therefore, this mingadqu measure can.be omitted. .'IviM 3.7-9 3.7-2.3 in evaluating the project's impacts on the Cypress Road/Frank Hengcl Drive intersection,the TJKM traffic study concluded that,so Icing as improvements to Sellers Avenue and Laurel Road are completed as planned,ttze wes$*=d Cypress Read at Frank Hangel Drive would not 10-20 require an exclusive right-turn lane(as recommended int the Draft EM). The intersection would operate acceptably with { one left-tram lane,one through latae and one shared 1 through/right turn lane(a wW of tbree lanes)on the westbound approach. We therefore suggest the foIlcawiztg :. . snnErnn.taaata.2 aszsoszs-aeons 3-103 I juI-X23-H 15.3"s Frain-5TOR RIVES LLP SF 4FFlI�£ +dtSS?63D00 T-8Ze P 0081011 F-47? : I J , S4"%�k B xry Hand ' Suly 3, 20103 �...: Page 7 ` i i Section, Page Comments i Mitigation Measure car ti. Table language replace the last phrase of the=ldgation mcamre with, ".. ,one left-�.� n line, 10-20 exist one dZoug and ore•shared Cont.- a tbrvright-tura lane(one richt-turn lane already exists) J for the westbound direction, 3.8 AIR QUALITY Section, Page Comments WtigatiDn Measure or 5 Table I 'fable 1-1 1-44. 3-8-1 This rniti*on me re reqs thzt the project implematt measures to control dust, even wh=conditions at the site may not warrant such measures(e.g.,air a heavy rain or ! ( during calm winds). To more specifically tailor the 10-21 If mitigation measure to the impact,we propose amending the mitigation measure to require dart control measures only when on-site inspoctors dete=dnc such measures are ness 3.9 NOISE i Scct3in, Page Comments w Nfitigation Measure or Table low 3.9.3 3.9-19 'The appli .t requests that these hours of operadon be extezdcd to ccrain limited hours on Satiny�e.g,9.34 arae- 10-22 to 5.06 .m..). MM 3.9-7 3.9-22 to 3.9-23 To provide flexibility in meeting the requirements for noise reduction relaxed to the railroad,the last seuteme should be 10-23 ` rmlaccdAith the following: "To LWher reduet railroad sas�Frsn-Ya�tsaa.a ausoa�s-000c�; 3-104 Ju!-til-D8 t5c33 From—MEL RIVES UP SF OFFICE +�}58ifi8bDD T-M P-009/ttl F-diT f Barry Hand July 3, 2003 Page 8 Section, Page Comments Litigation Measure or Table er e levels,bornes waxy be eonst p ted to adequate rneet 10-23 rbese xrcaise-level rcouirers rats. The design and locaiton of the sound will aaad My home constnm ion shall be reviewed � conte and approved by the Community Dtvelopment Director ' car to the issuac of bmICing permits."" 3.12 UROLOGY ANIS WATER.QUALITY Section, Page Comments ; ?Mtigatiou Measure or Table 3.32 3.12-8 A.lthour it is likely that the project applicant will obtain a CLOMR.prier to constfvction,state is not required by � FEMA. Therefore,the 2nd and 3rd sezrzences should be 10-24 revised as follows. "For any project that would result in a dumge to the designated I00-year floodplain, FEMI A requires a Letter of Map Revision(LOMR..)prior to, occupancy or,if the LOMR las rant yet been approved by FEMA,than the project must obtain flood insurance until I such LOMR is issued. FEMA would issue a LORS . . 3.1.3 PUBLIC SERVICES AND U'TL=S Section, Page Comments � Mitigation cure or Table a 3.13, fr § 3.13-29 Endnrat�s should include reference to the Contra Costa Water { Endnotes District,Urbana Wa m b6snage ment Plan(December 2000); 1 -25 Diablo Nater Nstrict,The Urban W titer Management Plats of Diablo'mater District(December 20,2000); and the Diablo'Waiter District,Facilities?Tart Update(tlaagast 199$), ; SsnFrJxs-14481 a.2 t�t25053�-p0�i •: I iu�-U3-98 15:33 From-STOEL RIVES LLP SF OFFICE +415b753AQa T-PZ6 P QiDl ,1 =-aT7 1 w 171 Barry Hand July 3,2003 e Page 9 t 3 Sect�rn, Page Comments Miitigafiot>� Measure or Table 10-25 € because these documents all.formed the basis of the watoz cont. qy& supply analysis and the Water Supply Assessm=t issued for this pp 'ect by the Diablo Water District. UP 5, Al:TEl~NAXIVES ANALYSIS Section, Page Commexcts Mitigation Measure or Table 5, s-61 The Reduced Intensity Alternative,if implemented,would Alternative E,nviromnentally contribute to further urban sprawl in the region- This factor ,Analysis Superior should be included in the alternatives analysis as a factor Alternative contributing to increased traffic and tuber environmental impacts resulting from The Rcriuccd.Intensity Alternative. { Thus,%he 34 sentenct,last paragraph, should read: "Transl*rfation and Circulation impacts in the -miect area 10-26 the would bimmediate e reducMyt�rl�because fewer residences would occupy Add to last paragraph the following sentence: "Moreover, j the Reduced Intensity Alternative would pus'B housing danand further out along transportation corridors and thus contribute to urban sprawl in the region. Further urban i sprawl would have additional region.-wide impacts on Transportation and Circulation,Land Use,Agriculture, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,and GGolo ,, 4 i a Sa:s�rsn-t 44$14.2 CCtSt?$2ii-OotS�i a 3-106 jut-D3-08 15:33 From-S+OEL RIVES LLP SF OFFICE +41SETS3000 t-M F 01!1011 F-477 'i r Ba=y Ind July 3,2003 Pagc 10 Th&Dk yo a for your considration of our comments. *` Sincerely, Chiistg i arr CLM:raa cc: Ray Panek(via fax) Owen Poole(via. fax) Meed Ofiate (via fax.) Caleb R.00pe(via fax) Bob Sclders(via fax) r s 5 5xnFrsn-f+s48f�f.2�t25£t526-t7ttDOS 3-107 F"Inini.EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEmsER 2003 W LETTER 1€: STOEL RIVES LLP Response to Comment 10-1 The comment states the belief that the Cypress Grove DEIR meets the requirements of CEQA. The commentfurther nates t that the .DEIR, however, should consider the bents that the project will bestow on the City of Oakley and the surrounding community. Subsequently, the comment provides a number of different benefits that the proposed project { q would generate and states that with the said benefits in consideration, technical comments will now be provided. F The comment is noted and the technical comments subsequently provided in letter 10 will be addressed below. i Response to Comment 10-2 t 1 The comment notes that any comments concerning particular mitigation measures apply to both the mitigation measure as it is included in the individual sections in the DEIR and as summarized in Table 1-1. s � The comment is noted, and any revisions made to individual sections in the DEIR will be made in the Summary"fable as well. °,. Response to Comment 10-3 The comment expresses the concern that the present list of project objectives on page 2-2 and 2-5 of the DEIR omits the central purpose for developing the project, which is to provide housing. The comment then includes the recommended revisions. i i -5 of the DEIR is hereby revised to The comment is noted and page 2 (8) Develop the project area buildout consistent with land uses and policies defined in the City of Oakley 2020 General Plan. (g) rt�ci al h i_s f r 17 i ' .r n ir, o i1 ti n. Response to Comment 10-4 j The comment states that mitigation measure 3.5-7(b) on page 3.5-54 references a "protocal survey,"even though a protocol survey is not warranted or otherwise identified. The comment further states that according to the Sycamore i Biological Assessment, a pre-construction survey is sufficient because the species is not likely to occur on-site or in surrounding areas and CALF are already included in the Section consultation process identified in mitigation measure .� p 3.5-7(a). The comment is correct in noting that the Revised Dra,ft Biological Assessment for the Cypress Grove Property(page 28) prepared by Sycamore Associates does recommend that pre-construction surveys be conducted for { CRLF according to USFWS protocol two weeks prior to ground breaking on the northern part of the site ' and prior to construction of the outfall in Emerson Slough. �Hl CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES J .1 3-108 CYPRsss CRo vE PRn.Ec T SEPTEMBER 2003 Therefore,page 3.5-54 of the DEIR is hereby revised: ' 3.5-7(b) If CRZF are positively identified during the p survey, then a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared, with technical assistance from the USFWS and CDFG, that includes measures to minimize adverse effects of construction on this species and their associated habitat. At a minimum, this plan shall include all of the following measures: Response to Comment 10-5 E The comment expresses the concern that the second bullet under mitigation measure 3.5-7(b) of the DEIR requires a biological monitor to be present on the project site during the entire construction period, even when such presence is not necessary, The comment recommends that the mitigation measure be revised to state that the biological monitor be present only during the critical construction activities, 1. ppyyt Ih$ The assumption is made that the comment is referring to the third bullet under mitigation measure 3.S-7(b) rather than the second bullet, The comment serves to clarify the third bullet under mitigation measure 3.5- 7(b) rather than introduce new information. The third bullet of mitigation measure 3.5-7(b) is hereby „€ revised to reflect the comment's recommendations. • A biological monitor shall akg shalx identi�v th_„fig ro ria � im c mon' or} chnli be�ao�t�r� Response to Comment 10-6 The comment expresses the concern that mitigation measure 3.5-10(a) of the DEIR requires a focused pre-construction survey. The comment states that a `focused”survey and a pre-construction"survey are distinct surveys and that the mitigation measure should be revised to require only a pre-construction surveyfor the San Joaquin coachu hi , The comment therefore states that the fallowing language should be deleted from mitigation measure 3,5410(a), "during the appropriate time of year for optimal detection (April or early May through the beginning of August[Jennings and Hayes 19941).- The 9941).-The comment is correct in noting that a pre-construction survey and a focused survey are two distinct surveys. San Joaquin coachwhip occur in open, dry, vegetative associations such as valley grasslands and P g Y saltbush scrub habitats with little or no tree cover. The interior dune habitat in the northeastern corner of the project site,the area adjacent to the abandoned residence and associated outbuildings, and the expansion area of the linear water main in the project site may provide habitat for this species. However, potential that , the snake occurs on the project site is considered low. The biological consultants for the project (Sycamore Associates LLC) determined that a pre-construction survey should be conducted to confirm whether or not l San Joaquin coachwhip occur on the project site. Therefore, the comment does not introduce new r information; rather, the comment serves to clarify mitigation measure 3.5A0(a). t CHAPTER 3--COMMENTS AND RESPONSES i ' .f FAL EIR G YPRE,SS GRo vE PROJECT 'i SEPTE14BER 2003 Therefore,mitigation measure 3.5-14(a)is hereby revised to read: 3.5-10(a) Ftendesurveys for San Joaquin coachwhip shall be conducted.- gree sur" AaR be conitic by a quaked biologist. e 4994�). If this species is not found to occur on the project site, no further mitigation is required. �f !, 1 Response to Comment 10-7 The comment expresses the concern that the scope of mitigation measure 3.5-11(a) on page 3.5-59 is too broad. The comment states that the language of the .measure suggests that a biological monitor shall be present during the entire construction period for the bridge and ou!fall. The comment then recommends how the text should be amended. IThe comment does not introduce new information; rather, the comment serves to clarify the existing mitigation measure. The comment is correct in noting that the scope of the measure is too broad and that ` only critical aspects of construction would need a biological monitor, 4- F1 Therefore,mitigation measure 3.5-11(a)is hereby revised to read: 3.5-11(a) A Fish Rescue Plan shall be prepared by a quaked fisheries biologist for the review and approval of the GDFG, IvMFS, and USFWS that details measures to avoid tale offish during expansion o,f'the bridge and construction of the oufalls and any associated coffer dam facilities, To ensure compliance and implementation of the plan, thefsheries biologist shall a au kal as=QUO= QC27- !� Lt-et iCIS e P i?t. for the kidge and A4&Lagh as gqffu dam ins Lion, ft 4 s Response to Comment 10-8 The comment recommends certain revisions to mitigation measure 3.5-11(b). The first recommendation pertains to the Mitigation Plan discussed in 3.S-11(b). The comment states that because the Mitigation Plan shall be designed for long- term usage, not just during construction activities, "during construction activities" should be deleted, The comment further states that the phrase "During construction, dewatering"should be added before"Turbidity"in the second bullet, to specify that such turbidity applies to construction-related activities. The comment is correct in noting that the Mitigation flan is designed for long-term protection of special- status fish species. The first bullet under mitigation measure 3.5-11(b) illustrates this by showing how the Plan is meant in part to prevent the potential future entrapment of fish in the new outfall pipeline. In addition, the comment serves to clarify the fact that the."Turbidity" issue discussed in the second bullet of mitigation measure 3.5-11(b)relates to construction dewatering and regulations for discharge into Emerson Slough and Marsh Creels. ' i f CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS ANC) RESPONSES 3-110 ANAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 Therefore,mitigation measure 3.5-11(b)is hereby revised to read: 3.5711(b) Formal consultation with the CDFG,*NMI:S,I and USFWS shall be required in conjunction Ak with Corps Section 404 and Streambed Altercation Agreementpermitting to determine appropriate measures to avoid impacts to special status fish species, As part of the consultation process, a Biological Assessment and.Essential Fish Habitat Assessment shall be p m prepared by a fisheries biologist that evaluates the proposed construction plans, ou�all design, vegetation removal, rip-rap and bank protection placement, coffer dam and water pumping best management practices, and water flow regime(including flow rates and timing and temperature of flow releases)from the stormwater pipeline. A Mitigation Plan shall be prepared that includes measures to avoid take of special-status fish 4uring-con3tiactimr aerhitiec At a minimum, the fallowing mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the mitigation plan: i f entrapment in the new pipeline is determined by the fisheries biologist to be a significant issue, a fish screen or other structure approved by USFWS, NMFS, and CDFG shall be placed on the outfalls to prevent fish entering the pipeline system. • D r; .co_nstruct7 decant rznn, turbidity and suspended sediment levels in water returned to Marsh Creels and Emerson Slough shall not exceed more than 10% above ambient levels in these water bodies. 3 • -Construction shall occur between May IS and October 15 (or other period requested by ! the NM.FS) to work outside of the season in which juvenile or migrating salmonids are present in the system. , Response to Comment 10-9 The comment requests that the phrase in paragraph three under impact 3.5-12 stating that at CDFG would make the f nal i determination of whether or not the loss of Swainson's hawk`foraging habitat would require mitigation should be deleted. The comment states that the City is responsible under CEQA,f ar determining whether a particular impact is significant. and whether mitigation is necessary and/orfeasible to reduce that impact to a less-than-significant level. It should be noted that the comment actually references paragraph four tinder impact 3.5-12 of the DEIR s instead of paragraph three. The Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a Threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act(CESA)and therefore receives protection under CESA. Additionally,the destruction of active migratory bird nests, including raptors, is a violation of the MBTA and disruption or destruction of an active raptor nest is also a violation of DFG Code 3503.5. The above regulatory laws protect Swainson's hawk birds and their nesting habitat. Althoughthe loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat is not formally protected under CESA or CDFG Code 3503.5, it may be considered significant under CEQA. Therefore, the City or County where the project is located determines whether or not mitigation is required for a project's impact to Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. The proposed project l would result in the loss of approximately 147 acres of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. Therefore, as the comment notes, determination of whether or not mitigation would be required for the project's impact to ' Swainson's hawk foraging habitat would be determined by the City of Oakley during CEQA review, rather than CDFG. The City notes that the impacts to Swainson's hawks were found potentially significant in the DEIR. CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS ANo RESPONSES 3-111 ' F1 vAt_EIR CYPREss G,,,,ovE PROJECT r: ,c.�'EPTEmBER 2003 Paragraph four under impact 3.5-12 on page 3.5-60 of the DEIR is hereby clarified and revised to read. The orto not the jesm of Swaimen, t. ishftml Game. Iti erd4i4err; a Wthougb Swainson's hawks were not found occupying the project site during the 2002 field surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates(2002b), the possibility exists that Swainson's t ) hawks could establish occupancy on the site prior to the initiation of construction for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have potentially significant impacts to Swainson's hawks. P Res onse to Comment 10-10 The comment recommends that mitigation measure 3.5-12(a)be revised by deleting the two references to`focused surveys„ because the measure is realty calling for a pre-construction survey. Potential foraging and nesting habitat occurs in the project site for Swainson's hawk, a federal species of � concern and state-listed threatened species. Swainson's hawks were observed in the project site by Sycamore Associates (2002b). Mitigation measure 33-12(a) states that if construction is proposed during the breeding season (February — August), a focused survey for Swainson's hawk nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a qualified biologist in order to identify active nests on the site. As noted above in comment 10-6, a "focused" survey and a "pre-construction" !' survey are two distinct surveys. According to Sycamore Associates LLC, the comment is correct in noting i that the mitigation measure is really calling for a pre-construction survey. Therefore,mitigation measure 3.S-12(a)is hereby revised to read: 3.5-12(a) f construction is proposed during breeding season (February-August), a j4v=ed ' construe. o survey for Swainson's hawk nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a quaked biologist in order to identify active nests in the project site. If active nests are found, a buffer zone of a minimum of one-quarter mile (approximately 1304 feet) shall be established around the active nest. Intensive new T. disturbances (e.g., heavy equipment activities associated with construction) that may cause i nest abandonment or-forced f edging shall not be initiated within this buffer zone between March I and September 1. The buffer zone shall be increased to one ha f mile in nesting iJ...; areas away from urban development (i.e., where heavy equipment noise is not a normal occurrence during nesting season). Trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of € project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season (September to -January). If no active nests are found during theJ;eu"d-gre-rvggu=survey, no further f mitigation will be required. Response to Comment 10-11 . 1 i The comment expresses the concern that mitigation measure 3.5-12 (b) on page 3.5-61 of the DEIR seems to 1 " impermissibly defer Swainson's hawk mitigation to CDFG, even though the DEIR states on page 3.5-60 that"cumulative impacts of the proposed project are not likely to significantly affect the nesting success of a pair of Swainson's hawks at f CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS ANo RESPONSES 6 3-112 i;.M. F AL EIR CYPRESS GpovE PRDJEC- SEPTEMBER 2003 1 the nest site (see the evaluation of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat conducted by Sycamore)," and thus would � presumably not require mitigation forforaging habitat. The comment recommends that mitigation measure 3.5-12(b)be t omitted, or revised. The proposed protect would result in the lass of approximately 147 acres cif Swiainson's hawk foraging habitat. The comment is correct in noting that the Swainson's Hawk Foraging Habitat Analysis prepared by Sycamore Associates (March j003) concludes that the loss of 147 acres of foraging habitat in addition to other losses resulting from cumulative development would not be likely to adversely affect the nesting success of a pair of Swainson's hawks at the nest site located approximately four miles from the project site. This conclusion is based on the fact that a sufficient amount of habitat in the vicinity of the nest site would remain. It should be noted that a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is currently being prepared for past Contra Costa County. A Land-Cover Type map has been developed for the HCP (Figure 3-5, see web site www.cocohm.or ), which designates the project site as urban. However, simply because the project- .,specifie or cumulative impacts of the proposed project are not likely to significantly affect the nesting success of a pair of Swainson's hawks at the nest site located approximately four miles from the project site, does not mean that the loss of foraging habitat would not otherwise be a significant impact. Consistent with mitigation measure 3.5-12(b), the City shall still submit the Swainson's Hawk Foraying Habitat Analysis to CDFG for their review. The language of mitigation measure 3.5-12(b) shall be hereby revised as recommended in the comment to clarify the consultation process. 1° Therefore, mitigation measure 3.5-12(b)on page 33-51 of the DEIR is hereby revised to read: 3.5-12(b) The foraging habitat evaluation conducted by Sycamore shall be submitted to CDFGJar r review , and mitigation for loss of Swainson's hawk fhabitat-to the g=gx c sarv. gill shaLl be determined with technical assistance from CDFG. Response to Comment 10-12 The comment states that alternative mitigation measures may be equally effective to proposed mitigation in avoiding or minimizing take. Ther fore, the comment recommends that mitigation measure 3.54.3 be revised to allow the option of z developing alternative measures to those currently proposed. The comment is correct in noting that alternative mitigation measures may be available to reduce to project's impacts to nesting raptors and other migratory birds. Mitigation measure 3.5-13 shall be revised to allow consultation with CDFG to determine if any equally effective mitigation measures exist, which would reduce impacts to active raptor and migratory bird nests to a less-than-significant level. measure 3.S-13 is hereby revised to read: Therefore,mitigation me e y 3.5-13 If construction is proposed during breeding season (February-August), a focused survey for migratory and resident bird nests shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a quaked biologist in order to identify active nests in the project 3 site. If active nests are found, no construction activities shall take place within 500 feet of 3 the raptor nests and I00 feet of other migratory birds until the young have fledged, MALm alternative rneasl�res to avoid and migimize rake are dev Iope wi h tgthn aesigauce from CHAPTER 3 --COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-113 y I q �'j an.. iNAL E*1 CYPRE55 GRovE PROJECT SEPTEA4BER 2003 I M . frees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the non-breeding season (September to January). if no active nests F' are found during the focused survey, no further mitigation will be required. Response to Comment 10-13 The comment states that mitigation measures 3.7-1; 3.7-3; 3.7-4(a); and 3.7-5 (a)include a particular milestone for _. completion, and that the milestones are potentially infeasible. Comments 9-14 to 9-17 discussed below address the the milestones are potentially infeasible and provide responses to these reasons. reasons why The comment is noted and will be addressed in responses to comments 9-14 to 9-17 below. Response to Comment 10-14 t 4 The comment expresses the concern that the milestones for measures 3.7-1; 3.7-3; 3.7-4(a); and 3.7-5(a) depend on approval from other agencies. The comment states that should these other agencies fail to timely issue the permits and rights-of-way necessary to implement the roadway improvements, the project would be unnecessarily delayed. The comment further states that a mitigation measure may be deemed infeasible or rejected altogether if the measure is not within the City's responsibility or jurisdiction to impose. t.';; Mitigation measure 3.7-1 requires that the applicant/developer restripe the Main Street/Cypress Road intersection to provide one-left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane for the northbound approach. Mitigation measure 3.7-1 requires that these improvements be completed prior to occupancy of any residential units. The City has indicated that not necessarily all of the aforementioned Main Street/Cypress Road intersection improvements need to be complete before the occupancy of residential i units. However, adequate information related to the timing has not been submitted. t.. -I S of the DE1R, mitigation measure 3.7-1, is hereby revised to read: Therefore,page 3.7 s ``o- 3.7-1 The applicantldeveloper shall restripe the Main Street lCypress Road intersection as follows. • The northbound approach shall be restriped with one left-turn lane, two through lanes, t`Y and one right-turn lane; • The striping shall be indicated on the improvements plans submitted to the City Engineer E; for review and approval prior to initiating roadway improvements; ¢,. M# • FixL� Mitigation measure 3.7-3 requires that the applicant submit to the City Engineer, for review and approval, } plans for the widening of Cypress Road between Main Street/SR-4 and Sellers Avenue to provide one additional through lane in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Mitigation measure 3.7-3 further requires that the improvements be completed prior to occupancy of residential units. The City has indicated a CHAPTER 3--COMMENTS ANCD RESPONSES 3-114 FINAL EIR CY.r'RESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTET+ sER 2003 j, that the applicant does not have to widen Cypress Road from Main Street/SR-4 to Sellers Avenue, but rather, as requested in the comment, from Main Street/SR-4 to the eastern project boundary. However, the applicant would be required to pay the project's fair share toward the widening of Cypress Road from the project's eastern boundary to Sellers Avenue. Therefore,page 3.7-17 of the DEIR, mitigation measure 3.7-3, is hereby revised to read: 3.7-3 Prior to initiating roadway construction, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer,for review and approval, plans`for the widening o f Cypress Road between Main Street l SR-4 and the am F en_ bozlndary to provide one additional through lane in both the eastbound and the westbound directions. The Cypress Road widening shall be complete prior to occupancy of the residential units (except the model home complex(es)). jug Y oct OC Ca= R d wi wi a fum h. hs i ,-t kv„t,oun-Iry to seflm A v n r 7h. tea 4u i'tted to the satisfaction of the i' City nrrineer rior to the issuance o bu LA exp r The comment's concerns regarding mitigation measure 3.7-4(a) are addressed below in Response to Comment 10-19. Response to Comment 10-15 The comment states that should other agencies delay construction andlor occupancy by untimely issue of permits and/or rights-of-way, delay would _jeopardize the economic viability of` the project and eliminate revenue necessary to simultaneously construct the transportation and circulation improvements. ; Please see Response to Comment 10-14. The City has agreed to delay Main Street/Cypress Road a intersection improvements via a phasing plan,which would be agreed upon by the applicant and the City. In f'. addition, the DEIR is hereby revised to reduce the portion of Cypress Road, which would need to be widened by the applicant. Response to Comment 10-16 The comment states that even without the Cypress Grove project, surrounding developments will eventually cause Cypress r Road among other rights-of-way to exceed acceptable levels of service. The comment expresses the concern that because traffic and circulation impacts have largely been created by surrounding development, the Cypress Grove project should not(and cannot)be required to delay its entire project until all of the improvements are completed. - Please see Responses to Comments 10-14 and 10-15. Pair share fees from the applicant would be implemented through participation in the City's TIP'program. Response to Comment 10-17 i The comment states that some of the roadway improvements required in the DEIR are not necessary in the short-terra to s- address certain traffic and circulation impacts, and gives the examples of`mitigation measures 3.7-1; 3.7-3; and 3.7-4. # Please see Responses to Comments 10-14 and 10-1 S. CHAPTER 3 —COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-115 e, FINAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT .SEPTEMBER 2003 F Response to Comment 10-18 The comment states that further examination by the project's traffic consultant, TJKM, has revealed that only a few project trips would come from/go to the east on Cypress Road; the majority of trips would come from the west. The #: comment therefore recommends that mitigation measure 3.7-3 be revised so that the applicant would be required to widen Cypress Road from Main Street/SR-4 to the eastern project boundary only, and pay its fair share for the widening of Fl. Cypress Road. r Please see Response to Comment 10-14. The Supplemental Trac Analysis by TJKM, July 2003, serves to j elucidate projected traffic patterns in and around the project site. The Supplemental Analysis demonstrates that few vehicle trips in the project vicinity would be coming from East Cypress Road and few trips would be exiting the project towards East Cypress Road. Therefore, the scope of widening on Cypress Road can be reduced. Response to Comment 10-19 Concerning mitigation measure 3.7-4(a)of the DEIR, the comment states that evaluation by TJKM has revealed that the Caltrans Signal Warrant is not met at Cypress Road and Street A(Supplemental Traffic Analysis by TJKM,July 2003). The comment requests that mitigation measure 3.7-4(a)be omitted, The Traffic Impact Analysis for the West Cypress Properties, TJK1M Transportation Consultants, October 16, 2001, noted that overall the unsignalized Cypress Road/Street A (referenced as Street B in 2001 Traffic 3 Study) intersection would operate at acceptable LCIS levels under the Existing Plus Approved Plus Project Conditions (see Table 3.7-7 of the DEIR). However, the Traffic Study noted that the minor movement at P this intersection is expected to operate unacceptably under the two alternative unsignalized options for the c intersection(1-way stop, and no left out with 1-way stop). yHowever, in order to determine what type of intersection should be constructed for Cypress Road/Street .' A, the cumulative scenario also needs to be considered. As can be seen in Table 3.7-9 of the DEIR(Table 7 of the Traffic Study), only two traffic control options are available for the Cypress Road/Street A intersection which would mitigate cumulative traffic impacts along with the widening of Cypress Read as required in mitigation measures 3.7-3 and 3.7-7(b). These options are either signalizing the intersection or making the intersection unsignalized and prohibiting left turns from Street A to Cypress Road. Table 3.7-9 of the DEIR illustrates that the Cypress Road/Street A intersection would operate best under the signalized scenario. Based off of the above information, the Traffic Study (p. 37)recommends that the Cypress Road Street A intersection be signalized. Adequate documentation to alter the conclusions of the original traffic j; study and DEIR has not been provided. Therefore, the mitigation measure remains unchanged. Response to Comment 10.20 4 5. The comment expresses the concern that the TJKM Trac Study concluded that as long as.improvements to Sellers Avenue and Laurel Read are completed as planned, the westbound Cypress Road at Frank Hengel Drive would not require an exclusive right turn lane (as recommended in the Draft EIR). The comment states that the intersection would operate acceptably with one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared throughlright tura lane on the westbound i approach. The comment therefore recommends that mitigation measure 3.7-9 be revised to re ect the above information. CHAPTER 3-•- COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-116 ............ FINAL. EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEAIBER 2003 The provision of an exclusive right turn lane for the Cypress Road/Frank Hengel Drive intersection was initially recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the WestCypress Properties, TTKM Transportation Consultants, October 16, 2001, page 38. Adequate documentation to alter,the conclusions of the original traffic study and DE1,R has not been provided. Therefore,the mitigation`rn' e asure remains unchanged. Response to Comment 10-21 The comment expresses the concern that mitigation measure 3.8-1 requires the project to implement measures to control dust, even when conditions at the site may not warrant such measures(e.g., after a heavy rain or during calm winds). The comment states that the mitigation measure should be revised to require dust control measures only when onsite inspectors determine such measures are necessary. The comment does not introduce new information; rather, the comment serves to clarify the requirements of mitigation measure 3.8-1. s. Therefore, mitigation measure 3.8-1 on page 3.8-8 of the DEIR is hereby revised to read: 3.8-1 The applicant shall provide measures to reduce emissions caused during construction activities by implementing the following dust control measures • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least twofat offree-board; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites, • Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites, • Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; • Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; * Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt rune to public roadways; and • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Response to Comment 10-22 The comment states the applicant's request to extend the hours during which construction activities can be carried out to include 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturdays. CHAPTER 3 — COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-1 17 ......... ............ j CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 200.E Mitigation measure 3.9-3 of the DEIR states that the restrictions on allowed working days may,be modified with prior written approval by the Community Development Director. Therefore, if necessary, the applicant can contact the Community Development Director to request additional working hours. Response to Comment 10-23 The comment expresses the concern that more flexibility should be incorporated into mitigation measure 3.9-7 to provide hadditional means of reducing railroad noise levels at proposed residences on the project site, south of Cypress Road, The comment therefore recommends that mitigation measure 3.9-7 be revised to incorporate structural attenuation measures to help reduce railroad noise levels. The comment recommends that mitigation measure 3.9-7 incorporate additional feasible measures, which P,"3 t could be effective in hirther reducing railroad noise levels at the proposed residences, south of Cypress Road. It is important to note that the comment is referring to the reduction of interior noise levels at proposed residences, south of Cypress Road. The DEIR already includes structural noise attenuation measures for the proposed residences, south of Cypress Road in mitigation measure 3.9-8 (a). Impact 3.9-7 is referring to exterior noise levels. Response to Comment 10-24 The comment states that the DEIR is incorrect on page 3.12-8 in stating that a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is required to be issued by FEMA prior to the initiation o,f'any construction activities. The comment therefore i' recommends that page 3.12-8 be revised to state that FEMA requires a LOMR prior to occupancy. , x jFEMA requires that any structure built within a 100-year flood plain be removed from the flood plain or the F owner must obtain flood insurance. Removing a structure from the flood plain can take place in multiple ways. The most typical is to submit a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The DEIR on page 3.1.2-12 states ` that once the levee improvements are made, the project would file a request for a LOMR with FEMA to remove all of the project area from the mapped flood plain. The procedure proposed in the DEIR for removing the project from the floodplain is consistent with FEMA regulations, as FEMA requires that a LOMR be filed within 6 months of completion of the necessary improvements to remove the project from the 100-year floodplain, The comment is correct in noting that the DEIR language on page 3.12-8 does not reflect this; and,the text is hereby revised to incorporate the comment's recommended revisions. i Therefore, the first paragraph under "Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)"on page 3.12-8 is hereby revised to read X Federal Emergency .Management Agency (FEMA) r. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) operates the National Flood Insurance t`..'. Program, which issues maps of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), based on water surface elevations of the 1% (14£1-year) flood event. For any project that would result in a change to the designated I00-year floodplain, issued by FEMA prior te the ifti4&tien LQf CHAPTER 3--COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E 3-118 .......... ............ .................. .............-.... FINAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEP'7-EmsER 2003 -C' 12roject must-AkW&flood 1Q nce untd.such LOMBisiasugd. FEMA would issue CLOMRs to modify the elevations and/or boundaries of the Special Flood Hazard Areas (based on the 100-year rer flood event). FEMA requires assurance by the participating community that minimum floodplain management requirements are complied with, including,minimum floor elevations above the"base flood,"existing lands and structures or proposed structures are"reasonably safe from flooding,"and that all supporting analysis and documentation used to make that determination is on file and available upon request. The supporting hydraulic analysis and documentation includes new topographic data and certification by a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor. T Response to Comment 10-25 The comment states that the endnotes for Chapter 3.13, Public Services and Utilities, of the DEIR should include reference to the Contra Costa Water District, Urban Water Management Plan (December 2000); the Diablo Water District Urban Water Management Plan (December 20, 2000), and the Diablo Water District Facilities Plan Update (August 1998). Although the list of endnotes for Chapter 3.13 does not reference the three documents above, the introduction section of the chapter references two of the three sources (Contra Costa Water District Urban Water Management Plan and Diablo Water District Facilities Plan Update). Chapter 3.13 does not reference the Diablo Water District Urban Water Management Plan (December 20, 2000); therefore, the endnotes are hereby revised to include this document. is The endnotes on page 3.13-29 of the DEIR are hereby revised to read: Endnotes Cypress Grove Design Guidelines(Design Guidelines)C December,2001 Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report(Oakley General Plan Background)C September, 2001 Contra Costa County General Plan C 1996 Contra Costa County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report C September, 1990 Oakley 2020 General Plan,City of Oakley,August 30,2002. 6 Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report,City of Oakley,September,2002. 7 ABAG City of Oakley Census 2000,htW:Z Zonsus.abaig.ca.gov/cities/Qaklev rm. Projected Enrollments, 2002.to.2020 in the Antioch Unified School District, January 2003, Enrollment Projection Consultants,Table 3A. Oakley 2020 General Plan,p.7-1 S. Oakley General Plan EIR,p. 3-91,92. ru, Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR,p. 3-93. 1 ILhan)Mater Manaar�ment Plan Dzablo Water District Z 20o , 2000, Response to Comment 10-26 The comment expresses the concern that the Alternatives Analysis of the DEIR does not acknowledge that implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would contribute to further urban sprawl in the region. The comment states that this issue should be included in the Alternatives Analysis, and subsequently suggests how the text of the DEIR should be amended. 1. CHAPTER 3 — COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-119 r. ............................ .......... .................... ........................ . ....................... ............................... � FWAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT r .S`EPTEAISER 2003 The comment does not introduce new information to the existing discussion regarding the environmentally superior alternative to the Cypress Grove project. In fact, the comment affirms the conclusion of the DER regarding the fact that the transportation and circulation impacts generated by the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be reduced as compared to the proposed project;but, the comment does serve to clarify in what areas impacts would be reduced. Therefore, page 5-6 of the DE.IR, second paragraph under"Environmentally Superior Alternative's is hereby revised to read; For this project, the environmentally superior alternative would result in development of the site under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Impacts to Aesthetics would be reduced because fewer housing units would be developed; therefore, different development schemes could be utilized for the project site such as the clustering of homes to allow for more open space. Transportation and r Circulation impacts ixi nro ct a would be reduced because fewer residents would occupy the a P t -� ,.�--rte j� area; therefore, fewer vehicle trips would be made, thereby reducing Traffic, Air Quality, and Noise impacts. In addition, Hydrology and Water Quality impacts would be reduced via the Reduced Intensity Alternative because impervious surface area would be less as compared to h l the proposed project due to the fewer number of houses developed. Hazards would also be reduced because fewer people would be exposed to potential hazards such as pesticides and asbestos. Public Services and Utilities impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project because not as much infrastructure would be needed due to the fewer number of housing units to be constructed under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Conversely, impacts would still occur related to Land Use, Agriculture, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Geology. Moreover 1 educed otta _U w r sQ}rc _ and "o oa £s:s ti CHAPTER 3 •—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-120 1 G 1 bC� 1 9 P. .3 LETTER 11 DWR DELTA. LEVEES PROGRAM COMMENTS ON CYPRESS GROVE DRAFT EIR., May 2003 ~ The California Department of Water Resources and the Califomia Coastal Conservancy hal>e nearly reached agreement and are in escrow to purchase the approximately 1.4200 acres of land bounded by the Contm Costa Canal,Marsh Creek; Dutch Slough, and Jersey Island Road. The City of Oakley will own 63 acres of this property as well. This agricultural land will be restored to a tidal wetlands and habitat area.. The Cypress Grove project as presently proposed could create a significant impact on the water quality on what will become DWR and City property.primarily along Emerson Slough. As DWR is not a present owner of the properties north of the Centra Costa Canal,we were not on the Draft EMR, distribution list We have only recently received a copy. { Although we realize that our comments are being received after the comment period, we believe that they,should be considered now as they will have to be considered prior to f a development of the project because of the expected impacts to the DWR property. We are ver1V concerned that the proposed discharge of storm water into Emerson Slough will have an adverse impact on the*tidal wetlands that will be created on the present. Emerson and Gilbert.properties than abut Emerson Slough. We have the following contents and questions that we believe should be considered and answered before the project design is finalized. RUNOFF FROM THE PROPOSED ED DEVELOPMEI ITS SHOULD BE COLLECTED. AND PUMPED TO MARSH CREEK.RATHER.THAN EMERSON SLOUGH. The 11-2 proponent plans to raise Marsh Creek's east bank levee. Runoff from the site now flows. into�4arsh Creek.. There will be much less impact on receiving craters and on large new habitat areas if runoff from the ,proposed development areas discharges to Marsh Creel:. DISCHARGE CF STORhri WATER:INTO EMERSON SLOUGH IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Discharging four 36-inch diameter pipelines of urban runoff into Emerson Slough will tandoubtedly degrade the water quality in this-area that will be specifically designed as a tidal wetlands and habitat area. These properties will be home to many plants and animals, including threatened and/or endangered species. While Marsh Creek is also-a water of the state and is home to many species, it already.serves as a storm water conduit and putting the storm water into Marsh Creek would have a much lower impact than in Emerson Slough. Under Impacts and Iuliti ation Measures on page 3.12-10. the draft EIR says"A hydrology or water duality impact would be significant if the proposed 11-3 prefect were to: ...provide substantial additional sources ofpull uted runoff'. Emerson r Slough does not now receive appreciable polluted runoff.Marsh Creek does. Emerson Slough will be the circulatory system for the tidal flows that fill and drain the tidal wetlands to be created on the Emerson and Gilbert properties. 'When storms occur during any condition other than a strong slack.tilde,it is highly likely that the polluted runoff in the proposed development's discharges into Emerson Slough Mould flour directly into the tidal wetlands rather titan out of Emerson Slough to Dutch Slough. 3-121 — P s x. D)VR Delta Levees 1'rogra_rn Comments an -^ Cvress Grove Draft Environmental Impact: Report August 21, 2003 , EMERSON SLOUGH DOES NOT BEGI T AT THE END OF SELLERS,AVENUE--A SMALL DRAINAGE DITCH BEGINS THERE ANIS MEETS AN ARM OF EMERSON SLOUGH APPROXIMATELY 644 FEET TO THE NORTH,WHICH MI ETS THE MAIN SLOUGH ANOTHER 300 FEET BEYOND THAT. As above,we 11-4 are opposed to the discharge of urban runoff into Ernersc"rz Slough. The Draft E1R gives the impression trier Emerson Slough begins w,the end of Sellers Avenue on the north side of the Contra Costa Canal uhcn in fact it is only a small ditch, at that pain- It appears that significant expansion and armoring of the drainage ditch on the north side of the carnal would be required to accommodate the storm water flours expected from the four 36-inch pumped outfall pipes. DISCHARGES DURING CONSTRUCTION: We have serious doubts that, during construction, storm water discharges itrto Emerson Slough will be able to meet the water quality limitations described on page 3,5-59: section 3.5-11(b): "Turbidity and. suspended sediment levels in venter returned to Marsh Creek and Emerson Slough shall , not exceed more than 10%alcove ambient levels in these water bodies"- Emerson Sloug`n 11-5 begins at.the.Gilbert home,and is a quiescent body m ith lore turbidity and suspended y sediment levels. Discharges during construction would almost certainly exceed the 101i'a limit. Dise"es into Marsh Creel£,.which.is already=a storm Water conveyance. would be less likely to exceed the 10% limit. VvT ARE NOT CERTAINI THAT THE STORM WATER SYSTEM IS DESIGNED AND WILL BE OPERATED IN A WAY THAT VdILL OPTIMIZE THE REMOVAL OF POLLUTANTS BEFORE THE S"T"ORM WATER IS DISCHARGED TO SURE'ACE 11-6 WATER... �\'E WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE DESIGN AND OPERAT10N PLAIN. POND DESIGN AND OPERATION. Although pages 4-8 and 4-9 state that each component subdivision will have its o Am discharge pipe; itis unclear whether each 11-7 component subdivision of the project will have its awn pond or whether storm crater from each component subdivision will flow to thepond in this proposal. f:. IT AP7EA.RS FROM THE DPLAWING THAT THE POND IS ONLY 56%AS LARGE, AS STATED. On,page 3.12-14,SlOrrrr>,jrxter pored says that"The pond would cover an area of approximately 3.6 acres at the non-nal Water surface elevation of 2.0 feet". Figure 11-8 3.129 on page 3.12-18 indicates that the pored size is approximately 2.0 acres(250 feet x 350 feet at the green scale of 1"w 100'). If so. retention time and treatment would be significantly less than as stated. Is this the case Or is it justttlat the scale has been distorted through reproduction? s r . 3-12.2 1 Dv�'R Delta Levees Program Comments on Cypress GTove Draft Environmental-Impact Report August 21, 2003 POND CAPACITY. Pa e 3.12-5, -Groundwater sous that"Groundwater- ater elevations alone the northern edge of the project:have been found to persist at or above 2.0 feet% indicating that the pond:w.ould always contain water to an elevation of approximately -2.0 feet,which Figure 3.12-9 says is the pump-controlled normal water surface 11-9�-� elevation. In other wordsthe pond-is always pumped dawn to the ground water level, So it appears that the pump would turn on whenever storm water inters the pond and the water would be detained in the pond for only a very short time,greatly reduc-ing the effectiveness of the treatment the pond is supposed to provide. PUMP OR) RATION. Will the pump intakes be designed to drain from below the 11-10 surface at all water levels to prevent floating material from being pumped out? PIPELINE RETENTION. The end of the second paragraph on page 3.12 25 say's, } "...increases in flows generated from the development of the proposed project would be contained in the proposed drainage.system". How much for how Ione? This may shave -� the peal but it doesn't do anything for treatment. We're not sure what is meant by this jE statement. DISCHARGE FLOW VELOCITY. Page 3.l?-19, second paragraph says, `:Althoag17 a total of 140 efs of OW would be entering Emerson Slough,.the velocity would still be limited to 5 fps". Where? At the outfall of each pipe? What would the velocity of the 11-12 flow be in the channel itself? Thank you for considering these comments. Please respond to; Jim Eckman _fJ California Department of Water Resources Delta Levees Program Bonderson Building, 311 A P.O. Sox-942836 Sacramento. CA 94236-0001 d 916-651-7013) _u. 915-65)-9678 (FAX) j eckmanewater.ca.gov 3-123 i 7 J i i"NAL Eli' C'YPRE'SS GROVE"PROJECT SEPTE A4BER 2003 LETTER 11. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Response to Comment 11-1 _. The comment states that the California Department of Water Resources(DWR)and the California Coastal Conservancy ty j have nearly reached agreement and are in escrow to purchase the approximately 1,200 acres o f land north of the project site. The comment notes that these 1,200 acres will be restored to tidal wetlands and habitat area. The comment expresses the concern that stormwater runoff from the Cypress Grove project discharged into .Emerson Slough would have adverse impacts on the tidal wetlands, and then lists individual concerns to be addressed before project design is finalized. The individual concerns are addressed in Responses to Comments 11-2 to 11-12. } The comments submitted by Department artment of Water Resources ("DWR") were received by the City on August 21, 2003, over 45 days after the close of the public comment period. Although not required to `I evaluate and respond to comments received after the public comment period ends (public Resources Code ' § 21091 and CEQA Guidelines § 15088), the City has prepared the following responses to DWR's late comments. 1; The comments submitted by DWR primarily concern the proposed storm water outfall at Emerson Slough, F_, and whether that outfall would effect DWR and Coastal Conservancy plans to restore approximately 1,200 acres to tidal wetlands and habitat. The proposed restoration would take place on the property bounded by i; the Contra Costa Canal, Marsh Creek, Dutch Slough, and Jersey Island Road. The restoration project, however, is not part of the environmental baseline against which the project's impacts are to be measured. In determining whether a particular impact is potentially significant, an EIR compares the potential impacts of the project against the baseline physical conditions as those conditions exist at the time the Notice of Preparation ("NCP") is published (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a)). The baseline physical conditions at the proposed restoration site are accurately described in the DEIR as "farmlands" or "croplands" (DEIR, 2-2, 3.5-1).-Moreover, the proposed restoration is uncertain. For example, at present it does not appear that precise restoration plans have been created and the funding and approvals necessary to complete the restoration have not been secured. Even if the restoration does occur as envisioned, it is uncertain whether that restoration would occur within a few years or over the next several decades (staff participating in this effort have indicated that the project may occur over decades due to shortfalls in funding). More importantly, as set forth in more detail in the following Responses, the Project's impacts on water quality within Emerson Slough have already been evaluated in the DEIR and determined to be less-than-significant. Response to Comment 11-2 €' The comment expresses the concern that project runoff should not be discharged into Emerson Sloughs rather, project runoff should be discharged into Marsh Creek. The comment implies that all runoff from the site currently flows to Marsh Creek. In fact, only about 26 acres presently drain to Marsh Creek, which constitutes a small percentage of the Cypress Grove project site. Presently, the majority of runoff'from the project site outfalls untreated to the Contra Costa Canal tand Emerson Slough. Runoff is conveyed to Emerson Slough via the Sellers Road ditch (identified as a "freshwater marsh," DEIR, p. 3.5-64) and outfall. The project proposes to design a storm water treatment system that would collect and treat storm water runoff and discharge that storm water to Emerson Slough through a 36-inch outfall pipe that would replace the existing 36-inch outfall pipe at Emmerson Slough. The CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES j 3-124 FINAL EIR CYPRESs GRovE PRC.IEC' SEPTEMBER 2003 f' r Draft EIR addresses the potential impacts from the construction of the outfall and concludes that the project's impact on biological resources and jurisdictional waters would be less-than-significant (DEIR, 3.5- r; 64). �? The comment also suggests that impacts to receiving waters would be lessened by re-routing storm water to Marsh Creek. The comment, however, does not provide any information on how re-routing storm water €,' to Marsh Creek would lessen any impacts from storm water. In fact, the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District("District")has already indicated that storm water from the site is to be directed north to Emerson Slough and that any outfall to Marsh Creek would be denied. , Furthermore, in public comments on the Draft EIR, the District requested that the present outfall to Marsh Creek be removed. The District has limited storm water outfalls to Marsh Creek because the creek is at capacity; any additional drainage would negatively impact the 38-square mile Brentwood watershed that ` depends on Marsh Creek to covey its drainage. The lead agency need not consider mitigation measures beyond its authority to require, particularly where the proposed mitigation alternative would increase rather than alleviate impacts from storm water. Moreover, the mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR would reduce the project's impacts on Emerson Slough to a less-than-significant level. Response to Comment 11-3 � The comment expresses the concern that the discharge of urban runoff through four 36-inch drain pipes into Emerson Slough would "undoubtedly"degrade water quality in the Emerson Slough area, which is planned for tidal wetland e restoration. The comment states that although Marsh Creek is also a water of the State and is home to many species, Marsh Creek already serves as a storm water conduit; and, discharging urban runof`into Marsh Creek would have a much lower impact than in Emerson Slough_ The comment suggests that the discharge of storm water runoff would degrade water duality in an area that would be designed as a tidal wetland and habitat area. .First, the DEIR need only analyze impacts to the baseline physical conditions that exist at the time the NOP is published. Because the future restoration project is not part of the baseline physical conditions, the project's effects on the restoration project need not be evaluated. Second, the comment appears to overlook the fact that the proposed project would fA` include a suite of storm water.Best Management Practices ("BMP's") designed to anticipate future standards to be imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In particular, inclusion of a water-quality pond in the project would markedly reduce the potential for pollutants to be mobilized from the site. In addition, the total storm water discharge from the project site is relatively small in terms of the overall hydraulics of Emerson Slough. Tidal ranges in the Slough are on the order of 3 feet/day, which suggests that the Slough has a tidal exchange in excess of 20,000 acre-feet/year. This compares to approximately 80 acre-feet annually that would originate from the Cypress Grove project, all of which would pass through the storm water pond prior to entering the Slough. The comment also states that Emerson Slough does not now receive appreciable polluted runoff. This statement does not accurately reflect existing conditions in Emerson Slough. Presently, two sites drain untreated directly to Emerson Slough through the Sellers Road ditch and outfall. Farming operations north l' of the Contra Costa Canal and adjacent to Emerson Slough have, over the years, contributed to the loading of a number of constituents of concern, particularly the loading of nitrates.' Moreover, the portion of Emerson Slough extending approximately 100 yards north of the existing outfall consists of mud flats and standing water during much of the year, and is choked with algae blooms and other vegetation that E CHAPTER 3 — COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-125 I ., FinVL OR CYPRESS GROVE PROJECT SEPTEmsEp 2003 presently makes this part of the slough inhospitable for many species, including sensitive species. The discharge of treated storm water from the proposed outfall, even under the cumulative impacts scenario, IS would likely enhance certain aspects of water quality and species habitat in this reach. The DEIR identifies the discharge of storm water to Emerson Slough as a potentially significant impact 4 (DEIR, 3.5-64 and 3.12-8 through 3.12-26). With certain mitigation measures--such as a 404 permit, water quality certification, and strearnbed alteration agreement--the DEIR concludes that the impacts from the project on Emerson Slough would be less-than-significant. (DEIR, 3.5-64, 3.12-19, 3.12-21, and 3.12- 26.) The comment does not provide any information contrary to this conclusion. Response to Comment 11-4 The comment nates that Emerson Slough does not commence at the terminus of f'Sellers Avenue as the DEIR appears to state; rather, a small drainage ditch commences at the terminus of Sellers .Avenue, which becomes Emerson Slough approximately 600 to the north. The comment expresses the concern that because only a small ditch exists at the terminus o,f'Sellers Avenue where project runoff would be discharged, it appears that sign f cant expansion of the drainage ditch would be required to accommodate the project rano The comment suggests that the DEIR does not accurately describe Emerson Slough's southern boundary. The applicant has expressed that they are not aware of any formal delineation of that boundary, but understand that DWR considers the actual limits of Emerson Slough to extend north from the Gilbert Home rather than from the channel that extends north from the terminus of Sellers Avenue. Nonetheless, the Draft EIR appropriately addresses potential impacts to this smaller channel as well as to Emerson Slough as defined by DWR. In addition, the comment suggests that the four 36-inch outfall pipes would require expansion and armoring of the channel leading to the Slough itself. The proposed outfall includes concrete hank stabilization materials as outlined in the DEIR (DEIR, Figure 3.12-8 and Page 3.5-17). Field observations carried out at the site by Balance Hydrologics, Inc., however, indicate that erosive velocities beyond the immediate location of the outfall would not occur. The storm water pend provides peak flown attenuation in addition to water-quality benefits. While the DEIR does cite the possibility of a combined discharge on the order of 140 cfs at the outfall, such a discharge would only occur during very large storm events and only with the entire build-out of the Cypress corridor. The large water-duality treatment volurne provided in the storm water pond would limit typical storm water discharge from the Cypress Grove project to roughly I ds, a very small value given the cross-sectional area of the channel running north from the end of Sellers Avenue. k ..i y Response to Comment 11-5 The comment expresses doubts that, during project construction, storm water discharges into Emerson Slough would be able to meet the water quality limitations described on page 3.5-59, section 3.5-11(b)of the DEIR. 77re comment states the belief that should stormwater be discharged into Marsh Creek, the standards on page 3.5-59 of the DEIR would be more easily met. While the comment does not appear to question the adequacy of the DEIR, the comment does express concern about the ability of the project to meet the turbidity and suspended sediment goals cited in the .1 ' DEIR. The storm water pond would be constructed as an initial element of the required Storm Water e, CHAPTER 3--COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-126 ..................... ........... ...... ............ ...... ......... F-INAL EIR CYPRESS GROVE PPOJECT SEPTEP,fSER 200.3 Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would include a large number of additional construction-phase BP's specifically designed to meet these goals. Specific performance goals for control of turbidity and suspended sediment (and the associated monitoring of runoff from the site) is intended to underscore the commitment to addressing potential construction-phase impacts. Response to Comment 11-6 The comment expresses the concern that the storm water system is designed and would be operated in a way that would optimize the removal of pollutants before the storm water is discharged to surface waters. The commenters note that they would hie to be able to review the design and operation plan for the storm water system. Although the comment does not specifically question the adequacy of the DEIR with respect to design of the storm water system, the storm water management strategy is outlined in more detail in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses, Cypress Grove Project prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. (February 2003). A copy of the, report will be forwarded to DWR for review, noting in particular that the report includes sections devoted to maintenance of the storm water pond and the surrounding levees. It should also be noted that the DEIR requires the development of a storm drain system maintenance program per mitigation measures 3.12-4 and 3.12-5. Response to Comment 11-7 The comment states that although pages 4-8 and 4-9 a the DEIR state that each �fl future component subdivision built in the drainage area would have its own discharge pipe at the ou�afl, it is unclear whether each subdivision would have its own detention pond or whether storm water from each subdivision would flow to the pond proposed for development as part of the Cypress Grove project. The comment seeks clarification on how many ponds would serve this project, as opposed to possible future projects contemplated under the cumulative impacts analysis for the four 36-inch outfall pipes at Emerson Slough. The Cypress Grove project is included within Area 1, which is depicted for reference purposes in Figure 3,12-10. The proposed storm water detention pond would only collect and treat storm water &orn xx Area I and outfall to one of the four 36-inch pipes. As the DEIR describes (DEIR, p. 4-9), when Areas 2 through 4 are developed in the future, those projects would require their own storm water collection and treatment system, and thus separate detention ponds for each Area. In addition, given that future development projects would be required to meet certain storm water quality and discharge limits, it is reasonable to assume that such limits would be achieved through similarly sized pond systems. It is important to note that Areas 2 through 4 are not proposed as part of the Cypress Grove development and thus, while those future development projects must be considered for cumulative effects analysis, the projects within Areas 2 through 4 need not be approved or mitigated by the Cypress Grove project applicant. Response to Comment 11-8 The comment expresses the concern that the DEIR text on page 3.12-14 states the detention pond would cover an area Of approximately 3.6 acres at the normal water surface elevation of 2.O while Figure 3.12-9 of the DEIR appears to indicate the pond size would be 2.0 acres. CHAPTER 3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-127 i RIVAL EIR CYPRESS GRO vE PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2003 i The pond as depicted in Figure 3.12-9 was intended for general planning purposes only, and did not show the proper scale. Nonetheless, the surface area of the pond is projected to be approximately 3.6 acres at an elevation of 2.0 feet as so indicated in the DEIR (DEIR, 3.12-14). Response to Comment 11-9 The comment notes that page 3.12-5 of the DEIR indicates that groundwater elevations along the northern edge of the project site have been found to persist at or above 2.f1 feet, which indicates that the pond would always contain water to i an elevation of approximately 2.O feet. The comment expresses the concern that because the stormwater pump would be designed to keep the normal surface water elevation of the pond at 2.0 feet, any stormwater added to the bond would activate the pump, thereby allowing limited time for water detention and subsequently, water quality. This comment expresses concern over the holding time in the pond and the resulting effectiveness in the pond's treatment of storm water. Normal water surface elevation would be maintained by using a water- quality pump that is markedly smaller than the larger storm water pumps that would be activated in very n large storm events. In all cases,the water-duality volume would be released from the pond over a period of 48 hours as reflected in the new guidelines being promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control ,x Boards,thus ensuring adequate treatment before discharge through the outfall pipeline. 7 Response to Comment 11-10 i,.. The comment asks if the pump would be designed to draw water-from below the surface at all water levels to prevent floating material from being pumped out. The intakes for the pumps would be designed to always draw from below the water surface specifically to " avoid discharging floatable material from the pond. Likewise, the pump intakes would be configured and `l screened to prevent the remobilization of sediments that collect in the pond itself. This, coupled with the pond dimensions and energy dissipation at the pond inlets, would lead to a very high sediment trap k efficiency for the proposed design. Response to Comment 11-11 The commenters state their confusion regarding teat on page 3.12-25 of the DEIR, end of second paragraph, which states "increases inflows generated from the development of the proposed project would be contained in the proposed drainage s j system."The commenters note that the detention pond may reduce peak flows but that would not do anything in regards f- to water treatment. The comment requests clarification regarding the statement at page 3.12-25 of the DEIR stating that the storm water flows would be contained in the proposed drainage system. This statement is not intended to 1 -duality or peak flow control, essentially of which is provided in the indicate storage capacity for water storm water pond. The intent of this statement was to note that the pipe system for the project has been designed with adequate capacity to convey all storms up to the 100-year event,without overland flow. ;'. CHAPTER 3--COMMENTS ANc) RESPONSES 3-128 FW AL EIR C'YPf?EES'Gpo vE PROJECT .SE,PTEA48ER 2003 Response to Comment 11-12 The comment expresses concern regarding the fallowing DEIR statement of page 3,12-19:'`though a total of 140 c,fs` q f' flow would be entering Emerson Slough, the velocity would still be limited to S fp$."The comment asis where the4 flow would be limited and what the velocity would be in the channel itseir As noted in Response to Comment 11-4, the estimated combined discharge of 140 cfs for the four pipes at the ultimate outfall would only occur during exceptionally large storm events and only after build-out of the Cypress corridor. This total flow would result from the discharge of roughly 35 cfs from all four outfallg pipes, which would result in an exit velocity of approximately 5 fps at the end of the pipe. The outfall design would quickly reduce this velocity, which would be lower in the channel leading North to the Slough. Hydraulic calculations based on field observations by Balance Hydrologics, Inc., shove that the velocity in the channel immediately north of the outfall would be unlikely to exceed 3 fps, even at low tide during very large storm events. y r a s CHAPTER 3—COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3-129 ' t: I I J �- &,ON, ORING r- A i r x 7:' kJ ;1 , f �''V', a FINAL E'IR CYPRESS GROVE f ROJECT SEPTEMBER 200.3 I. 4. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN f. INTRODUCTION Sermon 1 SO97 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a"mitigated negative declaration"or specified environmental findings related to environmental impact reports. i The following is the Mitigation Monitoring flan for the Cypress Grove project. The Plan includes a description of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and a compliance checklist. yf The project as approved includes mitigation measures. The intent of the Plan is to prescribe and enforce a means for properly and successfully implementing the mitigation measures as identified within. the Environmental Impact Report for this project. Unless otherwise noted, the cast of implementing the mitigation measures as prescribed by this Plan shall be funded by the applicant. COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST w, The mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the Environmental Impact Report for the Cypress Grove project prepared by the City of Oakley. This MMP is intended to be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this ,MMP were developed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed project. The Cypress Grove project Environmental Impact Report presents a detailed set of mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the lifetime of the project. Mitigation is defamed by CEQA as a measure which. i % Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 0 Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. ' • Rectifies the impact by repairing,rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment, :-4V • Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life j of the project. • Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures and permit conditions. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities as necessary and in-the-field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. cq s CHAPT E:R 4— MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN 4- t .......... .................... .......................... FL EIR CY,PREss GpovE PROJECT SEF7-EMBER 2003 Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by the City of Oakley. The table attached to this report identifies the mitigation measure, the monitoring action for the mitigation measure, the responsible party for the monitoring action, and timing of the monitoring action. The applicant will be responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures contained within the MMP. The City of Oakley will be responsible for ensuring compliance. During construction of the project, the City will assign an inspector who will be responsible for field monitoring of mitigation measure compliance. The inspector will report to the City's Planning and Building Department and will be thoroughly familiar with permit conditions and the MMP. In addition, the inspector will be familiar with construction contract requirements, construction schedules, standard construction practices, and mitigation techniques. In order to track the status of mitigation measure implementation, field-monitoring activities will be documented on compliance monitoring report worksheets. The time commitment of the inspector will vary depending on the intensity and location of construction. Aided by the attached table, the inspector will be responsible for the following activities: • On-site, day-to-day monitoring of construction activities. • Reviewing construction plans and equipment staging/access plans to ensure conformance with adopted mitigation measures. • Ensuring contractor knowledge of and compliance with the MMP. • Verifying the accuracy and adequacy of contract wording. • Having the authority to require correction of activities that violate mitigation measures. The inspector shall have the ability and authority to secure compliance with the MMP. • Acting in the role of contact for property owners or any other affected persons who wish to register observations of violations of project permit conditions or mitigation. Upon receiving any complaints, the inspector shall immediately contact the construction representative. The inspector shall be responsible for verifying any such observations and for developing any necessary corrective actions in consultation with the construction representative and the City of Oakley. • Obtaining assistance as necessary from technical experts in order to develop site- specific procedures for implementing the mitigation measures. • Maintaining a log of all significant interactions, violations of permit conditions or mitigation measures, and necessary corrective measures. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN The following table indicates the mitigation measure number, the impact the measure is designed to address, the measure text, the monitoring agency, implementation schedule, and an area for sign-off indicating compliance. :4 CHAPTER 4— MITIGATION MON]T ORING PLAN 4-2 ..................... bXXXXXXX.......... ....................................... ....................... ............................................................................... .................- ........................... ........... W C bA .� ho a� o u LQ 0 o a0 o °A z M � IBa Q o > �. c� � c z uC) Q u , z e,... O t3 ad 6i t� O N y 05 '7. `67' T3 •u [�... tf R,� C "tiy ° •"� •� y (yam ""'e 05 .; b 14 t s enc o u c �L v C) !'Zo 23 .� rpt a � o •� '� O � cC � of •� $ .� h � � � +� we c c, � � ° C� tz tv pry '.w 6J..• »w^,i uJ � „C,Vl W .� W � �yw, �. O ,� 05 S' f qy u � W'� 4:. �L'„L: y w �` O � fS. „��, 6 '•L� X11, �.. "`tl Q " Q cis Cc: t 3 .��,.a `` - Q c Q '� U-r l tom, » 15� In. i f � ,� �y �• rs cv en � � N rvi 'ch yrs rn rrf �e-: �ri•i { ........................ .......................... O Nt Lu w it 0 o UW m tn tv tw n -Z t3 tp, IL R S�L- '44 10 to 110, to z bt3 ik '13 a z ri 6-o Q t3 w 0.4 'R Z P, ........................... ... ............... . ............... ................................... ............................... ...........1.111,....... ...................................... ....................................... ........... t{7 ro 1 'c&c ��!+! � p d �+ ..3: p ..Ll of '....y Q•Y- G n V W ,yf � ad � .n $1 •wr'i p N W CL oo C1 to ts �' � ''"�� d v, n j� •" C � l.' n Q.. obi `9 � 4� � '2`, p w �C', N�+� �oJ � C u cz cl- 10 pos a� y � poli w -wC Q cA " C�13 O 'p t3 qW 6�7. Tom'.. p aha Sr •,,� 07 `:'S .a �+ 'fit p o' own • t.} ses m CIA S { N f i ct `.7 I uaim U in Eli a - b tl , Zj it r4 181 8 "CIO a • � I••.. .v b °: Q a: •a � to -�c � i LIT T''•S n"! trj 44 t�h � 3.w YL { t ?nM sr5 k.i i 1 Lu } y LQ LL" bO O Cp? u C7 two > tt4 s. z lb GL • CL bC1 0 41 l Cr q U U in Ca U n in U u b'J Cf tt p�i d as C7 at z IJ O uCIWZ h d to u tsy Ci,mos trS tl> 3 �-r t�+/t �.... .�„' [ `� 'S u •b '�€, w4 /��" «C as 4Vi -#" b ,�4 'a yb •U c y c cl yts © tr Q� Cl C] y.\ y ...0 SCS a^J •+CSa ..: y °L •�'" C' v 'b 4��,,5 ."�S "'' rw;� rry � c� y � � C --. b b b � C � !°' -r •-•. F4 -uEj � oy u •c � .d � �3 b � m � y � b p to b .0 � " 4.,y q„ v Cb cl- 1+4 +C�ri b 'y b "� v O Ga '� 80 d c� „"�,� ¢moi "` 3 C O ti 7 s �H+ ^y. 4. R„ o� v "' -D p. s. ••� �" C' mor w `b m u `C b W tz .�,� �.'-` nyi ?; or .w C ,r b ti O c6„ u ra.. •+y{�..z� y� w r}� — y � "C7 b H � 51�.. C u.e y � d U u � y C1 ��. �+.. v -L. R, `•..� w 6 b � 2'y„ /�� U f n a � ny F^i j u o �? tq � d � ..................... .............. ...... CO Ll, O 4i 0 .L6 (U u u C) �gz Z4 I I t trz, CL o -jz -,zi Ep 'I z ri t3 t3 ts -05 6 ti Z h—.N 13 i"I m ,l —. L2 tQ 1Z L 0 wl m wo 0 tn Z,!3 U, ti t3 Q ri 13 e ci, br3z; u t3 TZ lu - ri v v Ei .23 ts m t4z� Sa R. Q o 113 Z„--t v t Z -C 4 , ,, C- , — = ir t-I �5 "t$ S. :� t� C) 4a ed i . tiU rd d LA .................... ........................ .. .... ......... ................. LU 46 a, ° ca S =u b V p "'� h D p u �' .w' O b abs tl c •'� 3 o^S `03 c p �+ cam., `" C p� p �''j w w ''• C7 w u V o "' C ++ •b c ..., � n m ,b, c � E v � �; � c 'N c b a •�, � � � � o ° z x, ,�J � � O C G47 � y G u O O 51•.0 � � -:' -C .." d b � � I� 1 M �. '�. a 6 Oi b•.7�S a '"tl 4 w c .,, V bJ "'4 ,t,��"//1 .,a `a u wy a-Ca p� '•`"'r O t7 7. w L � C b "� LX' :30 Cl .,Ly 41 Qt Ef H 1;} "CS � G p •moi h Cw3, .. t..j �.1 N u �V a 6 '�4'� �•`' y �'1 r� a ti O s.. .p +�. � �,: cz c b b u V b c u p ay ¢� '•`� b `y +1 C xb„ C u c `tl ate. ` ^ w` uy � y a ..,,y c •„6a d ,b3 ni f r-r tt «L1 � ti ti u C "'b � ^L" H "'' 'a d V c C •� RY .'� ,� a a { �e* � � � ,� ,� �„ `C ..c a v b `ro F"r a L� a.. � a. •� b °u '� b o 3 a,`y n `y �' y`u69 i • • f 4 i ....................... ......... ................................. ............ Z3 t 4Z4 '81 m CZ E to 0 0 8 A U- El gz :z z Z3 SO a iti '78 e '2 , Z- L, Q�l C4- -tz 'tn Ll ............................... ........................ ........ ..... ....................................................... ............... ...... ............ .................. ................... ................ ............ �t -1 U 121� O 0 O }O „ ? I a Y<.1 � � � Ss• tl `a' a � � �, ,,� ,� .� �3 tea+ .s"'3 "� '�' ryy� :V +"u �� 'may. (,Z'vn . C�� !'�t � (yj C1. O u Cy u. � CK7.w Y � N � '" .S:d � u � � � •v+. r.- i/+y��y'c�� {{�� w y� W ,fit, °' W "A tl QQ55 jl/� y •G V W T �. tlL5 D LA ........................................................................................ .......... LLIJ (it In- D4 v bA I,np Ax 79 72 z t3 & "9 t3 -C E4 Q) 4i z =Z "Zo cz t3 u R.u V O o Cwt u h bQ 4t tit .................. ..— ........................ ................. ....... ............. ......................... ...............................................................''I'll,I....... l "1 r7 y O U ^D cr ta rZ V Iz - C yy p `a„ W (��,,..� `O13 _ Wcs v t tf1 6> u � CS obi �,�� � C AL e:,:1 � fi.i iw +a r3 C7 CZ t+, UW 4 ''a. � C � � �" ��, C1.""• y c,, � µ � O '4L' ,"' ✓1 a ..0 G qy "", t5 v: � as a '�+� '� '�J ".a oui .� �.+ '� 4 'd': � � � � ar �': t7U � ," � ".`.moi) d ,:q O "�' ,� "C'f G `„3 •' � � � � � {,st S *. G` � Gy: of a "TI r. u~ Ki k a� .F .......... .............................-... ............................................ LU LL, nn ; En nn tl Pl� 4t. Cc Lu -C t3 �3 tra ca 12 w Q13 —Z-4 16 -� . r- %, `V Q. IL' Z3 IQ -W V W ow w EL Lry u1 bA ink L;l ......................... .............................. .................. ............................ :T, 1 Eta tr cc cj uj +o V) a ., u 'tY nt c i . t-+-"•,S � ru y L.3 a� � '^ y`3 a ••� e � � � t� -51 �- w 0) p ....y ty .i,•� CSS Ca ..y •�.. CS., Cl., "� br n7 � y t3 - $ M+i u:t •b C c y p ww, Cb t„3 b `•-•y+Yl p w . o 4 4? w b F ` (� � �yL.2# ^� a� �. W r,�,��o y -� a"w o � .w., � •v �. +. :,, "'� •� c", t�� F' �.. w, � •� "� Kw �., c"3 Cba " O L7 � y "'•�, 'Cf' � u � � ..L! ,w � �W W �: i i"" � � � -fur• o� c � y "�y � u w � � "�` � ct. � "y�2 •"tl "CS o ami m � F- .t;..`s 4{ y,a u sa b ;¢ of b `u W.a w � C C u v°y •�, � w,� "w' � C � `�� il- �` � FY: '� SSS b � �^" p oD u «� 9� �„ � as �.• O ar ^'� � p ty7,� t7 L: b � y..mr.4 int ►moi S t6 i .ff Q� .a 1 un gg 23 la ja W/� T1 4� ' • R^i t w.. QO Cl- w 0 C7 � Z o lu � CJ u J � c/` t.t �t1r ,SJ U EC Sw 0 � 1 w ^r C ty u b .:i O y G -zz G 0 �� u � tz `u N �,," G " �„' O o Ci O q "J C o w 'c o " o G as o v ti Wa ti c ° �„ 0 .a G V w E E .0 • • • �n cs .a G .n U E cit E-v M i 'j >v rr� •i 0 rn Lz u r4 to ZZ CL w � k ry �,..5 er u ..a � f`°" .°; `:—• O •q Chi„ eu "' � w t"'� � q � $ p � M � LY "'n ro 78 . `� oc3i "tl `' m i u crt u� s 8 ni C�7 ^t ani CTJ G nt ,si ..+ w 9 C v as .- p L"5 t. n lz� Sl J ed v _ „� e ❑ w � c "a� � � a c, � � � cao � -� 4-y � a ,«ni w' �,, '" •ro � a � a � b 1 �m ` c l�j W �j pp ON EA vz a .W Ei raj I G. a b 'v 'ts u a � � v � � .•° � U r�i �✓�` O G � C `A � p �",� � oai y � C � � b � ,d n�'4 � ..b b � '� .. +� V tSf a � G.' c� Cyf ,"C,� Cy R.. c.,.,�� "a .•C� C C LTj C .,a CS N � 0�t V .f i ° b obis -^, '�' b �� C 3 ❑ a 3 -c ==. S 4; 3 U" .4-j ,.:; `� m d �S,..y C y w �r �r � p u �w v � M � y b O y u '� � �N Q• �'L7 ¢`� � :�,,, �`J +an t" W ol �a o� 'b Er +. '� �4..� 4�a, ..a b a~,..ra .a .a `�"-�.i� «. � o �., • un M r-i i I Q U > Q o � bA � i i•n C� zn ci Li o to C � mw ti 13 4 Caa 5 4 �" C ! fi7 Ly {7 w> G u C1 C7 t it w cs ' i {"� 4 e.� " �3� •� aha 'ac q c�j `� e � 40 Q,? ^+: +r 61 "': `"`"t., w .,C CJ yyj w ••. -�` 41 to 43 o w � �, .w p'S 4 6 � y '�. 4�i tU '^q `"•" �' '.� C`' ^•v '�''i ••: ,.C1 � b 1 k � r � � y •� to � .,� w ,b � ,� � � � r� � q�''j �.' �u,, '`'' � � � � { Ro a w • ri p w Ir "b `b w O (y7 "1 � 4 � �" � *�•' `" U +a cid ,.� t1 Z tib '"`•. �..} Li " Y s ryryryyyy� .F�ii el i •C7 yt( yyyV��, e•v C � v c. aci Sri p i v 7 . ro a� U t i I ta 1,13 q G.'t7 ts ota Cl. a � RS � h ~ 'M1 v 4^. u � J �. a u � ••�, u d ti N b 01 a W 5 c ,, o $ `"`� c: c `a d a `cis c °' ~ •o c b °' G y *a °� W 4 r yam` C" •�Vi -. .a u d a" d a `� lZI u a3 c a c - v a12Dy q^ y c o a Q f � l� '� � ti � d c °c�' .a a `r' a y a o c y '� a w ,,,•, � �.7 d" q b a .""`�., D O O c � tiy � � � u o� b A.. L1.. � ,,,oi ^-• -t� LS, � b % o m a., +„ v C Q i�.1 !E- y y b E .- V u ') i zz b CILp µ a ..n ,y LA Lry l i a b/J LA Ln F N Z ��,4 l� � a� •dam{ cr "fie U ami P17 Z n rs v 'G 'c v m 'µ jtd lz trt M M O + w :3 .0 j ca �. tz O '"1 O y wa .�Y, N O "'C3 +.s tl C ��", •«.7 (.' ri» Z cai o u eA I— N = �"` '«� Yl w, ,� `w'�s �' q � � V � '+fir, "w�.s °' •o �" y � n .� ,� c � ✓ "���rv•, *M 5µ s.. 4 ti �.a � �-+ '4 u t." 4t CY „� � S.�" t•,) �i V C .pa as O o7 p p C7 *•i M 41 bz ..s i 00 `ed a p C.` O "✓ (� Cid. O G, 3 a i/++��t -21 W t,,�� 'd `�'3 d 6 --• ��.. •-t ria 4 '✓ 7�.. -t> i'• •~.. �" �,} r.. ,.0 v ,RC1 �,� A of ..w CS �. t._. cr w( t►� C t� ++ u p O Cj �� d ° t % u w kn ° of ' " 0.. CL Q +�. W+i s. C7 as Fr {"Sr '� na t7tz 'fit ',y 'ia "n G� ❑ �. O b 1z +„•,... -phi 'fir` AS-i cz � .,�,� � tt ty} •'� °��' y, � �`, "'Ci � ta,. LJ�'' v w -C N Cy a � °� m R., � p� " � �-- �,� " t N G +°a "�°' -ate.. w p -6 �'^+ W t"" "�.> J :zk ! k i`» M I U ..0 � u L, tU 61 �Q u 4 �. 0 N p p,, a p' a so d fD a tx ztl � ' �w p`s `obi G��. y �� O +'C� C.., ,.�.a �,,,, wN� � d •� ^w DD •,r O ry .. 1 F"'' �` �+ � .� �••. �sa. ""'t�.. �, w �.. `^ � ry '`er' o � rs y;, '' �t j "� o ;r,.' c S � tesla '�, � � .s:+ n "' °'•' .� � `' " � µ O .w.+ e �' v � � * • d n7 u w t:7 -t7 n in '� c• � '� �� ° may' � o o cY 's r w" d U t b. r. � y � c to i -tea. -� a °' d a ., � a ;; o � .. � • •�, � '� C tlck- CT. I[01 .9;wul .4 " t�I1 ia a C " ..v u � a � � � of ,� � h aha h C � � C +� +. Z. ul �j r:t4 d Er ua ^Y ca a ° m a n a a. %i o � �' y � m d - .� -c ° d cy y to e " .ate` " o d' iLoY, L. q LQ obi :..vim„ ��0 "- C) Q tj ..a 3�"•+ Cj `CS «C� C..) "••, Q'i mi u'1 u ..... h +� F1.e L1.'Cx CS O 1 }b \4D a ° .tv a v V z O .m u sz L .Z. _ m � r `Y' i w C1 0 W. W WM w 4- G C tr 0 5— `\,, � "�a•a �` .w +�'.a � ria W C7 � w �Sy p„ �` t,....�� ,w r. O .�-. � ~a.�, r. p v Tl o d'� }^�{ M� b1 ,� y� d f L} �y Yg o� � �� y jy �+ p pl y O � t'f�, "'pia u`7. ,..� T✓� ��, .�s v NJi cl .. v bD v }, D , a t 1 4.<v3 i i . w LQ ! i t1 Lij I try ' Ll- oz i ria QL U41 ' cL. z v j nK a~ v 0 Ji t. O Cko oa w w 42 v C -� C u p i CL.• .. `rte, o" a' o`'�i '� {✓ iii .:� � d C -a,,, a ,� � �. rs � � ;v � �.. a ., b ,;� •-. � � a C u OSl, Q�... •.0 C Ci Q /�-. C p„ 'C a b C •,� lu O1 C ,� '-1,Cum, ` rp � C b y p O r.r �I b r' � � u r`. C C � O i4 ,-d.�� VG' O `'• "V j y a".y u � �i rti` � ,,,� � 'mss v u � ^tt b `•-- b ..a `•. `�` p u o $ � � ��. Ca ►+ti a O G .•C y r., •,. -.. C SSFf- '� (� � � •,•-. C:t.. ,tv '.' L1.' °� or `'•-' °� "" �"'. "`)` --�•-. q. � � � Ri''1•.-C "b a O � tpa .7 .b ,,, � U-) b t,u O al "� G/1 y�j��,, "u 6 y ,. C" „����" `C ,� C1 t,+ p•..ai i a 6 «C O moi"„ a +Oi ,. `+• /G.� V C+ •tx7 Q b ti 'r 4.� {~' t �'r 4w" b s" y.a N O -N ."rV •ny p r=,y � •fC `b •" � � � ar � `� a••� "C " •uC d •C o`i �a; '�'fi C y y a�``3 "� C � u b � C:. C CL •'� y V-„yt,:.� .aa ,.y (L' ►��t '� "� b '�'' 'D" W O C s -C -y. at C O C + O v •' "' v �'' tl.l N rcr � 'a � ayr C C n � .•gyp "b � O � �' �'�^� O W 5 -d b cv a 3 z LQ i O � I tom. rrj I i"S tF' 5 d v7 d w w •� .:.i tu b!J 0 � J � Cl. � t J Gam.,� •� ,� i J C.. �yL SS,U 6 w Ln to rd N � 00 y M M N eC d ",A �, ..� •� a `� � �..,may � � � �' � m �. .t5 L o c aia � � �q,+ ;'� u � � aJ �a F, n w tn' v� G., � ,w„ w c.�� � �S v � •a y w � tl� "+- 6+ �j � t7 •a „`a'� �i emit v. ..a4 � �.� tip".. � w � �-* d. �... � i�#, 1� w .• `v oi"i L� �.+ � � L1„ v HCl. iw.l �a � CS CS.. � CS may„` � � rpa ua "� +�,.,J•,it � 5�, � ':,.� 6 y *' °w' ,�.� � a w °�"' p� aef 3 3xs � � • V3to v' s � '"'ed y., tai. cs a � m � .�' '� p ° u cn • 3 a) #b 44 'rl S may.+ j i a:-d 1CD "LJ 4� O bu C) N cn t Dc as �G O cJ tio ro Z ,.j y b CY .v O id 4� 4 ❑ d C i c+.. � � 0... .� Lei "b C .. rp y/c {.J LR -C y y, cn y ccs u O tl cl 0 b to 0 0 y rss ^d 63 " d v ci O v a C -2 i , „�` GSA � y, v ,� ° � � � � � � 'a� � •..°.•,' � -V `° � ° � �- a 94. rd b 4 G � i uLD E - ;; r«I ' M r y G. N 5 V � � a t>z tr �0 � o QCo tkis.•� t� „� +t7 •"Ci � �i w ty cn w 10) i `> q4 s um 5i ts 12. 1 �` ;y" 'CX5 tl }' A L3 v CS - a7 .« 'ice o, •w . d O w. a re) c s �.v :a- %n V `" �`, � { yam„ u '; :.`"`V. `� .�-� �+, ,D w' '+� ... N �" � ..0 O � w � O .•amu""'' �' �G' V OU ai ca 0 ta � rri TO,, U 4CL. �J LU �a eA tU L) r. CC 43 3 � zz R " Z oyi `n•. "b •a. p b b 'v" b C v v tl -G q F b L.., t,,— N to C~ v O . b v 6 b u as i y►` v v y G, v u ,,�,� n n ++ .t� b+a p v � tl �^'S, "u b 'i. O � C v R„pq � t. ,{ �"` .r O "1,�" a t5 4 S b •."'.. A` p� .ba � � n u Ca 'L "' CS .r O yV � �n �i 0� Z " G. �1 p S� ^br vb+ O -L —b trtl2 'z -av E z aR„ vC uqvi` at r- 41"t,v, ..b p C.? ry -•C v ••C "y p� v y O n O 's a s o ti -c �...� b .� -a � u n cs •••.. n C. Z .a V M .� m +., d —, � o � n {J t CT M 1 I � U LJ � O O it > u C4 < i ' 4. i has ec, a�aa �, "a ° o Cd o� a .,..yu,r 'w+�l . V N w.�b .•,, ,G•°" C"+ y�,i y�j n� V r.Ll "'aa ,j „y b •y «� "t� b �G 0 { $3 > p K *' � is ai S „q � ski "'tY +� «; C4 as m tl ��s•t1 +7i 'y _ `✓ jfy ,_ ray, �•" f,4 ri `� W {'. c '1'•' CS Iv �.: t•�+l ``� �•' t7 U� �'' 'ti "i �+ ts+•fF f•C;,i` O sb.. M.. Ch ^� +ai a q ZG Cyd �C ..G is.. 'yf' ow21 It (. Uo s o 0.. .c' tz -" gym, %� 0 ! �! 44 Chi 4 w a ti W �i C - eu y •G 00 �sss � IV ti cz rn LJI ea 23 vv It! d p e 6? p f. 4 00 D `"' m tv Et cr i "V -o a c to IL 0 Olo w y `Cy r• EL • as v1 p c C. ..0 .,C `" •=: y .•�� y p e4i' c� d '4 a 0 C b C p 12L Ir Iz .,.., "'c1 �y Y+i � �.--�� t,+,,,+_ t� � b � y„y ti �� � E'•.+ 0 6 ."�, y Vim"`. u `� � �y � �..,-.. y � -.y �y co ni "`" >� t,,,C_ u � C N '.,,w � s.e •V 0 _c� C ..� � t3 tl p ,Y N i°1. � `.✓~ C """ t,,,b_ i .,,r „� obi C P' � •'C7 w `b p '.' "C..s F.y tL y C tl R C $ L •E„7 C b t""r d o 0 6 *� •. a to u �, 7E "-v7 Q v • i i eC `� CIO o o e U O O C Otn <.a i it 14 tw > ' •-� cy. � � o cs wv d :w cs w O rVIS :� csVLo n. � Nw r t en M 4 Oil am �iC3U b' of3 id Nr+ eH t> d• Gp "d f �m SCI - Nt0 O O t14 (..� i••1 �.Z. csS �.. U C.1 Cl = _ tiis _ o� 4 r*+ d u •.i b � � L" T1 car (� ' L/5 W4 9t Ei •» y w y •a"'; `�''` ,� 4 a� m tl c+a 0., n •� ''' .a-h 'tt I.rZ nc .'. St • • • • • • • ` b o c 8 `c :� '`� d fn Ns i O � � 1 C7 ii � A t. �•' off CrA � 41 y ,.q "' na b � w� +qi d q :.� CxL p � .f,S C -•. � u `�•., O � p ��, ,�. oma � .• iw L"` C w C„ sW h �""7 y CSS t�6� ,+.�„ *.� c� ^q u Wt �• G.. 4i "q `+� C7 wq ^„� O lz v "..' 6 t� .q _ qtj w a q aso 9 CA m m o3 Ca 4 su q� w u o3 c C ty~ d •'? v "b u h '`• a ...Ca r,,yy_ 3 ,e, id �s „C ny fit' ��+t �y^t � q � „W ••moi � _h ,.,,,� C�"7 CS � r+' """U w'� "QTj `"'y` 4." � q iq, � ��". .O � �i.a � IZ }— +"'� 'E a `sa cis n c a ° ' . cy, cs ci„ t crj j en � r tv It 1ra It ° c Qest, ata ° CN LJ 4-d y v «s w > CEJu 1 .! 41O j, U :: M4 > > 0 U U tot a. o 5— t r-,- a G- r,,— T'3 23 U t o ° ° c e C "07 3 zs —,J N rl 4N CS t t w CL- 16 z M� .- — — �_,- 13 1 R. E -ii -- 1; C ::z �-tl -ti C t Ei t Z,, "Z I la a C. 8t, 7. ou ME .5 "�:-: -a v t Q G 0 ZZ -S 'z t3 V LZI ta ra -Z ;E u t Ivi H It -c Et ed O 4W -TJ CL x OU ......................... ........................... ................................................. ........................ ...................................... ..... ...... ............................ ...................................1.11,.............. .........................I.''..,........ 4 i � w SZ to,) '.. ° > �. 34 lz CL Ei CY y •w •�•.4� � 5. wY; faJ y tT ca ' b d tu to `t7 kilyy b C a *- + It v Al � b Au rs IZ '+ .,y 43 •C •w v C! w6" 6t ` p'f t✓j "b { Q„ CD rj •� h . b d b b {� b G Gs C �, �- o y Q. �7 " C •wa f o •w a. � u Ln eli u ti 00 cm v i v Ln Ly O Sr N rA o vs o <) {' i -49 tj o � 1 O � V � pi �y � tai tl � ..•. q „� !� �J �✓ p � 6 Z`p"f C � � p .L` u .,,�,, u -C O tl u S b F Q 4> tl u b "" U p epi c'Q a m rtli c o °' "y c n E� m -to 'Z rz Ld v u - ❑ a tl - O t i ttt FIs �r O tSs fi 0 a� t IS w � a �c.:. �'"�"' �C» .•cj � � � Nw � �u °i+ d r3 �U' � o O. "Li '� G` v .� `"""1� ,G- Fa u C i',_.R� �'q y� w�L"� � „� G '� C��. .b w� � Y J ,w,a �✓ as as ""� -%4 � °'� '.� (� �c. � � �w •v w r �, p,, � `� � .i w �c5 � t„? y ,� � � � �'' P.. y � Y� :r{ `✓ O R• w ar tl iY 4 C� � M .ta` ,fin O Gw c.3+ �. fl 0 N in �t L O v 4-1 a N tM .- 'et U G � h � � z w EY: i V a z c .$ �3 m GS � z t • 3 APPENDICES a i ij s i I t At `Fsr i� _*;, a 2.s"ai" tom}"- ,s"' z .,'< •+*�L 3w � s S x"a '�'�� � ,. n G�Y �4------ `�'`yvv{ > .YS�I wr 3;,A �r-- �r j t-- APPENDIX A r f r � K . �xke,�`,t w 0 RN GUM44, 4 � Z "s KLEINFELDER An employee owned company File No.: 13314.301 August 28, 2003 Ms. Cindy Gnos, AICP Randy Planning &Management, Inc. r ; 1401 Halyard Drive, Suite 120 1 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Subject: Responses to Select Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments Cypress Grove Project i 4l Oakley, California {7{ Dear Ms. Gnos: INTRODUCTION At the applicants request, we submit the following comprehensive responses select comments l presented by Contra Costa Water District (CCVJM) and the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Flood Control District) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The comments were prepared by Luhdorff and Scalmanini, Consulting Engineers (L&S) in a Memorandum dated July 1, 2003, CCWD, and by the blood Control ,.. District, in a letter dated July 3, 2001 These responses assess existing groundwater conditions and fLirther clarify that the hydraulic t � connection between the project site, local groundwater basin, and the Contra Costa Canal should not result in any potentially significant impacts not already addressed in the DEIR. DISCUSSION The groundwater elevations at the site have been monitored for approximately 1 year. The data included for the following evaluation was collected from three piezometers (PZ-1, PZ-2, and PZ- 3) from June 2002 to July 2003. PZ-1 and PZ-2 are located in the northwest and north-central portions of the site respectively, whereas PZ-3 is located near the southern side of the central portion of the site. In general, the groundwater elevations throughout the site ranged from 0.13 feet (PZ-2) to 6.34 (PZ-3) during the period of time being assessed, and most recently on July 21, 2003, ranged from 1,55 feet to 2.12 feet. , 1 The highest monthly groundwater elevations in monitoring locations PZ-1 and PZ-2 have been shown to range from 0.93 feet during the mid portion of the year (April through June 2002) to 3.61 feet during the latter portion or very early portion of the year (December 2002 through January 2003). The range of the highest noted monthly groundwater elevations from monitoring location PZ-3 ranged from 2.61 feet in September 2002 to 6.34 in December 2002. s 13314.301!ST0311,442' Page 1 of 8 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. August 28,2003 KLEiNEELDER 2825 East Myrtle Street,Stockton,CA 95205-4794 (209)948-1345 (209)948-0621 fax KLEINFELDE€Z F. As noted (in the Memorandum from L&S) from field boring data collected by Kleinfelder, E shallow groundwater exists on the subject site. Seasonal fluctuations have been noted with high groundwater recorded between the months of December 2002 and January 2003 and low '; groundwater recorded between the months of April and June 2002. The groundwater flow direction has been calculated to be northeast. The groundwater elevations diminish in that general direction and are not anticipated to drop below approximately 1 foot msl (the._surface :"'" water elevation at Big Break). The groundwater gradient calculated on July 21, 2003 was 0.001 . ft./ft. The groundwater data collected to date does not suggest an alteration of the regional groundwater movement in the area of the site due to fluctuating flow conditions within the canal at the site or tidal fluctuations. Recent data supplied by the CCWD (see attached letter dated August 7, 2003, and Interoffice Memorandum dated August 5, 2003) portrays what the CCWD characterized as a hydraulic connection between the Contra Costa Canal and groundwater in the vicinity of the Cypress Grove Project. The memo stated that water level fluctuations in the canal and CCWD 1 monitoring well (depicted over a 7-day period) were a result of tidal influences, and showed the two were hydraulically connected. Although it is true that the nature of an unlined canal and shallow groundwater are expected to be hydraulically connected, the CCWD fails to address the water use demand on the canal during the same 7-day period. The fluctuations in water levels are likely a combination of tidal effects and water use in the canal. If tides were the goverling body driving the fluctuations, one might expect groundwater fluctuations to display higher magnitudes versus the canal water. At any point where the canal water level is greater than file groundwater, the canal can be considered to be a recharge source to the system. No data used in �. this instance shows a reversal of gradient, although a limited groundwater mound may be seen near the source of recharge (canal). In the event that the canal water level is lower versus the groundwater, it may be.a receiving water with the existing groundwater quality moving through the site and originating upgradient, which would not be subject to site impacts given the Nationwide Urban Run Off Program results presented further in this letter. This data is consistent with the data discussed in more detail below and clarifies that the Canal would not significantly affect groundwater levels at the project site. For the purpose of further characterizing the pre-existing groundwater quality at the site, four groundwater samples we collected from the site on July 21, 2002, and submitted for a general suite of laboratory analysis. The following groundwater sample results will serve as a baseline groundwater quality assessment. The results of the laboratory analysis of the four groundwater samples are shown Ln the following table: Anal1le Units Location PZ-1 Location PZ-2 I Location PL-3 Location PZ-4 Total Alkalinity 1 rn /l 620 1,300 1,100 740 H S.U. 7.49 7.30 7.28 7.50 Total Dissolved solids m /I 1,100 E 5,800 25,000 5,200 Specific Conductance amhos/cm 940 6,700 27,000 6,700 Total Coliform MPNT/100m1 ND ND ND ND Nitrate as NO3 m /1 14 14 ND NT Nitrite as NO2 Ma/1 ND ND ND ND 13314.E01 /sT031,442 Page 2 of 8 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder,Inc. August 28,2003 _._....................................................._............_..... - ..................................................................................................................................................... _.... - KLEINFELDER Analyte Units Location PZ-1 Location PZ-2 Location P 3 Location PZ-4 Nitrate/Nitrate as Nitrogen mg/'i 3.1 3.i ND ND , Chloride m /l 290 1,100 7,400 1,200 Sodium mg1l 180 740 5,800 1,200 Calcium m /l 120 600 530 270 c; Sulfate MB/1 160 2,400 1,900 1,900 Ma esium m /l 68 .400 1,100 240 Iron rngll 2.9 ND 2.2 670 a Couper mg/l_ ND ND 0.028 0.015 Man anese n /l 1.0 1.5 2.5 69 Potassium m /l 3.0 3.3 3.1 1 4.5 Aluminum m /l 3.6 NO 4.7 6.4 Antimony mg/l ND ND ND ND Arsenic rn l ND .014 0.026 0.012 Barium mall 0.62 0.15 0.13 0.14 Be llium m /l ND ND 0.001 ND Boron m /l 2 5.5 30 7.6 Cadmium m /l ND 0.001 0.001 ND 7,1- Chrormum mg/1 ND ND ND 0.012 d Cyanide mg/1 ND ND ND ND t Fluoride m /l ND 3.8 ND 3.6 Lead m /l ND ND 0.012 0.004 Mere m /l ND ND ND ND 's Nickel m /l ND ND 0.041 C.OS I Thallium m /l 0.002 0.001 ND ND s Selenium rn /l ND 0.007 0.015 0.005 Silver m /1 N'D ND ND ND MBAs rn /l ND lv'D ND ND Zinc M211 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.27 3 mg/1=milligrams per liter umhos/cm=micromhos per centimeter ` s NDN=Most Probable Number S.U. =Standard Unit N-D=Not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit. ' MEAS =Methyl Blue Active Substance(foaming agent) It was stated in the L&.S Memorandum that the CCWD has found evidence that groundwater seepage may be a source of degradation to the water in the canal in the vicinity of the site for certain hydraulic conditions and that seepage from the canal could occur, resulting in interaction between the canal and groundwater and vice versa. With the anticipated groundwater/canal interaction, the above noted concentrations represent the existing condition as a result of the interaction between shallow groundwater and the canal, to the extent there is any. What is more, the project proposes to include a clay liner in the stormwater pond that would hydraulically isolate the pond from the groundwater table. As such, the basin will be hydraulically disconnected from the local groundwater regime, and thus the CCWI7 canal. } Urban runoff is planned to be directed to the detention basin, and additionally, the detention basin is planned to be constructed during the early phases of construction as an integral component of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 133I4.EOI /ST03L442 Page 3 of 8 Copyright 2003 K3einfelder,Inc. August 28,2003 tF \ \ � . . . . . . � .�. . . . �� k ( [ ! N § [ [ D�[ / \} RECORD OF WATER .LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Job Number: �/ // . / Site: A a,&5 By: } Well ' Measuring • »easuring DerMu we« »2. Water Level Number Date Time Device/k=ing Point (M.E, from M.P. Elevation Elevation Rem rd .. � . g. e-9 STT. • \ « � /} � . . \} � � � ! � � . . . . . . . . . . . � � . . . C) | � � ; � I y . . . . . . . . 2/ ! - - � —�— KLEINFELDER Table 1 (PZ-1) Cypress Grove Water Elevations k- -1 .21 G 12.21 17.67 1.71 617/2002 7.17 12.21 17.6. 1.71 6/15/2002 7.27 12.21 17.67 1.81 6/2112002 7.21 12.21 17.67 1.75 71112002 7.39 12.21 17.67 1.93 7/7/2002 7.26 12.21 17.67 1.80 7/15/2002 7.27 ( 12.21 17.67 1.81 �..; 7/2112002 7.45 12.21 17.67 1.99 8/1/2002 7.66 12.21 17.67 2.20 817/2002 7.66 12.21 17.67 2.20 8/15/2002 7.86 12.21 17.67 2.40 8121/2002 7.85 12.21 17,67 2,39 9/112002 7.97 12.21 17.67 2.51 91712002 7.89 12.21 . 17.67 2.43 9/15/2002 7.80 12.21 17.67 2.34 912112002 7.72 12.21 17.67 2.26 11 10/1/22002 7.78 12.21 17.67 2.32 1017/2002 7.62 12.21 17.67 2.16 10/15/2002 7.57 12.21 17.67 2.11 10/21/2002 7.55 12.21 17.67 2.09 11/112002 7.55 12.21 17.67 2.09 11/712002 1 7.93 12.21 17.67 2.47 11/15/2002 7.99 12.21 17.67 2.53 11/2112002 7.94 12.21 17.67 2.46 12/1/2002 7.81 12.21 17.67 2,35 12/7/2002 8.06 1221 17,67 2.60 12/15/2002 8.20 12.21 17.67 2.74 12/21/2002 8.88 12.21 17.67 3.42 1/1/2003 9.07 12.21 17.67 3.61 1/712003 9.03 12.21 17.67 1 3.57 1/15/2003 8.96 12.21 17.67 3.50 1/21/2003 8.95 12.21 17.67 3.49 2/112003 8.75 12.21 17.67 3.29 217/2003 8.56 12.21 17.67 3.10 211512002 8.64 12.21 17.67 3.18 2121/2003 8.31 12.21 17.67 2.85 3/1/2003 8.20 12.21 17.67 2.74 317!2003 7.88 12.21 17.67 '2.42 3/1512003 7.88 12.21 17.67 2.42 3121/2003 7.59 12.21 17.67 2.13 t - 4/112003 7.19 12.21 17.67 1.73 417/2003 6.24 12.21 17.57 0.78 4110/2003 6.12 12.21 17.67 0.66 4/1512003 7.76 12.21 17.67 2.30 112112003 7.90 12.21 17.67 3.50 2.32 � 5/1/2003 7.70 i 2.21 17.67 517/2003 7.82 12:21 17,67 2.42 5/15/2003 7.53 12.21 M17.672.31 .07 5/21/2003 7.33 12.21 .87 6/112003 7.18 12.21 .72 617 2003 7.42 12.21 .96 6/1512003 7,64 12.21 .18 6/2112003 7.71 12.21 .25 7/112003 7.77 12.21 .31 717/2003 7.62 12.21 .16 7/1512003 7.50 12.2117.67 I 2.12 7/2112003 7.45 12.21 i 7.67 ! Zb0 13314.EOi!ST03EO50 "'- Copyright 2003 Kleinfeider,Inc. page 1 of 1 August 20,2003 k4 KLEiNFELDER Table 2(PZ-2) Cypress grove Water Elevations .An 61312002 8.38 10.18 17.00 1.56 6/712002 8.22 10.18 17.00 1,40 6115/2002 8.35 10.18 17.00 1.53 612112002 8.10 10.18 17.00 1.28 7/112002 t 8.13 10.18 17.00 1.31 71712002 8.02 120.18 17,00 1.20 711512002 8.14 10.18 17.00 1.32 7121/2002 8.07 1018 17,00 1.25 81112002 8.46 10,18 1 17.00 1 1.64 . 81712002 8.58 10.18 17.00 1.76 8115/2002 8.57 10.18 17.00 1.75 8121/2002 8.70 10.18 17.00 1.88 f 91112002 8.59 10.18 17.00 1.77 9(1120(32 8.66 10,18 17.00 1.84 911512002 8.65 10.18 17.00 1.83 912112002 8.64 10.18 17.00 1.82 101112002 8.78 10.18 17.00 1.96 10/712002 8.61 10.1 B 17.00 1.79 10/1512002 8.63 10.18 17.00 1.81 1012112002 8.57 10.18 17.00 1.75 11/1/2002 8.60 10.18 17.00 1,78 1117/2002 8.66 10.18 17,00 1.84 11115/2002 8.72 10.18 17.00 1.90 1112112002 8.86 10.18 17,00 1.84 1211/20028.88 10.18 17.00 1.86 121712002 8.82 10.18 17.00 2.00 1211512002 8.79 10.18 17.00 1.97 12/21/2002 9.64 10.18 17.00 I 2.82 1/112003 10.01 10.18 17.00 3.19 11712003 10.05 10.18 17.00 3.23 1115/2003 I 9.77 10.18 17.00 2.95 112112003 9.77 10.18 17.00 2.95 21112003 9.58 10.18 i7.00 2.76 21712003 9.27 10.18 17.00 2.45 211512002 9.47 10.18 1 17.00 2.65 212112003 9.19 10.18 17.00 2.37 31112003 9.13 10.18 17.00 2.31 3/712003 8.58 10.18 17.00' 1.78 3115/2003 8.80 10.18 17.00 1.78 3/2112003 8.16 10.18 17.00 1.34 q- 4/112003 41112003 7.75 10.18 17.00 0.93 41712003 7.04 10.18 17.00 0.22 411012003 6.95 10,18 17.00 0.13 1 4/1512003 8.65 10.18 17.00 1.83 1/21/2003 8.75 10.18 17.00 2.959 51112003 8.81 10.18 17.00 1.99 51712003 8.97 10.18 17.00 2.15 511512003 8.70 10.18 17.00 1.96 5121/2003 8.79 100 B 17.00 1.97 61112003 8.79 10.18 17.00 1.97 6/712003 8.86 10.18 17.00 2.04 611512003 . 8.76 10.18 17.00 1.94 812112003 8.72 10.18 17.00 1.90 } 711/2003 8.64 10.18 17.00 1.82 71712003 8.52 10A8 8 17.00 1.69 711512003 € 8.55 10.18 17.00 1.73 712112003 8.41 10.18 17.00 1.59 1 i:F f 13314.531/ST034Q54 Page 1 of 1 Copyright 2003 Kleinfeldw,Inc. August 20,2003 KLEINFELDER Table 3{PZ-3} WaterGrove VY eater Elevattons �....,� ;: M' .jyp ..1.. :.:t 3 t W{,1'•M* { i d i f�7 '��S`''�• ab'Si, 6/312002 9.18 9.30 15.08 3.40 �3 6/712002 9.05 9.30 15.08 3.27 611512002 8.80 9.30 15.08 3.02 6121/2002 810 9.30 15.08 2.92 7/112002 8.63 9.30 15.08 2.88 7/712002 8.45 3.30 15.08 2.67 711512002 8.31 9.30 15.08 2.53 7/21/2002 8.24 9.30 15.08 2.46 8/112002 8.35 9.30 15.08 2.57 81712002 8.41 9.30 15.08 2.63 8/15/2002 8.42 9.30 15.08 2.64 i 8121/2002 8.45 9.30 15.08 2.67 9/112002 8.37 9.30 15.08 2.59 9/712002 8.38 9.30 15.08 2.60 911512002 8.39 9.30 15.08 2.61 9/2112002 8.36 9.30 15.08 2.58 10/112002 8.47 9.30 15.08 2.69 10/7/2002 8.37 9.30 15.08 2.59 10/15/2002 8.46 9.30 15.08 2.68 1012112002 8.49 9.30 15.08 2,71 1111/2002 1 8.43 9.30 15.08 2.65 111712002 8.66 9.30 15.08 2.88 1111512002 9.07 9.30 15.08 3.29 11121/2002 9.07 9.30 15,08 3.29 12/112002 8.93 9.30 15.08 3.15 121712002 9.02 9.30 15.08 3.24 12/1512002 9.89 9.30 15.08 4.11 120/2002 12.12 9.30 15.08 6.34 11112003 11.74 9.30 15.08 5.96 1/7/2003 11.40 9.30 15.08 5.62 } 1115/2003 11.31 9.30 15.08 5.53 112112003 i 10.80 9.30 15.08 5.02 21112003 10.46 9.30 15.08 4.68 ms 217/2003 9.92 9.30 15.08 4.14 211512002 10.44 9.30 15.08 4.66 212112003 9 95 9.30 15.08 4.17 31112003 9.66 9.30 15.08 3.88 3!712003 9.16 9.30 15.08 3.38 311512003 9.06 9.30 15.08 3.28 3/2112003 8.31 9.30 15.08 2.53 41112003 9.74 9.30 15.08 3.96 41712003 9.48 9.30 15.08 3.70 4/1012003 9.51 9.30 15.08 3.73 4115/2003 9.42 9.30 15.08 3:64 112112003 9.40 9.30 15.08 5.02 5/112003 9.25 9.30 15.08 3.47 5(712003 1 9,23 9.30 15.08 3.45 511512003 9.09 i 9.30 15.08 3.31 512112003 9.05 9.30 15.08 3.27 6/1/2003 8.87 9.30 15.08 3.09 6712003 8.76 9.30 1 15.08 2.98 6115/2003 8.69 9.30 15.08 2.91 6/2112003 8.60 9.30 15.08 2.82 7/112003 8.42 9.30 15.08 2.64 } 7/712003 8.33 9.30 15.08 2.55 J 7/1512003 8.18 9.30 15.08 2.40 7/21/2003 8.08 9.30 15.08 2.30 r. $,< 13314.001 7 ST03E050 Page 1 of 1 Copyright 2003 Kieinfeidar,inc. August 20,2003 + ^ M t C t N a> ci Cl. 0 N �s oP cc H IM EMU- E+0/6 MU-L+V/V G/9 cU�ry/9/9 r�t gy.Axl"l q5t.,t r t qt tw q`is.n 0 o- dr` t Fg t y t fv {c qqN��,, +s' t , t'f r-.LO/ZZ/9 �,f''+�'tr,r''N4! r I k9xl Set"Ydi ityyf�4 s x'S,J'y}r(Ztr�'r Alt". w t 'iYv �7�hn�, ,1�.,4 "l�t�' 11s .rR 1�w :p r sa' ltyv cdylY In p .,,,, «tA`+,•ytT"vy_ i Fly �•( t f li+i i,�. t p,,7 ,L9spt ,,,,t 0.0/6191' eH.W„ ( 1t �i .A Rog ,q.ny,� ,�r55� Yep,'; tr f1 Tt"s'#i S�ft51 t{+�.a4� aN� a u Yf 666 t n ryry�� "E 4f��., e vet i'Y z' Pbk"� d •,t S � � �.#'�.�1�`� a Grt wri .0 t{ :Y R "�t��Yq tq ..i � w X�,y��,�)to-k a s�ilJ�,• iVY�ei'!I Y.t >7 �. 1 YHA' r� try'l. 7�i.1 rs�. ( �v 4!• t t tii�ll.Z/Z L �� � .iv'!� � r r r^ 1! 4i x { `"y M. ���+��i %1 h y ! g , ri 8010£/6 � t— 6 n fi• �t4A�{ .�y 4E �+ C019 IS 1 iiia 80216 v, ZO/61/Z1 a ZO/9/Z 1 Z016Z111 F- 1 , pp •r fS � I Y a ry ZO/ii.,,YZ/O1 a ` � w .r A �'. a� tfit AFyatry �v ZO/O1/O L t. Z019Z/6 .�� � �� r • >, ,� +t �� �. � a ZO/Z 116 � id 3n: tr f �•;L a >FZ " �' � et �;': J ZO/6Z/9 ZO/91/8 .� 5� �Ffl�'we a4�''�i I �+,��'^ v• S r�I� N t .a D , a v4at� y s 20/1/9 wi c `�� i � �6 P `�'�Yh��' n *`Ep ak "t Acv ,� a �'tN,+ eq •M• r i> ZO/tt��O 61L Z01Vl L O 'd ZO/ClZ/9 m 'CD .. .r #a>t Ja�r�.W,.:. {`.w :. .-'r,'f.,.;;,f .sxzu !rK tir,: •c*� .r.!N .r• y� n "'7x'7w.,«.r.u,et7,� $,�;<: .7 © 7: ZO1J1 C7 C5 'J G7 C� O CD C7 �r ¢ C7 tC� C7 tt3 O !t7 O O CV CY) N N <— .— O CS W s l (ISW `;sal) U01}en613 ,cn 3 rz a SPY, � 1, 1V p N CO/17�IZ C0/0C/9 (�o/((''��6/9(� aA4�r�''VI*t"l J }RyS 4 YL +AFI fMt P l F 711 5 .A t 7 Ciw�T. o/Z laf+ 'RsrkX� ,afS,ta 4'Y'�tt,J tl .{hFaf, h 7 G /9 r�l�/c W, Stti}�firh., L lJ!V L/9 4. �� ('� 7 C O/L L/t7 yt y P �o bh n ws rr " ix e 1 PL /o///Y).{, Z.r y '. E x r Y 6 0 1 + A. a s•V"'�' s5 .h 6� t u'� 4 u e; u�,,r /ro/V y.�.Z1G/[� L <r r ppe- .. - 'Z tr'1k'C hntt r ! 7 y r r�, R •,' Y 1'' d .4 I. CO/L F/G pt ^y ; t g,� 1 rti",4yy, �l y' *ae}i�k yr , ky iJ 1°}fc It ti} ryay "ray �'}�' fd � oIvZIZ i 4.n ss �St '.j tr. r g r-yfa f 4yr zrtkF?} :J11 i 1.cy! 4 i y�,r3 jr�!�;• "' Ft g..e'��r�!�1r'.a' YY'��.y, J r�igr,' ,,,�+"'..�r` �1',,�w.xyN a�sM-3h�: �U/0 �/Z � �r Sry h rc 'RX .�k: `+r' c {/ I 2 :sr{s � �ql'_I Gof LZ/Y w k'Lf N rl itntFFtlJIMa co/c } ` § ,�.k}�� JJ� r.+Y t + d7» c W^^t♦�fra"�+Yi t � n ' 1" by `t i�r+& ,t` G of G d1 GLS r s r4�za y t } {vF a �RH9 z x s 7 lr�a�t}����} +'' f2 c �q4 u "^' h�{ i �� �� V ✓`� �'rr� t j6 � �. �y 5 f�( y; 77 F 'g s" ��}`' Zo/oC/Z 4e Q1 rtsm rt R� ; �7 rJmtl �{ t+ t Zo/9 G/Z �3 r. ? a» i A w� Ke:` Zo/Z/Z s�I, ZV�/CS ry�/p } E" 6i d ..... zo/Lz/Q� i_t Zo/L/Q L ZO/616 Zo/9z/9 ZV/ /O l� Z i 9 U •�lL' t . M1,, � •rn 4Y. V Qr1 L t d �5 , 2�c, � s � q� T ke yll Zo/6Z/L I ,g+xK ll rSix lr � "'^� �e y � �a � �gppp°a+"" j� LkF,i 1 t 6 , Zo19�/L � 1.7.1 area 4 tl � r ,f4 r r cue Ez ry tzt 2 fi9Yv+ "� L ti da�J. trr �4�„rMi wtr'..F3� ta+� {rty ..1�6 �`�, rl+r C ZoWL Zo/L�/9 C7 LLQ a c5 ..r, ZO/B/9 02 Ln InLU p OSLU `4881) 7107;7:n8f3 { m I j ° C'4d m& � m F- �s Irl ��^'"°�5`9 ,s A's��L T L} rS�lrM�S: ➢ ''t -t R L � 35'5 4d i+l ' GVIV 011_ • ( l�clr ( MOM d nit i .+4 f! f tl�,{SL r� Iti Y y, �y tt5��1 � i,L '' !f}f hd � w ` �y t5 r �♦ [� CO/97 /9 t o l !, co/z/9 (( ;e tr iaiMy'a"+.5 ,jft, f x"Wiu ` yi4 -r t ply . ,yr r ''''Yap�t_ > r ftp. t Y+jwl §),,y� y�..,-. LO/C./9 k. + u5 k�l S 4 } `< ��t� y ��1�'1Si iy K1 fY�R�:t.Lynt} 14 � 1!� t wk� 4 ; Futyy' IN{5 CO/6 Y/� �+(/7[•. i srz� fi%�„ �, r eh� � � �a �sa'�F�a ° R� �v �'b{ }�4'� y°��'�'t� d xu 2'r �f f• 7. �i t � i� +�, v e 5 i 5• al $�.,. .at rrhi 6 + J d.u$.0 y� L< Fr�, £O/LZ/t, IG,� { ut I,}v ✓ v 1 �, '�#6 j �-+P r,, :rtF �S :f J1t {'d p 9 1 ro ul r � 'Al� ar�> al s . COIL/t7 Y �i f , pfs Iv( r 1 t �l 1� a�Yj sit a y.,7/fes. &7 �4 C lath ya;,tr°jar rc, }'�s�rY1A r t� {� b �6� .,y�N�,�{c 1 r•�ra•" s 4 tiai l ti L©/Y C.!G t4uF� it f/ 1 f C. J' �t} {�Ye pt ry �U/t V Zl j S. �' f y�5��5�{�qC� i a. ,� K•y, M >�. 4 .�t 2'e�',pu&�J yL���rtr�r'$�re��Nml`�i� �„•,} y�r•} ,y� ���y �i: co/o GVIV L/z (� � w 3 "ri`rt, �.. R - �` 5".�'"'yb ox ✓'� �M �4 � � a� -W14�t}��. �"'< (w 8O/LZ/CL 6 ,y f rigfi ti 1gr ry�� t �5O/ �/ CS ;t drr ZO/0£/6l d�J r i r � rl W W j 'fir T w d AL'�:.6 jv1�8` ,`Y f.a 51yi.; •A 1' v_A i y t i Ya yfy'I-•' ZO/9�/z Y gg((�� 77 ZO/Z/Z C tl _G ZO/2!/L G i ZO/tl/l ZO/�Z/V� C 3{v 1 m kxR 9 dA�. S fi f a'ri7 t r t�.�Y !t6 tN'iutu. �s `i ZGQ/L./0 ZO/EZ/6 ZO/6/6 ZO/9res•�z/2 "y1,��7"•� ',��v T4 'PSR; z' �# ZO/Z l/e ,� p n t c, �,�'.1 ~, � ,x- Al 7t sayd7u rK�;-1 Hyl' ,. ZO/6Z/L � , t rs4n d } dt;yr tuc�a.�t�tr ,%pw _ ZO/6/L s. t } !'fi `r•�•t'� ' GC .'" �,s�T+ ZO/L Y I fiJ' p ' z �i. .+tu.:.c nk.�W.:., ,ii+. r•....a lyf,a 5':�wa'T3. `..,- Yti�E£Y��r•o-, �u 4 0 ZO/£/9 Y L6 �r M q C' C tv r o t- o w r (Isw °;aa;) UO[;enar3 �r ' t. M h M p T f 1 SSequoia � 819 Striker Avenue,Suite B a qu�,,,y!i s Sacram iA S?58-U 9 f b) ^; PAX(916)9Z l-01 oo Analytical www.sequoialabs.com I` i [ July 25 , 2003 Joe Zilles Kleinfelder- Stockton . 2825 East Myrtle Street 4` Stockton, CA 95205 RE: Cypress Grove Work Order: 5307452 Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 07121/03. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, r. Ron Chew QA Manager!Client Services Representative l<` CA E(AP Certificate Number 1624 f ?m t Page 1 of 20 : i y��t 819 Str(ker Avenue,Suite 6 Sequoia Sacramento, CA 921-9600 A' '�{ FAX(9 161921-011 t?()_ nalytical '�'.SECtttOid{dF35.u3?Yl�:.... ---•-..�.�.�,..et i Kieirfetder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove 5307452 r 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.E01 Reported. Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zi11es 07125/03 15:50 ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES Sample ED Laboratory TD Matrix Date Sampled Date Received 27231-PZ I 5307452-01 Water 07/21/03 10:04 07/21/03 IS:15 . u 27232-PZ2 5307452-02 Water 07/21/03 I1:06 07121/0315:15 27233-PZ3 5307452-03 Water 07/21/0313:45 0712'_/03315:15 27234-PZ4 5307452-04 Water 07/21/0312:10 07/2110315:15 I, E Sequoia Analytical-Sacramento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.Unless otherwise stated,results are reported on a wet weight basis. 1- This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. 4 t Page 2 of 20 t819 Striker Avenue,Suite 8 S e qu U 1 a Sacra-ento,CA 95834 (916)921-9600 fry ' Analytical W N!W (' 161921-.corn, w,.S@'qitClla ldt'!S.CQt'n rw 1 Kleinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove 5307452 2525 Bast Myrtle Street Project Number: I3314.E01 Reported: Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles 07/25/03 15:50 Anions by EPA Method 300.0 Sequoia Analytical-Morgan Hill Reporting Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes 27231-PZI (S307452-01)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 10:04 Received:07/21/03 15:15 Chloride 290 100 m8/i 100 3G24032 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 300.0 Fluoride ND 1.0 10 Nitrate as NO3 14 5.O07/23/03" 07/23/03 HT-04 Nitrite as NO2 ND 5.0 " HT-04 Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen 3.1 2.0 " " " HT-04 Sulfate as SO4 160 50 100 07/23/03 " 27232-PZ2(5307452-02)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 11:06 Received:07/21/03 15:15 Chloride 1100 100 mg/l 100 3024032 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 300.0 Fluoride 3.8 1.0 10 „ 07/23/03 " Nitrate as NO3 14 5.0 Nitrite as NO2 ND 5.0 Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen 3.1 2.0 Sulfate as SO4 2400 50 100 07/23/03 " 27233-PZ3(5307452-03)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 13:45 Received: 07/21/03 15:15 Chloride 7400 100 mgA 100 3G24032 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 300.0 Fluoride ND 1.0 10 " 07/23/03 " Nitrate as NO3 ND 5.0 Nitrite as NO2 ND 5.0 Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen ND 2.0 " Sulfate as SO4 9200 50 100 27234-PZ4(S307452-04)Water Sampled:07/21/03 12:10 Received:07/21/03 15:15 Chloride 1200 100 mg/i 100 3024032 07/23103 07/23/03 EPA 300.0 t'. Fluoride 3.6 1.0 10 „ " 07/23/03 „ R Nitrate as NO3 ND 5.0 Nitrite as NO2 ND 5.0 Nitrate!Nitrite-Nitrogen ND 2.0 Sulfate as SO4 1900 50 100 " I .t. i c ; .l Sequoia Analytical-Sacramento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated, results are reported on a wet weight basis. This analytical report must be reproducer)ir its entirety. L } Page 3 of 20 t� 819 Striker Avenue,Suite Sequoia Sacramento, 9 9Z 4 (9 16)9z1-sc96� FAX(916)921-01 C4: Analytical ,vw,vsequoiatabs.co4 i, Kieinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove 5307452 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.EOI Reported: 1 i Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilies 07/25103 15:50Mz` Dissolved Metals by EPA 2b0 Series Methods ` Sequoia Analytical - Petaluma Reporting l Analyte Resuit Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes3 27231-PZ1 (5307452-01)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 10:04 Received: 07/21/03 15:15 f f Silver ND 7.0 ug/1 i 3070492 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 f" Aluminum 3600 200 11„ Arsenic ND 5.0 07/24/03 EPA 200.8 Boron 2000 100 " „ 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 3. . Barium 620 10 „ " „ Beryllium ND Calcium 120000 i000 Cadmium ND 0.50 „ 07/24/03 EPA 200.8 1 Chromium ND 10 „ „ 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 Copper ND 10 " 11„ Iron 2900 100 Mercury ND 0.20 " 3070474 07/23/03 07/24/03 EPA 245.1 § Potassium 3000 2500 3070492 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 Magnesium 68000 500 „ " " . Manganese 1000 i Sodium 180000 500 Nickel ND 30 Lead ND 3.0 ° 07/24/03 EPA 200.8 Antimony ND 5.0 " " t" Selenium ND 5.0 Thallium 2.1 1.0 Zinc 350 20 „ 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 27232-PZ2(S307452-02)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 11:06 Received: 07/21/03 15:15 Silver ND 7.0 ug/I i 3070492 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 Aluminum ND 200 Arsenic 14 5.0 " " " 07/24/03 EPA 200.8 Boron 5500 100 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 Barium 150 10 Beryllium ND 1.0 Calcium 600000 50000 50 07/24/03 Cadmium 1.3 0.50 I 07/24/03 EPA 200.8 Chromium ND 10 07/23/03 EPA 200.741 Copper ND lo „ iron ND 100 Mercury ND 0.20 3070474 07/23/03 07/24/03 EPA 245.1 Potassium 3300 2500 3070492 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 Magnesium 400000 500 „ " - Manganese 1500 10 " Sodium 740000 25000 „ 50 1. .007/24/03 t' Sequoia Analytical- Sacramento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in nccordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated,results are reported on a wet weight basis. > This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. ?age 4 Or2L t� B 19 Striker Avenue,Suite.8 Sequoia Sacramento,CA 95834 (916)921-%oo w Analytical wwwFAX921-C11fr0 .sequocc{ucrlalabs.cotrr, t Project: Klesrrfelder-Stockton 1 Cypress Grove S307452 y 2825 fast Myrtle Street �jProect Number: 13314/01 Reported: Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles 07/25/03 25:50 Dissolved Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods Sequoia Analytical - Petaluma }r Reporting; Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes Analyte Result s�ki 27" 3'-PZ2(5307452-02)Water Sampled:07/21/03 11.06 Received:07/21103 15:15 f Nickel ND 30 ug/I 1 3070492 07/23103 07123/03 EPA 200.7 ND 3,0 07124103 EPA 200.5 Lead Antimony ND 5.0 Selenium 6.9 5.0 w' Thallium 1.2 1.0 Zinc 300 20 " " 07123/03 EPA 200.7 2 7233-PZ3(5307452-03)Water Sampled:07/21/03 13.45 Received:07121/03 15:15 Silver Nil 7.0 ug/1 1 3070492 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 J Aluminum 4700 200 11 .. Arsenic 26 5.0 07/24/03 EPA 200.5 Boron 30000 100 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 Barium 130 10 " .Beryllium 1.1 1.0 I.. Calcium 530000 2000 1.0 0.50 07/24103 EPA 200.5 Cadmium „ Chromium ND 10 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 Copper 28 10 Iran „ 2 n 2200 100 „ it Mercury ND 0.20 3070474 07/23/03 07/24/03 EPA 245.1 n Potassium 3100 2500 ' 3070492 07/23103 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 Magnesium 1100000 25,000 " a0 „ 07124/03 „ Manganese 2500 10 l 07/23/03 Sodium 5800400 25000 " 50 07/24/03 Nickel 41 30 1 07/23/03 " I.. Lead 12 3.0 07/24/03 EPA 200.8 Antimony ND 5.0 „ Selenium 15 5.0 Thallium ND 1.0 Zinc 250 20 " 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 tl ' f Seyl101a Analytical-Sacramento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of t, custody document, Unless otherwise stated, results are reported on a wet weight basis. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. c � 1 Page 5 of 20 Sp i 819 Striker Avenue.Suite r equOla Sacram{91 , A 958,3 Analytical FX equo�, s.c www.sequplalabs.coj �44 1 Kleinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove 5307452 t 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.01 Reported: e Stockton CA, 95205 Project IAanager: Joe Zilles 07/25/03 15:50 Dissolved Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods Sequoia Analytical -Petaluma Reporting f Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analvz�d Method 1 p Notes: '« 27234-PZ4(5307452-04)Water Sampled:07/21103 12:10 Received:07/21/03 15:15 fir 1. Siiver ND 7.0 ug/i t 3070492 07123/03 07/23103 EPA 200.7 Aluminum 6400 200 « « Arsenic 12 5.0 07/24/03 . EPA 200.8 Boron 7600 100 „ „ 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 ." Barium 140 10 „ „ 11 '^ I Beryllium ND 1.0 Calcium 270000 1000 « « 07. 4143 EFA 200.8 „~< Cadmium IIID O.SO /2 Chromium 12 10 1. 07123/03 EPA 200.7 Copper 15 i0 « Iron 6700 IOD Mercury ND 0.20 ” 3070474 07/23/03 07/24103 EPA 245.1 X; Potassium 4500 2500 11 3070492 07/23/03 07/23103 EPA 200.7 j Magnesium 240000 500 °' ° Manganese 6900 10 Sodium 1200000 25000 50 07/24/03 Nickel 51 30 07/23/03 Lead 4.9 3.0 « " 07124/03 1wr A 200.8 Antimony ND 5.0 „ « ' Selenium 5.8 5.0 « „ Thallium N D 1.0 „ Zinc 270 20 „ 07/23/03 EPA 200.7 tt G i Sequoia Analytical-Sacramento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated, results are reported on a wet weight basis. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. Page 6 of 20 r 819 Striker Avenue,Suite$ Sequoia Sacramento,cA 95834 N r } yr-�r� ;91 G)921-960(7 1 Analytical FAX equo labs.100 1 y www.sequolalabs.corn e sp ' Kleinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove S307452 2325 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.E01 Reported: 9, Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles_ 07/25/03 15:50 ! Conventional Cheitnis<ry Parameters by APHAJEPA Methods Sequoia Analytical Petaluma Reporting o' Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notesi i 27231-PZ1 (5307452-01)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 10:04 Received:07/21/03 15:15 !' Cyanide(total) ND 0.0050 mg/l 1 3070487 07/24103 07/24/03 EPA 335.2 27232-PZ2 (5307452-02)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 11:06 Received: 07121/03 15:15 h Cyanide(total) ND 0.0050 mg/1 1 3070487 07/24/03 07/24/03 EPA 335.2 } 27233-PZ3 (S307452-03)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 13:45 Received: 07121/03 15:15 Cyanide(total) 0.0060 0.0050 mg/I 1 3070487 07/24/03 07/24/03 EPA 335.2 27234-PZ4(S307452-04)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 12:10 Received: 07/21/03 15:15 Cyanide(total) ND 0.0050 mg/I 1 3070487 07/24/03 07/24/03 EPA 335.2 , 3 91 I I, _ t t ,l I SettttOla Analytical-53CIaITteritO The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of ( custody document. Unless otherwise stated, results are reported on a wet weight basis. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. ,.i i Page 7 of 20 z� L 819 Striker Avenue,Suite Sequoia Sacrarnento,CA 95834 (9 16)9Z 1-960)0 FAX(915)921-0 i{ .. Analytical www.sequoiatlabs.cotr, Kleinfelder-Stock-ton Project: Cypress Grave 5307452 l 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.EOI Repartedi Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles 07/25/03 15:50 Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA Methods " Sequoia Analytical- Sacramento Reporting }; i P.naiyfe Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes/ 27231-PZI (5307452-01)Water Sampled:07121/03 10:04 Received:07121103 15:15 Tota)Alkalinity 620 5.0 mg11 1 3070310 07124tO3 07/24/03 SM 403 t° Bicarbonate Alkalinity 620 5.0 Carbonate Alkalinity ND 5.0 Hydroxide Alkalinity ND 5.0 " -Y Methylene Blue Active Substances ND 0.050 11 1. 3070295 07/23103 07/23/03 EPA 425.1 *3 pH 7.49 1.00 pH Units 3070293 07122/03 07/22/03 EPA 150.1 HT-04 Total Dissolved Solids 1100 5.O mg/l 3070304 07/22/03 07/24/03 EPA 160.1 27232-PZ2 (5307452-02)Water Sampled:07;21/03 11:06 Received:07/21103 15:15 1 Total Alkalinity 1300 5.0 mgrl 1 3070310 07/24/03 07/24103 SM 403 Bicarbonate AIkalinity 1300 5.0 " Carbonate Alkalinity ND 5.0 Hydroxide Alkalinity ND 5.0 Methyiene Blue Active Substances ND 0.050 " 3070295 07123/03 07/23/03 EPA 425.1 pH 7.30 1.00 pH Units 3070293 07/22103 07/22/03 EPA 150.1 1-IT.04 ,;. Total Dissolved Solids 5800 5.0 mg/l " 3070304 07/22/03 07/24103 EPA 160.1, 2723 -PZ3(5307452-03)Water Sampled:07/21/03 13:45 Received: 07/22/03 15;15 Total Alkalinity 1000 5.0 mgii 1 3070310 07/24/03 07/24/03 SM 403 Bicarbonate Alkalinity 1000 5.0 " (, Carbonate Alkalinity ND 5.0 " Hydroxide Alkalinity ND 5.0 Methylene Blue Active Substances ND 0.050 3070295 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 425.: . , pH 7.28 1.00 pI:Units " 3070293 07122/03 07/22/03 EPA i50.1 H T-04 Total Dissolved Solids 25000 5.0 mgll " 3070304 07122/03 07/24/03 EPA 160.1 t { f' 7` Sequoia Analytical -Sacramento ne results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated,resulrs are reported on a wet weight basis. i This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. f Page 8 of 8 t 9 Striker Avenue,Suite 8 Sequoia Sacramento,c:A 95834 Analytical 1cal w (916)921-96003 r t nalytiFAX(916)92i-i10 Aww,segttoiatabs.cflM f I Kleinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove 5307452 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.E01 Reported: Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles 07/25/03 15:50 Conventional Chemistry Parameters by APHA/EPA Methods Sequoia Analytical -Sacramento Reporting Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes _ 27234-PZ4(5307452-04)Water Sampled:07/21/03 12:10 Received: 07/21/03 15:15 Total Alkalinity 740 5.0 mg/l 1 3070310 07/24/03 07/24103 SM 403 Yn. Bicarbonate Alkalinity 740 5.0 " Carbonate Alkalinity ND 5.0 " Hydroxide Alkalinity ND 5-.0 ,. Methylene glue Active Substances ND 0.050 3070295 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 425.1 PH 7.50 1.00 pH Units 3070243 07/22/03 07/22/03 EPA 150.1 FIT-04 Total Dissolved Solid`s 5200 5.0 mg/i 3070304 07/22/03 07/24/03 EPA 160.1 Yom} i I i f i i Sequoia Analytical- Sacramento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated,results are reported on a wet weight basis. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. i Page 9 of 20 ��Striker SuiteSequoia Sacramento,CA 95fi3W (916)921-96W , ► Analytical FAX(916)92,-01� . wwek.sequolalabs.cor Kleinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove S307452 ; t 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.E01 Reporters: Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles 07/25/03 15:50 Physical Parameters by APHAIASTM/EPA Methods Sequoia Analytical - Sacramento Reporting $ (Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Natcs 27231-PZI (5307452-01)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 10:04 Received:07/21/03 15:15 Specific Conductivity @ 25 C 940 10 umhos/cm 1 3070294 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 120.1 HT-04 27232-PZ2(5307452-02)Water Sampled:07/21/03 11:06 Received:07/21/03 15:15 r, Specific Conductivity @ 25 C 6700 10 umhos/cm 1 3070294 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 120.1 HT-04 ' 27233-PZ3(5307452-03)Water Sampled:07/21/03 13:45 Received:07/21/03 15:15 v Specific Conductivity @ 25 C 27000 10 umhos/cm 1 3070294 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 120.1 HT-04 27234-PZ4(S307452-04)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 12:10 Received: 07/21/03 15:15 Specific Conductivity @ 25 C 6700 10 umhos/cm 3070294 07/23/03 07/23/03 EPA 120.1 HT-04 E t; t s i. �w 1N ty{t� z Y j Sequoia Analytical-'Sac7amento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance%vith the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated,results are reported on a wet weight basis. a' This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. Page 10 of 20 �1 �y $19 Striker Avenue,Suite 8 qu\,..1 i a Sacramento,CA(51 C)921-5)(> Analytical FAX��6?9ZI-0100 m www.s uolaiabs.corn Kleinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove S307452 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.E01 Reported: Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles 07/25/03 15:50 i. Microbiological Pararn-eters,'by APHA Standard Methods Sequoia Analytical - Sacramento r y Reporting r 3 Analyte Result Limit Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed :M=ethodNotes 27231-PZ1 (5307452-01)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 10:04 Received: 07/21/03 15:15 Total Coliforms ND 2.0MPN/100 ml 1 3070296 07/22/03 07/24/03 SM 9221B 13-15,HT-05 27232-PZ2 (S307452-02)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 11:06 Received: 07/21/03 15:15 -1 Total Coliforms ND 2.0MPN/100 ml 1 3070296 07/22/03 07/24/03 SM 9221B 8-i5,HT-03 27233-PZ3(5307452-03)Water Sampled: 07/21/03 13:45 Received: 07/21/03 15:15 Total Coliforms ND 2.0MPN/100 ml 1 3070296 07/22/03 07/24/03 SM 9221E B-15,}-?T-o5 ]27234-PZ4(5307452-04)Water Sampled: 07121/03 12:10 Received: 07121/0315:15 u Total Coliforms ND 2.0MPN/i00 ml 1 3070296 07/22/03 07/24/03 SM 9221B B-15,HT-05 i ,t " i J 'i Sequoia Analytical- JacialrieIltc7 The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stated,results are reported on a wet weight basis. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. i Page I I of 20 £t 19 Striker Avenue.Suite . ' Seqoia Sacramento,91 , 92,95 3 Analytical FAX(916)921-c; wwu".seciuolatabs.at� Kleinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove S307452 2825 East Myrtle Street ProjectNumber: 13314/01 Reported: ` 07/25/03'15:50 �3 Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles r Anions by EPA Method 300:0--Quality Control 4 Sequoia Analytical -Morgan Dill Repotting Spike Source %REC RPD ; Anaiytc Result Limit Units level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes 3 Batch 3G24032-General Preparation i Blank(3G24032-13LKI) Prepared&Analyzed:07/22/03 l" Chloride ND 1.0 mgl: Fluoride ND 0.10 Nitrate as NO3 ND 0.50 Nitrate,'Nitrite-Nitrogen ND 0.20 " Nitrite as NO2 ND 0.50 Sulfate as SO4 ND 0.50 „ Laboratory Control Sample(3G24032-BSI) Prepared&Analyzed:07/22/03 Chloride 9.83 1.0 mg/l 10.0 98.3 93-1110 `' Fluoride 4.83 0.10 5.00 96.6 90-110 (` Nitrate as NO3 9.69 O.50 " 10.0 96.9 90-i 10 ,. Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen 3.57 0.20 " 3.78 94.4 90-i 10 Nitrite as NO2 4.52 0.50 5.00 90.4 90-i la Sulfate as SO4 9.37 0.50 10.0 93.7 90-110 € Matrix Spike(3G2403?-MSI Source:MMGOS22-01 Prepared&Analyzed:07/22/03 1, Chloride 133 10 mg,1 100 32 10, 73-143 Fluoride 46.8 1.0 50.0 0.37 92.9 83-121 Nitrate as NO3 225 5.0 100 110 115 80-124 NitratefNitrite-Nitrogen 64.0 2.0 37.8 26 101 80-120 Nitrite as NO2 43.3 5.0 50.0 ND 86.6 78-124 Sulfate as SO4 152 5.0 100 51 101 72-140 Matrix Spike Dup(3G24032-1VMSDI Source:MMG0522-01 _ Prepared&Analyzed:07/22/03 _ Chloride 136 10 mgll laa 32 104 73-143 2.23 10 t Fluoride 47.3 11.0 50.0 0.37 93.9 83-121 1.06 10 Nitrate as NO3 225 5.0 l0a 110 115 80-124 0.00 l o Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen 64.2 2.0 " 337.8 26 101 80-120 0.312 20 lc : Nitrite as NO2 44.0 5.0 50.0 ND 88.0 78-124 1.60 10 Sulfate as SO4 148 5.0 " 100 51 97.0 72-140 267 10 tr: t. i Sequoia Analytical-Sacramento. The results in this report apply to the.samples analysed in accordance with the chain of W custody document. unless otherwise stated,results are reported on a wet weight basis, ?Itis analytical report must be reproduced in its enrirety, t Page 12 of 20 819 Striker Avenue,Suite i sequoia 5aerarrt 916 CA 9583, -960( {s1�}9zi-96IX w Analytical FAX eciuo ala s,c v ,.s�u©ialabx.�rr Kleinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove 5307452 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13324.E01 Reported: Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: Joe Zilles 07!25/03 15:50 Dissolved Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods Quality Control Sequoia Analytical- Petaluma Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD ` Analyte Result Limit units Level Result %R:EC Limits RPD limit Notes Batch 3070474 -EPA 245/7470A Blank(3070474-BLK1) PreDared:07/23%03 Analyzed:07124/03 Mercury ND 0.20 ug/1 e. Laboratory Control Sample(3070474-BS2) Prepared:07/23/03 Analyzed:07/24/03 6 Mercury 1.44 0.20 ug/1 1.51 91 80-120 n !Matrix Spike(3070474-MS1) Source: 5307452-01 _ Prepared:07/23/03 Analyzed:07/24/03 g Mercury M 0.948 .0.20 ug/l 1.54 ND 60 80-120 QM-07 LJ' J !Matrix Spike Dup(3070474-MSD!) Source:S307452-01 _ Prepared:47/23/03 Analyzed:07124103 Mercury 0.940 0.20 ugfl 1.51 ND 59 80-120 0.8 20 QM-07 Batch 3070492 -EPA 3005A N" Blank(3070492-BLK1) Prepared 8c Analyzed:07/23/03 t'x.. Aluminum ND 200 ug/3 Antimony ND 5.0 " Arsenic ND 5.0 " Barium ND 10 " l Beryllium ND 1.0 " i f Boron ND 100 " Cadmium ND 0.50 a P Calcium ND 1000 " Chromium ND 10 " Copper ND 10 t' iron ND 100 " Lead ND 3.0 Magnesium ND 500 Manganese ND 10 „ NNickel ND 30 " Potassium ND 2500 " Selenium ND 5.0 " a Silver ND 7.0 }y Sodium ND 500 " Thallium ND 1.0 ( Zinc ND 20 " ti r Sequoia Analytical-Sacramento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chitin of custody document. Unless otherwise stated,results are reported on a wet weight basis. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. J �a Page 13 of 20 aa; 819 Striker Avenue,Suite 9 Sequoia 'a qu o 1 a Sacramento, 929Z 95834 x.31. 191$1 I-963C Analytical (9'6)92 i-t)100 Analytical www.sequolaiabs.com�< . Kleinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove S307452 2825 East Myrtle Street Project Number: 13314.801 Reported: � Stockton CA,95205 Project Manager: .toe Zilles 07/25/03 15:50 Dissolved Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods - Quality Control Sequoia Analytical - Petaluma 1 Reporting Spike Source %REC RPI) G Ipssalyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit ivutes t,N Batch 3070492-EPA 3005A Laboratory Control Sample(3070492-BSI) Prepared&Analyzed:07/23/03 Aluminum 5170 200 ug/1 5000 103 80-120 Antimony 544 5.0 500 109 80-120 r Arsenic 542 5.0 500 108 80-120 Barium 538 10 500 108 80-120 Beryllium 56.1 I.0 50.0 112 80-120 t y< Boron 541 100 500 108 80-120 Cadmium 53.9 0.50 50.0 108 80-120 Calcium 5640 1000 " 5000 113 80-120x. Chromium 572 10 1. 500 114 80-120 Copper 538 10 " 500 108 80-120 ' iron 5640 100 " 5000 113 80-120 Lead 525 3.0 11500 105 80-120 Magnesium 5220 500 11 5000 104 80-120 Manganese 560 i0 500 112 80-120 Nickel 560 30 500 112 80-120 Potassium 5210 2500 5000 104 80-120 Selenium 555 5.0 S00 ill 80-120 Silver 53.2 7.0 " 50.0 I06 80-120 Sodium 5370 500 5000 107 80-120 Thallium 533 1.0 500 107 80-120 Zinc 545 20 500 109 80-120 Laboratory Control Sample Dup(3070492-BSD1) J _Prepared&Analyzed: 07/23/03 Aluminum 5240 200ug/l 5000 105 80-120 1 20 Antimony 567 5.0 500 113 80-120 4 20 Arsenic 563 5.0 500 113 80-120 4 20 Barium 549 10 500 110 80-120 2 20 ` Beryllium 56.9 LD 50.0 114 80-120 1 20 Boron 549 IOD 500 110 80-120 20 F Cadmium 56.0 0.50 50.0 112 80-120 4 20 Calcium 5720 1000 5000 114 80-120 1 20 Chromium 580 10 „ 500 I16 80-120 i 20 Copper 547 10 500 '.09 80-120 2 20 Iron 5730 100 5000 115 80-120 2 20 Lead 551 3.0 " 500 110 80-120 5 20 Magnesium 5290 500 5000 106 80-120 '. 20 Sequoia Analytical-Sacramento The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise staled,results are reported on a wet weight,basis. ` This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. i Page 14 of 20 ra 8 19 Striker Avenue,Suite 8 Sequoia Sacramento, CA 95834 (915)FAX921-�9600 Analytical wvr� (915)92K} w.sequniatabs.co6s.corn _Y ` l lcinfelder-Stockton Project: Cypress Grove 5307452 ` 2825 East Myrtle Street ProjectNumber: 13314,B01 Reported: Stockton CA,95203 Project Manager: 3oe Zilles, 07/25103 15:50 Dissolved Metals by EPA 200 Series Methods- +Quality Control Sequoia Analytical- Petaluma Reporting Spike Source °loREC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result !°RBC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 3070492-EPA 3009—A Laboratory Control Sample Dup(3094492-BSD/} Prepared&Analyzed:01/23/03 Manganese 568 10 ug11 500 114 80-120 1 20 Nickel 586 30 500 117 80-120 5 20 1 . Potassium 5060 2500 5000 101 80-120 3 20 Selenium 574 5.0 500 115 80-120 3 20 r "` Silver. 55.0 7.0 50.0 110 80-I20 3 20 Sodium 5480 500 5000 110 80 120 2 20 t.. -r'halliurn 556 i.0 500 113 80-120 6 24 Zinc 550 20 500 110 80-120 0.9 20 I 0 >a t. i { p« 81' 1;4 Sequoia Analytical Sacramento The remits in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. Unless otherwise stetted,results are reported an a wet weight basis. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. t., Page 15 of 20