HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05041993 - H.3 PART 2 i
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(RESPONSE TO COMMENTS)
CYPRESS LAKES AND
COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT
i County of Contra Costa, California
nn _ m'Ic
cour�
SCH # 92023048
IMARCH 1993
ADDENDUM
To The
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
For The
CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT
March 1993
SCH # 92023048
Prepared For:
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Prepared By:
PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT
101 The Ernbarcadero, Suite 210
San Francisco, California 94105
1. INTRODUCTION
The County of Contra Costa has prepared a Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project (State Clearinghouse.
comment letter in response to the Draft Wa
#92023048). However, one con! s not
included in the FEIR. This letter was prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) and was not received by the County. However,
this letter was read into the public record at the February 8, 1993 public hearing
before the East County Regional Planning Commission by Mr. Fred Davis (see pages
4-354 and 4-355 of the FEIR) and responded to in responses H-36 through H-38 at
pages 4-368 and 4-369 of the FEIR.
The BAAQMD brought to the County's attention the omission of their letter
and subsequently resubmitted it to the County. This additional letter is the subject of
this Addendum to the FEIR.
When an Environmental Impact Report has already been prepared, the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines identify several possible
options for addressing new information or changes to a project or EIR. These options
include either a "Subsequent", "Supplement" or "Addendum" to an EIR.
Subsequent EIR
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that after an EIR has been
prepared, a Subsequent EIR is only required when 1) substantial changes are
proposed in the project which will require revisions to the EIR due to new significant
impacts not considered; or 2) substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken; or 3) new information of
substantial importance becomes available. If these circumstances apply, a Subsequent
EIR should be prepared.
Supplement to an EIR
Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines addresses the options for Supplemental
EIR's. The Lead Agency may choose to prepare a Supplement to an EIR rather than
a Subsequent EIR if any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require a
Subsequent EIR and if only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the
,previous EIR adequate.
Addendum to an EIR
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines discusses the conditions under Which an
Addendum to a previously prepared EIR is appropriate. The Lead Agency should
prepare an Addendum to an EIR-if:J)-none of the conditions in Section
15162 calling for a Subsequent EIR have occurred; 2) only minor technical changes or
additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA;
and 3) the changes to the EIR made by the Addendum do not raise important new
issues about the significant effects on the,environment. Unlike Subsequent or
Supplemental EIR's, an Addendum does not need to be formally recirculated for
public comment pursuant to CEQA procedures. However, the Addendum is made'
part of the public record for the proposed project.
The County of Contra Costa has. determined that an Addendum to the FEIR
for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club- Project, pursuant to CEQA Section 15164, is
the appropriate document to address the addition of the BAAQMD's letter to the
FEIR. This determination is based on the following reasons: 1) the letter does not
necessitate substantial changes in the project which would require revisions to the
EIR; 2) the letter does not create substantial changes to the circumstances of the
project; 3) the letter does not constitute new information; 4) the letter constitutes only
minor technical changes; and, 5) the letter does not raise new issues because the letter
was read into the public record before the East County Regional Planning
Commission on February 8, 1993 and responded to in the FOR.
The BAAQMD's letter is attached along with the responses to it. The
responses to this letter are substantially the same as presented in the FEIR at pages 4-
368 and 4-369. Response 2 includes an additional analysis regarding the project's
consistency with policy 3-27 of the Contra Costa County General Plan.
2
BAY' AREA- A IR
MANAGEME" "NT D
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Eowara R.Camooeu
ea„acef February 1, 1993
Franx H.Ogawa
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Paul L Cooper
Sunne Wnant Mr. Authur Beresford
Tom Powers ern '
Contra Costa County
Al Aram `
MAmouruCOUNTYCommunity Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing - Fourth Floor
NAPA l Batty a Martinez, CA.94553-0095
(Secretaryl
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY Dear Mr. Beresford:
Rooerm Achtenoerg
Harry G.Britt We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for
SAN MATEO COUNTY the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project proposed for Northeastern Contra
Anna Eshoo
(Chairperson i Costa Countv. The DEIR assesses the potential impact to the environment of
Janet Fogarty rezoning 685.9 acres from General and Heavy Agricultural District to Planned
SANTA CLARA COUNTY Unit District, and for the construction of approximately 1,330 single family
Maroe Bruno residential units, along with a golf course, school site, fire station, and lake.
Rod Dinoon
Joe Hea°
Dianne McKenna As discussed in Section 3.3 of the DEIR, the project would result in a
SOLANO COUNTY significant adverse impact on regional emissions, specifically reactive organic
Osby Davis gases and oxides of nitrogen (precursors of ozone). The implementation of
SONOMA COUNTY mitigation measures discussed in Section 3.3 has the potential to reduce project 1
Jim
mc a be sons impacts on regional air quality by approximately 10 percent. However, the
(Pamc havpigoss emissions impact would remain significant and affect both the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin and the Bay Area Air Basin.
We are also concerned that this project may not be consistent with the
land use goals of the Contra Costa County General Plan (Plan). Goal 3-25 of
the Land Use Element of the Plan states that new residential development shall
be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe adverse
impacts on the environment and upon the existing community. It is unclear
how this project is consistent with that land use goal. The project also seems to
be inconsistent with Land Use Goals 3-A and 3-2. Goal 3-A calls for the 2
protection of agriculture and open space. Goal 3-2 states that jobs infill shall
be supported and stimulated where jobs/housing ratio shows an overabundance
of housing to jobs. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should
address consistency of the proposed project with the Plan, including the
specific goals cited above, and, especially the air quality impacts of any
inconsistencies that may result.
As mentioned in Section 3.3 of the DEIR, emission reductions can be
expected through complying with the County's Transportation Demand -
Management Program, providing pedestrian/bicycle paths linldng recreational 3
and residential uses, and providing transit stops along major thoroughfares.
We strongly recommend that the developers be required to provide a long-term
commitment to public transportation (and the necessary densities to support
such infrastructure), and pedestrian/transit/bicycle oriented mixed-land-use
development, to achieve further emission reductions.
3
939 ELLIS STREET - SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94109 9 (415) 771-6000 - FAX (415) 928-8560
Mr. Authur Beresford Page 2 February 1, 1993 ,
Additional examples of mitigation measures for this project might
include: substantial public transportation service between the development area 3
and significant destinations, employee shuttles to major work sites, the
requirement for use of clean fuel transit buses (CNG, methanol,.electric) where
possible, and establishing carpool and vanpool programs.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have
any questions or comments, please contact Mr. John Walser, Environmental
Planner, at (415) 749-4662.
Sincerely,
ton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
MF:JEW:pc
CC: Mr. Fred Davis
4
Response to Bay Area Air Quality Management District letter, dated February 1,
1993
Response 1:
Comments noted. The commentor restates the findings of the EIR that the
project would result in an unavoidable impact on regional air quality. No additional
response is necessary.
Response 2:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan does not contain a goal numbered
3-25. In addition, none of the goals listed in the Land Use Element refer to
development only in areas where it will avoid creating severe adverse impacts on the
environment. Policy 3-25 addresses the rehabilitation of existing dwelling units.
The commentor may be referring to policy 3-27 of the General Plan which
states the following:
"New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it
will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment
and upon the existing community"
With respect to the proposed project, the EIR identifies four unavoidable
impacts (see DEIR at p. 5-1 and the FEIR at p. 2-10 and 2-11). While these impacts
would be unavoidable, they would not be considered "severe". For example, air
quality impacts of the project would be regional in nature for two of the four
pollutants (NOx and ROG). These pollutants would be reduced to some extent by
implementation of mitigation measures to reduce automobile traffic through
requirements for a TDM Program to promote transit, car pool and van pool uses;
provisions of transit stops in and around the project site; and provision of pedestrian
and bicycle trails (mitigation measures 3.2-6, 3.2-7, 3.2-11, and 3.2-12). Noise impacts
would be associated with the construction period only and would only affect
residents on Sandmound Boulevard and the existing residents on the project site.
Therefore, construction period noise impacts would be short-term impacts. In
addition, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this impact (mitigation measure
3.6-2). Dust is no longer considered an unavoidable impact with implementation of
the new mitigation measures 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 at pages 2-10 and 2-11 of the FEIR. The
project's visual impact is characterized as unavoidable but this impact is subjective
and would not be considered as severe. In addition, mitigation measures, such as
landscaping and residential design criteria, are proposed to-reduce the visual impacts:
of the project (mitigation measures 3.5-1 through 3.5-8). The project's impact on East
County's jobs/housing balance would be unavoidable. However, this is an existing
problem for, East County and the County General Plan designation for the project site
does not allow substantial job oriented (commercial, industrial, retail) development in
the Hotchkiss Tract area. This impact is expected to be short-term until other job
oriented uses are developed as planned for in the Cypress Corridor, Cowell Ranch,
and Brentwood. In an effort to reduce this impact, the project applicant would
market a portion of the project to seniors and retired persons (mitigation-Measure 3.1-
2
Goal 3-A states the following:
"To coordinate land use with circulation, development of other infrastructure
facilities, and protection of agricultural and open space, and to allow growth
and the maintenance of the County's quality of life, In such an environment
all residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural activities
may take place in. safety, harmony, and to mutual advantage."
The project appears to be consistent with this goal in that adequate
infrastructure facilities are either currently available, or have been identified as
specific mitigation measures to be implemented as part of the project in order to
serve new residents on the project site. The project also provides for the protection
of agricultural and open.space areas in that the project site is located within the
County's Urban Limit Line. Areas within the Urban Limit Line are identified as
those areas of the County upon which development could take place. Areas outside
the Urban Limit Line are identified as those'areas which should be protected for
agricultural and open space purposes. In addition, the project would be required to
pay a Protection Fee to mitigate the incremental loss of agricultural/open space land.
(see mitigation measure 3.1-3. p. 2-4 of the FEIR)
Policy 3-2 pertains to encouraging jobs development in areas where the
jobs/housing ratio shows an overabundance of housing to jobs. The Bethel Island
Area does show an overabundance of housing to jobs. However, the existing General
Plan designations for the project site and surrounding areas (Off-Island Bonus Area)
do not provide for significant job development in this area. The proposed project is
consistent with the policies and requirements of the Off-Island Bonus Area.
Response 3:
The DEIR on p. 3-185 discusses the proposed project's consistency with the
bicycle and pedestrian trails plans of the Contra Costa County General Plan.
Mitigatiori Measure 3.2-6, p. 2-7 of the FEIR addresses the need for transit service to
the Hotchkiss Tract and Bethel Island area when a significant amount of development
has been built. This is expected to-occur when about 1,000 homes have been
completed.
in thellarea. The provision of transit service to the area Will be the
responsibility=of TriDelta Transit. With respect the mix of uses on the project site, the
proposed project includes a mix of recreational and residential uses with pedestrian
6
t,
and bicycle linkages within the development to reduce automobile use from one part
of the site to the other. Information regarding car pool and van pools would be
required to be distributed to project residents as part of the County's TDM Program
which is specifically identified in mitigation measure 3.2-7, at.p. 2-7 of the FEIR.
F
1
7
5. CONCLUSION
The addition of the letter from the BAAQMD to the FEIR does not raise any
new significant environmental issues that were not addressed in the FEIR_. Therefore,
this minor addition to the FEIR does riot change the findings of the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project.
Because the minor addition to the FEIR will not raise any new environmental
issues, an Addendum to the FEIR for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project,
pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, is considered appropriate.
8
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(RESPONSE TO COMMENTS)
FOR THE
CYPRESS LAKES AND
COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT
SCH # 92023048
March 1993
PREPARED FOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PREPARED BY
PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT
101 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 210
SAN FRANCISCO, CA, 94105
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
' 2. REVISED SUMMARY
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Project Description 2-1
2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2-2
2.4 Alternatives Evaluated 2-3
2.5 Issues of Community Interest 2-3
3. _ REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Project Location and Existing Setting 3-1
3.3 Project Characteristics 3-4
3.4 Proposed Mitigation 3-8
3.5 Project Relationship to Relevant Plans 3-10
3.6 Discretionary and Other Agency Approvals Required 3-11
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
4.1 Federal Agencies 4-3
A Department of the Army, January 27, 1993 4-4
4.2 State Agencies 4-6
B California Department of Conservation, February 16, 1993 4-7
C California Department of Fish and Game, February 3, 1993 4-22
D California Department of Transportation, January 11, 1993 4-27
E State Lands Commission, February 16, 1993 4-33
4.3 Local Agencies 4-41
F Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission,
February 10, 1993 4-42
G Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, January 6, 1993 4-46
H Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, January 25, 1993 4-48
I Land Planning Consultants, January 28, 1993 4-50
1 J Reclamation District 799, February 11, 1993 4-53
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Cont. i
SECTION PAGE
4.4 Groups and Individuals 4-59
K Guy and Katie All, February 10, 1993 4-60
L Alexander Buller, February 1, 1993 4-65
M Carol Coleman, February 11, 1993 4-78
N Bob Dal Porto, February 9, 1993 4-82
O C. Elaine Dannelley, February 10, 1993 4-85
P C. Elaine Dannelley, February 12, 1993 4-92
Q Fred Davis, February 9, 1993 4-108
R Dickson & Ross, February 16, 1993 4-116
S Darrell Edwards, February 12, 1993 4-135
T Vera Fatook and George Garcia, February 12 and 16, 1993 4-150
U Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, February 16, 1993 4-156
V David Gold and Robert Henn, February 1, 1993 4-222
W Leigh Jordan, January 15, 1993 4-232
X KLH - Bryan & Murphy, Inc., February 5, 1993 4-234
Y Barbara La Fargue, February 16, 1993 4-237
Z Diane Maybee, received February 17, 1993 4-240
AA Montague & Cochrane, February 11, 1993 4-264
BB Manuel and Cecelia Peixoto, January 30, 1993 4-271
CC Mary Reeves, January 12, 1993 4-274
DD Mrs. William Sherwood, February 9, 1993 4-277
EE Diane Shipway, January 20, 1993 4-281
FF Linda Wadsworth, February 2, 1993 4-293
4.5 Public Hearings 4-295
GG East County Regional Planning Commission Hearing,
February 1, 1993 4-296
HH East County Regional Planning Commission Continuation
Hearing, February 8, 1993 4-338
5. ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS 5-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A: CALINE-4 Input and Output Files
Appendix B: Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Appendix C: Applicant's Letter to Reclamation District 799
ii
LIST OF TABLES
1 TITLE PAGE
Table 2-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2-4
Table 3-1 Summary of Proposed Land Uses 3-6
Cypress Lakes trip Distribution (Using higher trip generation rates) 4-30
Volume/Capacity Ratios and Level of Service - Comparison of Existing and Future
Conditions 4-31
Water Distribution 4-127
State regulations that limit field strengths on transmission line rights-of-way 4-130
j
1
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE PAGE
Figure 3-1 Regional Location 3-2
Figure 3-2 Project Site and Vicinity 3-3
Figure 3-3 Project Layout 3-5
Figure 3-4 Project Circulation 3-7
Urban Limit Line (Contra Costa County) 4-19
Location of Williamson Act Contract Lands in the Project Vicinity 4-20
iv
1. INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report(Final EIR)responds to all written comments and
verbal testimony submitted on the Draft EIR (DEIR) for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club
Project during the public review period. The 45-day public review period began December 31,
1992 and officially ended on February 16, 1993. During the public review period, the East
County Regional Planning Commission held a public hearing (February 1, 1993) and a
continuation hearing (February 8, 1993) to receive comments on the DEIR and the proposed
project. The public hearings were held at the Antioch City Council Chambers in the City of
Antioch. Written comments on the DEIR were accepted throughout the public review period.
The Final EIR has been organized as follows:
Chapter 2 contains a revised Summary of the Project Description, Project Impacts and
Mitigation Measures, Alternatives Evaluated, and Issues of Community Interest, and includes any
changes made as a result of comments on the DEIR. This Revised Summary supersedes and
replaces the Summary contained in the DEIR.
1
Chapter 3 contains a revised Project Description and includes any changes made as a
P J
result of comments on the DEIR. This Revised Project Description supersedes and replaces the
Project Description contained in the DEIR.
1 Chapter 4 contains written comments and verbal testimony received regarding the DEIR,
as well as responses to these comments. Comment letters are grouped into five categories: (1)
Federal Agencies, (2) State Agencies, (3) Local Agencies, (4) Groups and Individuals, and (5)
Public Hearings. Each comment letter is presented with the response to that letter directly
following. Any changes to the text of the DEIR in response to comment is shown in the
response to the comment and supersedes and replaces the text in the DEIR.
Chapter 5 includes errata and clarifications on the DEIR.
The information contained in this document, together with the DEIR, constitute the Final
EIR for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project. This documentation provides the necessary
information as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
Sections 15090 and 15132, for Contra Costa County (the Lead Agency) to consider certification
of the Final EIR.
1-1
' 2. REVISED SUMMARY
2.1 Introduction
An initial study was prepared on the proposed project that was submitted prior to
' February 6, 1992 (date of the NOP). A Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Cypress
Lakes and Country Club project was made available for public review and comment on August
13, 1992. The East County Planning Commission held Public Hearings on the Draft EIR on
August 31 and September 21, 1992. The comment period for the Draft EIR closed on September
28, 1992. Numerous comments were received from local residents, agencies and interested
parties. The comments raised important issues to be addressed. To respond to these issues, the
project applicant decided to revise the project application to provide additional information
regarding the project design and mitigation features. Additional technical analyses were also
conducted in the areas of geology and soils and hydrology in response to public comments.
The County has determined that incorporation of the new information regarding the
rp
project application and additional technical analyses constitute significant changes to the Draft
EIR. Therefore, the County has prepared this Second Draft EIR to allow public review and
comment regarding the new information provided.
2.2 Project Description
The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project site is located in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta area of unincorporated north-eastern Contra Costa County approximately 2.7 miles
east of the Town of Oakley. The project site is located in the "off-island" portion of the Bethel
Island Area, commonly known as the Hotchkiss Tract. The project site is located at the junction
of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road, and is generally bordered by Bethel Island Road on the
west, Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east and agricultural uses on the south.
The existing use of the site is agricultural (cattle grazing) and consists of several fenced
pasture areas, with irrigation and drainage canals crossing the property in various locations. A
1 few homes and agricultural structures are located on the project site. These structures are
primarily located along the unimproved portion of Cypress east of Bethel Island Road.
The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project would be constructed on approximately
685.9 acres consisting of existing parcels of land. The project would consist of 1,330 single-
family residential units. In addition, the project would include a 18-hole golf course with
amenities, a swim and tennis club, a man-made lake and channels, a day care facility, parks, a
potential school site, and a fire station.
' The proposed residential development would be on lots ranging in size from
approximately 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The overall residential lot density is
approximately 5.40 units per acre (1,330 units on 246 acres). The overall density of the project
is 1.94 units per acre (1,330 units on 685.9 acres).
2-1
Residential development on the southern portion of the site (south of Cypress Road) i
would be oriented toward the man-made lake to provide a lake-front living environment. A swim
and tennis club would also be developed in this area to provide recreational opportunities for
project and area residents. In addition, a day care center, park, fire station and potential school
site would be located in this portion of the project site.
The residential development north of Cypress Road would include a 18-hole golf course
interwoven among the various neighborhoods. A clubhouse, driving range and storage
maintenance facility would also be located in this area as well as several water channels.
The proposed project has been designed to reduce certain impacts. The primary
mitigation measures incorporated into the project's design include:
• Internal Levee system around the project to remove the project site from the 100-year
flood hazard zone
• Storm drainage improvements including on-site detention facilities
• Water quality management plan
• Wetland mitigation plan
• Ground subsidence monitoring plan
• Landscape plans
• Channel enhancement plan
• Energy conservation guidelines
• Provision of a school site
• Provision of a fire station site and facility
• Preservation of cultural resources
• Provision of parks and recreational amenities
• Payment of affordable housing fees
• Payment of homeless fees
2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The evaluation conducted for this report included an examination of the environmental
impacts associated with the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project and those measures that
could reduce the identified impacts to insignificant levels. The project impacts and corresponding
mitigation measures are summarized in Table 2-1. Additions to the impacts and mitigation
measures in response to comments received on the DEIR are shown in bold and italics.
Deletions are shown as stmesk through-. The significance of each impact'is noted along with the
required or recommended mitigation measures. The significance of each impact with and without
implementation of mitigation proposals is also noted. The following impact categories are used
in Table 2-1: (B) beneficial impact; (NS) not significant impact; (PS) potentially or possibly
significant impact (an impact which cannot be precisely assessed at this time) and (S) significant
adverse impact.
2-2
2.4 Alternatives Evaluated
Chapter 4 of the EIR describes and evaluates six alternatives to the proposed project.
These alternatives include:
• No Project Alternative
• Ranchette Alternative
• Maximum Density Alternative
• Low Density Alternative
• Commercial Alternative
• Off-Site Alternative
The analysis of alternatives evaluates how each alternative would either avoid, reduce, or
in some cases worsen, potential impacts when compared to the proposed project. This
tcomparison between the project and the alternatives allows the public and decision makers to
clearly understand comparative merits of the alternatives. This approach to the analysis of
alternatives to the project is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d).
1 2.5 Issues of Community Interest
s v
Several issues of community interest were identified during the public review period for
the first Draft EIR, these include: improvement of the existing RD-799 levee system, construction
of an internal levee system and the potential channelizing of floodwaters along Sandmound
Boulevard in the event of levee failure or overtopping, potential ground subsidence due to
groundwater extraction and construction of project lakes, impacts to the visual character of
Hotchkiss Tract, increased traffic and related noise and air quality impacts, impacts to plant and
animal life, increased storm water runoff and impacts on local schools.
1
1
2-3
r
r
TABLE 2-1 ,
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
(Note: impacts are in summary form only; please refer to specific topic headings for details.)
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
3.1 LAND USE, PLANNING AND PUBLIC POLICY
a. The project would add 1,330 dwelling units to the The project will pay a in-lieu affordable housing fee r
existing housing stock in price ranges between equal to $3,333 per residential unit. This fee should
$175,000 to $400,000. The number of new units is be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for
below the 2,909 new units allowed by the General the project. As an alternative to the fees, the project
Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan applicant may construct a portion or all of the
policy that development projects should be at or near affordable housing units on-site. If this alternative
density maximums to provide as much housing as mitigation is selected, the location and design of the
possible. The project would contribute in-lieu fees affordable housing units should be submitted to the
for affordable housing of $3,333 per dwelling unit County for review and approval prior to filing a final
constructed, and in-lieu fees for the County's subdivision map. (3.1-1; B)
homeless fund. The project applicant may consider
providing all,or a portion,of the project's affordable
housing requirement on-site by designating and
constructing affordable units as part of the project.
(B)
b. Because the proposed project is predominately The project marketing should be oriented toward
residential, the project would result in a short-term seniors and retired people to reduce commute traffic
unavoidable impact on East County's existing from the project. The project's impact on East
Jobs/Housing imbalance. (S) County's Jobs/Housing imbalance would still remain
an unavoidable short-term impact. (3.1-2; S)
c. The project would be required to pay the County's Protection Fee shall be paid for each residential unit '
Protection Fee as well as in-lieu contribution to the within the project to acquire development rights on
County Homeless Trust Fund. (B) agricultural land (and open space or wetlands areas)
or to provide financing for farmers to continue
agricultural production. The fee shall be determined
by the County and paid upon the issuance of building
permits for the project. (3.1-3)
The project will pay an in-lieu contribution to the
County Homeless Trust Fund. The amount of the
contribution will be determined by the County and
paid,pro-rata, upon the issuance of building permits.
(3.1-4; B)
r
2-4
r
r
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
d. The proposed project layout would conflict with The project site plan shall be revised to clearly
an existing private easement from the Dannelley depict the existing easement from the Dannelley
property to Cypress Road. (PS) property to Cypress Road. This easement shall be
maintained in its existing location unless otherwise
agreed to by the property owner and the County.
(3.1-5; NS)
3.2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. The addition of project traffic to the street network Road Improvements at Project Entrance-Construct a
would substantially change traffic volumes on Cypress new intersection at Cypress Road and Bethel Island
Road between the project and Highway 4. Beyond Road, and on the approaches to this intersection.
this location, traffic from the project would be more Widening should extend 1,000 feet in each direction.
dispersed,but would still have a significant impact on To properly accommodate the proposed project traffic
Highway 4 between Oakley and the State Route 4/160 as well as future traffic from other parts of the
freeway. The traffic analysis assumed that portions of Specific Plan area, the intersection will have the lane
Cypress Road would be widened. All other requirements shown on Figure 3.2-13. The south-
intersections were calculated for capacity conditions bound approach will be widened with one more lane.
without any additional roadway mitigation measures. This intersection shall be designed so that it can
During the AM peak hour, all intersections would ultimately be consistent with a future extension to
operate at a satisfactory LOS with the existing plus Byron Highway south of the intersection. Cypress
project condition. PM peak hour traffic will also Road will cross the levee just east of the entrance to
operate at satisfactory traffic conditions,assuming that the project. The vertical curvature of Cypress Lakes
partial improvements are constructed on Cypress Road where it crosses the levee shall be submitted
Road. One other intersection would be critically prior to final map approval. A 45 mph design speed
impacted. At Neroly Road and Highway 4 (Main would be desirable. This project would include the
Street), traffic conditions would change from LOS installation of traffic signals that would be put into
"D" to LOS "E"., Mitigations are planned for this operation at the time that volumes meet Caltrans
intersection as a part of the ONBAG Program, traffic warrants. This is estimated to occur when the
including widening the northbound approach to project has about 500 units completed and occupied.
provide two left turn lanes. This improvement would (Note: this improvement could impact cultural
restore the intersection LOS to "D. The project will resources) (3.2-1)
add significant traffic volumes to the roads in the
immediate vicinity of the project. As a direct result Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard -
of the project, Cypress Road will exceed capacity. Bethel Island Road is planned to ultimately become a
These roads will require reconstruction and widening four-lane divided roadway between Cypress Road and
at the time of project construction. (PS) the Bethel Island Bridge. This widening is not
necessary as a result of the project, but there are
interim improvements that should be accomplished.
At Sandmound Boulevard, the intersection should be
improved and widened, and left turn lanes should be
2-5
r
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
constructed. Sandmound Boulevard should be
realigned to a right-angle intersection at Bethel Island
Road. This project would also include the installation
of traffic signals that would be put into operation at
the time that volumes meet Caltrans traffic warrants.
This is not estimated to occur as a result of the
project itself, but would be needed as a result of
development being completed on Bethel Island.
Sandmound Boulevard should be improved along the
northern boundary of the project. (3.2-2)
Cypress Road Widening Complete the
implementation of the Cypress Road widening from
Machado Lane to east of Knightsen Road. This
roadway improvement should be in place before 1000
units are occupied at Cypress Lakes.It would include
the installation of traffic signals at Sellers Road and
Knightsen Road that would be put into operation at
the time that volumes meet Caltrans traffic warrants.
The widening of Cypress Road between Knightsen
Avenue and Bethel Island Road should occur before
occupancy of the Lesher Landing project or any other
project that adds over 25 units in this part of the
Bethel Island Area. (3.2-3) ,
Sandmound Boulevard Improvement- This project
would reconstruct Sandmound Boulevard from
Bethel Island Road along the north border of the
project and along the project's easterly frontage on
Sandmound Boulevard. The remaining
improvements would be done in conjunction with
other developments along Sandmound
Boulevard.
Read along the neah bofde* of the pfejeral, The
shouldbeBene in with other ,
developments along Sand-m-e-iLd-R—e-ule (3.2-4)
2-6
r
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
' Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
Conformance with Measure C - The Cypress Lakes
project would satisfy the requirements of Measure C
by constructing the roadway improvements listed in
Table 3.2-6(A). The project may also be required to
pay a regional traffic fee for Measure "C" projects.
This fee has not been established and is currently
being evaluated by TRANSPLAN and the CCTA.The
payment of these fees will help to mitigate the
regional traffic impacts of this project. E..".(-3-.2-5;NS)
rb. The 1,330 houses proposed would generate 10,287 Bus Transit Service-While there is no current transit
vehicle trip ends per day, including 730 trips during in the area, it can be expected that daily bus transit
the AM peak hour and 1,036 trips during the PM service, provided by Tri-Delta Transit, would be
peak hour. Trip generation for the various other provided to the Hotchkiss Tract and Bethel Island
project components, including the golf course and Area when a significant amount of the development
clubhouse, were estimated based on previous studies in the area has been built and occupied. The situation
of similar facilities. (PS) should be monitored, and transit service should
probably be started when about 1,000 homes have
been completed in the area. This bus route could be
an extension of Routes 383 and/or 384 and would
follow Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road to a
terminal stop on Bethel Island. (3.2-6)
' Participate in County TDM Program - The project
would be required to comply with the County
residential TDM Ordinance, the County Growth
1 Management Program,and the Bay Area Air Quality
District regulations regarding transportation. TDM
requirements of the County include the preparation
and distribution of a TDM information program that
could include the provision of maps showing available
transit routes, and information on ridesharing and
vanpool services to prospective home buyers. These
' types of measures can be expected to have only a
relatively small impact on reducing peak hour trips.
Other studies have shown that TDM actions applied
to a residential development can reduce the number of
' single occupant auto trips by 3-5 percent during the
commute peak hours. (3.2-7; NS)
2-7
r
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
c. The internal circulation system of the project Design level plans for the project entrance on
should be modified to provide improved circulation Sandmound Boulevard should be prepared and
and conformance with future development in the submitted to County Public Works Department for
Bethel Island Area (PS) review and approval prior to approval of the first
phased subdivision map. The design level plans
should provide for:adequate transition from the levee
cross-section to grade at Sandmound Boulevard;
adequate stopping distance;and adequate corner sight
distance. (3.2-8)
Provide a right-of-way for a future roadway
connection to the property south of Cypress Lakes,
and construct the road up to the edge of the levee.
This property could develop into a residential
neighborhood,and should desirably be connected into
Cypress Lakes at some time in the future, especially
for school trips and other internal recreational trips.
However, such a roadway connection should not be
the only access to this new area, and should be
provided only after Bethel Island Road is extended
south across Rock Slough. This road should be
treated as a secondary connection,so that it will limit
the amount of through traffic that would travel
through the Cypress Lakes development. (3.2-9) ,
Provide a road extension of Cypress Road through the
project to connect to Sandmound Boulevard. Certain '
residents on Sandmound Boulevard have protested
this connection for the reason that they expect traffic
from Cypress Lakes to impact their quiet residential
streets. This connection would allow for more
convenient access for existing residents, providing a
connection to the future school site, and easy access
to Cypress Road through the project. (3.2-10; NS)
d. There are few bicycle pathways in the Bethel Provide a major bicycle path within the project on
Island area. The existing width of Cypress Road is Cypress Road between Bethel Island Road and
approximately 24 feet with no sidewalks or other Sandmound Boulevard, and on Cypress Lakes Drive
provisions for pedestrians. Other streets in the study through the project. This pathway should be designed
have similar cross-sections. The project will increase to County standards. (3.2-11)
pedestrian and bicycle tmffic.(PS)
2-8
' TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
' Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
' At such time as other roadway improvements are
completed,complete other bicycle paths as required.
This would include a pathway along Bethel Island
Road on the west boundary of the project,a pathway
along Rock Slough on the southern boundary of the
project, a path along the Byron Highway Extension,
and a pathway along Sandmound Boulevard on the
north and east boundaries of the project. (3.2-12;NS)
e. Traffic generated by Cypress Lakes will contribute Intersection of Neroly Road and SR 4 (Main St.) -
to cumulative traffic, and the project would be Widen the northbound approach to provide a double
required to help mitigate these impacts by paying the left turn from Neroly to SR 4. This will improve the
Subregional Road Fee. Most of the traffic impacts of V/C ratio from 0.93 ("E") to 0.81 ("D"). This will
the short-term cumulative traffic can be mitigated to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.The
an insignificant level. However, there are two Project traffic will amount to about 10 percent of the
exceptions. The following mitigation measures traffic growth that is projected at this intersection.
1 should be addressed by the Cypress Lakes project if The project applicant should pay a fair-share
the Delta Expressway is not implemented, and if the contribution equal to 10% of the cost of the
problem is not mitigated by other sources.(PS) improvement. (3.2-14)
Intersection of Cypress Road and SR 4 - Widen the
southbound approach to provide a double left turn
lane for traffic from SR 4 to Cypress Road, and
widen Cypress Road on the east leg of the
intersection. This will improve the V/C ratio from
0.87 ("E") to 0.79 ("C"), and will reduce this impact
to a less than significant level. The need for this
improvement will depend entirely on the pace of
development and the timing of the construction of the
Delta Expressway. If the Cypress Corridor
development moves quickly to implementation,prior
to the completion of the Delta Expressway, this
mitigation will be required. The need for this
' improvement will be reduced if the Laurel extension
is completed, and the Laurel Avenue connection to
the Delta Expressway is completed. Traffic from the
Cypress Lakes project will amount to about 25
percent of the traffic growth that is projected at this
location. The applicant should be required to pay a
fair share fee equal to about 25% of the cost of this
improvement. (3.2-15)
2-9
i
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact ,
After Mitigation)
Traffic generated by the Cypress Lakes project will ,
contribute to long-term cumulative traffic. In
particular, the Cypress Lakes Project will have a
cumulative impact on SR 4 in the freeway section
between Bailey Road and Highway 160, and on the
arterial section between Highway 160 and Cypress
Road. The Cypress Lakes project will assist in
mitigating these impacts by paying the subregional
road fee. As a result, most of the traffic impacts of
the long-term cumulative traffic appear to be
mitigated to an insignificant level. (3.2-16; NS)
f. Construction of the proposed project would result Contra Costa County has standard restrictions on
in additional truck traffic on Cypress Road and SR4. construction activities regarding hours of operation,
(PS) noise and dust control. Additional mitigations could
include restrictions on heavy trucks from SR 4 during
the commute peak hours. The project could normally
be required to assist in maintenance of roads that
could be damaged by heavy trucks. Since the major
access route, Cypress Road, would be partially
reconstructed by the project, this type of project ,
condition may not be necessary. (3.2-13; NS)
3.3 AIR QUALITY
a. Construction air quality impacts would be due to The dust. control measures proposed as part of the
dust generated by equipment and vehicles. Fugitive project plans should be made conditions of the project '
dust is emitted both during construction activity and approval. (3.3-1)
as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth
surfaces. Clearing and grading activities comprise the In addition to the dust control measure proposed by
major source of construction dust emissions, but the project,all construction vehicles should be limited
traffic and general disturbance of the soil also to 15 miles per hour while on the project site. The
generate significant dust emissions.(PS) 15 mph limit should be posted on the site at all times
during construction. (3.3-2)
In addition to the dust control measures proposed as
part of the project, the project applicant should post
the name and phone number (business and non-
business hours) for the dust control coordinator
along the perimeter of each construction site and
provide this information by mail to reisdents within
2-10
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1 IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
' Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
' 1,000 feet of the area of construction. (33-3)
Earthmoving and other dust producing activities
should be suspended when watering and other dust
control measures are unable to eliminate visible dust
plumes. (3.34; NS)
b. The daily increase in regional emissions(Reactive Comply with the County's Transportation Demand
Organic Gases and Oxides of Nitrogen (two Management Program Ordinances 92-31 by preparing
precursors of ozone), associated with the project and providing TDM information to prospective home
would exceed the criterion (150 lbs/day). Therefore buyers. The TDM information should contain
the project is considered to have a significant effect materials describing transit,ride sharing and van pool
on regional emissions.(S) services. (3.3-5)
The project should provide for transit stops along
Cypress Road within the project site, along Cypress
Lakes Drive, Sandmound Boulevard and Country
Club Drive. (3.3-6)
The proposed project design includes
pedestrian/bicycle paths linking recreational and
residential uses within the site (see Section 3.9). In
addition to these facilities, bicycle parking areas
should be provided at all recreational facilities within
the project site (Golf Course Clubhouse, Beach Club
and Public Ballpark). (3.3-7)
While the mitigation measures discussed above would
reduce regional emissions,the proposed project would
still result in an unavoidable impact on regional
emissions. (ROG and NOx) (S)
3.4 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
a. The project would result in the removal of The project applicant should prepare a Wetland
approximately 0.95 acres of the 9.18 acres of Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan which is designed
wetlands/waters of the U.S. on the project site for the to replace impacted wetlands by enlarging and
development of project roads, single-family homes, enhancing the existing wetlands on-site. The goal of
golf course improvements and project levees. This the mitigation plan is to create an additional 2.28
includes impacts to the primary drainage ditch("main acres of seasonal wetlands by enlarging and
drain")by culverting the ditch under roads and filling enhancing the existing wetlands on-site. Buffer areas
2-11
TABLE 2-1 (continued) '
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact '
After Mitigation)
for construction of the project levee system.Filling of around wetland areas would also be provided. (3.4-1) ,
wetlands/waters of the U.S. on the project site would
require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of The project applicant should prepare a Channel
Engineers. (PS) Enhancement Plan which would enhance and widen
the existing primary drainage ditch to a channel of
approximately 8 acres in size. A new north/south
channel would also be created to connect to the '
proposed lake. The channels would be sprigged with
willows and cottonwood cuttings to provide riparian
habitat. (3.4-2; NS)
b. The proposed project would result in direct The proposed project includes widening of the
impacts to the primary drainage channel ("main primary drainage channel ("main drain") and the
drain") through the construction of project roadways creation of additional channels on the project site to ,
and project levees. Impacts would primarily be in the improve wildlife habitat and the visual quality of the
form of placing the main drain in a culvert and filling project. The project applicant should prepare a
portions of the channel in the areas impacted. (PS) detailed Channel Enhancement Plan based on the draft
Channel Enhancement Plan provided by the applicant.
The Plan should be submitted to Contra Costa
County,the California Department of Fish and Game
and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for review and
approval prior to approval of the project's final
subdivision maps. (3.4-3)
To minimize impacts to wildlife movement along this ,
drainage channel, road crossings should utilize clear
span bridges if feasible. If culverts are to be used '
they should be as large as possible to minimize
impacts to wildlife movement., The design of all
bridges and/or culverts to be placed along the primary
drainage channel("main drain")shall be submitted for '
review and approval to Contra Costa County
Department of Public Works, Reclamation District
799, California Department of Fish and Game and ,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to filing a final
subdivision map. (3.4-4; NS)
C. The proposed project would result in The project plans include a draft Habitat Mitigation
approximately 0.75 acres of wetlands being filled for and Monitoring Plan which proposes to replace
development of the proposed project. Filling of wetlands on-site,in a ratio of 3 acres for every 1 acre
wetlands on the project site may adversely affect impacted (0.75 acres impacted to be replaced with ,
2-12
' TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
' special-status plants and animals. (PS) 2.28 acres of new wetland) by enlarging and
enhancing the existing wetlands on the project site
and providing buffer areas around wetlands. The
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan should be
reviewed and approved by the County, California
Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers prior to filing a final subdivision map.
(3.4-5)
Wetlands and waterways impacted by the proposed
project are considered waters of the United States and
therefore come under the jurisdiction of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. Filling in waters of the
United States requires a permit from the Department
of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
project applicant is required to obtain a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before filling of
any wetlands or waters on the project site. The type
of permit required will be defined by the U.S Army
Corps of Engineers upon submittal of a permit
application by the project applicant.In addition to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, the California
Department of Fish and Game may need to be
notified regarding project activities in the vicinity of
the main drain pursuant to Fish and Game Code
Section 1600 et. seq. (3.4-6)
The project should pay the County Protection Fee,as
required by the County General Plan, for acquiring
development rights on wetland areas off-site. The
Protection Fee should be paid upon the issuance of
building permits for the project. (3.4-7; NS)
3.5 VISUAL QUALITY
a. The project would result in changing the existing The following measures are proposed by the Project
visual character of the project site to one of a Applicant to address visual impacts:
suburban residential community with various
recreational uses. This change would substantially Landscape criteria for the proposed golf course,parks,
alter the existing visual condition. This would be common areas, project levees and the channels.
considered an unavoidable impact of the project. (S) Landscaping would consist primarily of low grasses
2-13
r
TABLE 2-1 (continued) ,
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact '
After Mitigation)
and wildflowers with some introduced shrubs and ,
trees. (3.5-1)
Landscape guidelines for the proposed levee system.
These guidelines are designed to be consistent with
the landscape guidelines of the State Reclamation
Board. A list of suitable plant species is provided as
part of the guidelines. (3.5-2)
A landscape strip would be provided outside the
project levee to provide screening of the levee along
Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard. The
landscape strip would be a minimum of 10 feet wide
and be located sufficiently outside the levee cross-
section to not hinder maintenance of the levee. The
landscape strip should be planted with trees and
shrubs to provide maximum screening. Maintenance
of the landscape strip would be carried out by the
homeowners'association or special district but not the
public agency responsible for maintenance of the
project levee. (3.5-3)
Residential units will be limited to two stories not to
exceed 30 feet. (3.5-4)
Minimum setbacks along arterial roadways will be
200 feet, and 100 feet from the center line of the
roadway to the exterior wall of any living space along
collectors (Cypress Road Extension). (3.5-5)
Sideyard setbacks will vary taking into account: 1) '
structures should not block solar access for heating
and cooling;2)space between buildings shall increase
in relation to their height; and 3) periodic view ,
corridors to water areas should be provided. (3.5-6)
Mitigation measures proposed by the project, or
included as mitigation measures, would improve the
visual character of the project site but would not
mitigate the change in visual character to a less-than-
significant degree. (S) '
2-14
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
' b. Views of the project site from Bethel Island The levee landscape guidelines should be finalized
Boulevard,Sandmound Road and other vantage points once the public agency to be responsible for
around the project perimeter would be partially maintaining the levees is determined. The levee
blocked by a landscaped flood control levee which landscape guidelines should then be submitted to the
would surround the project. The degree of impact public agency responsible for maintenance of the
would be higher for residences closest to the levee. levees for review and approval prior to the installation
of any landscaping on the levees. (3.5-7)
A landscape maintenance district, or other funding
source consisting of the property owners within the
project site, shall be established for the proposed
project to pay for long-term maintenance of public
recreation areas within the project site. The project
applicant shall submit a proposal for the landscape
maintenance district to the County for approval prior
to approval of the project's final subdivision map.
(3.5-8; NS)
3.6 NOISE
a. Existing houses along Cypress Road just west of Noise mitigation installed (soundwalls, architectural
the project entrance would be exposed to a significant treatments), along Cypress Road for the project
noise impact due to increased traffic by the year entrance to Sellers Road should be designed to
1 2000. (PS) achieve the County's 60 dB goal for residential uses.
The proposed project should be required to pay 40%
of the total cost of noise mitigation for houses along
Cypress. This is based on the calculation that the
project will contribute 4 dB to the ultimate 70 dB
noise level along Cypress Road which is 10 dB over
the County's 50 dB goal. The remaining 60% of the
cost should be paid by the County (40%) and future
development (20%). The project's prorata share of
noise mitigation should be paid at the time of filing
each phased final map. (3.6-1; NS)
b. Existing residences adjacent to the site, In order to reduce construction period noise impacts
particularly along Sandmound Boulevard, would be the following mitigation should be implemented:
exposed to a short-term impact from construction
noise. (PS) a. All general construction activity should be
limited to the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. on weekdays only.
2-15
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED ,
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
b. Operations of any machine or device which ,
generates a noise level greater than 95 dB at
50 feet should be prohibited wherever
feasible.
C. Route heavy construction traffic along
existing Cypress Road and the proposed
Cypress road to minimize the impact on
existing residences. No construction traffic
should be routed along Bethel Island Road or
Sandmound Boulevard.
d. Prohibit construction trucks from parking
along existing Cypress Road west of the
project entrance.
e. Locate noisy stationary equipment, such as
compressors or pumping stations away from
existing residences to reduce their noise
impact. (3.6-2: NS)
c. Proposed housing along the extension of Cypress In order to avoid adverse noise levels at homes to be '
Road within the project would be exposed to a located along the extension of Cypress Road through
existing and future DNL of 65 dB. This is 5 dB over the project, the project has been designed to provide
the County goal for normally acceptable outdoor noise a 100 foot set-back along Cypress Road. The 100
levels but is within conditionally acceptable noise foot set-back would be from the center line of the
levels. (PS) roadway to the nearest exterior wall of each residence
located along Cypress Road. The 100 foot set-back
would reduce the noise level at these residences to a
DNL of 60 dB which is consistent with the County's
noise goals for residential uses. No additional ,
mitigation is necessary or proposed. (3.6-3; NS)
3.7 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE ,
a. The project would increase the area of The following mitigation measures are proposed as
impermeable surfaces and increase storm water part of the project: '
runoff. The proposed channel/lake system and storm
drainage network would reduce the project's drainage On-site storm drainage facilities (lake, channels and
impacts. On-site storm drainage that previously was golf course detention facilities)shall be constructed to
collected in ditches and flowed off-site to RD-799 both protect property and to provide for public safety
2-16 '
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
' Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
pumps, would, for the most part, be collected on site by accommodating the 100 year storm event. (3.7-1)
and terminate in the proposed channel/lake system.
During storm periods when excess water accumulates Dewatering structures(discussed in the Water Quality
on the site, waters from the lake would then be Section) shall be constructed at those points where
pumped to ultimate disposal in Sand Mound Slough underground storm drainage pipes enter the
by a pump station that would be constructed as part channel/lake system in order to facilitate the periodic
of the development. (NS) flushing and cleaning of the underground pipes.(3.7-2)
Drainage ditches shall be constructed along the
exterior toe of the proposed levee system to catch that
runoff from the exterior slope of the levees. The
drainage ditches shall discharge into existing drainage
ditches along the perimeter of the project. (3.7-3),
Maintenance of on-site storm drainage improvements
within the public right-of-way, or in suitable
easements, shall be performed by the County of
Contra Costa. Storm water pump station maintenance
shall be performed by the public entity selected to be
responsible for the operation and maintenance of the
perimeter levee. (3.7-4; NS)
b. The 685.9 acre project site would be removed The following mitigation measures are proposed to
from the FEMA flood hazard zone by construction of ensure proper construction, landscaping and
a perimeter levee. Material for construction of the maintenance of the internal levee system.
levee would be obtained from the excavation of the
interior channels-lake system. The levee would be The design of the project levee shall be in accordance
constructed to standards adopted by FEMA for an with the standards and requirements of the Federal
Urban Standard Levee. (B) Emergency Management Agency for an Urban
Standard Levee. Provisions shall be designed into the
' project levee to allow for a future increase in height
of four feet to allow for the "greenhouse effect."
During the design of the project levee, the crest
elevation shall be increased by an amount equivalent
to projected long term settlement. (3.7-5)
The side slopes of the project levee shall be planted
and irrigated to reduce erosion, and to provide dust
control,in accordance with the limitations imposed by
FEMA. (3.7-6)
2-17
TABLE 2-1 (continued) '
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED '
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
Adequate easements shall be granted to the
maintaining authority in order to provide for
maintenance and upgrading of the levee, and to
prohibit encroachments onto the levee. (3.7-7)
To minimize the risk of liquefaction beneath the
perimeter levees, the loose clean and silty sand of
depths of 10 to 15 feet shall be reworked and
densified. Deep dynamic compaction and/or over
excavation and compaction of soils shall be utilized to '
densify the soils. (3.7-8)
The levee landscape guidelines should be finalized
once the public agency responsible for maintaining ,
the levees is determined. The levee landscape
guidelines should then be submitted to the public
agency responsible for maintenance of the levees for
review and approval prior to installation of any
landscaping on the levees (same as mitigation
measure 3.5-7) (3.7-9)
A detailed emergency evacuation plan based on the
project's proposed emergency evacuation plan shall be
prepared in cooperation with RD-799 and the
governmental agency that ultimately accepts the
internal levee system prior to approval of the project's
final subdivision map. The evacuation plan shall '
include at a minimum the following measures:
• Criteria for determining when a emergency
exists '
• Methods for notifying and evacuating area
residents
• Identification of agencies and individuals ,
responsible for emergency response and
public evacuation
• Plans for returning evacuees to their homes
after an emergency has passed. (3.7-10;NS)
c. Existing soils within the project site would be The proposed groundwater monitoring.plan shall be
removed (for the lake/channels) to construct the made a condition of project approval. A final ,
2-18 ,
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
' IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
' Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
proposed levee system. The proposed project would groundwater monitoring plan shall be submitted for
have a short-term impact on groundwater as a result review and approval by the County prior to filing a
of dewatering of near-surface groundwater for final subdivision map. (3.7-11; NS)
excavation for the internal levees, lake, channels and
installation of utilities. The localized dewatering
activities would not affect adjacent properties because
dewatering would occur far enough from existing
residences and draw down would only occur on the
project site immediately under or adjacent to the
dewatering area. In addition,the project plans include
a groundwater monitoring plan. (PS)
d. The project would not have an impact on the The project site shall continue to be a part of RD-799
' condition of the existing RD-799 levee system. and shall be prohibited from seceding from this
However, the project site does provide funding for district, even if removed from the flood hazard zone
continued maintenance of the RD-799 levee system by the proposed internal levee system,to provide the
and RD-799 may ultimately be responsible for district with a continued long-term source of funding
maintenance of the proposed levee system. (PS) for maintenance of the existing RD-799 levee system.
(3.7-12; NS)
e. Increased surface runoff from the new impervious A final maintenance plan for the Golf Course shall be
surfaces and the golf course may have impacts on the submitted for review and approval by the County,
water quality of the channels-lake and ultimately the prior to filing a final subdivision map. The final
Delta. Urban runoff can contain substantial quantities maintenance plan shall build on the maintenance
of pollutants such as organic pesticides,heavy metals, criteria established in the project plans and identify
nutrients, petroleum products, and suspended solids. standard maintenance and management practices to be
To address this potential impact, the project plans carried out on the Golf Course. Specific maintenance
include a water quality management plan and procedures shall be identified regarding the use of
maintenance criteria for the golf course. However, pesticides,herbicides,and fertilizers. An emphasis of
proper implementation is necessary to ensure adequate the maintenance plan should be to reduce potential
water quality. (PS) leaching into local groundwater resources. The
maintenance and management plan shall also outline
specific irrigation practices designed to reduce water
consumption. (3.7-13)
An informational packet shall be distributed to all
project residents to educate them on the use and
disposal of undesirable materials such as motor oil,
paints, garden pesticides and other household
products. The informational packet should be
' contained in the CC&Rs for each house. The
2-19
TABLE 2-1 (continued) ,
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED '
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact ,
After Mitigation)
-14
. 3.7 )
A street sweeping program shall be provided to
reduce urban pollutant run off into the proposed lake
and channels. The street sweeping may be provided
by the County through its existing street sweeping
program. If this is not feasible, alternative measures
could include funding of the street sweeping program
by the homeowner's association. (3.7-15)
A final channel-lake operation and maintenance plan
shall be submitted for review and approval prior to
filing a final subdivision map. The plan shall be ,
based on the applicant's proposed lake-channel
management plans utilizing plants, flushing, aeration
and other techniques to maintain water quality without
chemicals. (3.7-16)
The project shall comply with all the requirements of
the County's NPDES permit requirements. The '
project applicant shall provide the County with the
appropriate documentation regarding compliance with
NPDES requirements prior to the issuance of grading
permits for the project. (3.7-17; NS)
3.8 GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND SOILS
a. The project would expose new structures to the The project plans include the following mitigation '
potential impacts of liquefaction. Due to the measures:
"Generally High" liquefaction potential on the project '
site and County policies, this impact would be Excavate,rework and densify the loose clean and silty
considered potentially significant. (PS) sands under the levee to a depth of 10 to 15 feet.
Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) techniques could
also be used. These techniques could involve
dropping a heavy weight repeatedly at a given
location. (3.8-1)
If Deep Dynamic Compaction is used,vibration from '
this construction technique would be monitored along
the property line closest to adjacent residences. ,
2-20 '
i
' TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
' (Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
However,vibration from DDC would not be expected
to exceed safe limits beyond 150 feet from the
excavation site and therefore would not affect any
adjacent residences. (3.8-2)
The following mitigation measures are proposed in
addition to those measures proposed as part of the
project:
' The Kleinfelder report analyzed alternative approaches
for mitigating liquefaction impacts. The project
should be required to adhere to these approaches.
The specific approach will depend on site-specific
conditions and analysis. However, the project
applicant should follow the reviewed and approved
recommendation of the Kleinfelder report. A report
documenting the methods used in the field to reduce
liquefaction potential should be submitted to the
Public Works Department and the public agency
responsible for maintenance of the levee system.
(3.8-5)
Building plans for each structure to be constructed on
the project site shall include an evaluation and
recommendations to ensure satisfactory performance
in the event of an earthquake and liquefaction on the
project site. The building plans shall be reviewed and
approved by Contra Costa County prior to the
issuance of building permits. (3.8-8; NS)
b. Construction of the project would result in grading The project plans include the following mitigation
over much of the site for construction of the proposed measure:
homes, golf course, lakes and other facilities. These
activities would expose soils to wind and water Existing vegetated areas should be left
erosion. Because the site is located in an area of undisturbed until construction of site
strong winds, wind erosion could result in a improvements is actually ready to
' significant loss of soil without mitigation.(PS) commence.
• All disturbed areas should be protected from
both wind and water erosion upon the
completion of grading activities.
2-21
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED ,
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact ,
After Mitigation)
• Runoff should be directed away from all ,
areas disturbed by construction, if practical.
• Temporary check dams, sediment ponds, or
siltation basins should be used to trap eroded
soils, and prevent their discharge into storm
drain pipes. '
• To the extent possible, major site
development work involving earth moving ,
and excavations should be scheduled for the
dry season.
• Areas used for stockpiling and staging
construction equipment and materials should
be located so that unchecked runoff from
these areas does not enter the storm drain ,
system. (3.84)
The following mitigation measure is proposed in
addition to the measures proposed as part of the '
project:
Post at the construction site the name and phone ,
number of a designated dust control coordinator who
can respond to complaints by suspending dust-
producing activities or providing additional personnel '
or equipment for dust control. In addition contractors
shall implement, at a minimum, the following
measures:
1) Schedule earthmoving activities,as much as '
possible, during the early spring months
when soil moisture is high.
2) Suspend earthmoving or other dust-producing
activities during periods of extreme winds.
3) Provide equipment and staffing for watering
of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at ,
least twice daily, including weekends and
holidays. An appropriate dust palliative or
suppressant, added to water before
2-22 '
' TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
rapplication, should be utilized.
4) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil,
' sand or other materials that can be blown by
the wind.
5) Sweep adjacent streets of all mud and debris,
since this material can be pulverized and
later resuspended by vehicle traffic.
6) Where possible, limit the speed of all
construction vehicles to 15 miles per hour
while on site.
7) Seed, cover or chemically treat finished
grades as soon as practical after completion
of activities. (3.8-7; NS)
c. The potential for subsidence from dewatering The following measure is proposed as part of the
would be short-term (only during dewatering project plans:
activities)and would only occur in the immediate area
of dewatering activities. Dewatering activities are Groundwater monitoring plans to provide early
expected to occur during the excavation for the lake detection of changes in the groundwater level and to
and channels, construction of the levee and allow adjustments in the construction techniques if
installation of underground utilities. Dewatering necessary. Monitoring wells and settlement plates
activities would effect the top 15 to 20 feet, which would be placed on the project site and surrounding
would not impact most domestic wells which are properties to control the groundwater level. (3.8-3)
generally below the depth of the dewatering activities
(Bohely, 1992). The localized dewatering activities The following mitigation measure is proposed in
would not cause subsidence on adjacent properties addition to those measures proposed by the project:
because draw down would only occur on the project
site immediately under or adjacent to the dewatering The ground settlement monitoring plan should be
area. (PS) finalized and submitted to the County for review and
approval prior to beginning any construction or
dewatering activities. The plan shall identify the
location of all monitoring wells,and provide specifics
on well completion and the method and frequency of
monitoring. Similarly, the plan shall identify
settlement plates as well as contingency plans to
control subsidence or mitigate subsidence related
damage. (3.8-6; NS)
2-23
1
TABLE 2-1 (continued) ,
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED ,
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact '
After Mitigation)
3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES
a. The project would increase fire protection service The project proposes to dedicate a site and construct
demands on the fire districts by increasing the number a new fire station on the project site in lieu of fire '
of structures and population within the project area. protection fees as determined by the County. The site
To reduce the project's impacts on fire services, the and station should meet all applicable requirements of
project would include construction of a fire station the appropriate Fire District (Oakley FPD or Bethel
near the project entrance at Cypress Road. This Island FPD). The fire station should be operational
station would satisfy the County's standard that fire prior to the first homes on the site being occupied. If
stations be located within one and one-half miles of necessary a special district fee may be augmented to ,
development,and satisfactory to the Bethel Island and provide adequate funding to fully staff the new
Oakley Fire Districts for maintaining the five minute station. (3.9-1)
/ 1.5 mile response standard. The proposed project,
therefore, is not expected to have an adverse impacts If the project is required to pay fees,the Fire District
on fire protection facilities.(NS) fees shall be based on the fees in effect at the time of
the issuing of building permits. (3.9-2)
All building plans shall meet the applicable Uniform ,
Building and Fire codes. Fire protection agencies
shall be afforded the opportunity to review and
comment on plans prior to the issuance of building '
permits for the projects. (3.9-3)
b. The project would result in the addition of The proposed project should pay a fair-share fee equal ,
approximately 3,247 persons population within the to the cost of providing 465 square feet of new
County sheriff's service area. This would result in Sheriff Department facilities, based on the County
the need for new officer positions and equipment.(PS) standard of 155 square feet per 1,000 residents. The '
fee should be calculated and paid at the time of
issuance of building permits. for the project. (3.9-4;
NS)
c. The project would generate approximately 665 The applicant and the school district shall enter into '
new elementary and middle school enrollments and a short-term funding agreement prior to recordation
approximately 253 new high school enrollments. of the subdivision map. The agreement shall ensure '
Based on the project's student generation and the that matching funds are provided for the completion
local school district's school facility requirements,the of construction documents necessary for the
proposed project would require the construction of district's application(s) for State funding. The
approximately one new elementary school, 30% of a amount of short-term funding would be credited to '
new middle schools,and 20%of a new High Schools. the applicant's full school impact fees which are
The project includes a possible school site of paid upon issuance of building permits. Scheel
approximately 7.4 acres. This site is proposed to imparat fees shall be based eR the fees iA e-M-es--at --he
2-24
i
r
' TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
mitigate the project's impacts on the local school time of issuing building peFinits. 3.9-5)
district. The OUESD has indicated that a 10 acre
' school site would be desired.(PS) School impact fees are projected to be insufficient to
cover the project's share of facilities required to serve
new students in the area. If no state or local funding
is available,the applicant should work with the school
districts to determine additional school fees to be paid
as building permits are issued. (3.9-6)
' The school site should be enlarged from 7.4 acres to
10 acres to meet the OEUSD requirements. (3.9-7)
If the proposed on-site school site is determined by
' the OUESD to be unacceptable, the applicant shall
pay an in-lieu fee to the OUESD for the purchase of
an appropriate school site. (3.9-8; NS)
' d. The project would include 170 acre semi-private The following mitigation measures are proposed to
golf course,60 acres of channels and lake,a 1.5 acre ensure proper maintenance of park facilities and
beach club, approximately 33 acres of parks, and a compliance with County policy:
day care facility. The project is consistent with the
park land/recreation requirements of the County. (B) The project proposes to construct and dedicate the
large community park to the County which would
then be responsible for continued maintenance of the
park. If this is unacceptable to the County, funding
for maintenance of the community park should be
provided through a special district. (3.9-9)
The community park should be designed so that
active recreational use areas are located outside the
power line easement. Active uses to be located
outside the easement include: baseball diamonds,
soccer fields and play ground areas. Uses permitted
' within the easement should be passive recreation and
landscape areas. (3.9-10)
The project applicant shall prepare a child care needs
assessment based upon the projected demographics
and density of the proposed project. The needs
assessment shall be submitted to the Community
Development Plan prior to approval of the final phase
2-25
TABLE 2-1 (continued) ,
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED '
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
map for the portion of the project which includes the
day care site. (3.9-11; NS)
e. The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District CCMAD should be provided the final design plans for '
• (CCMAD)notes that the environmental conditions in wetland mitigation areas and golf course maintenance
the area indicate that the project would cause an and irrigation for review and comment prior to their
increase in the level of service required from approval. (3.9-12; NS)
CCMAD. Golf courses, parks and water detention
basins proposed as pan of the project can lead to
mosquito problems year round. (PS)
3.10 UTILITIES '
a. Water requirements for the project would amount Implement a groundwater management plan to address '
to approximately 1.7 million gallons per day (mgd). water requirements for irrigating the golf course and
This can be broken down into 884,150 mgd for parks and to monitor changes in the groundwater
domestic use and 805,200 mgd for landscaping. The table. The groundwater management plan should also ,
project is proposing to utilize existing groundwater address the management of pesticides and measures
resources for irrigation of the golf course, parks, to be taken to reduce potential impacts on
wetlands, and certain levee areas. The Oakley Water groundwater resources. In addition, the plan should
District appears to be the logical provider of domestic identify what areas,and in what sequence,water will '
water service to the proposed project and has be discontinued to portions of the golf course and
provided a "will serve" letter to the project applicant parks in the event of water cutbacks because of
confirming that water capacity is available to serve drought or substantial lowering of the water table. '
this project through its buildout. The plan should be approved by the County prior to
(PS) filing a final subdivision map. (3.10-1)
Design into the golf course the use of grasses that are '
drought tolerant to limit the amount of water
necessary for irrigation. (3.10-2)
Require all structures to confirm to the California '
Health and Safety Code Section 1792.3 and the Public
Resources Code Section 25402 with regard to ,
maximum flow rates through plumbing fixtures.
(3.10-3)
Provide homeowners with alternative landscaping '
opportunities such as xeriscape landscaping for
builder installed front yards. (3.10-4)
2-26
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
' Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
Design water distribution systems in accordance with
American Water Works Association standards. (3.10-
, 5)
Install cathodic protection where corrosive
environments are found, and use metallic water line
products. (3.10-6)
Install cathodic protection where corrosive
' environments are found and metallic water line
products must be used. (3.10-7; NS)
b. The project proposes to obtain its domestic water The project should be required to construct,or pay a
' supply from the existing OWD mains located at the fee equal to, the necessary off-site water system
intersection of Highway 4 and Cypress Road in improvements to serve the proposed project. The size
Oakley. From that point,the project would construct and design of these facilities should meet all
' two separate 12" pipelines, that are periodically applicable standards and requirements of the Oakley
interconnected,to the project site. The 12" pipelines Water District and local Fire District Standards. The
would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project should be reimbursed on a proration basis for
project as well as some limited additional the cost of constructing facilities which have the
development within the Bethel Island area. (NS) capacity to serve future development in the Planning
Area served by the facilities. The necessary off-site
water facilities should be completed and operational
prior to the first homes being occupied on the site.
(3.10-8; NS)
c. The project would result in a significant increase The project applicant would be required to construct
in wastewater generated from the project site. Based all necessary sewage collection facilities on-site to
on wastewater generation factors provided by the serve the project. These facilities should be built to
Oakley Sanitary District, the proposed project would district standards and appropriate easements for
generate approximately 360,000 gallons/day (or 0.36 district maintenance provided. The sewage collection
mgd) based on 270 gallons/unit day x 1,330 units. facilities should be installed prior to the first homes
The most logical provider of sewer service for the being occupied. (3.10-9)
' project is the Ironhouse Sanitary District because 75%
of the proposed project site is located within their A hydraulic analysis of the force main should be
existing service boundaries. The project applicant has conducted to determine the capacity of the existing
requested that the remainder of the project site be force main and any improvements that may be
annexed to the Ironhouse Sanitary District. The necessary to accommodate the proposed project. This
Ironhouse Sanitary District appears to have adequate analysis should be conducted prior to approval of the
capacity to serve the project and has provided a"will project's final subdivision map. The project shall pay
serve" letter to the project applicant. However, there its fair share of any improvements necessary to the
2-27
TABLE 2-1 (continued) '
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED '
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact ,
After Mitigation)
may be several off-site improvements necessary to force main to serve the project. The fair-share fee '
serve the project. (PS) shall be paid upon approval of the first phased map.
(3.10-10) '
The project should be required to pay the full costs of
any increase in pumping capacity or new pump
station(s) necessary to serve the project. The need '
and cost for these improvements shall be determined
by the Ironhouse Sanitary District prior to approval of
the final map. (3.10-11) ,
A reimbursement agreement shall be entered into
between the project applicant and the Ironhouse
Sanitary District whereby the project applicant would '
be reimbursed for the portion of the cost of new
facilities which have the capacity to serve areas in
addition to the project. The reimbursement would be ,
paid out of fees paid by future developments. (3.
10-12; NS)
d. Electric service would be supplied to new The project shall include the undergrounding of all '
development by PG&E. The existing transmission new electrical service lines necessary to serve the
lines and substation appear to have adequate capacity project site. Electrical lines should be placed in
to provide service to the project.(NS) relatively water tight conduits according to PG & E '
standards. This should be completed prior to the first
houses being occupied. (3.10-13)
The need to upgrade off-site electrical lines shall be '
determined by PG&E prior to approval of the final
map. If off-site reinforcement is necessary, the
project applicant should be required to pay the '
project's fair-share, if any, of the reinforcement.
(3.10-14; NS)
e. The project would require the replacement of the Place distribution lines underground. (3.10-15) ,
switch on Bethel Island and the extension of new
telephone cables to the project site.According to PUC Install telephone cables in relatively water-tight
regulations, costs of line and equipment installation conduits and vaults. (3.10-16; NS) '
would be borne by the developer and Pacific Bell.
According to County policy, distribution lines would
need to be placed underground in relatively watertight
2-28 '
i
' TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
' conduits and vaults, thereby avoiding visual impacts
and prolonging the life of the equipment and
cables.(NS)
f. The project includes street lighting and additional Project street lights should utilize down focused lights
lighting associated with individual residential units and other features to reduce glare. The design of
' and recreational uses. The street lighting would be street lights should be submitted for review and
installed in accordance with Contra Costa County approval to the County Public Works Department for
Code(Title 9)requirements and maintained by Contra review and approval prior to approval of the final
' Costa County. Street lights produce "glow" which map. (3.10-17; NS)
could impact adjacent residents. (PS)
3.11 HUMAN HEALTH
a. Residents of the project could be exposed to Each residence on the project site should include in
agricultural chemicals applied aerially on nearby its CC&Rs a clause consistent with disclosure
' agricultural lands. However, the use of agricultural currently required by the County stating that the
chemicals is strictly regulated by County and State incoming property owner is aware of adjacent
regulations. Chemicals applied aerially on nearby agricultural uses and the potential hazards related to
properties could drift onto the project site and cause this land use. (3.11-1; NS)
adverse health effects and nuisance odors for project
residents. The level of exposure for project residents
would vary greatly depending on the amount of
' chemicals used and proximity to the application.(PS)
b. The project site could potentially contain Soil sampling should be conducted in those areas of
contaminated soils in those areas where heavy the site where heavy equipment is stored, repair
equipment is stored,repair facilities are located and facilities are located and where the above ground
where the above ground storage tanks are located. storage tanks are located. Should contaminated soil
(PS) be identified, removal and remediation of the
material should occur before excavation or
construction activities commence in these areas.
The Contra Costa County Health Department should
' supervise and authorize any soil sampling
procedures and remediation. (3.11-2; NS)
2-29
TABLE 2-1 (continued) '
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED ,
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
c. The project would involve the construction of The Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District r
lakes, a golf course and other water related facilities (CCMAD) should be consulted regarding mosquito
including wetland mitigation sites,drainage facilities. abatement features during the final design of any
These facilities may provide breeding habitat for wetland mitigation sites to be created on the project
mosquitos if not properly maintained. (PS) site (3.11-3)
If reclaimed water is used for recreation areas, '
CCMAD should be consulted regarding the design
and testing of alternative methods and disbursement
sources.(3.11-4; NS) '
d. The project site is located in close proximity to Each residence within the project site should include
large electrical transmission lines and natural gas drill in the CC&Rs a clause stating that the incoming
easements (no active gas sites). Although some of property owner is aware of the specific human health '
these risks are speculative, as a result of the project's issues related to living near electrical transmission
location,project residents could be exposed to certain lines and drill sites. (3.11-5; NS)
health risks. (PS)
3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Because the project site is known historically to Due to the existence of subsurface cultural materials '
contain cultural resources,including the possibility of along the western perimeter of the CA-CCo-134 site
human burials,the proposed project may result in the area and the recommendations relative to site CA-
disruption of cultural resources as a result of the CCo-139 (below), it is recommended that significant ,
grading and excavation necessary to construct various ground disturbance be avoided in an area of
components of the project.(PS) approximately l l acres (700 x 700 feet [213 x 213
meters])(see Appendix H). The proposed uses in this '
area (internal levee, natural gas drilling site, fire
station,community park) are not expected to result in
significant ground disturbance. However, all
construction activity in this area should be closely '
monitored to preserve known resources and to
determine the presence of any previously unknown
subsurface resources in the CA-CCo-134 area. ,
Should sterile soil (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the
site for landscaping purposes, it is recommended that
rubber-tired construction vehicles be used throughout
the site area and that excavation for landscaping or ,
irrigation be allowed in fill material only. Should it
be necessary to excavate through native soils, an
archaeologist should be present to monitor soil '
2-30 '
1
' TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
' IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
' Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
removal for the presence of cultural materials. (3.12-
1)
' Significant ground disturbance should be avoided in
the area surrounding site CA-CCo-139, from the 0-
foot(sea level)contour to the mound apex at 6.5 feet
' above sea level(see Appendix H). The proposed uses
in this area (community park, extension of Cypress
Road are not expected to result in significant ground
disturbance. However, all construction activities
should be closely monitored to preserve known
resources present in this area. It is understood that
two private parcels of land on the mound are not
' included in the project proposal. These
recommendations do not apply to those parcels unless
they are incorporated into the project proposal at
' some future time. Should any subsurface disturbance
occur on the mound through the removal of structures
or foundations, an archaeological monitor should be
present to observe soils for the presence of cultural
materials. Should sterile soil (e.g.,topsoil) be placed
over the site for landscaping purposes, it is
recommended that rubber-tired construction vehicles
' be used throughout the site area and that excavation
for landscaping or irrigation be allowed in fill
material only. Should it be necessary to excavate
through native soils, an archaeologist should be
present to monitor soil removal for the presence of
cultural materials. (3.12-2)
Construction at the fire station, which would be
within the area of archaeological sensitivity for site
CA-CCo-139,should be closely monitored and work
' stopped immediately if cultural materials are
encountered. If it is determined that construction is
not feasible, the project applicant shall be required to
1 find an alternate site outside the archaeologically
sensitive area. (3.12-3)
Lot No.10 in Neighborhood 1 should be removed or
redrawn in a manner that avoids the archaeologically
' 2-31
TABLE 2-1 (continued) ,
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED '
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text; '
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-139. (3.124)
Lot No.I l in Neighborhood i should be removed or
redrawn in order to avoid the archaeologically
sensitive area associated with CA-CCo-139. (3.12-5)
The area including and immediately surrounding site
CA-CCo-647 should be avoided to preclude impacts
to this important resource (see Appendix H). Should
sterile soil (e.g., topsoil) be placed over the site for
landscaping purposes,it is recommended that rubber-
tired construction vehicles be used throughout the site
area and that excavation for landscaping or irrigation
be allowed in fill material only. Should it be '
necessary to excavate through native soils, an
archaeologist should be present to monitor soil
removal for the presence of cultural materials. ,
(3.12-6)
The rear lot lines of lots No.29 and 30 in
Neighborhood 7 should be redrawn in a manner that
avoids the archaeologically sensitive area associated
with CA-CCo-647. (3.12-7)
In the event that avoidance of the preceding cultural ,
resource sites is not feasible, it will be necessary to
develop a data recovery or"excavation plan"pursuant '
to the requirements of CEQA Appendix K, Part V
and subject to the limitations defined in Part VI.
(3.12-8) '
An archaeological monitor should be present when
grading, excavation, trenching and other soil ,
disrupting activities are carried out in any of the
mapped archaeologically sensitive areas as defined in
Appendix H. These activities/areas include, for ,
example, the Cypress Road extension; levee
construction/ excavation/ compaction; possibly,
demolition of existing homes; fire station
construction; and the parking lot for the playing ,
2-32 '
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
' IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
' (Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
' fields. (3.12-9)
' An archaeological monitor should be on-call when
grading, excavation, trenching and other soil
disrupting activities are carried out on the project site.
In the event that a prehistoric site, burial, or historic
' resource is encountered during construction of the
project, the project engineer would be obligated to
temporarily stop or relocate construction activities and
notify the archaeological monitor immediately. In the
event a significant prehistoric or historic resource is
identified,no further construction should be permitted
in that location until a mitigation plan can be
formulated and implemented. (3.12-10)
In the event human remains are discovered during
' construction, excavations should be halted at that
location. Any finds of human remains must be
reported to the Contra Costa County Coroner's Office.
' In the event that the find is determined to be
prehistoric, the Native American Heritage
Commission must be notified within 24 hours to alert
them of the find and to permit the designation of a
Native American representative. Consultation
between the archaeological consultants in charge of
monitoring, Contra Costa County, and the Native
American representative would then determine the
course of action to be taken with the burial in
question. Ideally, if removal is undertaken, time
should be allowed for study of the remains and any
associated grave goods prior to their return to the
Native American Community for reburial at a location
of their selection. (3.12-11)
A report of findings and analyses of all archaeological
data recovered during testing/excavation,monitoring
and any mitigation procedures undertaken should be
prepared by a qualified archaeologist. (3.12-12)
Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources
Code also call for "protection to Native American
human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism
and inadvertent destruction". To achieve this goal, it
2-33
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED ,
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact '
After Mitigation)
is recommended that the construction personnel on the '
project be instructed as to the potential for discovery
of cultural or human remains, and both the need for
proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the
consequences of failure thereof. (3.12-13)
It is recommended that the Native American Heritage '
Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento be contacted
regarding potential Native American concerns,values,
and traditional use areas relative to the proposed
project site and vicinity. There is a potential for
disturbance of previously undiscovered Native
American human remains during construction of the
project. It would prove advantageous to have an '
established agreement with the NAHC and/or local
Bay Miwok tribal representatives prior to the
discovery of such remains,should any be discovered. '
A typical agreement would specify when,in the event
of a discovery, Native American involvement would
occur, and the treatment and ultimate disposition of
ancestral remains. (3.12-14) ,
The proposed intersection improvements at the project
entrance and Bethel Island Road should be realigned
to the north as much as possible to avoid impacting
site CA-CCo-138. (3.12-15)
The alignment of any future extension of Bethel
Island Road south of Cypress Road should be as far
east as feasible to avoid site CA-CCo-138,taking into
consideration safety factors.
This may result in the need to move the project
levee along the project's westerly boundary up to 50
feet to the east. (3.12-16; NS) '
3.13 ENERGY
a. An average dwelling unit could be expected to Building plans for each house should include energy
consume approximately 4,869 kilowatt hours conservation features such as passive solar heating,
(kwh)/year of electricity. Total energy consumption additional insulation and other features so that Title
of the proposed homes would be approximately 6.47 24 efficiency standards (1991) will be exceeded by at
million kilowatt hours/year of electricity. The project least 10%. These features shall be reviewed and
has proposed to incorporate design features in the approved by the County Building Department as pan
2-34 '
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
' IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
(Significance) TO REDUCE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
(Mitigation Number In Text;
Significance Of Impact
After Mitigation)
' project homes so that energy consumption would be of the building permit review process. (3.13-1; B)
reduced. The goal of the project would be to exceed
the energy efficiency standards of Title 24 by 10%.
(B)
i 2-35
3. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
3.1 INTRODUCTION
An initial study was prepared on the proposed project that was submitted prior to
' February 6, 1992 (the date of the Notice of Preparation [NOP]). The NOP noted that the project
application may be amended during the process in response to environmental issues and concerns
raised. Any amendments to the application submitted prior to completion of this EIR are
' addressed herein. Subsequent amendments to address remaining concerns covered in this EIR
and/or the planning process may be necessary.
' The application was in fact revised to address comments raised in response to the NOP,
first DEIR, neighborhood and agency concerns and the finalization of preliminary environmental
reports. The major revisions to the application include:
' 1. eater reservation and enhancement of wetlands
t�' P
2.) accommodations for a more effective and efficient drainage system
3.) elimination of neighborhood commercial uses
4.) the relocation of the potential school site
5.) more efficient internal circulation system
6.) preservation of cultural resources
7.) additional hydrology and geotechnical analysis
' 8.) additional landscape plans
The revisions to the proposed project do not raise new possible environmental impacts
that were not raised by the original project, negating the need for a new initial study. In fact,
the revisions will lessen some of the potential impacts of the original project design as identified
in the initial study. All potential significant impacts of the proposed project, as revised, are
addressed herein.
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING SETTING
The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project site is located in the Sacramento-San
' Joaquin Delta area of unincorporated north-eastern Contra Costa County,approximately 2.7 miles
east of the Town of Oakley (see Figure 3-1). The project site is located in the 'off-island"
portion of the Bethel Island Area, commonly known as the Hotchkiss Tract. The project site is
' located at the junction of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road (see Figure 3-2), and is generally
3-1
Sacs-,mento
99
$0
Oxapa 12 6so
� 1
och
Stockton
ozidw Q
•:`: ploject Are
s
•.t 2a o
{� 6$ ZO
•1. :. •80,: akland
Sall
Francisco =
• •, s$o ,
lot
••. San Jose Figure 1.1:
• • •'' Location
. Regional
• ' ' UNTRY
S & C�
CYPRES LI PR03F CT
C
3-2
•,. -- _ ,- :;� -. N --:^. �:�: - �.���: epi
ct04 xrfi,tl310^SIC.. ��y/_�A
EE
cd
L _
Otl I 'cl tlIRiF • •.�
_ ter. a W u oJ' .r•` U s o, I _ A
co
6 ted. FM
V
—_ — - - ' - .. .. gl -
'Otl • / ONYlS'13X139 O AVMNOIH d NOtl AB
Q - `
_ a-
_� o �..
1E d
•dl,�-- 03',¢ m .'t 'Ob 5%IV %303
Id i
AV NgS�.DIN
Ljr .:
r
alt
no,,,
p W
� I ln•9wa1
inmivM.O
4AV
:�
• \..��•..2 ;:": 70 a YtlrMA Y ,.I� 3AY Y1023N%IF
+ \rC m ���•:..• _ f•• C •3Ar �� M31AYIr1a. -
v
. WitlY
y
CIA
E 1 � y
E '�. o� :� 3tnr IIrO lAll v �_ \ •
[lOtl3N Otl 133tl]O%YS
we
?'. r;� ==tet.. ..,: •:�,, /or
oz
1 � � • ` � � =
3i
tl1 11101 yr
r_' AbM m ;7: s�" - [up,Rt19 00;
i '•fie i JB YI101 YbJbW -•:-I+.T�..., _
elf
i/'gyp ;o• — j _0. �� S " ` :<:::,:.,. ;.:
•�,--..: ! i.. c OYgi
w 71
!iso
N •Y•:ti�}_�� O
lA' .n; :!� ,o •, C eo _ •. "� Vic::'_-,.:-.._ Q�
'dW
?; ma wuAW,,n3Ncun r'•.Wy� •; y--- - /�/
I - � •� vl a Vie.'.....
3-3
bordered by Bethel Island Road on the west, Sandmound Boulevard on the north and east and ,
by agricultural uses on the south.
The existing use of the site is agricultural (cattle grazing) and consists of several fenced '
pasture areas, with irrigation and drainage canals crossing the property in various locations. A
few homes and agricultural structures are located on the project site. These structures are
primarily located along the unimproved portion of Cypress Road and east of Bethel Island Road.
3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS '
The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project would be constructed on approximately
685.9 acres consisting of seven parcels. The project would consist of 1,330 single-family
residential units. In addition, the project would include an 18-hole golf course with amenities,
an internal levee system, a man-made lake and channels, a day care facility, parks, a fire station,
beach club, and a potential school site (see Figure 3-3). ,
The project would be constructed in phases. The phases would be timed to coincide with
necessary infrastructure improvements (i.e. sewage, storm drainage, water facilities, roadway ,
improvements, etc.).
The first phase would include basic grading of the site and excavation for the man-made
lake and channels. Material excavated for the lake and channels would be used to construct a
levee system around the project site for flood protection. The levee system would require Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approval before any home constructed on the site
could be occupied. Preliminary grading for the golf course would occur coincident with levee
construction. '
The proposed residential development would be on lots ranging in size from
approximately 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Residential lot densities would average
approximately.5.4 units per acre. The overall density of the project is 2.21 units per acre. '
Residential development on the southern portion of the site (south of Cypress Road) '
would be oriented toward the man-made lake of approximately 60 acres. Non-motorized boats
would be permitted on the lake. A beach club would also be developed adjacent to the lake to
provide recreational opportunities for project and area residents. The beach club would provide '
a swimming facility adjacent to but separate from the man-made lake. In addition, a day care
center, fire station, potential school site and public park would be located in this portion of the
project site.
The residential development north of Cypress Road would include an 18-hole golf course
interwoven among the various neighborhoods. A clubhouse facility, driving range and
maintenance facility would also be located in this area as well as several water channels.
Commercial uses on the site are no longer proposed.
3-4 '
all;leo pule pule-1 paaaaaleuo :ao.znos
iaaroxd
ZnoS,o,j joa(oad A2f<. NfI07
:C—i aanl;d �9 SHX I SSHHdA3
M
+-------
111x0 --�% — —
L)
� \ a
'Z
I I I
A.
mm
I
1 I � ..:nib!%j"1� ���; ;:;. �,� � • I
-
1
1
I
I
I
1
SAMIl
SII 3
I
I
1
I
t
I
i
� I
1
I
I
I
I
I
31
I
s
I
I
I
00H S
0
i
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
� 31K
1
MOLLV S� 1
I
I
L
3W
I I d
dI n31
(
Jl 33
O
� i n
�18 d
I
I
1
dv�
I I lads
3115
I I ION \ liiaa
ccs 0`dod
�N SS3adl.o
I RIS
ladd
/ / iliac v `
I ION
p v�N a �\ \
11
J
C13 1 i
I
p I i I
Z
O
p . i I
Z
Q i I Q
I I o
I
AVMNN! I I Q
J
371LWVdd
JL4^
V0"»30 /
nav i \ \ LLI
XG
\ 3snoHonbV I w
\ m
\ \ 1
\ \ \
I
/ 11
/ / II
� I
\ II
�rnaa
I I I I
I '
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I • I
33431 I-—
' I
' I I
\ I I
\ I
u \ I
1 The project design would avoid most of the existing seasonal wetland areas (6.52 acres)
and waters of the U.S. (2.66 acres) present on the project site. However, approximately 0.75
' acres of wetlands would be impacted by the proposed project. The project design would include
replacing the impacted wetlands through restoration and enhancement of existing wetland habitat
on the project site.
' The major land uses proposed by the project, including approximate acres of coverage,
are summarized as follows:
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LAND USES
' Land Use Acres
Single-family Residential (1,330 units) 242.9
' Fire Station 2.0
School Site 7.4
' Beach Club 1.9
Daycare Center 0.5
Roadway Right-of-Way 74.6
1 Lake/Channels 61.0
Parks 33.7
Golf Course 170.3
' Existing Wetlands 6.5
Levees 54.6
Levee Road 9.0
1 Drill Sites 10.5
Wetland Mitigation/Buffers 11.0
TOTAL 685.9
' The primary entrance to the site would be via Cypress Road at its intersection with Bethel
Island Road. A secondary access would be provided via Sandmound Boulevard at the north end
' of the project site. Cypress Road would be extended through the project site as the primary
collector roadway. Residential neighborhoods would be accessed by an internal road system
consisting of primary roads, secondary loops and cul-de-sacs to provide access to the individual
neighborhoods (see Figure 3-4).
In addition to the above mentioned facilities, the proposed project would also include
' various storm drainage, water system, sewage disposal and public utility improvements. On-site
storm drainage improvements would include curbs, gutters and drain inlets to an underground
conduit system which would be designed in accordance with Reclamation District 799 (RD-799)
and County standards. The proposed system would pump excess runoff into Sand Mound
Slough. The project would include on-site detention of storm water in the proposed lake and
' 3-6
1 I
I I 1
I
11 I
1 1 1
I �
1 '
II ii
I I '
CIRCULATION
1 ROUTES
11 /r
II ii
1
1
' tt
11 \,
1
I
t \ '
P SD it
r r
---------
rr
r
I 1
1 I
r I I
) r 1 1
) r 1 I
r, 11
I (
I 1 1
1 < '
1 11 1
I
1 1
1 1
1 �
1 I
1 1
-------------- ------------ ,
Figure 1-4:
CYPRESS LAKES &
COUNTRY CLUB Project Circulation '
PROJECT
Source: Chartered Land and Cattle '
3-7 ,
channel detention facilities. On-site sewage facilities would include a gravity sewer system, lift
stations and pumps. Sewage from the site would enter the existing force main in Bethel Island
' Road. To provide water to the site, off-site improvements including transmission lines from
Highway 4 at Cypress Road would be provided. On-site water facilities would include 6", 8" and
10" underground distribution pipelines. Other utilities, such as electricity and solid waste
' disposal, would be provided by existing service providers.
3.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION
The proposed project has been designed to reduce certain impacts through the
incorporation of the following measures:
Levee System: The project design includes construction of a levees stem around the
y P J g Y
project site to remove the proposed development area from the flood hazard zone. The
' levee system would be certified by FEMA prior to the construction of houses on the site.
Storm Drainage Improvements: The project includes a system of channels and lake to
provide stormwater detention on-site to reduce drainage impacts on RD-799 facilities.
Water Ouality Management Plans: The project includes innovative water quality
management strategies to maintain acceptable water quality in the project channels and
lake. Management strategies include the use of specific plant species to remove pollutants
' from the water and mechanical circulation of water to improve flushing action.
Wetland Mitigation Plan: The project would impact 0.75 acres of the 9.18 acres of
wetlands on the site. The project would include the replacement of impacted wetland
through the enlargement and enhancement of existing wetlands on-site. The 0.75 acres
impacted would be replaced with approximately 2.75 acres of wetland.
Ground Subsidence Monitoring Plan: The project includes measures to monitor ground
subsidence that may result from de-watering activities associated with construction of the
' project levees, channels and lake. Monitoring wells and settlement plates would be used
to monitor construction. If groundwater levels or soil subsidence exceeds acceptable
levels, construction activities would be stopped and remedial actions taken.
Landscape Plans: The project includes detailed landscape plans for the project levee and
common areas. The landscape plans include lists of desirable plant species, irrigation
techniques and other landscape criteria. Additional landscaping would be provided around
the project perimeter outside the levee along Sandmound Boulevard and Bethel Island
Road to reduce visual impacts on adjacent residents.
' Channel Enhancement Plan: The project includes plans to enhance the primary drainage
ditch ("main drain") into a channel of approximately 8.0 acres in size. A new channel
' is also proposed in the north/south direction and would connect to the proposed lake. The
' 3-8
second channel would be approximately 11 acres in size. The channels are proposed to ,
provide additional riparian habitat and visual interest to the project. The banks of the
channels would be sprigged with willow and cottonwood cuttings to provide riparian ,
cover.
Energy Conservation Guidelines: The project is proposing to maintain a goal of ,
exceeding the energy efficiency standards of Title 24 by 10%. This would be achieved
through the incorporation of design features into each home to reduce energy
consumption. '
Provision of School Site: To help mitigate the project's potential impact on local school
facilities, the project plans include the dedication of a 7.4 acre school site on the project '
site. The school site would be dedicated to the Oakley Union Elementary School District
for the construction of a new elementary school in the Bethel Island area.
Provision of Fire Station Site and Facility: The project plans include a 2 acre site for a ,
y P J
new fire station on the project site. The fire station is located near the project entrance
at Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road. The project would also include construction of ,
a new fire station facility on the site. Provision of a fire station on the project site would
improve fire protection services for Hotchkiss Tract and the Bethel Island area.
Preservation of Cultural Resources: The protect plans have been developed to avoid
culturally sensitive areas present on the project site. Portions of the project site known '
to contain cultural resources have either been avoided or are proposed for less disruptive
uses such as parks and playgrounds.
Provision of Parks/Recreational Amenities: The proposed project includes approximately '
33 acres of public and private parks primarily located south of the proposed extension of
Cypress Road. In addition, other recreational amenities are being proposed including: '
a lake, golf course, beach club, trails, and open space corridors.
Affordable Housing Fee: The project applicant has agreed to pay a in-lieu affordable ,
housing fee equal to $3,333 per residential unit. For the proposed project this fee would
generate approximately $4,432,890 for the County's affordable housing programs. These
fees would be paid at the time of issuance of building permits. As an alternative, the ,
project applicant may construct a portion, or all, of the affordable housing units on-site.
Homeless Fees: The project applicant has agreed to pay an in-lieu fee to the County's
Homeless Trust Fund. The amount of this fee would be determined by the County and
paid upon issuance of building permits for the project.
3-9 '
3.5 PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO RELEVANT PLANS
Contra Costa County General Plan, As Approved January, 1991
The Cypress Lakes and Country Club project is located within the County Urban Limit
' Line, which would allow development in accordance with General Plan policies and the 65/35
Land Preservation Standard. The Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map designates
the area as Agricultural Land (AL) and Open Space (OS); with an overlay designation of "Off-
Island Bonus Area" which allows increased residential densities under certain circumstances. The
Contra Costa County General Plan states the following with regard to residential development
within the Off-Island Bonus Area (page 3-29):
' A bonus density is identified in the "Off-Island" area of the Bethel Island Planning Area
east of Jersey Island Road. The base density of this area is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres.
' This density shall be increased through the bonus program if the applicant participates in
one of the following programs:
' Recreational Proiects. Residential projects which include a distinct, identifiable
recreational character by including substantial recreational facilities shall be
' allowed a density of 1.0 to 2.9 units per net acre. Recreational amenities may
include marinas or launching areas off the project site on Sand Mound or Rock
Sloughs, a lake community, a sailing/boating club on a project lake, an equestrian
' facility, a tennis club, or a golf course.
Purchase of Development Rights. The development rights for one acre increments
' of land in the County with an Agricultural Land designation may be purchased
and dedicated to the County to increase the base density up to 1/2 dwelling unit
per net acre. Acquiring development rights in one acre increments of land in the
' County with an Agricultural Core designation will increase the base density up to
a maximum of 3 dwelling units per net acre. A program for acquisition of
development rights shall be implemented by the Community Development
' Department.
Within the Off-Island Bonus Area, the General Plan limits new development to 3,000
primarily recreation-oriented units. Of this total, 153 units have been approved but are not yet
constructed, leaving a balance of 2,847 allowable new units. The proposed project's 1,330
residential units would fall below this limit. Two additional applications for projects within the
' Off-Island Bonus Area have been submitted, for a combined number of 1,653 residential units.
These projects, when combined with the Cypress Lakes project, total 2,983 units which exceeds
the remaining number of allowable units by 136 units. However, the latter two applications are
' not being actively pursued (Contra Costa Community Development Department, July, 1992).
The proposed project includes an 18-hole semi-private golf course, parks (20 acres for a
' neighborhood park and 6 acres through-out the project, a swim and tennis/beach club, and lake
' 3-10
and channels designed to meet the recreational character requirements of the Contra Costa County '
General Plan for increased residential density within the "Off-Island Bonus Area." In addition,
the project has an overall residential density of 2.21 units per acre (Gross Acreage - public and
private easements = # of dwelling units) which falls within the 1.0 to 2.9 units per acre. No
purchase of agricultural development rights is proposed.
Bethel Island Area Specific Plan, April, 1991 '
The validity of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan (BIASP) and its EIR were challenged t
by various environmental groups. The Court of Appeal has declared the BIASP and its EIR
invalid. Subsequently, the County, project applicant and environmental groups entered into a
settlement agreement requiring the recision of the Bethel Island Specific Plan, decertification of ,
its EIR, and vacation of the existing development agreement between the County and the project
applicant. Therefore, this EIR does not address conformity with the Bethel Island Specific Plan.
The settlement agreement, December, 1992, established a framework whereby the parties have ,
agreed to work together in processing applications on the project site.
3.6 DISCRETIONARY AND OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED ,
The project applicant has applied for the following discretionary approvals by Contra
Costa County for which this EIR is intended to cover: '
• Rezoning of 685.9 t acres of land from General Agricultural District (A-2) and ,
Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1);
• Preliminary development plan approval for the proposed club house, beach club '
house, beach club, public park, maintenance facility, and other uses not in the
final development plan;
• Final development plan approval for the proposed residential uses, golf '
course/driving range, wetlands, lake, channel and levee;
• Vesting tentative map to subdivide the 685.9 t acre site into 1,330 single-family ,
lots;
• Design review of the project. '
Other approvals and/or permits will be required to fully implement the project. This EIR
is intended to cover all those necessary approvals and/or permits which may include but are not
limited to the following: ,
1. LAFCO Approval - LAFCO approval may be needed for the reorganization of the
Sphere of Influence and annexation of the project into the Oakley Water District ,
3-11 ,
' and Contra Costa Water District for provision of water, the Ironhouse Sanitary
District for sewer; and possible consolidation of the Oakley and Bethel Island Fire
' Districts in the Bethel Island Planning Area. Other annexation and/or possible
consolidation may be necessary for other services.
' 2. Financing and Maintenance Districts - The establishment of a park maintenance
district, landscape and lighting district, geologic hazard abatement district,or other
special districts for the financing and/or maintenance of infrastructure and other
' improvements.
3. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits - May be
required for drainage discharge.
4. Section 404 Permit - The applicant will need to qualify for a permit under Section
' 404 of the Clean Water Act for the filing of any wetland areas on-site.
5. FEMA Approval - Approval will be sought for the internal levee.
' 6. Development Agreement - The applicant will request approval of a development
' agreement with the County to establish the terms and conditions under which the
project will be developed.
' 7. Streambed Alteration Permit - The applicant will be required to obtain a
streambed alteration permit from the Department of Fish and Game.
8. RD-799 Approval - Permits from RD-799 will be required for the proposed levee
and drainage systems both on- and off-site.
' This list is not intended to be exhaustive. Other approvals and/or permits may be
necessary to fully implement the project objectives which this EIR is intended to cover.
3-12
1
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
' This chapter of the Final EIR responds to written comments received during the public
review period and verbal comments made at the East County Regional Planning Commission
hearings.
' The responses to comments are divided into five categories: (1) Federal Agencies, (2)
State Agencies, (3) Local Agencies, (4) Groups and Individuals, and (5) Public Hearings.
' Comment letters are organized such that each written letter or verbal testimony is followed
directly by the responses to comments contained therein. Responses to individual comments in
each letter are keyed to the numbers noted on the left margin of each letter.
Comment letters include the following:
4.1 Federal Agencies
A Department of the Army, January 27, 1993
' 4.2 State Agencies
B California Department of Conservation, February 16, 1993
C California Department of Fish and Game, February 3, 1993
' D California Department of Transportation, January 11, 1993
E State Lands Commission, February 16, 1993
r4.3 Local Agencies
F Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission, February 10, 1993
G Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, January 6, 1993
H Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, January 25, 1993
I Land Planning Consultants, January 28, 1993
' J Reclamation District 799, February 11, 1993
4.4 Groups and Individuals
' K Guy and Katie All, February 10, 1993
L Alexander Buller, February 1, 1993
M Carol Coleman, February 11, 1993
N Bob Dal Porto, February 9, 1993
O C. Elaine Dannelley, February 10, 1993
P C. Elaine Dannelley, February 12, 1993
Q Fred Davis, February 9, 1993
R Dickson & Ross, February 16, 1993
S Darrell Edwards, February 12, 1993
' T Vera Fatook and George Garcia, February 12 and 16, 1993
U Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, February 16, 1993
V David Gold and Robert Henn, February 1, 1993
' W Leigh Jordan, January 15, 1993
' 4-1
r
X KLH - Bryan & Murphy, Inc., February 5, 1993
Y Barbara La Fargue, February 16, 1993
Z Diane Maybee, received February 17, 1993 '
AA Montague & Cochrane, February 11, 1993
BB Manuel and Cecelia Peixoto, January 30, 1993
CC Mary Reeves, January 12, 1993 ,
DD Mrs. William Sherwood, February 9, 1993
EE Diane Shipway, January 20, 1993
FF Linda Wadsworth, February 2, 1993 ,
4.5 Public Hearings
GG East County Regional Planning Commission Hearing, February 1, 1993 '
HH East County Regional Planning Commission Continuation Hearing, February 8,
1993
i
r
r
1
1
1
r
r
1
i
4-2 '
1
4.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
4-3
Letter A
' r nvw.I uee re I. cuaress on reverse. I DATE —2
7-93
WRITER'$ NAME/TELEPHONE NO.
' David Gore (916) 557-6750
YOUR a OUR COMMUNICATION (Kind, reference symbol, date, subject, or other identification)
Notice of completion concerning a revised Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club, a residen-
tial development plan, 2.7 miles east of Oakley, CA
ACTION TAKEN OR REQUESTED
Q REPLY WILL BE FURNISHED ON OR ABOUT RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED
Q REQUEST DATE WHEN REPLY MAY BE EXPECTED Q FOR DIRECT REPLY .
Q WE HAVE SENT YOUR COMMUNICATION TO(See below) Q TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
We have reviewed the EIR with regard to our regulatory
responsibilities and note the project will need a Section 404
permit before filling of waters/wetlands on the project site.
Cn OTHER INFORMATION Q SUPPLIED OR Q REQUESTED
nk You for coordinating with us.
T P NAME• GRADE. AND TITLE 31 GN TORE
ALTER YEP
ief, Planning Division
DA FORM 209, 1 Jan 70 REPLACES EDITON OF DELAY, REFERRAL, ORF WUP NOTICE
*U.S. GPO:1388-201.424/80327 1 NOV 66. WHICH WILL
BE USED. (AR 340-I5)
1
a
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
San Joaquin Basir. Branch
FEB a
_.
OFFICIAL BUSINGl
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE U66,5300 —� :^,��\,
Q o-17961
C71 -,Z)W
J��= Contra Costa County Commun y Devel. Dept.
ATTN: Arthur Beresford
651 Pine Street, North Win
Martinez, CA 94553-0095 g 4th F1.
11111fill fit 111111111111111111,1111,111111111,1111,1
4-4
Response to Letter A: Department of the Army, January 27, 1993 '
Response A-1: '
The comment indicates that the proposed project will require a Section 404 permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 of the DEIR requires the project '
applicant to obtain a permit from the Corps before filling of any wetlands or waters on the
project site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 404 permit is listed as a necessary discretionary
approval for the project (see Page 3-12 of this EIR). '
r
i
4-5 '
r
� . : STATE
t
4-6
Letter B
State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA'
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Mr. Douglas P.' Wheeler Date: February 16, 1993' Q-
Secretary for Resources ��PT
Mr. Arthur Beresford
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
Cypress Lakes Project. SCH #92023048
The Department of Conservation, which is responsible for
monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide basis has reviewed
' Contra Costa County's Revised DEIR for the project referenced
above. The project will convert 683 acres of agricultural land
for the development of 1,330 single family homes, an 18 hole golf
course and related resort facilities.
The Revised DEIR continues to state that the land being
converted is nonprime agricultural land and therefore does not
constitute a significant environmental impact. However, as
previously mentioned, the Department of Conservation's Important
Farmland maps show that the area contains Prime Farmland and a
significant amount of farmland of Statewide Importance. The site
is also adjacent to additional Prime farmland. Enclosed are the
relevant sections of the Department's maps showing the
designations as well as a listing of the soils which qualify as
Prime and Statewide in Contra Costa County according to the Soil
Conservation Service.
The Department is concerned about the impacts of this
B-1 project on the adjacent agricultural lands and on the prime
agricultural land within the project area. Since the project may
have environmental impacts on adjacent agricultural land and
prime agricultural land, the Department offers the following
comments.
The loss of prime agricultural land should be identified and
treated as a significant environmental impact. The California
Administrative Code (Section 15000 et seq. , Appendix g (y) ) state
that a project will normally have a significant effect on the
environment if it will convert prime agricultural land to a
nonagricultural land. Since it appears that this project will
have such an effect, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
should provide information on the number of acres of agricultural
land to be developed, the potential agricultural value of the
site, the impacts of farmland conversion, and possible mitigation
actions.
4-7
i
Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Beresford ,
February 16, 1993
Page Two
The DEIR should provide information on the number of acres
of agricultural land to be developed, the potential agricultural
value of the site, the impacts of farmland conversion, and
possible mitigation actions. Specifically, we recommend that the
Revised DEIR contain the following information to ensure the
adequate assessment of the project's impacts in these areas.
o The agricultural character of the area including:
- A map which identifies the location of agricultural
preserves, the number of acres and type of land in each
preserve (i.e. , prime/non-prime) .
- Types and relative yield of crops grown in the affected
areas, or in areas of similar soils under good
agricultural management.
- The agricultural potential of the area's soils, as
defined by the Department of Conservation's Important
Farmland Map Designations.
o Farmland Conversion Impact
- The location of Williamson Act contracts, if any, on
land adjacent to the project area.
- The type, amount, and location of farmland conversion
B'2 that would result from implementation of the project.
o Mitigation measures and alternatives that would lessen
farmland conversion impacts. Some of the possibilities are.-
Directing
re:Directing urban growth to lower quality soils in order
to protect prime agricultural land.
Increasing densities or clustering residential units to '
allow a greater portion of proposed development sites
to remain in agricultural production.
Protecting other, existing farmland of equivalent, or
better, .quality through planning policy that relies on
an active and strategic use of the Williamson Act.
Establishing buffers such as setbacks, berms,
greenbelts, and open space areas to separate farmland
from urban uses. Many communities have considered 300
feet as a sufficient buffer for impacts such as
pesticide spraying, noise, and dust.
Implementing right-to-farm ordinances to diminish
nuisance impacts of urban uses on neighboring
agricultural operations, and vice-versa.
Imposing development impact fees to help fund a
farmland protection program that utilizes such land-use
planning tools as transfer of development rights,
purchase of development rights or conversion easements,
and farmland trusts.
4-8 _
Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Beresford
February 16, 1993
Page Three
The Department has commented on both the Notice of
Preparation and original DEIR. Both letters requested that
information about the agricultural character of the project area,
B_2 soil erosion impacts, and farmland conversion impacts be
addressed. (Please refer back to letters dated March 20, 1992
and September 16, 1992 , confirmed received per telephone
conversation. )
The Department appreciated the opportunity to comment on the
Revised DEIR. We hope that the farmland conversion impacts and
the Williamson Act contract issues are given adequate
consideration in the DEIR. If I can be of further assistance,
please feel free to call me at (916) 445-8733
r
ee Stetson, Assistant Director
Office of Governmental and
Environmental Relations
Attachments
cc:
Scot Steinwert
Public Affairs Management
Kenneth E. Trott, Manager
Land Conservation Unit
Contra Costa Resource Conservation District
4-9
i
Appendix B: MAPPING CATEGORIES AND SOIL TAXONOMY TERMS
The following definitions are used in preparing the Important Farmland Maps and the Farmland Conversion
Report. Soil-specific terms, such as xeric, ustic, aridic, etc, are defined at the end of this appendix.
The definitions for Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of
Local Importance and Urban Built-up lands were developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture as part
of their nationwide Land.Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) system.
These LIM definitions have been modified for use in California. The most significant modification is that
Prime and Statewide farmlands must be irrigated. Farmland of Local Importance has been identified by
local advisory committees and vary from county to county, as intended by the LIM. Mapping of Grazing
Land as part of an Important Farmland Map is unique to California.
Prime Farmland
"Prime Farmland" is land which has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the
production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained
high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming
methods. "Prime Farmland" must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at some time during
the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It does not include publicly owned lands for which there is
an adopted policy preventing agricultural use.
"Prime Farmland" must meet all the following criteria:
a. Water
The soils have xeric, ustic or aridic (torric) moisture regimes in which the available water capacity is
at least 4.0 inches (10 cm) per 40 to 60 inches (1.02 to 1.52 meters) of soil,.and a developed
irrigation water supply that is dependable and of adequate quality. A dependable water supply is one
which is available for the production of the commonly grown crops in 8 out of 10 years; and
b. Soil Temperature Range
The soils have a temperature regime that is frigid, mesic, thermic or hyperthermic (pergelic and cryic
regimes are excluded). These are soils that, at a depth of 20 inches (50.8 cm), have a mean annual
temperature higher than 32°F (0° C).In addition,the mean summer temperature at this-depth in
soils with an O horizon is higher than 47° F (8° C); in soils that have no O horizon, the mean
summer temperature is higher than 59° F (15° C); and
C. Aad-Alkali Balance
The soils have a pH between 4.5 and 8.4 in all horizons within a depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter); and
d. Water Table
The soils have no water table or have a water table that is maintained at a sufficient depth during
the cropping season to allow cultivated crops common to the area to be grown; and
4-10
e. Soil Sodium content
The soils can be managed so that, in all horizons within a depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter), during
part of each year the conductivity of the saturation extract is Iess than 4 mmhos jcm and the
exchangeable sodium percentage is less than 15; and
f. Flooding
Floodingit
of the so (uncontrolled runoff from natural precipitation) during the growing season
occurs infrequently, taking place less often than once every two years; and
g. Erodibility
The product of K (erodibility factor) multiplied by the percent of slope is less than 2.0; and
h. Permeability
' The soils have a permeability rate of at least 0.06 inch (0.15 cm) per hour in the upper 20 inches
(50.8 cm) and the mean annual soil temperature at a depth of 20 inches (50.8 cm) is less than 59° F
(15° C); the permeability rate is not a limiting factor if the mean annual soil temperature is 59° F
(15° C) or higher; and
i. Rock Fragment Content
Less than 10 percent of the upper 6 inches (15.24 cm) in these soils consists of rock fragments
coarser than 3 inches (7.62 cm); and
j. Rooting depth
The soils have a minimum rooting depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter).
Farmland of Statewide Importance
"Farmland of Statewide Importance" is land other than "Prime Farmland" which has a good combination
of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It must have been used for the
production of irrigated crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It does
not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use.
"Farmland of Statewide Importance" must meet all the following criteria:
a. Water
The soils have xeric, ustic or acidic (torric) moisture regimes in which the available water capacity is
at least 3.5 inches (8.89 cm) within a depth of 60 inches (1.02 to 1.52 meters) of soil; or within the
root zone if it is less than 60 inches deep. They have a developed irrigation supply that is
dependable and of adequate quality. A dependable water supply is one which is available for the
production of the commonly grown crops in 8 out of 10 years; and
4-11
b. Soil Temperature Range
The soils have a temperature regime that is frigid, mesic, thermic or hyperthermic (pergelic and cryic
regimes are excluded). These are soils that, at a depth of 20 inches (50.8 cm), have a mean annual
temperature higher than-32° F (0° C). In addition, the mean summer temperature at this depth in
soils with an O horizon is higher than 47° F (8° C); in soils that have no O horizon, the mean
summer temperature is higher than 59° F (15° C); and
C. Acid-Alkali Balance
The soils have a pH between 4.5 and 9.0 in all horizons within a depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter) or
in the root zone if the root zone is less than 40 inches (1.02 meter) deep; and
d. Water Table
The soils have no water table or have a water table that is maintained at a sufficient depth during
the cropping season to allow cultivated crops common to the area to be grown; and
e. Soil Sodium Content
The soils can be managed so that, in all horizons within a depth of 40 inches (1.02 meter), or in the
root zone if the root zone is less than 40 inches (1.02 meter) deep, during part of each year the _
conductivity of the saturation extract is less than 16 mmhos/cm and the exchangeable sodium
percentage is less than 25; and
f. Flooding
Flooding of the soil (uncontrolled runoff from natural precipitation) during the growing season ■
occurs infrequently, taking place less often than once every two years; and
g. Erodibility
The product of K (erodibility factor) multiplied by the percent of slope is less than 3.0; and
h. Rock Fragment Content r
Less than 10 percent of the upper 6 inches (1524 cm) in these soils consists of rock fragments
coarser than 3 inches (7.62 cm). '
"Farmland of Statewide Importance" does not have any restrictions regarding permeability or rooting depth.
Unique Farmland
"Unique Farmland" is land which does not meet the criteria for "Prime Farmland" or "Farmland of
Statewide Importance," that has been used for the production of specific high economic value crops at some
time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It has the special combination of soil quality,
location, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality or high yields of a
specific crop when treated and managed according to current farming methods. Examples of such crops may
include oranges, olives, avocados, rice, grapes and cut flowers. It does not include publicly owned lands for
which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use.
4-12
CONTRA COSTA
PRIME FARMLAND SOILS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
THESE SOIL MAPPING UNITS MEET THE CRITERIA FOR PRIME FARMLAND AS
OUTLINED IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S LAND INVENTORY AND
MONITORING (LIM) PROJECT FOR THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
Symbol Name
BaA Botella clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
BaC Botella clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Bb Brentwood clay loam
Bc Brentwood clay loam, wet
CaA Capay clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes
CaC Capay clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes
CbA Capay clay, wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Cc Clear Lake clay
CeA Conejo clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
CeB Conejo clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
ChA Conejo clay loam, clay substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes
CkB Cropley clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Ea Egbert mucky clay loam
GaA Garretson loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
GaB Garretson loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
La Laugenour loam
Lm Los Robles clay loam
Md Merritt loam
PaC Perkins gravelly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
RbA Rincon clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
4-13
CONTRA COSTA
PRIME FARMLAND SOILS
Page 2 of 2
Symbol Name
RbC Rincon clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
RcA Rincon clay loam, wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Rd Rindge muck
Rh Ryde silt loam
Sa Sacramento clay
Sm Sorrento silty clay loam
Sn Sorrento silty clay loam, sand substratum
So Sycamore silty clay loam
Sp Sycamore silty clay loam, clay substratum
Wa Webile muck
Z&A Zamora silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
ZaB Zamora silty clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
JPR Revised 4/22/80
retyped: 3/2/90
4-14
CONTRA COSTA
SOILS OF STATEWIDE
IMPORTANCE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
THESE SOIL MAPPING UNITS MEET THE CRITERIA FOR FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE
IMPORTANCE AS OUTLINED IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S LAND
INVENTORY AND MONITORING (LIM) PROJECT FOR THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SOIL SURVEY.
Symbol Name
AbD Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes
AdA Antioch loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
AdC Antioch loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
BeB Briones fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
DaC Delhi sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
DdD Diablo clay, 9 to lt percent slopes
KaC Kimball gravelly clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Rb Kingile muck
LbD Linne clay loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes
Oa Omni clay loam
Ob Omni silty clay
Pd Piper sand
Pe Piper loamy sand
PkA Positas loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
PkC Positas loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Sb Sacramento clay, alkali
Se Shima muck
TaC Tierra loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Vb Venice muck
JPR Revised 4/22/80
retyped: 3/2/90
4-15
pr'. � � it .> /" Q� i • � ,,11-„�»,,�� ' as S/'>
UJ
- n N - , 1 5�. � •1
sit f
'•
AF
JS
• .1��j: .•�'. .� ^”`a �� �.....�_.:�-' � fib;
UJ
10
owl
LO
t
BRENTWOOD QUADRANGLE
am 5
9
kj400 .I
o •- y
3M 8 Sipa>o � «� •n .... �.�.. � V
ro
28
S iS ►ISO
M'12 • '•
33
J
.......... rsrr .r rrrr�srsr •Y:-' ': ,+ � ..r
� •8. w
M • .7 -�S. '..- :::',�'� �': - ._ .rte! ..-...
�, 1 :carr+.. p - �;,�1. • . - _ . ..{:.; �. ��: ::== -.• _ _ -- __
o .,. fir• . iR;�". =�'
AS
/.► � .M ,jam ^ >�i
10 •1';; � _ .
1
Response to Letter B: California Department of Conservation, February 16, 1993 ,
Response B-1:
As stated on page 3-1 of the DEIR, the project site contains agricultural lands classified
by the County as "non-prime" with marginal agricultural productivity. Because of its marginal
productivity, the project site is used for cattle raising. Contra Costa County classifies "prime"
agricultural lands as those containing class I or class II soils. The project site does not contain
class I or II soils according to Contra Costa County soils maps on file at the Contra Costa
County Community Development Department. In addition, the project site is not considered
important farmland, according to the Contra Costa County General Plan map of important
farmlands. The General Plan was updated in 1991. The information contained in the General
Plan is current to that date. The County's classification of "prime" agricultural soils and
"important" farmlands appears to be different than those of the commenting agency. This
difference in classifications is a policy issue for Contra Costa County. It should also be noted
that the project site is located within the County Urban Limit Line (ULL) (see attached Figure).
The purpose of the ULL is to: 1) ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural, open
space and other areas by establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses can be designated ,
during the term of the General Plan; and 2) facilitate the enforcement of the 65/35 Land
Preservation Standard which requires that 65% of the County reflect non-urban uses. Properties,
such as the project site, that are located inside the ULL, would be governed by the land use
designations contained in the General Plan.
In recognizing the marginal agricultural value of the project site and that the site is within
the ULL, the area is considered suitable for development. However, in order to minimize the
potential impact on adjacent agricultural lands, controlled development on the site would be
permitted at a low overall density. In addition, a Protection Fee would be imposed on each new r
residential unit, to be used by the County, in part, to acquire development rights for selected,
important agricultural land or to provide financing for farmers to continue agricultural production.
The County is currently in the process of establishing this Protection Fee.
The removal of the project site from agricultural production would therefore not be '
considered significant. However, the conversion of the project site to urban and suburban uses
would contribute to the incremental loss of agricultural/open space land throughout Contra Costa
County. Such incremental loss has been substantially limited through establishment of the ULL,
the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, and the agricultural core areas.
Response B-2:
The attached map of the project site vicinity shows the locations of both active and
expired Williamson Act Contract Lands. None of these lands are located immediately adjacent
to the project site.
4-18
' 1
r.�
{'.
d
QQ
7
i
L!
C
.:r
r
C
m
1 N
t.
t. r
Q
.l'
.t
1•
ti 1
,.
j.
1.
t '
0.
'1 •1
Y
1
1
7'
1.
O
f 7,
L
a
a
:I
.t
V
'.
3
a
!. a
T
a
d
"t Er
o —
N
vT
ma
0
LAW .
- a
a
cc
U
-- O
F-
Z
d
a
3
,r -
a,
O
.9
aC
y
m
IL
I
z
: : .
oc
J
z
cc • rW
C
J(
l
I \
i -
c . z
co
d
w j o
ac :y
:.::Y
r— ,�• -- - `� 3 E
O dJ
w (A J
e W=
L.O..
at CL
/. W.-- <'.
Q._ W v d :.•..::::::
cc
m >- O 'Y
o uQ r �,
U
7_
a 1'
Q
_ u
d _ J En
h j
1. p _
h ....: :•�.•.•:.• ..� .�
u
••J
x
'`.• ui
) o Q S
W U>e F
N
W
J
J
:.•) w
p
D
u w
a w
W cn z
Z
.�•7 a4 z �D Z)
o w
J
� WO a
CL
� ua1 z
• ; t W o
U
O to
O U U P4 a
f'
oa a
1 0 0• o
0 0 a
cc
Q I
x i H
Z }
N m
n
U)
o Q
a
w
cca
rr rr rr r r rs. �r r ar rr rr r� r r� w r �r r� r�
0.1
Active Williamson Act Contracts
Williamson Act Contracts with Non-renewal Flled
-_-e�, .!''`}'•i.�! -I -�•. ;a1 ,.T•Ta .aR.-A C
-
J -' •-•' •yam}:-'?Z•,YYIn'..h1e° / SI:3:,,-�J'
�..._�. .a. vii ^.aw:.-_ —-. �,. i .�,.i�: / -(.
oa
�_ - - - -�1 yyr�� �- . f i`\`tr` .x y'�a.• ��`-�`� .�. .. �f F _I_ 111!x:"-.___- .�� r` I �'�I`.�`:
. .PROJECT. '. I'• >� ;.� __,_.
1
SITE
L-7
.i
�tf..r=�`_._1 ' ' ._._ ....... it - I 1.^7r. __ _.J• _ J � .� "',��
r. 1
r _
.it .
�
- - LGJ, `''}4"^R:::.., ,rytf�•' �• .
i.� .,� ).•. :.x.'.•fin :.,:a \Y `— -'
ox
.4:
OL
HEMEMINEu—
M—
(_ .. �. . . .r .�_ - 'r'� :1 .; 1 .r:• ;,S 1 i.:11.1(04 �
1 L14a,
i �.�� rr It •:.-
'r
F (
I tel-�% __ 1 1 JI .-T'`�•^^ \,_ + •��-
I �
., 1 I JiP 7,�:TB...�►•'1/1i. � -,.. t /. ., ... . _ �... � I I '1 ��jir"- �- '�
CYPRESS LAKES & COUNTRY Location of Williamson Act Contract
CLUB PROJECT Lands in the Project Vicinity
' 4-20
Agricultural activities on the site include cattle ranching, horse breeding and cover crops ,
such as wheat. In general, the productivity of the site is rather low as indicated by the previous
property owner (see Letter N). As stated above, the project site does not contain prime
agricultural soils and is 685.9 acres in size.
See Response B-1 for a discussion of potential conversion of adjacent agricultural lands
to urban development.
Because direct impacts to on-site agricultural lands were not considered significant, no
specific mitigation measures were recommended; however, the project applicant would be
required to pay the County Protection Fee to acquire development rights for selected important
agricultural lands within the county to mitigate the project's incremental impact on agricultural
lands.
4-21
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govenvor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME I 1,a OSTA
REGION 2
1701 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A
RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 Letter C FEB -s P,1 2: 05
(916) 355-7020
T'
",mt"T
February 3, 1993DEVEL OrbbEPT
Mr. Arthur Beresford
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez California 94553
Dear Mr. Beresford:
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Cypress Lakes
and Country Club project (SCH# 92023048) . The project is located
on the east side of Bethel Island in Contra Costa County. The
project consists of a plan to construct a large scale residential
development on 638 acres of agricultural land. The proposed
project consists of an 18-hole golf course, 1 , 330 single-family
lots, parks, a beach club, a lake with channels, and a wetland
area.
Wildlife habitat conditions consist primarily of grazing
lands, with small areas of ruderal habitat and wetlands. The
project is adjacent to Sandmound Slough. The Draft EIR fails to
adequately discuss and provide mitigation measures for the
impacts caused by the project. The following are our specific
concerns:
1 . The Draft EIR contains the results of a survey
designed to disclose the presence of wetlands. The
survey was conducted in June of 1991 , and it did not
disclose the presence of extensive seasonal wetland
in the grassland areas of the project site. The DFG
questions the validity of findings of wetland surveys
conducted during the current drought. The project
site possesses a fair amount of topographic relief
and could support more extensive seasonal wetlands.
C-1 Contra Costa County General Plan policies state that
"Seasonal wetlands in grassland areas of the County
shall be identified and protected" . We recommend
that additional surveys be conducted in order to
determine the status of seasonal wetlands during the
current "normal" rainfall period. If seasonal
wetlands are identified, we recommend that the
General Plan policy of protection of seasonal
wetlands be extended to the project site so that the
loss of wetlands is avoided.
4-22
Mr. Arthur Beresford
February 3, 1993
Page Two
2 . The Draft EIR identifies the potential for the
presence of several species of insects which are
candidates for Federal listing. These include the
Sacramento anthicid, Antioch cophuran robberfly,
Antioch efferian robberfly, redheaded sphecid wasp,
Middlekauff' s shieldback katydid, Antioch multillid
(ant) wasp, yellow-banded andrenid bee, Delta june
beetle. Many of these insects are generally
restricted to interior stabilized dune habitat. The
Draft EIR identifies the location of 12 acres of dune
habitat on the project site and further states that
this habitat may be capable of supporting one or more
of these sensitive species. The Draft EIR fails,
however, to provide the results of any surveys that
were conducted to determine the presence or absence
C-2 of sensitive species within the dunes habitat. The
Draft EIR merely summarizes the habitat quality and ,
concludes that the likelihood for presence is "low" .
This method is inadequate to protect sensitive
species .
We recommend that the Interior Stabilized Dunes be
removed from the project design and protected
consistent with Contra Costa County General Plan
Policy 8-9 . If impacts to the dunes habitat cannot
be avoided, we recommend that surveys be conducted
which are designed to disclose the presence of
sensitive species within this habitat. If sensitive
species are present, the Draft EIR must contain
mitigation measures which reduce impacts to a less
than significant level.
3 . The Draft EIR notes the presence of burrowing owls
(Athene cuniculari ) within the project site. The
burrowing owl has been designated as a species of
Special Concern by the DFG. However, the Draft EIR
C-3 does not contain any measures which are intended to
lessen impacts to burrowing owls. The Draft EIR
should contain proposed mitigation measures which
lessen impacts to burrowing owls to a level of
insignificance.
This project will have an impact to fish and/or wildlife
habitat. Assessment of fees under Public Resources Code
C-4 Section 21089 and as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .4
is necessary. Fees are payable by the project applicant upon '
filing of the Notice of Determination by the lead agency.
The applicant should be advised that work within the 100-
C-5 year flood plain, consisting of but not limited to diversion or
4-23
' Mr. Arthur Beresford
February 3, 1993
Page Three
' obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the channel, bed,
or bank of any river, stream, or lake, will require notification
to the DFG as required by Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.
' The notification (with fee) , and subsequent agreement, must be
C-5 completed prior to initiating any such work. Notification to the
DFG should be made after the project is approved by the * lead
agency. The agreement process should not be used in lieu of
specific mitigation measures to be included as conditions of
project approval by the lead agency.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092 and
21092. 2, the DFG requests written notification of the proposed
C-6 actions and pending decisions regarding this project. Written
notification should be directed to this office.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Bob
1 Mapes, Associate Wildlife Biologist, telephone (916) 355-7010, or
Mr. Jerry Mensch, Environmental Services Supervisor, telephone
(916) 355-7030 .
SiXai
J smer
cc: Mr. Bob Mapes
Department of Fish and Game
Rancho Cordova, California
Mr. Jerry Mensch
Department of Fish and Game
Rancho Cordova, California
1
4-24
Response to Letter C• California Department of Fish and Game, February 3, 1993 '
Response C-1: ,
A wetland delineation of the project area was conducted in June 1991. A total of 6.52
acres of seasonal wetland and 2.66 acres of drainage channels were identified. The seasonal '
wetland areas were determined to be primarily sustained by groundwater. The delineation was
field-verified by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in September 1991.
The delineation was conducted after the start of the growing season during a several year
period of below normal precipitation. As addressed in the delineation report (contained in
Appendix D of the DEIR), this was factored into the delineation by utilizing information from
a California Department of Water Resources groundwater monitoring station located on the
property. Monthly mean groundwater levels were determined over the monitoring period of
record (1968 to 1990) to adjust for the time of survey during a low precipitation period. Because
these adjustments were made, results from a new delineation would not vary substantially from
the original delineation.
Response C-2:
The following response is based on information contained in the "Special Status Species ,
Survey" prepared for the project by Huffman & Associates in association with Virginia Dains.
The Sacramento anthicid is noted from riverine dunes of Grand Island (California Natural
Diversity Data Base [CNDDB]). The anthicid beetle prefers unvegetated loose sand and is not
closely associated with the interior stabilized dune vegetation.
The Antioch caphoran robberfly and Antioch efferian robberfly are predators that prey on
other insects foraging on dune vegetation. Because the dune soils are quite disturbed on the site,
the association of these two robberflys with the habitat on-site is highly unlikely.
The redheaded sphecid wasp requires a supply of weevils for larval food. Locally, the
redheaded sphecid wasp was last collected on Bethel Island in 1959 (CNDDB element occurrence
record). This species is associated with dune vegetation but also requires loose dune sand for
nesting. Because the site does not contain such habitat, presence of this species was determined
to be unlikely.
The Antioch multillid wasp and yellow-banded andrenid bee burrow for nesting in loose
dune sand and forage for pollen, nectar or prey in the vegetated portions of sand dunes. The
project site does not contain the appropriate nesting substrate for these species.
The shieldback katydid is a species for which the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
considers there is persuasive evidence of extinction.
4-25
1
1 With regard to the Delta june beetle, habitat associations are poorly known.
' As described above, the habitat on the project site is quite disturbed. The vegetative
structure in the project dune soils consists of a single canopy of annual grassland with few
isolated low shrubs. Cattle graze the area in the winter and spring, removing much of the
perennial cover and leaving a surface prone to erosion. The trampling from cattle also may
reduce the safety of sites for burrowing insects. Nectar-producing plants for insects are scarce
in the grassland cover. For these reasons the DEIR concluded that special-status insects are not
present on the site and that no specific mitigation measures are necessary.
Response C-3:
'
During field surveys of the project site, burrowing owls were observed on the site.
' However, due to the quality of habitat present on the site, the site does not represent important
habitat for the burrowing owl. The site may provide foraging and roosting habitat, but would
not provide valuable nesting habitat due to its disturbed nature (agricultural activities). In
addition, there is substantial good quality habitat in neighboring areas that are outside the Contra
Costa County Urban Limit Line, which would not be developed. For these reasons, the DEIR
concluded that the project's potential impacts on burrowing owls and other special-status species
' would be less-than-significant, and no specific mitigation measures were necessary.
Response C-4:
Comments noted. These fees will be required of the project applicant upon filing the
Notice of Determination.
' Response C-5:
The DEIR indicates that as part of Mitigation Measure 3.4-6, page 3-98 that the California
Department of Fish and Game may be required to be notified pursuant to Fish and Game Code
Section 1600 et. seq. This is identified as a necessary discretionary approval at Page 3-12 of this
EIR.
Response C-6:
Comments noted. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department will
notify the California Department of Fish and Game of any actions or pending decisions regarding
this project.
4-26
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (- 4
BOX 23660 s^
OAKLAND, CA 94623-06W
(510) 286-444
TDD (510) 2864454 � ,
_1; 93
PT
CC-004-R34.92 '
Letter D . SCH# 92023048
CCO04330
Mr. Art Beresford, Senior Planner '
Contra Costa County Community Development
651 Pine Street
Martinez, Calif. 94553 ,
RE: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for CYPRESS LAKES
AND COUNTRY CLUB. Proposed project would consist of 1,330 single- t
family residential units, a golf course, parks, and beach club. The 685.9 acre
site is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area of unincorporated
north-eastern Contra Costa County, approximately 2.7 miles east of the Town '
of Oakley, and east of State Route (SR) 4.
Dear Mr. Beresford:
In response to the above referenced document addressing the concerns raised '
in our letter to you of 9/25/92, the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) forwards the following comments:
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
On Page 3-40, under Project Trip Generation, methodology for obtaining the i
p_y generated rate of 7.74 trips per single-family residence should be provided. In Table
3.2-3, Cypress Lakes - Vehicle Trip Generation, the rates or size of project component
for each land use area should be given.
LOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
We strongly recommended that Contra Costa County promote balanced
residential/commercial developments on a short term basis. The statement on page t
3-20 under JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE while encouraging, is only a minor segment
of the measures needed to resolve this imbalance in the short-term: "The project
D-2 applicant is proposing to market a portion of the project to retired persons which ,
would reduce commute traffic and the environmental impacts associated with
additional housing developments in East County without comparable employment
developments in the area." i
4_27 r
Beresford/CC004330
January 11, 1993
' Page 2
IR
Our comments with respect to Air Qualityhave-not been
addressed:
D-3 "Appendix C does not provide enough information to review the air quality study.
Additional receptor locations are required (25 feet from roadway may not be
acceptable) for accurate analysis. Please provide Caline 4 input and output data."
rPUBLIC TRANSIT
' Our recommendation that transit service be made available as soon as a
D-4 reasonable number of homes are occupied has not been addressed. The developer
should subsidize Tri-Delta Bus transit service or provide a shuttle service until the
required 1,000 homes have been completed.
We look forward to reviewing the FEIR, prior to final certification. Please
send a copy to the undersigned contact person for this agency at the following
address:
Gary F. Adams
District CEQA Coordinator
Caltrans District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and wish to
continue close correspondence on its development. Should you have any questions
regarding these comments, please feel free to contact Joe Aguilar of my staff at (510)
286-5591.
Sincerely,
PRESTON W. KELLEY
District Director
DAMS
District CEQA Coordinator
CC Mike Chiriatti, State Clearinghouse
Susan Pultz, MTC 4-28
Sally Germain, ABAG
Response to Letter D: California Department of Transportation, January 11, 1993
Response D-1:
There is some misunderstanding about the trip generation rates used in the DEIR and the
definition of the trips. The EIR uses the following assumptions, based on the ITE Trip
Generation Manual. These trip rates were based on a project with 1,330 units, and used the
logarithmic formulas in the section on single-family detached housing (Land Use Code 210).
1) Total Daily Trips (ITE Fitted Curve Rates) = 11,181 (Trip Rate = 8.41 trips per
unit)
2) Total Daily External Trips (Reduced by 8 percent, Abrams Associates estimate)
= 10,287 (Trip Rate = 7.74 trips per unit)
3) When other land uses are added, the Total Daily Trips - 12,017 (Trip Rate = 9.04
trips per unit)
The trip rates are lower than the County recommended standard of 9.8 trips/day for
several reasons. First, as the size of the residential development increases, the number of trips
per unit per day (external) tends to decrease due to an increase in trips that remain internal to the
development. Second, Cypress Lakes would generate fewer trips per unit than other areas of the
County due to it's recreational component, seasonal use, etc. Third, development which are
removed and isolated from commercial, shopping areas and schools, the number of vehicle trips
per unit becomes less due to the influence of combined trips, i.e., trips that combine work,
shopping, school and other trip purposes.
To test these assumptions, a sample trip generation study was conducted of Discovery Bay
on Highway 4 west of Brentwood by Abrams Associates in February 1993. These studies show
that the p.m.peak hour at Discovery Bay(5:00-6:00 p.m.)geni erates approximately 1,150 vehicles
trips. The total number of occupied units in Discovery Bay is 2,385. This equates to a trip rate
of 0.48 trips per unit during the p.m. peak hour, and a daily trip rate of 5.67 trips per unit.
The Discovery Bay project includes a golf course and internal commercial development,
The Cypress Lakes project would have similar characteristics. If the Discovery Bay trip rate is
5.67 external trips per unit, then the estimate of 9.04 trips.per unit for Cypress Lakes could be
considered to be relatively conservative. Abrams and Associates feels that the trip generation
assumptions for Cypress Lakes are prudent and conservative basis on which to evaluate the traffic
impacts of the project. There is no evidence to suggest that a rate of 9.8 trips per unit per day
would result in a more accurate portrayal of this project.
To measure the effects of a change in trip rates, the traffic impacts have been tested using
an assumption that each unit generates 10 vehicle trips per day, and that all trips will be external
to the project. The following discussion describes the results of this assumption, and the changes
that would occur to the traffic impacts and mitigation measures.
4-29
' Trip Generation
' If a trip rate of 10 trips per unit is used, the result will be that the entire project would
generate 15,030 vehicle trip ends per day, with 1,061 trips occurring during the AM peak hour
and 1,493 trips during the PM peak hour. This compares to the 12,017 trips per day that were
' used in the EIR.
Trip Distribution
If the higher trip generation rates were used, the traffic volumes to be distributed to the
network would be as shown in the following table. The largest portion of the trips are assigned
1 to and from the direction of the local areas neighboring the project, which included Antioch,
Pittsburg, Oakley, and Brentwood. Other trips may travel in the direction of Bethel Island,
Stockton, Rio Vista, and Alameda County. The majority of the traffic, 628 total trips during PM
epeak hour (42%), is assumed to use Highway 4 as the main commuting route, and some portion
of the traffic will use the other local streets within Oakley, 344 trips (28%), and Brentwood, 209
trips (14%).
Cypress Lakes Trip Distribution
' (Using Higher Trip Generation Rates)
Si:::: ::I:i'::: jj}} i::.:::ii'i:':}X$:vv;ii::i :+??:i}ii::':::::::+::::i'':`::::i::':`:}?:!:::::::ii::::::::i::::::::::::L:::::'•�� iiii};:
..........................................
......: .... ;.:•.. . :'........;:.;:.:::. :.;•.:.::..;..;':::;: i:::;;::;.:I O E:>:<>::;:<:t*MI::: L►$I :::::::>:::<:::>::: 11 :.f ealc::»:::<::...... .
......t' ace t.: i`: i...::.::.;:.:: ''.:.. ....:.:.::..:........................................................................:....:......::::..:::::::
......................................... ........ ...
<< < t <>
North to Bethel Island 4% 601 37 22 59
SHighway 4 to 42% 6,313 394 234 628
Antioch-Pittsburg
' Local Trips into 23% 3,457 216 128 244
Oakley
Local Trips into 14% 2,104 131 78 209
Brentwood
Highway 4 toward 8% 1,202 75 44 119
Stockton
Highway 160 toward 4% 601 37 22 59
' Rio Vista
Vasco Road toward 5% 752 47 28 75
' I-580
4-30
Intersection Capacity Results
The following tables shows that effects on the AM and PM peak-hour Levels of Service ,
if the higher trip-generation rates are used. The data is shown for each of the six local
intersections that are most directly affected by the project. Beyond this area, the number of peak-
hour trips that would result from using the higher trip rates is very low, and would not affect the ,
traffic-capacity calculations.
Volume/Capacity Ratios and Level of Service
Comparison of Existing and Future Conditions
: < ><;
t <
'o .. ..
`>'ksin
..Pro
e�ted.
.t3s
..:L...... :>:l
>< :r
.......... ..................................................
:::::>::::<:»:: . »..... »......'fk'i Rat >[> > > >><:... .i .. . ..
o:.. )CntnaesectlCoutitctt .. ::::::,.:::..:::......... ................................: :: :.P:::::::::::.::::::::::.
1Bethel :Island Road N-:Sig»: A/ A/A 0.30/A OAOIA
.40/A 0.52/A
at Cypress Road
2 Bethel Island Road St-St A/A A/A B/C B/C B/C B/C ,
at Gateway Road
3 Jersey Island Road St-Sig A/A A/A 0.44/A 0.50/A 0.49/A 0.57/A
and Cypress Road ,
4 Knightsen Avenue St-Sig A/A A/A 0.46/A 0.54/A 0.51/A 0.61/B
at Cypress Road 1 ,
5 Sellers Avenue at St-Sig A/A A/A 0.61B 0.59/A 0.66B 0.67B
Cypress Road
6 State Route 4 at Sig-Sig 0.26/A 0.26B 0.40/A 0.78/C 0.44/A 0.81/1 ,
Cypress Road
r n '
The results of using the revised trip generation rates can be seen in the above table. At
each of the intersections, the V/C ratios would increase, with the amount of the increase getting ,
smaller as the distance from the project increases. The result of the change is that there would
be no difference in the type of impacts and mitigation measures being required. If these higher
trip rates occur, the timing of when the need for mitigation measures would occur would be
sooner, but the nature and extent of the mitigation would be the same.
4-31 ,
Response D-2:
Comment noted. No response necessary. The comment addresses the land use
designations and policies of Contra Costa County with regard to this site which is not the subject
of this DEIR.
' Response D-3:
' The purpose of the CALINE 4 analysis in the DEIR is to forecast carbon monoxide levels
given changes in traffic volumes and congestion conditions under uniform assumptions regarding
receptor location. While receptors closer than 25 feet (8 meters) from the roadway would
' provide higher estimates of concentration, the 25-foot distance was selected as the closest
distance where a commercial or residential land use might result in a continuous 1-hour or 8-hour
exposure. It should be pointed out that a location 25 meters from each street near an intersection
is considerably less than 10 meters from the curb when curb returns are considered.
The CALINE-4 input and output files are provided in Appendix A of this FEIR.
Response D-4:
' Comments noted. Transit service to the Cypress Lakes area and Bethel Island is
desirable. However, it would provided only when the density of development could support it,
' and when
Comments noted. Transit service to the Cypress Lakes area and Bethel Island is
' desirable. However, it would be provided only when the density of development could support
it, and when the service could be cost-effective (see Mitigation Measure 3.2-6). These decisions
will be made by the local transit agency (TriDelta Transit) when it is found that such service
would be justified.
' 4-32
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON,Governor
STATE LANDS COMMISSION F.u�i A EXECUTIVE OFFICE
1807- 13th Street ,
LEO T.McCARTHY, Lieutenant Governor Sacramento,CA 95814-7187
GRAY DAVIS, Controller �J�`� 3' 2$
THOMAS W.HAYES,Director of Finance CHARLES WARREN
-v Executive Officer '
February 1aEl =MIEEN T DEPT
Letter E File Ref.: 90-10-23 '
Ms. Carol Whiteside ,
State Projects Coordinator
The Resources Agency '
1416 Ninth Street, Room #449
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mr. Arthur Beresford '
Contra Costa County Community
Development Department '
651 Pine Street, North Wing, Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Dear Ms. Whiteside and Mr. Beresford: '
Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the Revised Draft ,
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project
(SCH #92023048).
Staff finds that the revised DEIR does not address the SLC's concerns as ,
enumerated in our October 1, 1992 letter. We, therefore, incorporate our previous letter
by this reference and request that the issues therein be resolved and analyzed ,
appropriately.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 322-7827. '
Sincerely, _
Dwigh . Sanders ,
Chief, Division of Environmental
Planning and Management
cc: Mary Griggs
Elizabeth Patterson
4-33 '
STATS Of CALIfQPAI•
OWCUTNti OFFICE
STATE LANDS COMMISSION 1S07.13th S~
LEO T.MCCARTMY. L,eurenenl Gurnrrrv, georewwr e.CA 011#14.7197
GRAY DAVIS. conrrollwr CHARLEB WARREN
THOMAS W."AYES.Dlreeror o/Finonee Es6tUdYe p}tjftr
October 1, 1992
Poet-IVO brood tax trSnsmittsl memo 7M r.1~6►
Ms. Carol Whiteside: Iftwh�Tes e 04t
FPS
' State Projects Coordinatoro. S L
'I'he Resources Agencv ,. �
1416 Ninth Street, Rooth #449 age *0
Sacramento, CA 05814 —0,9
Mr, Arthur Beresford
' Contra C ostu County Community
Duvclopment Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing. fourth floor
' Martinez, CA 94553 - 0095
' near tits. Whiteside and :Ltr. Beresford:
Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cypress.Lakes and Country Club Project Plan (SCH
#9.023048). Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County is the
Lead Agency and the SLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any activities
which may directiy or indirectly affect sovereign lands and their accompanying public
trust resources. The staff of the State Lands Commission previously commented to the
Notice of Preparation in our letter dated March 20, 1992 and in previous Correspondence
of November IS, 1990, each of which Is attached and incorporated herein by this
reference. The Ina.tturs that N-c addre:;.sed have nut-Imea resUlved in Llle project as
dc%crihcd in the Draft CIR.
SLC JURISDICTION
' The last natural lied of Sandmound Slough traverses the subject property. This
tidal Slough is sovereign property of the State of California and as such did not pass to
the patentee of the adjacent Swamp s Overflowed Surveys. In addition, historical maps
E-i of the area depict the majority of the property at or below sea level and thus potentially
subject to the public trust for commerce, navigation and fisheries. Any evaluation of this
' project mast consider the presence of the Public Trust and analyze the proposal for
consistency with its strictures.
4-34
Ms. Carol Whiteside
Mr, Arthur Rcrc%ford ,
October 1, 1992
Page Z
GENLP.%L COMMENTS
As provided by 415096(h)(2), the SLC as a Rcbponsible and Trustee ,Agency,
responded to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). Iii addition to the issues and analysis
identified in the IOP, we identified twelve(12) specific; topics for analysis which we
hclieved to be essential fur incivaiurt in the draft environmental impact report (DEM).
Paragraph one of the SI.0 letter scutes State ownership of portions of the subject
E-2 property. The DEIR fails to discuss the implications of this ownership with respect to
limitation on the project and 111C projects effects on Public Trust resources. It is
E-s essential, as we have indicated in comments on the Bethel Island Specific Plan, for local
government planning efforts to ensure that 1) prior to development plan review and
consideration far approval, the State's interest shall be identified. The applicant should
be notified early in the=p=anning process of such interests to avoid pAlditivnal expcu.%c in '
redesigning projects to avoid uses of the State's lands that are inconsistent with the
Public i'rust Doctrine. 2) prier to site planning, the local jurisdiction should develop a
constraints and opportunities mar which indicates the State Lands affected and provides
for planning approaches that protect the Public Trust resources. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the County should require the applicant to provide evidence of a legal
right, interest, or other entitlement to use the property for the proposed development.
Our letter of March 20, 1992, paragraph one, also requests that the DEIR discuss ■
the project's relationship to the development to the Oakley Specific Plan. There is no !
such di.cussion in the document. The failure to discuss this issue deprives the public and
E-3 decision-m.- kers of the neccs;ary analvsis and assessment of the effects of this project on '
public services. l=ath of these projects should he discussed in the context of the recently
udupted General Platt to cvaivate consistency between the projects and consistency with
the General Plan.
Paragraph two of our lcttcr rccommended the preparation of one EIR to analyze
the project and other proposed developments for Hotchkiss Tract as well as the Usher
Landing development, all of which are proceeding through the County's process
E-4 concurrentiti. The cutnulutive analysis within the document is lacking the detail to
provide an adequate level of analysis of the regional impacts of the known projects, in
part as a consequence of addressing this project in isolation. The decision to prepare
separate documents is also more costly for applicants.
We alsu indicated, ParaBra h 3 that the DEIR should include a emunraints
P
E-5 analysis bisect on identified issues to facilitate the consideration of alternatives and
alternative project designs. It is well established planning technique to mao the nroiect
civm
4-35
vcwocr �, iyy�
Page 3
public rights of ways, public ownership among others. The DEIR fails to provide this
' alternatives discussion. Res,oarce agencies are particularly mindful of the aanstraints on
Delta lands and seek thorough discussion prior to cunuilitting public resources such as
E-5 floud control to deveiopment. This alternative discussion may yield the "environmentally
superior alternative" required under Section 15126(4)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines
which would enable the public and decision-makers to weigh the benefits and impacts of
the development of scmitive lands and resources.
Paragraph four requested a cumulative analysis with specific components that
recognizes the Delta as a region all projects that through their activities may affect this
region in part or in whole should reference the cumulative affects. Recent federal and
state programs (SEEP/CCMP and Delta Protection Act) identify the Delta as part of the
KK-5 San Francisco Hay/Delta Estuary for which resource management plans and water
quality programs are being developed. The resource impacts of the proposed project
must be include in the calculations of habitat loss, water diversion, non point source
pollution, ,air pollution and constraints on the estuary functions. 7be DEIR fails to
provide this analysis.
In addition to the above, the DEIR should discuss water supply In sufficient detail
that water rights are cieurly identified and that any commitment of is water supply to this
project is consistent with established water pemits. The document indicates that a '-will
E-7 serve" letter has been obtained from the Oakley Water District, but there is no
indication that the District has sufficient entitlements to provide such water. If it does
not and additional supplies :mast be obtained, the indirect impacts of same must be
discussed in this document.
' The DEIR per paragraph 6 of our March Pith letter, should discuss the
requirements of Government C:ode Sections 66478.5 and 66478.4, and how the project
applicant proposes to contpn. The two sections are indeptzrdent requirements of the
Subdivision Map Act and both must be addressed. In limited circumstances, a local
agency, upon appropriate findings, may determine that an applicant need not provide
access through the subdivision to the waterway. Under Section 66478.8 that access must
E-8 be "otherwise available within a reasonable distance from the subdivision". Under the
holding in Kern River Public, Access Committee v. City of Bakersfield (1985) 170 CA 3d
12(15, the findings allowed by Section 66478.8 do not a_pplx to the provisions of Section
664711.5. Therefore, the applicants must provide access along the waterway out of their
fee lands. Access through the :subdivision to the river easement may only be waived if
the provisions of Section 66478.8 are mct.
1 Within the context of paragraph 9 of our response to the NOP, we are concerned
E-9 that the area designated for the creation of additional wetlands and those existent
4-36
Ms. Carol \Whiteside
Mr. Arthur 8cresfcird
October 1, 1992
Page 4
wetlands surrounded by fairways 3 and 4 could be advet;eiy affected by the activities on ,
the course as well as the maintenance of the counae. What measures or procedurm exist
to protect the wetlands from adverse effects of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that
E-9 will be used in golf cuune operations? How will huntan activities on the adjacent areas
affect the u.Ke of the area by wildlife? Neither the document in its body nor the material
in Appendix E address these and related issues on which the effectiveness of the
proposed mitigation and the protection of existing resources depend., It is further
unclear as to whether the proposed mitigation comports to the County's "no net foss"
policy of wetlands.
Reference is made within the document to the CountyGeneral Plan standards
dards
E-10
which coordinates with East Bay, Regional Parks District (p.3-IN9), but no specific
reference tics the project to the trail system.
We sire concerned with the document's lack of response to our responses to the
NOP circulated for its. preparation. We believe our response conforms to the provisions
of Section 15096(b)(2) of the State CEOA Guidelines which states in part: "the reply
shall specify the scope and content of the environmental infornuttion which would be
Scrmane to the responsible a�cnc%'s statutory responsibilities in connection with the
proposed projeci. The lead a-venq S,haLl include this information in the UR" (emphasis
added) As we have indicated herein, the document noes not meet this requirement. For
funhei information, contact Elizabeth Patterson (916) 327.4035 or me at (916) 322-7827.
Sincerely,
r 'r
1. wi{ `
g . Sanders
Chief, vision of Environmental
Planning and Management f
Attachments
cc: Elizabeth Patterson
Duncun Simmons
Mary Griggs
OPR
4-3?
' Response to Letter E: State Lands Commission, February 16, 1993
1 Response E-1:
On numerous occasions, the County has requested the State Land Commission (SLC) to
' provide evidence of its potential ownerships of lands in the Bethel Island Area. The first request
was made during the review of the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan. The most recent request
was made by Planner Byron Turner dated May 4, 1992 in response to the SLC's comment on
the Notice of Preparation dated March 20, 1992. As of today's date, the SLC has not provided
any evidence of its ownership interest in the project area. The SLC's letter dated June 19, 1992
in response to Byron Turner's letter dated May 4, 1992 states that it may have an interest in
' lands proposed for a levee breach or lands with waterward boundaries. The Cypress Lakes and
Country Club Project does not propose a levee breach nor does it abut any waterways.
' Title reports have been prepared on the project site. These title reports show no evidence
of any potential ownership interest of the State. This determination was based on research and
review of the U.S. Geological Service maps. The DEIR discusses the State Lands' jurisdiction
with respect to this parcel at page 3-3.
' Response E-2:
Please see response above. The applicant has appropriately demonstrated through its title
reports that the Sate has no potential ownership interest in the project. This discussion appears
in the DEIR at page 3-3.
Response E-3:
An Oakley Specific Plan does not exist. At one time there was the Oakley/North
Brentwood Area General Plan (December, 1989). This Plan has since been repealed by the
Board of Supervisors. However, the DEIR does discuss the project's cumulative impacts with
respect to projects in the Oakley area, in addition to other areas. (See DEIR at pages 5-2 to 5-7).
' In addition, the DEIR discusses the Cypress Lakes project's consistency with the General Plan
under each topic heading. Since the DEIR was prepared for the Cypress Lakes project, it need
not contain a discussion on consistency of other projects with the General Plan.
Response E-4:
' At the present time, the Cypress Lakes and Country Club project is the only project being
actively processed on Hotchkiss Tract. The DEIR discusses the projects on file with the County
in the Hotchkiss Tract area at pages 5-2 and 3-21. Due to the streamlining timelines regarding
application processing in state law, the Cypress Lakes project could not be forced to wait for the
other projects before environmental review could occur. In addition, CEQA does not require the
preparation of one project EIR for the entire Hotchkiss Tract Area. Such preparation would
4-38
prove to be infeasible since all projects in the area are not proceeding at the same rate and are '
owned by different individuals.
Response E-5: '
An adequate alternative analysis appears at pages 4-1 through 4-17 of the DEIR. Please '
note that the design of the project changed in response to the comments on the Notice of
Preparation and the first DEIR. These changes are more thoroughly discussed at pages i and 1-1
of the DEIR. The alternative analysis focuses on and discusses various resource constraints. For ,
example, under each alternative there is an analysis regarding constraints relating to vegetation
and wildlife (which includes wetlands), and geology, seismicity and soils (which includes
discussions on seismic and flood hazards, soils and a rise in sea level). The potential for urban- ,
type development in the Bethel Island area is recognized in the County General Plan and the
General Plan identifies internal levees as one option for removing the area from the flood hazard
zone. This proposed project is proposing to implement the land use objectives of the County ,
General Plan for the Bethel Island area.
Response E-6: '
The DEIR recognizes the project's impact on the Delta to the extent they are applicable.
The project would not have a significant impact on the Delta since it does not contain a levee '
breach and does not directly abut the waterway. The DEIR does discuss the project's relation
to the Delta Protection Act at pages 3-16 and 3-26. In addition, the project includes water
quality management plans to maintain acceptable water quality within the lake/channels proposed '
on site. When water would be pumped off-site, such as during the 100-year storm event, the
water would be pumped into Sandmound slough. The quality of this water would be required '
to meet the County's NPDES permit requirements as recommended in Measure 3.7-17 at page
3-146. The proposed water quality management plans appear to be adequate to meet these
requirements.
Response E-7:
Refer to Responses R-11 through R-14. '
Response E-8: '
Sections 66478.4 and 66478.5 only address subdivisions that front upon a public
waterway, river or a stream. The Cypress Lakes project site does not front upon a public '
waterway, river or stream.
4-39 '
Response E-9:
' Wetland areas on the site would be protected from adjacent recreational and residential
activities through the use of upland buffer areas around each site. The upland buffer areas would
be a minimum of 50 feet wide within which human activity would be restricted.
Specific methods for management of the wetland areas on the site would be contained in
the final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and made conditions of any U.S. Army Corps
' of Engineers permit (see Mitigation Measure 3.4-5, page 3-97 of the DEIR).
The project's conformity with the County's policies for "no net loss" of wetlands is
addressed in the DEIR on pages 3-95 and 3-96.
Response E-10:
The DEIR's reference to the East Bay Regional Park District appears at page 3-181 as
Implementation Measure 9-s from the General Plan. This measure does not require the project
' to connect its trails to those of the East Bay Regional Park District. Moreover, the East Bay
Regional Park District does not have any trails in the project vicinity. Please note that the
proposed project includes a variety of pedestrian and bicycle trails to be constructed on the
project site.
' 4-40
f
� 4.3 LOCAL AGENCIES
1
4-41
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
' 4fC CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
651 Pine Street,Eighth Floor • Martinez,CA 94553
(510)646-4090 • FAX(510)646-2240
C
MEMBERS ALTERNATE MEMBERS
1 Michael Menesini Jeff Smith Gayle Bishop
EXECUTIVE OFFICER Martinez City Council County Supervisor Alternate;County Supervisor
ANNAMARIA PERRELLA Don Miladinovich Tom Toriskson Joseph CaneiamiW
1 Public Member County Supervisor Alternate;Pittsburg City Council
Gayle B.Uilkema
Lafayette City Council Alternate:Public Member
Q' N W Letter F
_ `— February 10, 1993
1 � N
U�
v W LU
1 �.. r•7 �: Art Beresford, Senior Planner
ati
From: Jim Cutler, LAFCO Planning Advisor VW�
Subject: Draft EIR - Cypress Lakes & Country Club Project
1 Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR on the
subject project. On September 25, 1992 we forwarded a
1 response to a prior Draft EIR on this project; most of
the comments found in that letter have not been dealt
with in this document and therefore, they are restated
1 and clarified below.
The County General Plan conformity with this project is
not clearly described.1 The Agricultural Lands designation has a one-unit per five-acre minimum requirement. The Bonus
F-1 Density provision of allowing up to three-units per acre
appears to be inconsistent with the Ag Lands designation.
1 Especially since the purpose of the Ag Lands designation is
to preserve ag lands.
The County GP discourages leap frog development. The Final
' F-2 EIR needs to describe why this project is not to be
considered leap frog development from Oakley. Especially if
it is to be served by Oakley service districts.
Page 3-2 indicates that the project is located in a largely
agricultural area and page 3-1 indicates that the site is
1 largely agricultural but "these lands have marginal
agricultural productivity" and are classified as "non-prime" .
F-3 Grazing land has agricultural value; the existing
agricultural uses of the property need to be more fully
1 discussed. LAFCO legislation requires the consideration of
the conversion of open space lands to urbanization, in
addition to the loss of prime agricultural lands. The loss
of non-prime lands may also be considered significant.
1 4-42
-2-
The discussion of fire facilities beginning on page t
3-167 indicates that the Bethel Island Fire Protection
District urges that the entire project should be served
by one fire district. The area is presently served by '
both the Bethel Island and Oakley Fire Protection
Districts. The analysis fails to explore the impacts on the
Oakley District if the area is to be detached from that
F-4 district; the final EIR needs to do this. Additionally, '
both these districts are volunteer based. The implications
of the ability of volunteers to adequately staff what would
increasingly become an urban area needs to be discussed in ,
the Final EIR. A mitigation measure which discusses a more
fully paid fire-fighting staff should be considered.
The site is discontiguous from the existing Oakley ,
Water District and the Contra Costa Water District
boundaries by over a mile. The implications of
annexation to those districts, especially in terms of
growth-inducing impacts, needs to be analyzed in the
Final EIR. Has the CCWD agreed to this annexation?
The presumption that LAFCO would modify its spheres of '
influence or district boundaries for a discontiguous
annexation such as this may not be warranted.
F-5 ,The FEIR needs to analyze these growth inducing impacts
in light of the CCWD's Los Vaqueros Phase 2 DEIR. It
is that District's EIR's contention that it will not
provide water service beyond the planning area for '
Oakley which is described in that EIR. That would
imply this site couldn't be served to the site from the
OWD-CCWD Randall-Bold Treatment Plant. This conflict
in EIR information needs to be clarified.
Page 3-200 states that the Ironhouse Sanitary District '
is in the process of expanding its SOI to annex all
F-6 lands between the former CCCSD 15 and Oakley Sanitary
District. This may not be technically correct and
needs to be clarified in the Final EIR. ,
jimc. ,
1
1
j 4-43 '
1
Response to Letter F• Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission,
February 10, 1993
Response F-1:
The comment appears to question the General Plan designation of the project site and the
policies of the overlay land use designation of the Off-Island Bonus Area. An evaluation of the
County's Off-Island Bonus Area policies with the underlying Agricultural designation is not the
subject of this EIR but rather the EIR on the County's General Plan. The project's consistency
with the policies of the Off-Island Bonus Area was reviewed and the project was determined to
be consistent. The General Plan specifically recognizes a lake community and a golf course as
recreational amenities consistent with the Off-Island Bonus Plan.
' Response F-2:
The General Plan and the Off-Island Bonus Area already specifically allow development
in this location. Moreover, the County General Plan designates lands between Oakley and Bethel
iIsland for residential, commercial and other development. It just happens that the Cypress Lakes
project is the first proposed in the area. The County Development Department has received other
' applications for development in the Bethel Island Area which are being actively processed.
All but a small portion of the project site is within the Ironhouse Sanitary District. Will
' serve letters have been provided by both the Ironhouse Sanitary District and the Oakley Water
District.
' The only area designated for recreational development in the General Plan is the
Hotchkiss Tract area. The County has limited recreational development in this area and is
encouraging such development through the designation of the site for recreational uses.
Response F-3:
' The removal of the project site from agricultural production (primarily grazing) would not
be considered significant because soils in the project area are not considered "prime." However,
as indicated in the DEIR (page 3-17), the conversion of the project site to urban and suburban
uses would contribute to the incremental loss of agricultural land throughout Contra Costa
County. However, such loss has been substantially limited through establishment of the Urban
Limit Line, the 65/35 Land Preservation standard, and the agricultural core areas. Also see
' response to Letter B.
' 4-44
Response F-4:
The text on page 3-168 of the DEIR described the professional opinion of the Bethel
Island FPD chief that Hotchkiss Tract should be annexed to the Bethel Island Fire District. The
DEIR does not make a specific recommendation regarding annexation because the site could be
served by both districts, although it may be preferable for the project to be served by only one
district.
With regard to fees and staffing, Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2, on page 3-170 of
the DEIR address the payment of fire district fees and possibly the need for an augmented
funding source. Consultations with both fire districts have indicated that both districts could staff
the station.
Response F-5:
The Oakley Water District has envisioned annexation of the Bethel Island Planning Area '
in its Master Plan (dated October 1991). The District's assumptions regarding cumulative growth
and future annexations are addressed in the Master Plan. Since the District envisions annexation
of this area into its Sphere of Influence and has provided the project applicant with a "will serve"
letter, the District is agreeable to annexation of this site. Issues of whether to annex all areas
between the Oakley Water District's current Sphere of Influence and the project site or only the '
project site is a determination for LAFCO. To reduce the potential for growth inducement,
LAFCo could consider annexation of only the project site to the District. Also see Growth '
Inducement discussions in the DEIR, Pages 3-9.
As noted on page 3-196 of the DEIR, CCWD may be able to accommodate minor sphere ,
of influence changes without compromising project goals. The proposed project's demand would
be considered minor. Also see Responses R-11 through R-14.
Response F-6: '
This comment is unclear in that it does not identify what is incorrect in the DEIR. '
However, the discussion on page 3-200 of the DEIR addresses the Ironhouse Sanitary District's
proposed Sphere of Influence which would consolidate the former Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District's Sphere of Influence with that of the Ironhouse Sanitary District, as well as some
additional lands. The project site is almost completely within the Ironhouse Sanitary District,
with the exception of several small areas. The District's proposed annexations would include
these small areas.
4-45 ,
Letter G
SHERIFF-CORONER
Contra Costa County
P.O. Box 391
Martinez , CA 9455r
January 6, 1993
To: Arthur Beresford
Community Development Department
From: Reed L. McDonald, Sheriff 's Fiscal Officer
Subject: Draft E. I .R. Cypress Lakes '& Country Club Project
1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since my name was mentioned on page 3-1 .11 of the report I am commenting
G-i on what I think are incorrect statements in the POLICE PROTECTION
SECTION. The contact person and liason for the Sheriff 's Department in
regards to E. I.R. impacts and assessments is Lt. Parsons.
Page 3-171 , 1st Paragraph, Sentence #4
In the future, Delta Station will be under the supervision of a
G-2 sergeant, rather than a lieutenant.
This seems to be an opinion, rather than a fact. I don 't know where the
author got this information.
Page 3-171 , 33rd Paragraph, Sentence #1
Police protection services are funded almost exclusively through the
G-3 Special Districts Augmentation Fund from the County General Fund.
This is, in my opinion, not a factual statement. The County Auditor
appears to be the source for this statement.
Page 3-172, last Paragraph
The costs of the increased services would be paid from the Special
Districts Augmentation Fund, which is a part of the County 's General
Fund allocated for police protection service in the unincorporated
areas and distributed on an as—needed basis.
This again seems to be an opinion, rather than a fact. It is my
G-4 understanding that the Special District tAugmentation Fund is separate
I A -
and distinct from the County General Fund. Additionally I do not think
it factually correct to state that the costs of increased services would
be paid from the Special District Augmentation Fund, as that fund is
allocated by the County Board of Supervisors, and any portion of that
fund may or may not be allocated for police protection at the discretion
The same is the County General Fund.
of the Board. true of
4-46
Response to Letter G: Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, January 6, 1993
Response G-1:
Comment noted. Reed L. McDonald's name has been removed as a reference for
information contained in the Revised DEIR.
Response G-2:
Refer to Response H-1.
Response G-3:
Comment noted. The first sentence of the third paragraph on page 3-171 of the DEIR is
hereby deleted.
Response G-4:
Comment noted. The last paragraph on page 3-172 of the DEIR is hereby deleted.
4-47
ichard K.
` Sheriff-Coroner Contra SHERF-CORONERy
P.O. Box 391
Costa Assistant Sheriff Warren E.Rupf
Martinez, California 94553-0039
(510) 646- County Gerald T.Mitoslnka
Assistant Sheriff
Rodger L.Davis
Assistant Sheriff
Letter H O @ 0
2 519g3
January 25, 1993 CONTRA COSTA COUNiY
APPLICATION&PERMIT CES`'
' Mr. Scott Steinwert
Project Manager
Public Affairs Management
101 The Embarcadero, Suite 210
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (PAM Project #363)
Dear Mr. Scott:
Thank you for the copy of the Contact Report. I do not recall this or
any conversation with Jo Julin of PAM. Is it possible that an attempt
was made to contact me, the report started, and another persons'
remarks put down?
Regardless, the statement in the EIR indicating that "In the future,
Delta Station will be under the supervision of a Sergeant, rather than
an Lieutenant" , is not factual. The staffing of the Sheriff's
H-1 Department is contingent upon the annual budget as adopted by the
County Board of Supervisors.
I would ask that you delete any reference to me as a source of
information in your EIR.
1 Sincerely,
WARREN E. RUPF, SHERIFF-CORONER
Reed L. McDonald
Sheriff 's Fiscal Officer
cc: Sheriff W.E.Rupf
' Art Beresford, Community Development Department
4-48
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Response to Letter H: Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, January 25, 1993
Response H-1:
Comment noted. The last paragraph on page 3-170 of the DEIR has been amended as
follows:
POLICE PROTECTION
EXISTING SETTING
Existing Services '
Police protection services throughout the Planning Area are provided by the Contra Costa
County Sheriff's Department, which is headquartered in Martinez and has a station house
(Delta Station) located at the junction of Acme Street and O'Hare Avenue in Oakley (see
Figure 3.9-1 of the DEIR). The Planning Area is covered by one beat, Beat 31, operating
out of the Delta Station. The Station is staffed by one lieutenant, five sergeants and 23
deputies and has a total of 13 patrol cars. Five deputies, working in shifts, and a patrol
car are assigned to Beat 31, with one deputy patrolling at any one time. In addition, the
County Sheriff's Department operates a marine patrol which consists of two deputies. 1
the future, Delta Station .ill beunder- thes if a—se , rather- than a
lieutenant. lith-- _t_FF �.hanges may he ..�..�ie �...nt:n..ent »non the outeeme of the
--o - ---o-` - -nom o- -a -
cuffent County and State budget PFOCeSs.
The staffing of the Sheriffs Department is
contingent upon the annual budget as adopted by the County Board of Supervisors.
(Sgt. Phil White, personal communication May 7, 1992, Reed McDonald, per-s
Ee^ . gen August 7, 1992). Police work within the area covers a wide spectrum of
problems, including responding to disturbance calls, fights, threats, burglaries and
robberies. At present, the Department feels that the degree of service needs to be
strengthened, and that any further development in the area may tax the service beyond its
available capacity.
1'
4-49
Land Planning Consultants INC. to
239 MAIN STREET, SUITE E ■ PLEASANTON, eA 94566, ■ (510)846-7007 ■ FAJ�;(510)*46-53bf
' 4 v
,..!
y
fi
Letter I '~:
January 28, 199371
Mr. Arthur Beresford
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing - Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
RE: Cypress Lakes and Country Club
Dear Mr. Beresford:
Pursuant to our review of the revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
above project on behalf of the Liberty Union High School District, we have the following
concerns:
1. The report correctly identifies the current enrollment condition at the District's existing
campus located in Brentwood. Additionally, it identified the enrollment projections
for the next five to six years, establishing the need for the District to construct a new
school facility in the near future.
tIt is unforseen that a new facility can be built at the District's Neroly Road and O'Hara
Avenue site in Oakley within a time frame to eliminate sever overcrowding at the
Brentwood facility. The problem is compounded further in that no construction
funding source currently exists other than the collection of Developer Impact Fees, as
identified in the DEIR. The report estimates that this development will require
approximately 20% of the District's new school facility. This equals to a financial
obligation associated with Cypress Lakes of 6.8 Million Dollars, excluding property
costs. With the recent increase in Developer Impact Fees and the adoption of the SB
1287 fee collected at the full $1.00 per square foot, the District is estimated to collect
3.9 Million Dollars at completion of the.project. This represents a short fall in full
mitigation of 2.9 Million Dollars. The District is reviewing all alternatives for funding
and has an application to the State for a funding match to complete construction
documents for the new school. The District can not submit a Phase III application for
State school construction funds until construction documents are prepared and
approved by the Office of State Architect. The District is not expected to collect
enough Developer Impact Fees or SB 1287 fees to support the match needed to
complete construction documents. As can be seen by this short term funding need,
revenue from fees will not be adequate in total or received in a timely manner to fully
mitigate the District's needs for construction funding. The facility can not be built, or
can a commitment to build the facility be made until an adequate funding source
agreement is executed. General Plan Goal 7-AR, illustrated in the DEIR on page 3-
176, clearly states ...'To assure that school facilities are adequate or committed to be
r
Sewing Public Agencies
4-50
Page 2
Mr. Arthur Beresford
January 28, 1993
adequate, prior to approvals of major applications for residential growth." Therefore,
the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR relating to the collection of"fees"at the
time of issuance of building permits are inadequate and do not meet the goals of the
County's General Plan. The project's mitigation measures should reflect available
classroom capacity concurrently with the need generated by residential construction.
The quality of the community and/or subdivision is reflective of the quality of the
school system within that community and/or subdivision. Without facilities, the
District will be limited as to the educational program it can offer. The importance of
this correlation is evident by the Policy and Goals established in the County's General
Plan.: Realizing that use DEIR fu'd' realizes the impact-this project will have on the
school district, it should also correctly realize the mitigation measures required on
behalf of the school district and be consistent with the General Plan. 1
For these reasons, realizing that the DEIR fully identifies the impact this project will
have on the District, the District requests that the mitigation measures stated in the
DEIR be amended to reflect full mitigation needs, consistent with the General Plan.
2. The DEIR states that in addition to fees, school districts would also realize an increase r
in property tax revenue based on the change in land use and development. This
statement is misleading in that the State offsets their funding revenue to school
districts proportionally to increased tax revenue. This increase in property taxes will i
have no direct influence on the amount of funds received by the District for annual
operating expenses in as much as the State sets annual revenue limits.
Sincerely,
Laird Neuhart ,
cc: Dr. Philip White, Liberty Union High School District
4-51
1 Response to Letter I: Land Planning Consultants, January 28, 1993
Response I-1:
Comments noted. With the adoption of Senate Bill 1287, the maximum developer impact
fee that can be levied by the school districts cannot exceed $2.65 per square foot. The project
applicant will be required to pay the maximum school impact fee allowed by State law.
However, as noted in Mitigation Measure 3.9-6 on page 3-179 of the DEIR, additional fees may
be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the district.
Mitigation Measure 3.9-5 on page 3-179 is modified to add the following to the end of
the mitigation measure:
The applicant and the school districts shall enter into a short-term funding agreement prior
to recordation of the subdivision map. The agreement shall ensure that matching funds
are provided for the completion of construction documents necessary for the districts'
application(s) for State funding. The amount of short-term funding would be credited to
the applicant's full school impact fees which are paid upon issuance of building permits.
r
l
I 4-52
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 799 '
(Hotchkiss Tract)
Board of Robert D. Gromm, David A. Dal Porto, Jack Strickland,
Trustees: Lynn S. Jochim, Joseph S. Spotts.
Office: 2070 Dutch Slough Road, Bethel Island, CA 94511
Mail: P.O. Box 447, Bethel Island, CA 94511
Telephone: 1-510-684-2117 FAX: 1-510-684-9610
February 11, 1993 Letter J
Contra Costa Community Developmen epartment
Attention: Arthur Beresford
651 Pine Street, North Wing, Fourth Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Enclosed under a Kjeldsen-Sinnock & Associates, Inc.
letterhead, and addressed to Robert D. Gromm, Chairman,
Reclamation District 799, are the comments on the Revised Draft of
the Environmental Impact Report on Subdivision #7562, Cypress
Lakes and Country Club, adopted by the Board of Trustees of
Reclamation District 799 on February it 1993. '
4
Robert D. Gromm, chairman/secretary ■
. r
�r
M �
M
rMrs m O '
C J �
�� `
^I
---� G
� to
Q —!
� N D
,a w
4-53
KJELDSEN-SINNOCK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
KENNETH L. KJELDSEN 1113 WEST FREMONT STREET TELEPHONE 946.0268
STEPHEN K. SINNOCK POST OFFICE BOX 844 AREA CODE 209
CHRISTOPHER H. NEUDECK STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 95201.0844 FAX NO. 946.0296
1225-009 . 3
February 10, 1993
Mr. Robert Gromm, Chairman
Reclamation District No. 799
Post Office Box 447
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Re: Comments on December, 1992 DEIR
Cypress Lakes and Country Club
County File #2918-RZ, DP 3032-90, SUB #7562
Dear Mr. Gromm:
IThe following is a joint effort between myself and
Barbara Burns to comment on the December, 1992 revision of
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cypress
Lakes Development on behalf of Reclamation District No. 799,
hereinafter "District. " This letter is structured to follow
the comments in our letters of March 11 and September 21,
1992, responding to the Notice of Preparation and the
previous DEIR.
FLOOD PROTECTION
This DEIR has not acknowledged the dependence of this
development on the District's existing levees for providing
flood Protection for access to the development, off-site
utilities, and off-site drainage. The DEIR needs to
recognize and evaluated the responsibility of the new
development for the maintenance of the District's perimeter
levee system and drainage system.
The DEIR addresses alternative levee configurations/
improvements beginning on Page 3-137. The conclusion that
the Quadrant Levee System "would not be feasible from a
timing, construction, and financial perspective', is
J-2 unsubstantiated. The District is awaiting the completion of
a study by a consulting engineering firm that will consider
alternative means of strengthening the perimeter levee to
meet FEMA's urban 100-year flood standard. With this.
study's new information, the District will further evaluate
this concept during its permit review process.
This DEIR has addressed the impact of this development
on leaving existing improvements in relatively small and
narrow areas in the flood plain with two responses. One
response is the conclusion that the development has a
J-3 positive impact by providing existing residents "a closer
evacuation opportunity than presently exists" (Page 3-135) .
The other response is the inclusion in Appendix E of the
Informational Report by Bohley/Maley Associates that
4-54
Page Two
February 10, 1993
presents hydraulic calculations of a levee -failure analysis.
A detailed engineering review of this report has not been
conducted at this time, but will follow and be an important
part of the project's permit review process by the District.
J-3 The District will perform a detailed engineering review
during its permit review process of the proposed interior
levee cross section as shown in the Bohley/Maley report in '
Appendix E. Details such as easements for future drainage
facilities, landscaping areas, and drainage ditch
maintenance will be evaluated.
DRAINAGE
The DEIR incorrectly assumes that the project would
result in an overall reduction in the current drainage
impacts on District facilities. This DEIR did not
incorporate the District's previous comment about the
pattern of drainage waters contributed from parcels to the j
J-4 east and southeast flowing across this project's property
during high flow conditions to the Sandmound Pump Station.
As proposed, the project would cause a diversion of these
waters to the Dutch Slough Pump Station with adverse impact.
This subject will be an issue that will be reviewed in
detail during the permit review process by the District.
On Page 3-118, the DEIR concluded that, "in general,
the storm drainage system within the Hotchkiss Tract area is
adequate to carry present flows, however some localized
flooding does occur in lour areas (near some pump stations) ,
and along Sandmound Boulevard during storm periods. " This
statement is not correct. The District stated in its
previous comments that the drainage system within the
Hotchkiss Tract area is inadequate because of the above
J-5 mentioned problems.
The District will perform detailed engineering reviews
during its permit review process of the proposed drainage
plan, Channel-Lake Operation and Maintenance Plan (Page
2-19) , Wetland Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Page
2-11) , Channel Enhancement Plan (Page 2-11) , and any other
plans affecting existing or future District drainage
facilities.
GROUND AND GROUNDWATER
The District will perform detailed engineering reviews
during its permit review process of the Groundwater
Monitoring Plan (Page 2-18) , Dewatering Plan, Ground
J-6 Settlement Monitoring Plan (Page 2-23) , Groundwater
Management Plan (Page 2-25) , and any other construction
activities that may affect the District's drainage system or
levees.
1
4-55
Page Three
February 10, 1993
LAKES
The District will perform detailed engineering review
during its permit review process of the Channel-Lake
J_7 Operation and Maintenance Plan. The District may require
the development to evaluate alternative sources of water
forthe lake system as well as evaluate the effects of moored
boats and docks on the lake's surface.
PERMIT AND REVIEW PROCESS
It is very important that the DEIR recognize
Reclamation District No.799 as a key governmental entity
1.8 with broad authority and jurisdiction affecting this
project. The DEIR failed to list the District in its
section entitled "DISCRETIONARY AND OTHER AGENCY APPROVAL
REQUIRED" (Page 1-11) as an approval agency.
Sincerely,
IKJELDSEN-SINNOCK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
Chylstopher H �Z
. eu , RCE
BURNS ENGINEERING
Barbara urns,
RCE
CHN/BEB/ls -
cc: . Trustees
Cressy H. Nakagawa, Esq.
�. 4-56
Response to Letter J: Reclamation District 799, February 11, 1993
Response J-1:
Mitigation Measure 3.7-12, page 3-145 of the DEIR was specifically added to address the
proposed project's responsibility to the continuing maintenance of the existing RD-799 levee and
drainage systems.
Response J-2:
Comments noted. The DEIR at Page 3-137 provides information regarding the
infeasibility of the quadrant levee system to remove the project site from the flood hazard zone.
At the time of publishing the DEIR and this Final EIR, the District's study was not available.
Response J-3:
Comment noted. The comment provides additional information regarding detailed
engineering review that would take place during the District's permit review process. No
additional response is necessary.
Response J-4:
Figure 3.7-1,page 3-119 of the DEIR,depicts the existing drainage facilities in the project
area. In general, these facilities flow away from the project site toward the Dutch Slough pump
station and the Sand Mound Slough pump stations. According to this map, limited quantities of
drainage flows across the project site from adjacent parcels. The conclusion in the EIR that the
project would result in a beneficial impact on drainage assumes that the 687-acre site would be
removed from the existing drainage system and would not contribute storm water runoff to the
already overtaxed system. RD-799 disagrees with this conclusion and has indicated they would
review this issue in detail prior to issuing any permits for the project.
Response J-5:
Comments noted. The commentsprovide additional in and clarifications which
do not require a response.
Response J-6:
Comments noted. The comments provide additional information and clarifications which
do not require a response.
4-57
tResponse J-7:
Comments noted. The comments provide additional information and clarifications which
do not require a response.
Response J-8:
Section 1.6 beginning on page 1-II of the DEIR is revised to include the following:
1 8. RD-799 Approval - Permits from RD-799 will be required for the proposed levee
and drainage systems both on- and off-site.
4-58
r
4.4 GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
4.59
Letter K
February 10,.!''4,993 -4,
-`4
Contra Costa County Community Development
651 Pine Street-North Wing 4th Floor
Martinez, Ca 94533-0095
Attention: Art Beresford
RE: Cypress Lakes & Country Club Development
We are writing in response to the revised EIR dated
December 1992.
This project will not benefit any East Contra Costa
County resident that must commute to Central Contra
Costa and beyond to work. The imbalance of jobs to
housing is extremely crucial, this project will only
impact this further. The EIR shows Nelroy Road as a
main thoroughfare to Route4/160. This is currently a
dirt road on private property where Nelroy meets Hiway 4
at Delta Road. The report states that this development
will have a short term impact on the traffic pvoblem.
With the current economic situation for county, state,
K-1 and federal funds I don' t see funding for new jobs or
new roads (Delta Expressway?) in the short or long term
future.
Somewhat closer to home is the issue of Cypress Road.
The Cypress Lakes project proposes to improve only at
two intersections and the new entrance to the project
upon completion of 1000 houses. This could be several
years before the limited improvements are made. We have
serious accidents every month, many of them fatal. We
can not afford the increase of an estimated 10, 000 trips
per day before these improvements are made.
Air pollution is already beyond BAAQMD standards 20 plus
days per year. This project predicts that it will increase
K-2 both reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides to more
than two and a half times the acceptable standards of pounds
4-60
page-2
of pollutants per day. The EIR states this will be a sig-
nificant adverse effect. We agree, many of the older res-
K-2 idents at the convalescent hospital have respiratory problems
as does the neighborhood (most are retired) .
The visual impact of the proposed project is also going
to have a significant adverse impact to the area. The re-
port states that often the houses in the area are 3 and 4
stories tall so. "our very limited view of Mt. Diablo" would
K-3 not be effected by the proposed 161x 1201 internal levee.
The truth of the matter is that 96% of the homes in the area
are 1 and 2 stories tall and our views would be adversely
effected. The beauty of the rural open space will be gone
for good.
Noise pollution will be another significant adverse factor
both during and after the construction of the project. The
EIR states that a change of 6dB is considered significant.
This project proposes changes of 17dB almost 3 times what
K-4 is considered significant. We move to this area for its
quiet country atmosphere. We hear frog, coyotes, crickets ,
quail, pheasants and many other local inhabitants. The
project will provide 1330 new lawn movers, hedge trimmers
and cars, as our new neighbors.
This project is proposing to be a recreational project there
foresubject to higher density and rezoning. from the current
agriculture limits of 1 house per 5 acres. They propose
to put 1330 houses on 246 acres of the site, in other words
5. 4 houses per acre. The Cypress Lakes project will provide
lakes that you can' t swim or fish in, what recreational ben-
K-5 efit does this provide with the delta less than 200 yards
away? This project also proposes a semi-private golf course ■
as part of it's recreational theme. With 2 existing golf
. courses (1 less than 2 miles from the site) in the far East
Contra Costa and 2 others approved in other projects, do
we really need another golf course? What percent of the pop-
ulation will this appeal to?
4-61
page-3
With all of the budget cutbacks and proposed budget cutbacks
this project projects a new fire station, we may loose the
the one on Bethel Island let alone support an additional one. .
The county will have to provide 40% of the cost to put in
K-6 sound walls along Cypress Road. The county will have to pay
for the rest of the improvements to Cypress Road and beyond.
The county will pay for new schools, more sheriff, more this
and more that. Will the county gain that much revenue from
this project?
The last and most important concern is the proposed internal
levee system. We feel this levee is such an important part
of this proposed project so that it can segregate the Cypress
Lake development rather than integrate, enhance, and improve
the Bethel Island area. Wouldn' t ranchettes be a better and
more compatible use of this land?
This proposed levee is a tremendous safety threat to the area
both during and after construction. Safety is always a major
K-7 concern when you live with a potential for flooding. The
estimates to bring the existing 799 levee up to FEMA standards
are not yet available, but the rumored cost of the construction
of the new internal levee is $10 million. Wouldn' t it make
Cypress Lakes a part of the Bethel Island area if that $10
million were used to bring the existing 799 levee to the new
FEMA standards? If this internal levee is approved will it
pave the way for future internal levee projects and ultimately
the further deterioration of the current 799 system? Why not
have all future projects support the 799 system to make us
all a part of a safe FEMA approved Hotchkiss Tract.
We look forward to your comments on these and other questions
raised by the current residents of Hotchkiss Tract.
Sincerely, X-
z
Gue ana Katie All
4-62 4384 Sandmound Blvd.
Oakley, CA 94561
Response to Letter K: Guy and Katie All, February 10, 1993
Response K-1:
The transportation analysis included in the DEIR proposed numerous safety improvements
for Cypress Road to accommodate the estimated 12,000 additional trips per day. Traffic signals
at the Cypress Road/Knightsen Avenue and Cypress Road/Sellers Avenue intersections would
YJ
help to improve traffic safety along Cypress Road. Improvements at these intersections, as well
as improvements at the Cypress Road/Bethel Island Road/Project Entrance intersection, would
include widening to provide additional through lanes and turning lanes. These improvements
would also help to improve traffic safety and traffic flow upon development of the proposed
project. Other roadway improvements in the area would be phased to correspond to the rate of
new construction.
Response K-2:
Comment noted. This comment agrees with the findings of the DEIR
Response K-3:
Comment noted. The DEIR on p. 3-108 concludes that the project would result in an
unavoidable adverse impact to the existing views from adjacent properties.
Response K-4:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The DEIR, p.
3-116 and 117 proposes several mitigation measures to reduce construction-period and long-term
noise impacts to acceptable levels. However, the DEIR concludes that construction-period noise
would result in a short-term unavoidable adverse impact on local residents.
Response K-5:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commenter. A feasibility
analysis was conducted for the golf course and concluded that a golf course could be supported
on the project site (see Pages 3-182 of the DEIR).
Response K-6:
County policy requires new development to pay its fair share of the costs of public
services and facilities needed to serve the development. Page 2-2 of the DEIR Summary lists
some of the mitigation measures that are incorporated into the proposed project and which would
require funding by the applicant. In addition, the applicant would construct the roadway
improvements listed in Table 3.2-6(A) on page 3-53 of the DEIR. The applicant may also be
required to pay a regional traffic fee for Measure C projects.
4-63
Response K-7:
' The first part of the comment represents the commentor opinion on the type of
development that would be appropriate on the project site. No response is necessary. Also see
Response EE-20. A ranchette alternative was discussed in the DEIR at Pages 4-5 through 4-7.
The second part of the comment expresses the commentors opinion that the exterior levees
should be brought up to FEMA standards,rather than constructing an internal levee. The County
General Plan, Policy 3-74, allows the construction of internal levees to FEMA standards in the
Bethel Island Area, to remove areas from the flood hazard zone. Also refer to Pages 3-137 of
the DEIR, Response FF-1 and Appendix C, which contains a letter from the project applicant to
RD 799 requesting that RD 799 be the responsible agency for flood protection and drainage on
the project site.
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
4-64
93 FEB 16 PH 4: 11
Letter L C�.V• 1VTOZVE11-04,MENT eEErT.
February 1, 1993
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Attention: Mr. Art Beresfond
I recommend rejection of the December 1992 Environmental Impact
Report on Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project for the following ,
reasons:
I1 . The report does not comply with section 15130 of the
L'1 California Environmental Quality Act.
2. The planned .land use does not include subdivision 6610. Pages
3-3.
3 . Impacts on other planned uses in surrounding areas does not
include subdivision 6610. Pages 3-20, 3-21.
4. Housing discussion and table 3.1-1 does not include
subdivision 6610 pages 3-20, 3-21.
5. Traffic impact study does not include cumulative impacts
because of subdivision 6610 pages 3-28 through 3-63. 35 pages
are errors. All calculations, study and conclusions are
L-2 incorrect without subdivision 6610 input.
6. Air quality evaluations does not consider the cumulative ,
effects from subdivision 6610 including possible concurrent
grading operations. Pages 3-64 through 3-75.
7 . Subdivision 6610 together with roadway improvements are not
considered in visual quality. Pages 3-99 through 3-108.
8 . The cumulative effects of subdivision 6610 on noises not
address. Pages 3-109 through 3-117.
9 . Fire protection evaluations do not include effects of '
subdivision_ 6610 both on funding and services. Pages 3-163
through 3-170.
4-65
r
10. Police protection impacts excluding cumulative effects of
subdivision 6610 not included. Pages 3-172 through 3-174.
11 . Cumulative school impacts because of subdivision 6610 are not
discussed. Pages 3-177 through 3-179 .
12. Adverse impacts do not consider cumulative effects from
subdivision 6610 on air quality, visual quality, job/housing
L-2 balance, noise and construction period dust. Page 5-1.
13 . Cumulative impacts are incorrect for subdivision 6610 in land
use. Subdivision 6610 already approved. Traffic/circulation,
air quality data base in error. Subdivision 6610 not subject
to COunty TPM current requirements . Subdivision 6610 does not
have to meet current noise standards or comply with current
county growth management, requirements , utility demands and
human health as it is alreaan, *""rnvpd .
114 . No discussion regarding the effect of the winter tule fog on
L-3 services, traffic, etc. were noted.
The following are other questions and/or concerns I have which are
not answered and/or discussed
1) Traffic exist for the entire area is limited on Cypress Road
between Knightsen Avenue and Jersey Island Road to two lanes.
L-4 How is this going to affect the population should a flood or
disaster occur. One accident can block access and/or escape
from the area. Can this road handle 11,0000 people of once? .a
Orin the fog? Even if an additional 2 lanes re added . -
Hydrology and Drainage - Kleinfelder, Inc. the geotechnical
consultants on the- project are in litigation in Discovery Ba
a major subdivision in Patterson, California and a local
L-5 residence in the immediate vicinity over soil movement and/or
settlements. Based on this track record , As a geotechnical
engineer, - I question their capability and conclusions for
Cypress Lake Project and recommend an overview of their work
by another geotechnical engineer.,for some kind of assurances.
Lives could be at stake here as well as property. A bond
L-.6 should be posted during the work.
a) How much short teiifi storm water retention is planned tor'' L
the golf course? Page 3-127.
b) What storm intensities, run-off factors and calo'
culati 'E's"
were used to conclude that the storm drainage network
would accommodate the increases in run-off and reduce the
amount of run-off off site? Page 129.
4-66
C) The proposed levee crest elevation of +10.2 is not 0.2
higher than what FEMA requires. FEMA requires 3.5 free
board upstream (10 .5) tapering to +10 . at the down
stream end and +11. 0 for roadways and 100 feet either
side of roadways. Pages 3-130 - 132 .
d) What calculations are there that verify the statement
that "initial levee construction (but) would not have any
effect on adjacent structures given the distance that
L-7 existing structures are from the proposed location of the
new levee" . Page 3-133.
e) What calculations are there that verify the statement
that "the localized de-watering activities would also not
affect adjacent properties because the de-watering would
occur far enough from existing residences and any draw ,
down would only occur on the project site immediately
under. or adjacent to the de-watering area. p. 3=133 . A i id
pump test -would be needed to verify this . This shoul c'•
done befoLe any dewatering is undertaken .
f ) What distance is "adjacent" ? Page 3- 135 .
3. Public Services
a) The construction of a fire house requires equipment and
L-8 man power. Who pays for this additional cost? What
mitigating measures are being considered if fire
protection vote fails?
b) It is my understanding that the Sheriff's substation
(Delta station) is under consideration for closure. How
is adding floor space to this station going to provide
L-9 adequate projection. Subdivision 6610 together with this
project. will overwhelm an already under staff sherrif
substation and marine patrol. What steps are being taken
to mitigate this problem: What mitigation measures are
planned if the sheriff's substation is closed.
4 . Human Health
The environment assessment states that there are no
L-10 underground storage tanks on the property. Enclosed for your
review are state permits for three 500 gallon underground fuel
storage tanks installed in 1970 on this site. No permits were
obtained for there removal. Pages 3-217 .
5 . General
L-11 a) What portion of project is to be marketed to. retired
persons. Page 3 -20.
b) What provisions are being provided should,damage occur to -
L-12 utilities in Sandmound Blvd. and/or improvements
° `.
4-67 ` _".
L-12 private property during de-watering and construction?
Will bonds be posted?
C) Some sections show the new levee exterior slope at 3
L-13 horizontal to 1 vertical, others at 4 horizontal to 1
vertical. Which is it?
(In the Bohley/Maley Associates Report) .
6. Hydrology & Drainage
a) Page 3-118 states that Kleinfelder, Inc. report entitled
Evaluation of Proposed Levees Bordering Cypress Lakes
Project is located in Appendix E. The $30 EIR Book I
bought does not have this report. I obtained from County
offices a copy of this report unsigned with blanks and
tables and data missing. The county indicated that was
all they had.
A subsequent report dated February 2 , 1993 was obtained
and is still missing plates and data . I request that
we have the opportunity to review this data when available .
b) Page 6 of "this unsigned report states the internal loads
will never be exposed to wave action unless
failure of Sandmound or Dutch Slough levees. The new
levee with only restrain 3 to 7 feet of water with
velocities of 3 to 4 feet per second.
L-14 Additionally, thick vegetation will cover these dry land
levees and published research stats that vegetated slopes
can accommodate these velocities.
What reports states these conditions? How is the thick
vegetation to be established? Who is going to maintain
it?
Bohley/Maley Associates report when a break occurs, there
will be substantiated velocities. How is this sand slope
going to stand substantial velocities? How is the
steeper internal slope to be protected from erosion. No
clean sand slope will stand up to 17 height at a
inclination of 2 Horizontal to 1 vertical.
What calculations are there that rAa—rg:F.k is required?
Page 3-130.
Where does FEMA say it is not required-Page 3-130.
c) How will construction proceed if water levels drop 3 to
4 feet and the trench is required to be filled in.
What alternate to levee construction is there if this
happens? will it be safe?
4-68
d) The August 1992 unsigned report with missing plates, '
test data, and charts covering levees for Cypress Lakes
has a discussion of water levels and tidal information
from California Department of Water Resources regarding
Reclamation District 2042 . What revelance does a
reclamation district in Stockton have on Cypress Lakes?
What calculations are there to support a levee settlement
of around 4"? Page 3-133.
What calculations are there to support that levee ,
settlement would not effect adjacent structures? What
distance is meant by adjacent? Page 3-133. ,
What studies have been done regarding settlement that may
affect Sandmound sewer line? If it occurs, what if any
mitigation measures are being considered to correct '
severe slope and flow as a result of adverse settlement
on the sewer?
If the project levee would divert waters in the event of
a flood (Page 3-136) should not. the project levee. be
protected with rip rap? If rip rap is required what is
the visual impact?
.Where is the 300 feet for immediate escape on Sandmound
L-14 Blvd? What escape mitigation measures have been
considered if Sandmound Blvd. is flooded? What studies
have been made that show the lake slopes stable to 17
feet at slope inclinations of 3 horizontal to 1 verticalF3- 137
Kleinfelder indicates the lake will have slope ,
inclinations of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical for 20 feet.
Page 3-154 states Kleinfelder's report evaluation of
proposed levees is available for review at County office.
Such is not the case! When can we get the so called
"detailed information regarding the soil profile"tne
report claims to have. No test data, plot plans, boring '
logs, as well as the levee slope stabilities are not
available at the county office. The report is not even
signed.
Why does the EIR, Bohley/Maley Associates and
Kleinfelder, Inc. incorrectly quote FEMA height
requirements . -
During dewatering, what mitigation measures are being '
considered to prevent piping with a hydraulic gradient in
excess of 25 feet to existing improvements including
sewer lines. What calculations are there that indicate
the existing levees are safe under this- hydraulic
gradient?
How can an EIR be prepared covering levees based on
data not yet available? ,
4-69
Levee standards require rip-rap-on 3H to IV where velocity is
greater than 3 f . p . s . are anticipated . According to the
EIR Consultants , velocity would be greater than 3 f .p . s.
Why do we have to keep paying $30 for incomplete and inaccurate
EIR' s that do not address our questions the first time.
Kleinfelder Inc . ' s report dated February 2, 1993 on new Levees
in complete . No test data, No slope stability results 3-153 .
Request opportunity to revie!,r information when available How
can an EIR prepared in Dec . 92 be based in part on an
incomplete geotechnical report dated February 2 , 1993?
February 2 report stated it was in compliance with COE
EMl 110-2- 19 13 . It is not in compliance !
L-14 Does not comply with Table 2-1 . Does not comply with Table
2-2-3b (4) . Does not comply with Section 11 , Section 2-8 ,
Section 2-9-b not done, Section 2-14 no done . Entire Chapter
3 not done or presented . Does ' t meet intent of CHapter 6 .
No impervious blanket on water side or under drain as slopes
exceed IV : 5H . Does not have rip-rap on IV: 3H slopes where
velocity @ 3 f .p . s . Both engineering reports indicate velocities
of 3 to 4 f . p . s .
Section 11 No results of Stability Analvsis , no test data .
Report indicates results above COE requirements . No Test
Data . What are results using Bishop ' s method . rj,
says , Levee will fail .
Chapter 7 sec 11-f not covered.
Table 7-2 disregarded. 7-6 not covered, 7-6-C-2-d ignored .
(Where slopes consist of erodible ,ranular a bedding
Laver of sand and gravel or spalls or plastic filter cloth
are to he used under rip-rap) .
Respectfully submitted,
Alexander Buller
4300 Sandmound Blvd .
Oakley, CA 94561
cc: Paul Allen
Reclamation District No. 799
PO Box 447
Bethel Island,.. CA 94511
4-70
a
N
all '
.• a
1 i
At
ot 4A at, roll
t• .+tom � � � +.. O � a
r✓�r � s
�+s+�,� J � �ii s � rJi► �o'�
4949
' W
N 4VW '' ► '� .M r•
vp
s.► . j t ..... W
I I �►
to
J O
yj t `
a ..� Alow,
VOL
atm a�QR �„ s„�„rr N �y, � ,J��r✓O v 7
li
iri i �► e
r+ a 4-1
M
1
s
•
t i
r• • i
~ i f
� r M
� •iii• �+
~ ~M t
s
� w '
A M
W
iW
AL
i • +.s ZZZ
? r _
ri•iT � � � ••• � � � �^ZS'll
i ac
Mot
•r.iM+ do to r v «i
wit
03 wwaJ'C rt
!
VIA
M • ; s V
i t it
1
►�" f �►� .�, i
w .�
W
49 4L
N V Y
• ori �
�► -� •r• is>` d, � �..,
.. r
•Ir N � � W •r V
r r• � t � j � \.i Y► � ? Q W S
i N i.•N
W N
•
to
ad
ow us
lob
i' N N www•• >
04
� . .a.�, �.•«• � . �r3y fit.:��••
h 'ri
am.:
jj
!w or � OiAY4 VtAW11► -"!r «• *s* � �. - r'•" .!r-.Y. � 'i
owl-
•+ } • ;.=
L_7?
Response to Letter L: Alexander Buller, February 1, 1993 ,
Response L-1:
Comment noted. The comment is too general to require a response. Specific comments
as they relate to this comment are addressed below.
Response L-2:
Subdivision No. 6610 is an approved project. The DEIR at page 3-3 refers to future
projects in the Bethel Island area that have not yet to been approved. Subdivision No. 6610 is
specifically addressed in Section 5.2, p.5-2 of the DEIR. The cumulative impacts analysis ,
contained in the DEIR includes all approved projects, such as Subdivision No. 6610, and
evaluates their impact in conjunction with the proposed Cypress Lakes project as required by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130.
Response L-3:
Comment noted. Tule fog is an occasional occurrence in the winter in the Bethel Island
area which may require additional caution while travelling on local roadways. Because tule fog
is a widespread occurrence in the valley portions of California in both urban and rural areas, no '
specific mitigation measures are proposed.
Response L-4:
Please refer to Mitigation Measure 3.7-10 on page 3-144 of the DEIR. '
Response L-5:
Comment noted. The comment is the opinion of the commentor. The County conducted
their own independent review of the EIR, including the geotechnical information before releasing
the DEIR for public review. In addition, other reports were used besides the Kleinfelder report, '
as indicated on p. 3-147 of the DEIR.
Response L-6: '
See Response Z-20.
Response L-7: ,
The following response corresponds to comments a through f.
a) The project's lake/channels will be capable of retaining all runoff from a 100-
year-event storm with no more than a one foot rise in the lake/channel water
4-73
surface elevation. There is no requirement to retain waters from any greater
storm. However, for the larger than 100 year event, the project would have the
capability to retain the additional runoff by utilizing portions of the golf course.
As such, there is no quantity of golf course area that is being planned to be a
retention basin for short-term water storage.
b) An average runoff coefficient ("C") of 0.67 was used for the entire project site
encompassed within the proposed levee. Individual coefficients were weighted on
the basis of area and ranged from 0.45 for open areas to 1.00 for the
lake/channels. For all calculations, the 100 year event storm intensity is equal to
7.42 divided by the time of concentration, in minutes, raised to the 0.534 power.
Using the above parameters, and knowing that the lake/channel surface area is 61
acres, a specific pumping capacity can be chosen that will then limit the total rise
in lake/channels to one foot. The amount of run-off off site would be reduced
because of the construction of the levee around the project.
c) FEMA requires three feet of freeboard per NFIP, page 357, Section 65.10, Item
1.
d) Calculations were not necessary to determine the impact on adjacent structures.
To address this impact, monitoring equipment would be positioned at critical
locations to ensure that initial levee construction does not cause excess vibrations
that could affect existing structures. For the majority of the levee construction,
the distance between the levee and existing structures would be great enough that
there should be no impact on existing structures.
e) Calculations were not necessary to determine this impact. To address this impact,
monitoring wells would be placed at critical locations to ensure that dewatering
activities do not lower the current groundwater table more than approximately 3
to 4 feet. Fluctuations of this magnitude are common on Hotchkiss Tract.
Therefore, a decrease in the groundwater table of this magnitude should not
adversely affect existing structures. Should dewatering activities cause a greater
drawdown, then water would be added to a drainage ditch situated between the
levee construction and Sandmound Boulevard. This operation would cause
mounding to occur which would elevate the groundwater levels near the existing
structures.
f) The comment appears to be referencing the discussion on p.3-133 of the DEIR.
Adjacent properties would be those properties within 200 feet of the dewatering
activities.
Response L-8:
Please refer to Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 on page 3-170 of the DEIR.
4-74
Response L-9:
Please refer to page 3-171 of the DEIR which describes the status of Delta Station and
staffing. Mitigation measure 39-4 of the DEIR would require, the project applicant to pay a fair-
share fee for sheriff services. This fee is based on the cost to provide new sheriff facilities.
However, the fees could be used for staffing of the Delta Station or Marine patrol. Allocation
of these fees is the responsibility of the Sheriff's Department. Also see Response EE-31.
Response L-10:
See Letter N from Bob Dal Porto which discusses the three underground storage tanks
referenced.
The permits provided by the commentor are from a one-time permitting program that was
conducted in the mid-1980s for registering underground storage tanks. This program is now
defunct. The permits do not relate to whether the tanks were leaking, but just to their presence
on the project site. If the tanks were identified as leaking, they would be reported on the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board's list of groundwater contamination sites or
underground storage tanks sites. Neither of these listings contain information regarding
contamination of leaking underground storage tanks on the project site.
As indicated by the property owner in Letter N, these tanks have been excavated and
removed and used for other purposes in the agricultural operation on the property. Currently
there are several above-ground storage tanks for fuels.
To address the potential for soil contamination as a result of equipment storage on the site
and the fuel tanks, the following mitigation measure is added to Chapter 3.11, p. 3-222 of the
EIR to ensure that soil contamination, if any, on the site is cleaned up prior to any excavation
related to construction in the vicinity of these uses.
Soil sampling should be conducted in those areas of the site where heavy equipment was
stored, repair facilities are located and where the above ground storage tanks are located.
Should contaminated soil be identified, removal and remediation of the material should
occur before excavation or construction activities commence in these areas. The Contra
Costa County Health Department should supervise and authorize any soil sampling
procedures and remediation. (Responsibility: Project Applicant).
Response L-11:
No specific portion of the project is designated for senior citizens. Rather, the entire
project would be marketed toward senior citizens.
4-75
Response L-12:
Standard engineering practices and procedures would be adhered to as required by Contra
Costa County. In addition,groundwater monitoring wells and vibration monitoring devices would
ensure that utilities and/or improvements on private property are not subjected to excessive
forces.
Response L-13:
Allproposed exterior levee slopes are 3 to 1, except in the area along Sandmound
Boulevard parallel to the Sandmound Levee, where the exterior slope is 4 to 1. The levee is
proposed to have a slope of 4 to I in this area to reduce visual impacts from off-site locations.
Response L-14:
The following responses refer to comments a through d.
a) The referenced report is included in this FEIR as an attachment to Letter U.
b) The current plan is to have the outside slope vegetated as soon as possible. The
type of grass selected would be one with a deep root system capable of protecting
the slope of against velocities of 3 to 4 feet per second. It is assumed that the
outside slope would be maintained by either RD-799 or another governmental
agency. In the stability analysis, it was assumed that engineered fill might consist
of silty sand or sand. However, even engineered fill consisting of sand will
contain an appreciable amount of silt as evidenced by the assignment of 50
pounds per square foot of cohesion. In reality, the levees will be constructed
using on-site borrowed materials which would be mostly a mixture of silt and
sand. The likelihood of having an entire levee composed of clean sand is
■ nonexistent. There may be occasional lenses of clean sand between layers of silty
sand, sandy silt, etc. Once these materials are covered with thick vegetation,
research and studies confirm that slopes of this nature would be protected from
velocities in the 3 to 4 feet per second range. FEMA relies on the Corps of
Engineers's Manual for Levee Construction, EM 1110-2-1913. Section 7-6 of this
manual, pages 7-9 and 7-10, states that grass protection can be used.
C) No alternative to levee construction would be needed. If the drainage trench is
required to be filled in to minimize the effects of dewatering, this should not
affect the groundwater conditions west of the dewatering trench. Construction
would proceed with deep dynamic compaction (DDC), or if excessive vibrations
are noted, with a cut and fill operation using conventional earthwork equipment.
d) Kleinfelder, Inc. has provided consulting services on approximately 15 FEMA
projects involving levee construction, one of which was Reclamation District
4-76
2042. Many of these problems exhibited similar soil and construction conditions
as the proposed Cypress Lakes project. A computer program was used to estimate
levee settlement assuming worst case conditions. With levees supported on a firm
foundation and with the new levee entirely composed of Engineered Fill, very
little settlement is anticipated. By inspection, a levee that settles a few inches will
not have an impact on structures located beyond a 50 foot distance. For this
reason, it is anticipated that the levee construction would not have any impact on
the Sandmound Boulevard sewer line.
It is not anticipated that flood velocities, in the event of a breach of the
Sandmound levee, would cause significant erosion of the new Cypress Lakes
levee. Therefore, there is no need for rip-rap. While studies have not been
performed on the lake slopes, field explorations indicate very dense materials
below the approximate 10 foot level. These lower soils will have the greatest
impact on slope stability, and therefore, slope stability concerns with the lake
slopes as currently proposed are not anticipated.
The soils report inadvertently left out a reference to Plates C-1 and C-2 on Page
9-7 of the February 2, 1993 Kleinfelder report.
The project is located approximately 300 feet, at its closest location, from existing
residences along Sandmound Boulevard. The intent of the emergency evacuation
plan would be to notify area residents of a potential levee breach before it occurs,
so that evacuation could occur before the area is flooded. However, the
emergency evacuation plan would address evacuation procedures in the event
Sandmound Boulevard is flooded. Please note, as indicated in the DEIR at Page
3-136, under a typical levee breach, the area would not flood immediately and
there would be time for residents to evacuate.
The initial soils report and levee analysis were presented in the DEIR, in
Appendix E. In addition, the final report was sent directly to the commentor on
February 4, 1993, and made available to the public at the February 8, 1993 East
County Regional Planning Commission meeting, prior to the February 16 close of
the public period.
The 'reports have been prepared for submittal to FEMA. FEMA requires that
levees be analyzed for compliance with conditions described in Chapter 6 of COE
EM 1110-2-1913. The report has been prepared to comply with this requirement.
This requirement is described in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Section 65.10, paragraph b, (4). Kleinfelder has prepared several reports for
similar projects in the same manner as the report prepared for the Cypress Lakes
project. These previous reports have been reviewed and approved by FEMA. The
report should meet the requirements for an internal levee as set forth by FEMA.
4-77
�f
IISTA
90 FEB I
C`„��� :fitf i y
r ,
ol
Lr
0
o
V
r
r y
C
o Q
' v
r
r � o
4
r
rO tl
0
r .
4-*a
r
r
i
''0
0-3
awe—
M
r
r J
o �—
_ 1
' 4
,Iv '
M t
a 'V
i
M-4
4-19
- 1�
t
1
1
1
1
1
Response to Letter M: Carol Coleman, February 11, 1993
Response M-1:
Comment noted. The fifth sentence of the third paragraph on page 3-17 of the DEIR is
amended to read:
"Two of these residences are located south of Cypress Road east of Bethel Island Road,
and one is located north of Cypress Road on Cypress Extension."
Response M-2:
Figure 1-3: "Project Layout" shows the design of Cypress Road as proposed by the project
applicant. The current proposed alignment would result in right-of-way acquisition on one parcel.
If the project applicant does not obtain the right-of-way, and the County determines that the
alignment of the Cypress Road Extension cannot be realigned to avoid this property, the County
may invoke its powers of eminent domain to purchase the right-of-way. If the County pursues
eminent domain procedures, the properly owner would receive fair market value for the property
in question as determined by an independent appraisal. The property owner would also receive
relocation assistance, if needed, as required by federal and state law (The Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970). Mitigation measure 3.11-1, at
Page 3-221, requires that incoming property owners be aware of the adjacent agricultural uses
and the potential hazards associated with this land use.
However, alternative alignments, which may avoid this parcel, are still being considered
by the applicant and the County. Ultimately, it is up to the County to determine the location
of Cypress Road.
Response M-3:
Refer to Response L-7, section (d).
Response M-4:
Dewatering during construction would only occur to a maximum of 18 to 20 feet below
the ground surface. Dewatering would not be anticipated to affect groundwater, wells, or other
subsurface deposits lower than 20 feet below the ground surface,
4-81
Letter
February 9, 199
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUN{TY DEYEIOPMENT DEPARTMENT
' TOt EAST CONTRA CnRTA COUNTY PLAITHXHG C014MIS31UN
FROM: BOB DAL PMRTQ
SUBJECT: CHARTERRO LAND/ -%TTLZ CO. AND THKbt SISTER$ TRUOT
ETR ON "THE CYPIZ68 LAKES PKWtUT"
' tha. former 1&"d owner of t1lo Dal Peart* property • in this
As P P Y
Hotchkiss Tract, which is presently under development-- by the
Chartered Land and Cattle Compony and Throe Sisters Trust, Y
wish to respond to unfounded accusations made at the February
int and 8th public R*4trluyu on tho EIR for the Cypress Lakes
Prof eect.
It was stats$ several timers during the hearings that I have
romently► undarground fuel storage tanks an the provertyr
o not have underground tanks. T have overhead tanks. The
C*P&o�ty of the tanks coneals t Oft 1-1000 VAllon overhead
gasoline tank, 1-500 gallon overhead gasoline tank, 1..1000 gallon
overhead dispel tank and 1-500 gallon diesel tank with a hand
pump for fuel discharge. These installations are all above
ground and have Lneur for years.
originally r did have 3 underground tanks consisting of 1-800
gallon diesel tank, 1.500 gallon gasoline tank and 1-350 gallon
gaeal111*1 Lank. As my operation grow in visa, the tanks' were
Inefficient, as I needed more Capacity and it more economical
met)jod or delivery and discharge. T discontinued - their use
and *ubsoquently removed thein from the ground. The tanks wara
in excellent condition when romovod, and were used for portable
trap wagons to serrvie;g soy equipment at other locations.
I have been is business at this location since 1949 ( 44 years) .
My enterprises oonsist of cattle ranchinge horse brsedisig and
ougtom farming. over the past 44 years I have ,served as
President of the local Reclamation District 799, toil
Conservation Service, ASCE, Farm Bureau. School sc"""' and Lionc-
Club. Certainly I have built credibility over the years, ae
all these organizations have fundamentally ani3ne3 onvironmental
criteria. In addition, I am an Engineer, Agricultural Consultant
and Land Manager for Chevron Shalm oil Company for the past
10 years for the Company's properties in southwest Colorado.
14y dutica involve: management of mina 5a,ono 1 mores of head,
water and irrigation systems, and reclamation of all project
' eit.up to comply with County. stata► PnA Fwararwl voermitas x run
s clean operation and I always have.
4-82
February 91 1993 1
Page 2
= fail to see why. the issue of under round foal storage tanks 1
has become a Focal point in tho Draft EIR for thio project,
unIt+as it to a personal vendetta by a few individuals who have
recently moved into the area. The development group is makiny
every effort to comply with environmental concerns.
The Hotchkiss tract area is no longer viable for agricMIture. 1
I fest that I am qualified to make this statement an t have
been involved day- to- day for the bettor Part of my life-
I am very much in favor of this project as it matchoa my
philosophy for the area i.e. ; predominately open apace with ,
e golf course and sakes, rural atmosphere, recreationaL
opportunities, fire station, school site, local businoaaaa arld
a community center. =t can do nothing but enhance and 'improve
property values on the Hotchkiss tract. 1
ltwap4actfuJi lye
Robert A. Dal Porto Sr.
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
4-83 ,
1 Response to Letter N: Bob Dal Porto, February 9, 1993
' Response N-1:
The comments in this letter provide additional information regarding existing and past fuel
' storage facilities and agricultural practices on the project site. No response is necessary.
1
4-84
Letter O
C. Elaine Dannelley
Rt.2, Box 226C
Oakley, CA 94561 ,
(510) 684-0261
February 10, 1993
Community Development ,
651 Pine Street
4th Floor - North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095 '
Re: Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project
1. Three Times Out? - How many times do the residents of the Hotchkiss Tract
Area have to review and repond to an EIR that does not address the hazards '
and extra costs the developer and the county are trying to force upon them?
2. 'Rezoning - Residents moved to this area because they wanted to enjoy the '
country climate, not to have a city brought to us. We do not want our A-2
0-1 zoning changed to P-1, limiting us to the number and kinds of animals we t
can enjoy on our property.
3. Uses - We feel that this area could be used for other purposes, such as '
a wildlife preserve, since there are at least three special status animals '
on the property. These are burrowing owls, pond turtles, Northern harriers,
and possibly others.
4. Easement - Cactus Lane - This easement has been changed on the sub-
0-2 division map without consent or purchase from the residents ,who have recorded
deeded rights to the easement. We will fight for our rights.
5. Personal Reasons - I moved to the Bethel Island area for the country '
atmosphere and to have and enjoy my animals. I do not want my property impacted
for a developer's desire and personal gain. I fully expect the county to have '
tyle applicant completely disclose to the future home buyers the existance of
0-3 smells, insects, and other hazards of agricultural operations. My set-up '
also has an attractive nuisance of horses and other animals. People in close
proximity to my property will increase my liability insurance and emotional '
stress and strain. This does not mean I am going to change my lifestyle so
the developer can make a fast buck.
6. Sound Walls - It seems they are Y
in again in this EIR. I do not want m '
a g
O-4
view blocked and my air circulation cut Off by such structures. '
4-85
7. Cultural Resources - The EIR quoted the SEQA standards that an archaeological
monitor should be present when grading, excavation, and trenching are done.
When in reality, trenching was done last fall without anyone present and
0-5 will probably be done again if possible. I request that the archaeologist be
' dressed in Native American garb so we can tell him from others. Tile EIR also
states that Lots 10 and 11 should be removed from the map because of their
' sensitivity, but continues to show them on the map as residential lots.
8. Visual Aspects - The EIR tries to say putting up a 20 foot levee around
0-6 tl►e 682 acres, building a 60 acre lake, and putting in a 160 acre golf course
does not change the view or the topography of the land. Did they even build
' a clay model to see the difference from a flat area?
' 9. Adverse Environmental Impacts for "NOT A PART OF" Residents - Since these
homes are unique, in that they are almost in the center of the project, we
feel that if this development comes under construction, the applicant be
' required to indemnify those residents for: (1) cleaning dust and dirt from
0-7
residences (interior and exterior) weekly; (2) medical costs for unforeseen hazards;
' (3) for any costs due to injuries to animals, livestock, pets, and wild critters,
caused by the construction operations.
t 10. Compaction for Levees - Since this compaction method is a "relatively
new" process and untested in the area, I feel a bond should be posted to
' 0-8 compensate present residents for any damage to wells, houses, and other
structures as a result of the constant seismic effect caused by the compaction
procedure.
11. Interior Levees - Twenty foot walls across from Sandmound Blvd. homes
expose these residents to life threatening dangers such as: (1) poor air
0-9 quality from dust and air pollution caused by construction equipment during
the 10 year building process, (2) pollution from the new traffic added to
' tl►e already poor air quality, (3) possible outside levee breaks by storms,
winds, earthquakes or compaction process,or high tides, filling the corridor
' 0-10 between the the levees with no escape for the residents, (4) fire danger
in which there will be no escape route leaving the residents exposed to
'
0-11 I toxic fumes and smoke with danger of suffocation, (5) poor or little air
circulation in the corridor exposing the residents to pollution and health
liazards, (6) exposing the elderly and sick in the area to all these hazards
' 0-12 and causing them undue stress, (7) stress due to the noise from the vehicles,
compaction, and general construction.
' 4-86
12. Alternatives for the Project_ - Presently the best choices for the project ,
0-13 would be (1) NO Project or (6) Off Site Project, because these would have
none of the adverse impacts of the present project proposal.
13. 500 kV Transmission Lines_ These bisect the property exposing much of it
to electomagnetic fields which have been associated with increased incidence ,
of childhood leukemia, adult leukemia, lymphoma, nervous system cancers, brain
tumors, malignant melanoma of the skin, and breast cancer in men. There have
been over 100 studies done between 1987 and 1992 that I am aware of showing ,
adverse effects to people. To compare the hazardous condition of 24 hour
exposure to a hairdryer which is used about 3 minutes is ludicrous. From all ,
of the TV and newspaper coverage, people are becoming more concerned about
their health and devaluation of their property. Yet, this developer is ,
proposing homes butting up to the corridor possibh causing an immediate
:�hgrtw in-the .area. There is no cost-effective shielding for EMF other than
distancing from the source. Lots with elevated magnetic field levels over 1 mG
0-14 should be land-banked. The "fear of" EMF has been determined to be compensable
damage under California Law and this factor materially affects the value and ,
utility of property. I am also resubmitting a report that was ignored the last
time.
14. Park_ - Tile now 22.4 acre park at the entrance to the development is still ,
partially under and all adjacent to the 500 kV power lines which exposes the
public to the hazardous EMF forces. Tile mitigation is that the intensive '
recreational uses shout outside the easement. It is still being dedicated
to the county so the taxpayers can support a park that that is hazardous to
their health. Why should we be expected to pay for something that can kill our
kids?
15. Animal-Life - Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of species
of animals ( birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and shellfish, or insects) '
by disrupting, polluting and destroying their natural habitats will ultimately
kill many species. Unique species of animals such as, opossums, foxes, coyotes,
jackrabbits, quail, pheasants, cottontail rabbits, ducks, and many others live '
0-15 in the area. The destruction and deterioration of wildlife habitat gives them
no consideration or right to life. According to the EIR, some of the species '
observed during studies on the area are on the Contra Costa County Special
Status list, and also on the state and federal lists for threatened and ,
endangered species. These are the burrowing owls, pond turtles, Northern
harriers, and possibly southwestern pond turtles. ,
4-87
16. Plan^- Changes in the diversity of species of plants ( including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) by the destruction of the
existing habitats and introduction of new species will completely change
the apperance of the area. Relocation and reduction of unique, rare, or
endangered species, such as those in wetlands can completly destroy them.
0-15
17. Water - Alteration to ground water by filling lakes can allow an influx
of salt water contaminating private and public wells.
18. Aesthetic§ 5eenic views of open fields, wetlands, and small hills will
be destroyed and replaced with architecturally mediocre homes.
19. RoRoads - Roads to handle the increased traffic should be in place before
the construction begins and not by just saying that their are future roads
planned, such as widening Highway 4 and constructing the Delta Expressu.!*J
0-16 If the project needs these roads to handle their new community traffic,
the developer should be forced to build the project after the completion
of the highways.
20. Mandatory Findings - This project has the potential to degrade the
environment, reduce the wildlife habitat, cause the taxpayers a huge increased
tax burden, impact the area with increased traffic, noise, population, lack
0-17 of schools, crime, and pollution. All this comes at a time when the county
has cut back in all services and is already considering increased taxes to
' maintain the status quo.
21. Litigation and Investiations*= I feel the county should postpone any
consideration of this project until pending litigati.o,m is settled and any
government investigation completed so the county will not be responsible
for possibly completing a failed project.
0-18
Presently this subdivision appears to be an environmental disaster to both
r animals and residents of the Bethel Island area. I hope the commission
takes these points under serious consideration before approving this
development.
Sincerely,
4-88
See attached letter. C. Elaine Dannelley
Response to Letter 0: C. Elaine Dannelley, February 10, 1993
Response 0-1:
Comment noted. The first part of the comment represents the opinion of the commentor
and no additional response necessary. The second part of the comment addresses the presence
of special-status species on the site. These species were observed on the site, as documented in
the Setting discussion of Chapter 3.4 of the DEIR; however, they are not known to nest on the
site and the site does not provide valuable habitat. See Response E-3 for additional information
regarding burrowing owls.
Response 0-2:
Comment noted. See Response AA-1.
Response 0-3:
Comment noted. Mitigation measure 3.11-1 specifically requires that project residents be
notified regarding the presence of agricultural uses on adjacent properties.
Response 0-4:
Comment noted. Soundwalls are proposed as one form of mitigation for future noise
impacts to residents along Cypress Road west of Bethel Island Road. Other noise mitigation
techniques, such as architectural treatments, may be required at the discretion of the County.
Response 0-5:
The comment regarding the attire of the archaeological monitor is unrelated to an
environmental issue. No response is necessary.
Mitigation measures regarding removal of Lots 10 and 11 are proposed at this time. If
the project is approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, the mitigation
measures would be enforced and the project maps would be redrawn to eliminate Lots 10 and
11.
Response 0-6:
Impacts of the project on visual resources are discussed in Section 3.5 of the DEIR.
Contrary to what the comment states, this section concluded that even with landscaping of the
levee and outside the levee, the view for residences located across from the project site along
Sandmound Boulevard would change'significantly with the proposed project. Landscaping would
provide some improvement and soften the appearance of the levee. However, the resulting
4-89
change in view with the project would be unavoidable. A rendering of the levees was displayed
at the East County Planning Commission on the project on March 1, 1993.
Response 0-7:
Comment noted. The issue of indemnification is not related to a significant impact on
the environment and represents the opinion of the commentor. The EIR specifically identifies
mitigation measures to reduce dust impacts, such as periodically watering exposed soil areas (see
DEIR, p. 3-74).
Response 0-8:
Comment noted. Please refer to Responses L-14(d) and Z-20.
Response 0-9:
The DEIR specifically addresses air quality impacts in Section 3.3. Dust impacts from
project construction and pollution from increased traffic are discussed in the DEIR beginning on
p.3-69.
Response 0-10:
Section 3.7 of the DEIR contains an analysis of the potential impacts associated with a
levee breach if the proposed project is implemented. Mitigation Measure 3.7-10 of the DEIR
requires the preparation of a detailed Emergency Evacuation Plan which addresses emergency
evacuation procedures for residents in areas adjacent to the project site. The Emergency
Evacuation Plan would be prepared in cooperation with RD-799 prior to approval of the project's
final subdivision map.
Response 0-11:
Please refer to Response 0-9.
Response 0-12:
' Please refer to Responses 0-9 through 0-10. Section 3.6 of the DEIR contains a
discussion of the potential noise impacts of the proposed project.
Response 0-13:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding their
preferred project alternative. No response necessary.
4-90
Response 0.14:
Please refer to the response to Letter P from Sage Associates. In addition, Mitigation
Measure 3.9-10,p. 3-187 of the DEIR recommends that no active recreational facilities be located
within the powerline easement.
Response 0-15:
The information contained in this comment has previously been addressed in both the
Initial Study and the DEIR prepared for the proposed project.
The Initial Study (contained in Appendix A of the DEIR) addressed these issues in
Chapter 2: Contra Costa County Environmental Checklist Form pages 10 through 28.
The DEIR addressed these specific issues in detail in Chapter 3. Description of
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation. as follows:
Animal and plant life: pages 3-76 to 3-98.
Water: pages 3-118 to 3-146 and 3-189 to 3-206.
• Aesthetics: pages 3-99 to 3-108:
Also see Response 0-1.
Response 0-16:
Please refer to Table 3.2-6 of the DEIR for the timing of road improvements required by
Cypress Lakes itself. Most other roadway improvements listed in the Table are not themselves
required by the project; however, the project would contribute cumulatively to the need for these
roadway improvements, as specifically identified in the mitigation measures beginning on page
3-56 of the DEIR.
Response 0-17:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The DEIR
discloses the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. No response
necessary.
Response 0-18:
Comment noted. There are no pending lawsuits on the proposed project and no known
government investigation of the project. No response necessary.
4-91
C. Elaine Dannelley
Rt. 2, Box 226C
Oakley, CA 9455'.
C,
ebruary 11, 1993
Community Development Letter P .�
651 Pine Street
4 th Floor - North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095 FAT
Dear Mr. Beresford,
Re: December 1992 Draft Environmental Impact Report for Cypress Lakes
Lakes and Country Club Project
Enclosed is a letter and an EMF Report po t fr om Sage Associates that
were inadvertantly left out of my response to the EIR. Please see
that these are included with the other documents.
1 Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
C. Elaine Dannelley
(510)684-0261
4-92
TOFF,y Department of Energy
Office of Inspector General
Western Regional Inspector General for Investigations
t Al -- P. O. Box 5657
TES Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
JAN 1 9 1993
Ms. Elaine Dannelle
Y
RR 2 Box 226C
Oakley, California 94561
Dear Ms. Dannelley:
I am responding to your recent letter to Mr. Paul Misso,
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has assumed
investigative jurisdiction over the matters involved in the
acquisition of land in Bethel Island, California by the Western
Area Power Administration. Accordingly, I have forwarded a copy
of your letter to FBI Special Agent Gloria Anderson. If you
wish, you may contact Special Agent Anderson at 510-451-9782.
B. Martin
Regional Inspector General
for Investigations
Albuquerque Regional Office
4-93
S A G E
ENVIRONMENTAL-CONSULTANTS
September 28, 1992
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Win(,
Martinez, California
94553-0095
Attention: Mr. Arthur Beresford, S)cnior Planner
Subject: Environmental Impact Report for Cypress Lakes and Country Club
File #2918-RZ, Final Dcvclopment Plan 3032-90, Subdivision 7562
Dear Mr. Beresford:
This letter presents comment on the above referenced environmental impact report
with respect to the electromagnetic fields section of the report. We request that our
comments be considered in preparation of the Final FIR on this project, and that a
copy of the Final EIR be mailed to us upon completion.
We would be happy to discuss any of these comments withyou or the FIR
consultant, Public Affairs Management if you wish.
Please advise us if additionalpublic hearings will be held on this project. Thank
you for your assistance.
■
Sincerely:
elL't
Cindy Sage
Sage Associates
1283 Coast Village Circle, Suite 5 Monfecito, California 93108 • P.O Box 50806Moiiiecito. Cciti(ornict93150
805 9690557 FAX 805 969-5003
4-94
ti
�T
+ ` S A G E
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Environmental Impact Report for
Cypress Lakes and Country Club
File #2918-RZ,
Final Development Plan 3032-90,
Subdivision 7562
COMMENTS ON
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS SECTION
Prepared for
Elaine Dannelley
Route 2, Box 226 C
Oakley, California
Sage Associates
1283 Coast Village Circle, #5
Montecito, California
93108
September 28, 1992
4-95
' SAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
COMMENTS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
SECTION OF CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
I This document fails to properly assess the potentially significant
impact!iof electromagnetic fields (EMF) on the proposed project. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agencyl has stated that:
."The evidence is growing that a positive association of exposure to
electromagnetic fields exists with certain forms of site specific
cancer, namely leukemia, cancer of the central nervous system and to
a lesser-extent, lymphomas."
The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment report on Biological Effects of
Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields Background Paper2 defined
the issue in 1989 as follows:
"As recently as a fewyears ago, scientists were making categorical
statements that on the basis of all available evidence there are no
health risks from human exposure to power-frequency fields. In our
view, the emerging evidence no longer allows one to categorically
assert that there are no risks."
"The growing number of positive findings have now clearly
demonstrated that under specific circumstances even weak low
-frequency electromagnetic fields can produce substantial changes at
the cellular level, and in a few experimental settings, effects have
also been demonstrated at the whole animal level."
4-96
' A
%S- G E
E'NViPONMENTAL CONSUITANTS
Substantial research has been conducted since 1989 which adds further
evidence of potential adverse health effects from electromagnetic field
exposure.
Electromagnetic field exposure has been associated with increased
incidence of childhood and adult leukemia and lymphoma, nervous system
cancers including brain tumors, malignant melanoma of the skin, and male
breast cancer.
A 1990 study3 presented at the Bioelectromagnetics, Society Annual
meeting reported that:
"In children living in homes near electrical power transmission and
distribution lines, five case control studies showed positive
associations between cancer'mortality and ELF field exposure.
Three of these were statistically significant. Where separate cancer
sites were evaluated, leukemia, nervous system cancer and to a
lesser extent,,lymphoma were seen consistently. Magnetic rather
than electric fields are apparently responsible. The evidence for a
causal relationship is too strong to dismiss as chance and not strong
enough to be regarded as proof of causality."
"Effects at all biological levels from chromosome breaks to
neuroendocrine function are affected by ELF fields. There is reason
to believe that the findings of carcinogenicity in humans are
biologically plausible, but the explanation of which of these effects is
causally related to the induction of malignant tumors is not
understood."
4-97
" S A G E
.:�?... :•Nv',..ONMENTA', CONSULTANTS
"Over 30 studies of workers in electrical and electronics occupations,
typically with poorly-defined mixtures of power frequency and
higher frequency exposures have been reviewed. Three types of
cancer have been found consistently across different geographic
regions, age groups, industries, occupational classes and study
idesigns. They are: hematopoietic system, especially leukemia and
specifically acute myeloid leukemia; nervous system cancer,
including brain tumors; and malignant melanoma of the skin."
2. A finding of potentially significant impact should be denoted for
EMF exposure of future residents of the proposed project. This EIR should
make a clear determination that prospective residents of the project will
face potentially significant adverse health effects from EMF exposure as a
result of placement of homes, day care areas and recreational areas near
to the 500 kv lines which bisect the property.
The California Environmental Quality Act4, as amended, Section 15065,
requires a mandatory finding of significance where:
"The environmental effects of a project will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly."
As an informational document, the Draft EIR should be rewritten to full
discuss and characterize the environmental setting, impacts and
mitigation for EMF exposure related to placement of sensitive land uses
adjacent to the power lines. A finding of potentially significant impact is
unavoidable unless the project is redesigned to avoid placing sensitive land
4-98
J"tib� S A G E
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
uses in areas of elevated magnetic field from the power lines. CEQA
Section 15145 on Speculative Impacts has been invoked to discharge the
EIR preparers from the need to characterize and assess EMF exposure.
Section 15145 cannot be used to terminate evaluation of this issue based on
the following evidence:
0 A recent table summarizing 51 epidemiological studies5
conducted on EMF surrogates and cancer indicated that
28 studies (or 55%) reported a statistically significant risk,
15 studies (or 29%) reported elevated,but not statistically
significant risk, and eight (or 16%) reported no a9sociation.6
0 The epidemiological evidence includes four case control studies
that found statistically significant associations with cancer and
wiring codes - a surrogate measure for long-term exposure.
Three of these four studies also used direct measures of
magnetic fields which reported weaker associations, although
not statistically significant.6
0 A review of occupational studies from published studies in peer-
reviewed journals shows elevated risk for brain tumors.
In seven brain cancer control studies since 1985, "most of these
studies have shown elevated odds ratios for electrical-related
occupations"? Some odds ratios were high. For example,
Speers (1988) observed an odds ratio of 13.10 among Texas
utility workers. "At least three studies indicated the presence
of a dose response relationship between EMF exposure and
brain cancer."7 A significant excess of all leukemias is reported
from twelve studies (1982-1988) in electrical occupations.?
A significant excess of acute myeloid leukemia was
4-99
A G, E
ENVIRONMENTAL-CO.N-SUITANTS
noteworthy. Five other case control studies on leukemia
among occupationally exposed workers published since 1985
show excesses for all leukemias and acute myeloid leukemia.
Exposure assessment is not available from these studies, since
occupational classification is used as a surrogate for EMF
exposure rather that field measurements.
Section 15145 is intended to "relieve the Lead Agency from a requirement
to enga*g-e in idle speculation".8 This section has been applied, for
example, where future development of the University of California is
purely speculative" and no purpose would be served in preparing an EIR
based' on sheer speculation as to'future environmental consequences.8
An association between EM.F exposure and cancer is not purely
speculative. An association (in many studies a statistically sigLifficant
association has been documented in the available scientific literature,
even though a carcinogenic mechanism has not been identified. The use of
Section 15145 is inappropriate because an association between EMF
exposure and adverse health effects is not purely speculative.
3. This document fails to characterize magnetic field strengths
associated with existing 230 kv power lines and planned 500 kv power lines
which are currently under construction within a 200 foot right-of-way
which bisects theproposed project.
4-100
T
` SAG E
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
A technical study should be prepared prior to final certification of this
EIR to document magnetic field levels outside the ROW which may be ,
elevated from both the 230 kv and 500 kv power lines. This study should be
prepared by a qualified firm and include computer modelling by an
acceptable program (for example, the Bonneville program). A map should
be prepared to document existing-and future magnetic field levels out to 1
milligauss (1mG) contours parallel to the ROW. Assumptions for the
modelling program should include conductor minimum height, spacing,
phasing and loading and should correspond to the actual characteristics of
the 230 kv and 500 kv lines. The modelling should take into account both
normal and maximum loading conditions for single and multi-story
homes.
Following the completion of stringing of the 500 kv lines which
appears to be imminent, a field measurement program should be
undertaken to verify magnetic field levels which affect property outside
the ROW and within theP
P Pproject ro osed develo ment area..
4. Once modelling and field measurement programs have been
conducted, the areas showing elevated magnetic field levels should be
compared against proposed building envelopes for residences, day care
center areas, parks, and other rises where the public would be spending
P g ,
prolonged periods of time. Any sensitive receptors, including schools, day
care centers, public recreation areas, hospitals,-convalescent homes, etc.
should be carefully reviewed for exposure to elevated magnetic field i
levels.
4-101
SAGE
t♦ ENVIRCNMENTAL CONSULTANTS
5. In the absence of more conclusive scientific evidence thatrolon ed
P g
exposure to elevated magnetic fields will not cause potentially significant
health effects, EMF should be categorized as a potentially significant
impact. Evidence of potential adverse health effects from epidemiology
and laboratory studies is presently adequate to trigger a finding of
1 potentially significant impact under CEQA, even though there is no
conclusive proof of causality between cancer and EMF at present.
6. Identification of portions of the proposed project which will have
elevated magnetic field levels should be required, together with an
analysis of all structures (single and multi-story homes and other
structures, pre-schools, schools, active public recreation areas, etc.) which
would be located within the area f
e o elevated fields. Areas of the proposed
' project where elevated magnetic field levels (above 1 mG) are found
should be identified by inspection of the modelling and field measurement
data in comparison to the proposed subdivision map. The median U.S.
residential EMF level from power lines is 0.35 mG9 and the California
average residential area EMF level is 1 mG or lesslO.
1 7. Mitigation Measures - page 3-231. The proposed project map
should be revised to eliminate residences or other sensitive land uses
adjacent to the ROW where elevated magnetic field levels are anticipated
based on modelling and field measurement data. For the interim, land
4-102
Av
SAGE
FN%'IPCNME*N-TA't CONSULTAWS
uses which place people in elevated magnetic fields should be prudently
avoided until there is more conclusive evidence on potential health effects,
if any, of EMF exposure. It appears from a preliminary inspection that
several hundred lots within 400' adjacent to the ROW would be affected.
There is no cost-effective shielding for EMF other than distancing from
the source.
Lots which are subject to elevated magnetic field levels over 1 mG
should -be "land-banked" or eliminated from the subdivision map. They
could be made available for future phased residential or other
development only if scientific research confirms the absence of adverse ■
health effects. The areas involved could be used for passive recreation,
green belt or agricultural uses in the interim.
8. Mitigation Measures - page 3-231
Beyond elimination of lots within elevated magnetic field levels from
power lines, the EIR should require mitigation measures for written
disclosure to the remainder of potential lot owners of the proposed project
regarding potential health impacts where it can be presumed that these
residents will use recreational areas or roads which lie within areas of
elevated EMF. Balanced information should be prepared as a formal
disclosure package to ensure that disclosure is adequate and timely.
California State law required disclosure in real estate transactions of any
factors which could affect the value or desirability of property. The "fear
4-103
S AGE
G G r
E
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
of" EMF has been determined to be a compensable
ompensable damage under
California law11 and this factor materially affects the value and utility of
property.
9. Responsibleparties representing the project proponent(s) and/or
homeowners should be required to review the status of EMF information
through the State Department of Health Services and California Public
Utilities Commission to periodically evaluate whether new information on
health effects is available, and whether further.land use modifications are
warranted. A periodic measurement program adjacent to the 500 kv lines
should be conducted to verify exposure levels are below 1 mG in areas of
prolonged use. A Mitigation Monitoring Program required under AB 3180
should incorporate provisions for on-going EMF monitoring.
1
1 _
1
4-104
;::; SAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL CON SU LT AN IS
REFERENCES the
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June Fields90, Evaluation ofetic Report, Office
Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagn
of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. 20460.
2. U.S. office of Technology Assessment report on Biological Effects of
Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields Background Paper, May
1989, hidira Nair, M.Granger Morgan and H. Keith Florig, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburg, Pa.
3. Hill, Doreen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1990,
Poster Board Presentation on the Evaluation of the Potential
Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields Draft Report, June 1990.
4. Guidelines to The California Environmental Quality Act, as
amended, December 1991, Section 15065.
5. California Department of Health Services, 1991, EMF Workshop
Handbook, from the Special Epidemiological Studies Program, Oakland
and Newport Beach, 1991.
6. California EMF Consensus Group, Issues and Recommendations for
Interim Response and Policy Addressing Power Frequency Electric and
Magnetic Fields (EMFs), Before the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California, March 20, 1992.
7. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1991,
Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop on the Health Effects of Electrical
and Magnetic Fields on Workers, pp 93-124.
8. Guidelines to The California Environmental Quality Act, as
amended, December 1991, Section 15145.
4-105
l:*r's"'*
AGE
-' Ir-VICONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
9. Electric Power Research Institute, EMF Science and Communication
Seminar, San Jose; California, October 16, 1992, Nationwide Residential
Measurement Survey, Preliminary Results, by Luciano E. Zaffanella.
10. Testimony of Dr. Raymond Neutra, Department of Health Services,
State of California, California Public Utilities Commission EMF
Consensus Group, February, 1992.
11. San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Daley, 205 Cal. App 3d 1334,
253 Cal. Rptr. 144 (1988)
1 .
4-106
Response to Letter P: C. Elaine Dannelley, February 12, 1993
Response P-1:
The report from Sage Associates, dated September 28, 1992, addresses the issue of
potential human health impacts of exposurr, to electromagnetic fields. The DEIR addresses
potential human health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields on pages 3-217 to 3-218 and
3-220. The DEIR identifies on page 3-217 that numerous studies have been performed to look
for associations between exposurr, to electromagnetic fields and various diseases, and that some
of these studies have found a statistical association between exposure to electromagnetic fields
and increased cancer rates as suggested by the commentor. However, these studies have not
resulted in conclusive evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields would result in increased
human health risks. In addition, as stated in the DEIR on page 3-217, the State of California
does not have any standards for exposure to electromagnetic fields, or siting criteria for
residential development near power lines or other EMF sources.
As stated in the impacts discussion in the DEIR, page 3-220, a determination as to the
significance of electromagnetic field exposure,and the associated health risks to project residents,
would be too speculative based on the existing studies and data available. While studies
conducted to date have indicated a potential link between electromagnetic fields and certain
diseases, these studies are not conclusive, and therefore, the finding that the project will expose
residents to a substantial adverse effect cannot be made.
Because the potential health risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields have not been
conclusively determined, the DEIR includes mitigation (Mitigation Measure 3.11-4, page 3-222)
to ensure that incoming property owners are aware of the potential human health issues related
to living near electrical transmission lines.
4-107
Letter Q
. Fred Davis
Rt. 2, Box 226C
Oakley, CA 94561
February 9,''1993 -`14
Community Development 93 FEB 12 AM tf: 53
651 Pine St.
4th Floor North Wing �y t4 i?f C`V«^-�v,:�`T LcPT.
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Dear Mr. Beresford;
Re: December 1992 - Environmental Impact Report for Cypress Lakes and
Country Club Project, County of Contra Costa, California
Ref. Page Topic
1.6 DISCRETIONARY
I. LAFCO - stated purpose for being in existance is for
discouraging and limiting urban sprawl.
2. FINANCING & MAINTANCE DISTRICT - The language is so
ambiguous and vague as to defy rational understanding of
the entire paragraph.
3. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM - N.P.D.E.S.
PERMITS - It is my understanding from Reclamation District 799 a
permit' shall•be required and or a water treatment prior to
Q�1 discharge into Sandmound Slough.
4. SECTION 404 PERMIT - According to E.P.A. , Section 404-1B
Guidelines generally precludes issuance of .a permit to backfill
wetlands for a subdivision. Residents will request a public
gearing on permit. application.
' 5. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - In absence of a present agreement
how can the terms and conditions be reviewed by the public under
which the project will be developed?
6. STREAMBED ALTERATION PERMIT - The local residents will
request a Public Hearing upon application for a streambed
alteration permit from California Department of Fish and Game.
2.4 3-1 LAND USE PLANNING AND PUBLIC POLICY
a. General Plan Policy that development plan density should be
at density maximum causes nearly all the problems associated
0.2 with attempts to mitigate the adverse impacts of that density.
b. JOB/HOUSING IMBALANCE - is not mitigated by calling a 10 year
build-out a short term unavoidable impact. The E.I.R. should
provide a description of the number of jobs, types of jobs, pay
scale, and whether or not those job holders could afford a house
in the project.
3.56 3.2 TRANSPORTION/CIRCULATION - E.I.R. has various lists of
10,287 vehicle trips/day on page 2.6 to 12,017 vehicle trips/day
on page 3-39. In addition, page 3-56, second paragraph -- states
without the Delta Express Way Project and Route 4 Improvements
the Bethel Island area cannot be accommodated without severe
Q'3 traffic and congestion problems. Deferment of road improvements
to the future is not a mitigation. We are in agreement witt►
well planned communities, such as Brentwood, who require street-
road improvements to be in place before the first house is built.
Anything less than this tends to make East County residents second
class citizens.
4-108
' Page 2
3.56 3.2 - b. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACT - does not begin to address
the discomforts and inconvenience, associated with health
hazards from living down wind from a 700 acre dirt storm
for 10 years. There should be mitigation measures for
cleaning people's homes, boats, and vehicles on a weekly basis
and indemification for damage to resident property (personal
0-4 or real) and rest homes. Simply stating that the traffic
exceeds Bay Area Management District Guidelines for ROG
and NOx by 150 lbs. pollution does not relieve the developer
and the county from responsibility for compliance with the
Bay Area 1991'C2ean Air Plan. " In light'of the t lean Act
of 1991, why would the applicant use 1970 federal standards
and 1967 state standards for the pollutants mentioned on
AIR QUALITY DATA TABLE for Bethel Island 1988-91?
3.4 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE - animal population and tabulation
was was done inefficiently and incorrectly, mainly by
omitting many species, incorrectly stating others may be
present when in fact, they are. We feel that the removal
0-5 of 700 acres of habitat adversely impacts the wildlife.
Simply to infer that this is not detrimental to wildlife
because there is still some habitat left is woefully
ignorant and inherently dangerous to the survival of all
wildlife.
3-106 CONFORMANCE WITH VISUAL RESOURCE POLICIES -
1. The statement that the project site topography would not
.be' clianged.yisually is outrageously wrong. We feel that
it is impossible to dig a 60 acre lake and channels 20 feet
0-6 deep and pile the recovered spoils into a containment dike
20 feet high, and at the same time contour grade a 160 acre
golf course, and erect 1330 homes with associated streets,
gutters, and sidewalks, and then say that the visual
characteristics have not been changed significantly. This is
a museum grade example of fork-tongued English.
3.5-8 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES -
1. The entire paragraph about landscape maintenance district
or other funding source is vague, inprecise, and ambiguous in
0-7 that no one place in the E.I.R. ever states how much of a
monthly burden home owners are assuming in terms of assessment
district or Note owner association dues and other, so far
not revealed, costs.
0'8 13.6 NOISE - It is idle speculation to attempt to quantify the
noise level generated by doubling the area population.
3-116 3.6-2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE - ,
b."Operations of any machine or device which generates a noise
level greater than 95 DB at 50 feet should be prohibited where
ever feasible." Who decides what is feasible and why should
the prohibition be conditioned? That is an example of an
0-9 inadequate attempt at noise mitigation. This;'temporary ,
short-term impact would be unavoidable". This bears keeping
in mind that their definition of short-term impact appears
to be as long as 10 years, based on their own build-out
schedule.
4-109
3-120 3.7 HYDROLOGY & DRAINAGE Page 3
-
a. In general detention basins are poor design features
and cause more problems than they solve.
0-10 b. Parks and playing fields should not be required to act
as detention basins, particularly_-when the park is the highest
point on the project site.
3-125 GROUND SUBSIDENCE - The EIR attempts to downplay the
seriousness of the ground subsidence potential, when the
following factors are considered; ground liquifaction during,
but not necessarily limited to seismic events, dewatering
of the ground during construction, and following excessive
0-11 pumping 805,200 gallons a day of ground water. The above,
combined with a new and relatively untested method of
compaction, by the soils engineers report admission Could very
well damage existing levees and residences. Therefore, we
insist a BOND should be put up by the applicant to indemnify
present homeowners and Reclamation District 799 against any
damage caused by the applicant's construction activities.
3-134 SEISMIC RESISTANCE - In regards to .seismic resistance,
engineers in general have a very POOR TRACK RECORD in
0-12 designing earthquake resistant structures, as evidenced by
the number of buildings, bridges, overpasses and dams that
have failed during earthquakes in the last 30 years.
WATER QUALITY - The quality of Contra Costa Water District
0-13
13-139
depends on what you are comparing it to. Few people drink
it. Those who do generally regret it.
3. The Delta is not subject to a "tsunami (wind generated) waves",
0-14 1 any school boy in California that a tsunami is generated by
seismic activity and not by wind.
The statement that the storm drain system would be a wet
0-15 system with water standing in storm drain pipes all- the time
converts the storm drain system to a sewer system. Truck
disposal of storm drainage is the most inefficient and
expensive method I've ever heard proposed.
Last paragraph on page 3-139, states, "no additional pumping
of ground water is proposed to maintain the water level of
the lake and channels". This cannot be true in view of the
0-16 statement elsewhere in the E.I.R. that irrigation of the
golf course and landscaping requires .805,200 gal/day taken
from the lake. The lake would go dry without being replenished
by groundwater. This is extravagant and wasteful use of water
resources, considering the constrants and restrictions placed
' on everybody else due to the six years of drought.
3-140 The last half of page 3-140 and top third of page 3-141 in an
3-141 attempt to describe the damage control efforts to keep the
lake clean, wind up making what is an accurate description
of a Settlement Pond for toxic wastes. Nobody seriously
0-17 believes that plants would filter out contaminants any
more efficiently then the fish decimate the mosquito
population, in lieu of a modern water treatment facility and
a mosquito abatement district.
3-146 3.7-15 The weak proposal regarding street sweeping again appears
to be an attempt to push on to the already overburdened
0-18 shoulders of the homeowners association responsibility for a
traditionally governmental function.
4-110
page 4
3-155 Kleinfelder's analysis of a 6.75 earthquake doesn't include
include the information from the U.S. Geodetic Survey in
Menlo Park that states, a quake of that size or greater has
a high probability of occuring in the next 30 years.
Additionally, lie goes on to say, "Seismic Activity alone has
0-19 never caused a levee FAILURE IN THIS AREA. I would like
to point out that neither has a volcanic erruption, a direct
hit by a meteor, or a nuclear accident. From analysis by other
independent soils engineers, this entire soils report seems
to be flawed and seriously tilted towards describing major ,
hazards as seemingly minor inconveniences.
3-177 Says "Cypress Lakes Project would be expected to have 918
students from kindergarten through high school, requiring one
0.20 new elementary school, 30% of a new middle school and 20% of
a new high school".
3-27 3.1-2 States - "The project marketing should be oriented toward
seniors and .retirca people to reduce commute traffic from
0-21 the project." What a novel idea - to build new schools for
seniors and the elderly, simply to reduce traffic from the
project. THATl A NICE TOUCH.
3-209 Addressing the lack of a natural gas distribution system by
by substituting an electric system in its place is not a ,
mitigation of a substantial effect. Rather, it is one of
0-22 the most expensive ways to heat water and space known with
the possible exception being - the burning of paper money
in a fireplace. Ask anybody who has an electric water heater
or furnace to describe their- PG&E bills.
3-217 The small section of E.M.F. demonstrates, once again that
the preparers of this document are dangerously ignorant,
witness the following statement, "only seven states have
adopted regulations to limit intensity of electric fields
in transmission lines right-of-ways." The state of:. ,
0-23 California does not have standards. Sounds like we are
going to rank last nationally once again. This is a very
important aspect of health related issues. If they had read
read our privately commissioned. study by the state's._leading
expert in this field, they couldn't possibly have come
to the same conclusions.
We wish the planning commission to take note of the following
assertions:
1. The vast majority .of the area residents don't want the
project, don't need the recreational opportunities because .
they're too blisy trying to survive, and certainly wouldn't
trade what they have for quote, "housing opportunity in a
P.U.D.". That, by the way, is a government euphemism for '
0-24 uniform mediocrity.
2. Because of the county's potential liability for a
failed project, we feel it is only prudent for the planning
commission to reserve their decision until all present
litigations and government investigations have -run their
course. The applicant so far has struck out in every
court decision. One can only expect similar results in the
future.
Sincerely,
Fred Davis ,
4-111
Response to Letter-0: Fred Davis, February 9, 1993
Response Q-1:
The following responds to the various points identified by the commentor:
1. LAFCO has several purposes. One of these purposes is to provide for orderly
urban development within the County.
2. Financing and Maintenance districts are common entities in Contra Costa County.
3. Comments noted. See Mitigation Measure 3.7-17 in the DEIR.
4. See Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 in the DEIR.
5. A development agreement, if entered into, would be the subject of a public
hearing.
6. See Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 in the DEIR.
Response Q-2:
Comments noted. The proposed project is not proposing the maximum density allowed
under the Off-Island Bonus Plan. Page 3-27 of the DEIR specifically identifies that the project
would worsen East County's Jobs/Housing balance until additional businesses and jobs could be
attracted to East County.
Response Q-3:
The trip generation estimates for the project are contained in Table 3.2-3, page 3-39 of
the DEIR. 10,287 average daily trips would be generated by the approved 1,330 single-family
homes. 12,017 average daily trips would be generated by the entire development (including
single-family homes, golf course, clubhouse, swim club, day-care, and other proposed uses).
The statements on page 3-56 of the DEIR identify that the Delta Expressway and
improvements to SR4 are necessary to accommodate cumulative development in Oakley, North
Brentwood and the Bethel Island Area, not just the proposed project.
The intent of the mitigation measures is not to defer improvements, but rather to have
them constructed when traffic and development warrants; see Page 3-58 of the DEIR.
Response Q-4:
Dust control measures are specified on page 3-70 and 3-74 of the DEIR. These measures
are proposed to avoid the types of impacts identified by the commentor.
The DEIR on page 3-75 identifies that the project would result in an unavoidable adverse
impact on regional air quality.
4-112
The current Federal and State ambient air quality standards are listed in Table 3.3-1, page
3-65 of the DEIR.
Response Q-5:
Comments noted. The comments reflect the opinion of the commentor. No other
response is necessary. See Response C-1.
Response Q-6:
The comment is correct that views from Sandmound Boulevard will be significantly
impacted. To reduce this impact, landscaping has been proposed as mitigation. Page 3-106, third
paragraph states that "even with landscaping of the levee and outside the levee, the views for
residences located across from the project site along Sandmound Boulevard would change
significantly with the proposed project...The resulting change in views with the project would be
unavoidable."
Response Q-7:
Comment noted. The comment pertains to financial issues and does not address an
environmental impact. No other response is necessary.
Response Q-8:
Comment noted. The noise analysis in the DEIR was prepared by a qualified acoustical
consultant; see noise discussion, Chapter 3.6, Page 3-109 of the DEIR. No other response is
necessary.
Response Q-9:
Comments noted. Contra Costa County would be responsible for monitoring compliance
with these mitigation measures. Construction period noise would generally occur within the first
year of construction which would include the levee system and lake/channels. Once the levee
system is completed the noise from on-site construction activities would be reduced in off-site
areas because the levees would act as a noise barrier.
Response Q-10:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. Parks and
playing fields would not be used as detention basins. The 100-year storm event would be fully
accommodated within the lake/channels. See Responses L-7 and Z-20.
4-113
Response Q-11:
The DEIR discusses the potential impacts of subsidence, liquefaction and seismicity in
Chapter 3.8, page 3-156 to 3-159. See Responses 0-8 and Z-20.
Response Q-12:
Comment noted. The comment addresses an issue unrelated to the proposed project or
an environmental issue. No other response is necessary.
Response Q-13:
Comment noted. The quality of water from the Contra Costa Water District is not the
subject of this EIR. No other response is necessary.
Response Q-14:
The DEIR on page 3-139 is incorrect, and is corrected as follows:
"The Delta area is not subject to tsunami (earthquake-generated) and seiche (wind-
generated) waves."
Response Q-15:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The project
includes a water quality maintenance plan which includes continuous circulation of the water so
the water will not stand in the underground pipes for extended periods of time.
Response Q-16:
No additional pumping is proposed for the direct purpose of maintaining the lake level.
The water level in the lake and channels would be maintained by the natural groundwater level.
Response Q-17:
Comments noted. The comments represent the opinion of the commentor. The proposed
water quality plan utilizes techniques that have proven to be effective in providing and
maintaining adequate water quality.
Response Q-18:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. See Mitigation
Measure 3.7-15 of the DEIR which addresses the potential need for funding of the street
sweeping through the Homeowner's Association. No additional response necessary.
4-114
Response Q-19:
The DEIR at page 3-155 states that a "6.75 earthquake creating peak ground acceleration
of 0.2g or greater would probably result in liquefaction of near surface sands and silty sands over
most of the site, unless proper mitigation measures are implemented." Mitigation Measure 3.8-5,
page 3-161 of the DEIR specifically addresses methods to mitigate the liquefaction potential
present on the project site.
Response Q-20:
The meaning of the comment is unclear, and consequently, an appropriate response is not
possible. The impacts of the project on school facilities is discussed in Chapter 3.9 of the DEIR.
Mitigation measures are proposed on Page 3-179 of the DEIR.
Response Q-21:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The project is
not proposed to be a seniors-only development. Therefore, children would be expected to reside
within the project. No other response is necessary.
Response Q-22:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding
whether the proposed project should be served by electrical or natural gas lines. No other
response is necessary.
Response Q-23:
Comment noted. See Responses P-1 and FF-22.
Response Q-24:
Comment noted. See Response 0-18.
4-115
LAW OFFICES OF "" ' H
DICKSON & ROSS
1970 BROADWAY, SUITE 1045 r4j
�Lj 17 ( 1!
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 LS
KATHRYN BURKETT DICKSON r^, _ `: 4 PHONE:(510)2G8-1999
�_, �,
IEFFREY A.ROSS Letter R - " �r'.' �^�`�T FAX(510)2G8-3G27
February 16, 1993
Via Facsimile with Hard Copy
By U.S. Mail - S
' • Ater
12VA) I aN
Art Beresford ck 0 *. 05
Contra Costa County PH S
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing, Fourth Floor
Martinez, ,CA 94553-0095
Re: Draft EIR on Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project
Dear Mr. Beresford:
My office represents the Greenbelt Alliance, Sierra Club, and
' Mount Diablo Audubon Society. On September 28, 1992, we submitted
extensive comments on the original draft environmental impact
report (EIR) for this project. The revised draft EIR addresses
some, but not all, of our original comments. We therefore
incorporate our original comments to the extent they remain
applicable.
' These environmental organizations continue to oppose the
proposed project for several important reasons, including the
precedent for additional growth and suburbanization of fragile
' delta lands; contribution to cumulative traffic impacts,
particularly on Highway 4, as well as regional air quality impacts,
neither of which can be adequately mitigated; worsening of the
' jobs/housing balance in the area; impacts (both direct and
indirect) on wetlands and the delta environment; and loss of open
space. We also continue to be concerned about the County's lack
of wisdom in allowing urbanization in areas prone to flooding and
' destructive peat fires.
We have, nonetheless, attempted to work with the developer to
explain our views, and to provide input. We have met and talked
with the developer and-the developer's representatives on a number
of occasions. Such meetings are currently on-going, and we intend
to continue to submit both formal and informal comments throughout
the proceedings.
We submit the following comments on the current draft EIR,
several of which have been discussed previously with the developer.
Table 1-1. Page 1-6
R"1 The original EIR had three additional acres of "wetland
4-116
r
Art Beresford '
February 16, 1993
Page 2
mitigation/buffers" and three fewer acres devoted to single-family
R-1 residential housing. Why was this acreage (nearly 20%) removed
from wetland mitigation and added to housing? ,
Section 1.6. Page 1-12
What is the status and schedule for these various permits?
R-2 What are the opportunities for public involvement regarding these
permits?
Section 2 . pages 2-1 through 2-34
The summary does not consistently report on the level of
significance of the various impacts. For example, no level of
significance is attached to "vegetation and wildlife impacts" on '
page 2-11, an issue of critical importance in this particular
R-3 Project area. Similarly, section 3.5, subsection b (visual
quality) lacks any identified level of significance. In addition,
the summary appears to assess the remaining significance of '
environmental impacts after mitigation, for only some of the
mitigation measures, but not for many others. This inconsistency
is confusing.
Pages 3-12 and 3-13
When discussing the General Plan's land use policies, the EIR
omits General Plan policy 3-79, which requires "clustering" of
development in the project area, "with development rights on the
R-4 undeveloped land dedicated to the County." The project does not
consist of "clustered development" and therefore does not comply '
with this policy.
Pages 3-18 and 3-19
The discussion of "Impacts of Other Planned Uses in �.
Surrounding Areas" is inadequate. The "pending applications" for
three other residential/recreation projects are not described at
all. More information should be provided both in this section and
R-5 in the cumulative impacts section. Diagrams of the proposed
applications would be very helpful to the reader. A discussion of
plans for, and the status of the Cypress Corridor project should '
also be added.
Page 3-83 and Figure 3 .4-2
The text and diagram indicate fairly limited wetlands on the
project site. The wetlands delineation that was performed after
four years of drought. Observations during this winter (normal
conditions) indicate significantly larger areas of inundation used
R-6 by wildlife. We therefore request that a further analysis and
delineation of wetlands take place during the 1993 Spring. We
intend to discuss this, as well as other wetlands issues, in
discussion with the developer's biological consultant in the near
future.
i
4-117
Art Beresford
February 16, 1993
Page 3
, Page 3-88
The Final EIR should reflect the current status of the
R-7 County's Wetlands Protection Ordinance.
Pacte 3-125
With respect to ground subsidence in the project area, the EIR
states only that "because the project site and Hotchkiss Tract is
R-8 on the edge of the delta, ground subsidence has not been as
significant as in other areas of the Delta. " This statement is
inadequate since it provides no actual data or information
regarding subsidence in the project area. How much subsidence has
' occurred?
Page 3-139
The EIR should more clearly identify the permitted or
anticipated uses of the project lake(s) . It is our understanding
from discussions with the developer that since the lake is
R-9 essentially the drainage system for the development, motor boating
and swimming are not allowable uses in the lake and channel areas.
If this is the case, the EIR should clearly so specify since an
identification of uses is necessary to determine potential impacts
-- for example noise impacts, water quality impacts, and health
impacts.
Page 3-178
' The EIR should more fully discuss the dispute between the
developer and the school district as to whether a 7.4 acre
potential school site is adequate, or whether a 10-acre site should
be set aside. The EIR should evaluate a mitigation measure
R-10 requiring a redesign of the project to include a 10-acre site.
The EIR should more fully describe the project's impacts on
the local school districts prior to the time a new school is built.
For example, what class size differences will the project entail.
Pages 3-194 through 3-198
This draft of the EIR appears to be the same as that contained
in the original draft. Therefore, our earlier comments apply:
' The EIR has not demonstrated that the Oakley Water
District has the water allocation. or ability to provide adequate
water supplies to the proposed project.
R-11
The EIR should provide data and analyses on the following
issues so that the public and decisionmakers can determine the
Oakley Water District's capability of providing service:
1) actual and average annual water delivery to the Oakley
District during the past five years;
' 4-118
r
Art Beresford '
February 16, 1993
Page 4
2) water usage by the District's users in 1992;
3) projected water demand for approved but unbuilt units
within the service area of the Oakley Water District;
4) projected water demand for buildout of units under ,
R-11 the Contra Costa County General Plan within the service area of the
Oakley Water District;
5) a demonstration that the drought emergency identified
in Drought Emergency. Regulations, Regulation 9, is over. Section
4 of that regulation states no new landscaping may take place ,
unless the plans for irrigating and landscaping are approved by the
District.
Pace 3-195 ,
More explanation of the following statement should be
provided: "Service to the BIASP area has been discussed by the
District in their October 1992 [sic -- should be 1991] Master Water
Plan, but the necessary treatment capacity, transmission
facilities, and storage requirements were identified as a developer
and/or possible condition of annexation cost." First, what does
R-12 the Master Water Plan actually say about service to the Bethel
Island Plan area? Second, what are the costs of the facilities the
developer would be required to supply, and has the current
developer committed to providing those facilities or costs? ,
The EIR should provide more information on "service by a new
district." No real data, information, quantity of water rights,
or cost figures are provided.
Page 3-197
The EIR should provide further information including specific
R-13 data and analyses, on the impacts of use of groundwater for the
domestic water supply.
Page 3-197 '
The "will serve" letter from the Oakley District (Appendix F)
provides no assurance that the District has the available capacity '
to supply this project. The letter merely says it will serve the
project if all District regulations are met. Regulation no. 7
states that no new water service will be connected with the
R-14 District's water distribution system unless "the District solely '
and conclusively determines that its water treatment storage and
distribution facilities . . . are sufficient permanently to provide
a safe, reliable and adequate water supply to the land to be
served." (Appendix F) The EIR contains no demonstration that the
District has arrived at such a formal conclusion. If it has, the
data supporting such a finding should be included in this EIR. '
4-119 ,
Art Beresford
February 16, 1993
Page 5
1
Page 3-205
The groundwater management plan contained in mitigation
measure 3.10-1 should be prepared now and made available for public
review and comment, as well as environmental analysis. Deferring
R-15 the preparation of such a plan for later staff review and approval
violates CEQA's requirements for public participation and adequate
environmental review.
' Pages 3-202 through 3-206
This draft of the EIR appears to be the same as that contained
in the original draft. Therefore, our earlier comments apply:
The EIR's discussion of sewage treatment capacity is
inadequate. The EIR has not demonstrated that wastewater treatment
and discharge capacity is available for the project. The
ostensible "will serve" letter (Appendix G) is so highly
conditioned as to be meaningless, by stating, for example:
"Service will be provided at the time of issuance of building
permit subject to there being available treatment plant capacity"
and that "this letter is . . . not to be taken as a guarantee of
service. "
' The EIR should provide data and analyses on the following
issues, at a minimum, so that the public and decisionmakers can
determine the Oakley Water District's capability of providing
service:
1) unallocated wastewater treatment capacity of
Ironhouse Sanitary District;
R-16
2) unallocated discharge permit capacity for the
' Ironhouse Sanitary District;
3) projected wastewater treatment and discharge needed
for approved but unbuilt projects, buildout of projects allowed
under the County and relevant local General Plans within the
existing sanitary district boundaries;
4) level of treatment required by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and cost of treatment needed for providing
service to this project;
5) compare with the Capital Improvement Program to
identify how and when wastewater treatment facilities will be built
as correlated with the time schedules proposed for this project,
which should be specifically identified in the EIR.
Page 3-202
R-17 The EIR should provide more information regarding the plans
' 4-120
Art Beresford '
February 16, 1993
Page 6
for increasing the Oakley Treatment Plant capacity up to 8 mgd,
R-17 including the projected dates. The date of the latest information
provided in the EIR is May, 1992, and that information is now
outdated. More current information should be provided.
Page 3-202 through 3-203
The figures on this page should be specifically related to
this project, e.g. , how many acres of land disposal will be
required for this project's treated effluent. More information
R-18 should be provided on the status of the Regional Board's review of '
permit applications for additional land disposal area, as well as
other discharge mett-.ods. The existing information is far too scant
for an intelligent assessment of the true environmental impacts of
the proposed project.
Page 3-203
As was true with the earlier draft EIR, the information in
R-19 this EIR does not demonstrate that the project will comply with
General Plan policy 7-33.
Pages 3-216 through 3-217
Again, it appears that this revised draft has not responded
to our earlier comments, which were as follows:
With respect to historical pesticide storage and application
on site, the EIR should reveal the data and information available,
R-20 rather than referring the public to yet another report available
only at County headquarters. The information in that report should
be summarized, at the very least. The types and quantities of
pesticides used and stored should be provided, along with the known
or suspected health hazards of such pollutants. Was any assessment
done other than ground surface? Explain the results. If no such
additional studies were done, why not?
Page 3-217
The types and quantities of pesticides appl•iedthrough aerial
R-21 spraying should be provided along with the known and suspected '
health risks.
Pages 3-217 through 3-218 ,
Again, it appears that this revised draft has not responded
to our earlier comments, which were as follows:
Far more information should be provided on the controversial
nature of high voltage transmission lines. Both the California
R-22 Public Utilities Commission and the EPA have recent studies and
reports available on this issue. The PLIC has recently held a
series of hearings on these issues. The EIR should identify the
width of rights of way and setback requirements that at least seven
other states believe necessary to protect public health and safety,
4-1.21
' Art Beresford
February 16, 1993
Page 7
particularly for children who are much more highly affected by such
lines. The EIR should investigate and disclose whether "ball
fields" are an acceptable use within the right of way for multiple
R-22 500 kv lines.
The issue of the effects of high voltage lines is particularly
1 sensitive for this project which proposes to place 60 or more homes
in close proximity to these high voltage lines. The EIR must
discuss these issues in greater depth.
Page 3-221
Mitigation measure 3.11-1 does nothing to actually reduce the
' impacts and health risks from placing new residences in an area
R-23 adjacent to aerial pesticide spraying, and cannot support a
conclusion that such risks have been fully mitigated. It is one
thing to say that risks have been disclosed -- it is quite another
to say that they have been eliminated.
Page 3-222
Similarly, mitigation measure 3.11-4 does nothing to actually
reduce the impacts and health risks from placing new residences in
an area adjacent to high voltage transmission lines, and cannot
R-24 support a conclusion that such risks have been fully mitigated.
The EIR should consider as a mitigation measure a redesign of
the site plan to ensure that all homes are at least 1000 feet from
' the edge of the right of way of all 500 kv transmission lines.
Page 4-5
This alternative should be revised to include true "clustered"
R-25 development of the 136 units, and should be re-examined.
' Page 4-10
There is no support for the assertion that this alternative
would result in placing residential uses next to agricultural uses,
natural gas extraction areas and electrical transmission lines.
' R-26 The project could easily be designed to avoid such areas for the
510-unit alternative, if it were properly clustered. The Final EIR
should properly analyze such an alternative.
' Page 5-9
The EIR provides inadequate information on the growth inducing
impacts of the proposed project. This proposed project will
inevitably lead to the need for commercial facilities and will
increase pressure for conversion of other agricultural lands in the
Delta. The EIR should provide specific information about the
' R-27 surrounding area in the Delta which will be threatened by these
pressures, identifying the acreage involved, its location, and
status as agricultural land. A clear diagram would be helpful.
In addition, the EIR should identify any pending applications for
' 4-122
Art Beresford
February 16, 1993
Page 8 '
development in these adjacent areas so that a clearer understanding
R-27 of the near-term growth inducing impacts can be analyzed.
These comments are supplemental to any other written comments
or oral testimony presented by or to be presented by the Sierra '
Club, Greenbelt Alliance and Mount Diablo Audubon Society. We
thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. We will
further address them in our discussions with the developer and the
developer's consultants.
Sincerely,
)xr, /_-
Kathryn Burkett Dickson '
KBD:dt
cc: Mark Evanoff
Dave Nesmith
Al McNabney
1
1
4-123 '
Response to Letter R: Dickson & Ross, February 16, 1993
As indicated in the commentor's letter, their previous letter is incorporated by reference.
However, the commentor specifically identifies those areas of the previous letter that have been
incorporated by reference. These comments are addressed below.
Response R-1:
Table 1-1, page 1-6 of the revised EIR was revised by the project applicant's engineers
to more accurately depict the proposed land uses. The amount of land devoted to single-family
residential uses has been reduced from 246 acres to 242.9 acres. The wetland/buffer acreage was
reduced because the original number included some park land which should not be considered
buffer.
' Response R-2:
1. LAFCo Approval - The applicant is in the process of writing a letter to the County
' requesting it to adopt a Resolution of Application which will request LAFCO to start the
proceedings for the reorganization/annexation. Since there are multiple reorganizations/
annexations, the Board of Supervisors will be designated the local agency on these
' actions. State law requires LAFCO to hear the application within 90 days from the date
the application is deemed "complete." This hearing is a public hearing. Within 35 days
following LAFCO's adoption of a Resolution approving the reorganization/annexation,
' the Board of Supervisors must set the matter for another public hearing. After the public
hearing, the Board will make a decision on the request.
2. Financing and Maintenance Districts - These districts would not be established until after
the project is approved. The establishment of these districts would be the subject of
' public meetings.
3. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit - This permit would
be issued prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project and prior to allowing any
discharge from the project site into Sandmound Slough. This permit is generally not
subject to public review and comment.
4. Section 404 Permit - This permit would not be sought from the Army Corps of Engineers
until after the project is approved. As part of the permit process the Army Corps of
Engineers posts a notice of the intent to issue a permit in the Federal Register for public
review and comment.
5. FEMA Approval - An application is currently being assembled to request that the project
area be removed from the 100-year flood plain. This application would contain complete
construction documents (plans and specifications) for the internal levee. FEMA does not
' 4-124
1
review these plans in public meetings. The appropriate time to object or support the '
internal levee is during the public meeting on the project.
6. Development Agreement - A development may be requested if the project is approved. '
Hearings on the Development Agreement would be open to public comment.
7. Streambed Alteration Agreement - This agreement would not be obtained until a project '
is approved. In general, the California Department of Fish and Game does not solicit
public comment regarding streambed alteration agreements. '
These permits are typically obtained after certification of the environmental document.
With regard to the Section 404 and Streambed Alteration permits, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game have their own noticing requirements.
Response R-3:
The level of significance of item 3.4.a. should be indicated as Potentially Significant (PS).
The level of significance for item 3.5.b. should also be Potentially Significant (PS). In cases ,
where more than one mitigation measure is proposed for a particular impact, the level of
significance is indicated at the end of the Mitigation Measures in the right-hand column, not after
each mitigation measure.
Response R-4:
h w land use designations: 1 Agricultural Lands and 2 Off-Island ,
The protect area as two g ) gn )
Bonus Area. Clustering is required for development under the "Agricultural Lands" land use ,
designation. The project proponent has elected to develop under the "Off-Island Bonus Area"
land use designation which does not require clustering. This distinction is discussed on page 3-9
of the DEIR under "Agricultural Lands (AL)." '
Response R-5:
The three other residential/recreational projects in the Bethel Island area include South '
River, North State Development and Lesher Landing. These projects, in addition to others, are
discussed in the cumulative impacts discussion beginning on page 5-2. These projects, including
their size and location, are listed on page 5-2. Figure 3.1-1, page 3-4 of the DEIR depicts the
location of other planned projects in the Bethel Island Area in relation to the proposed project.
There are no development applications on file with the County for property in the Cypress
Corridor. The future development potential of the Cypress Corridor is derived from information
(i.e. land use designations) contained in the General Plan.
Please see Letter X which indicates that the Lesher Landing application lication has been revised
as of February 5, 1993 for 571 units or approximately 361 acres. Because this project has been
reduced substantially in size from that reported in the DEIR (see Page J-2), the corresponding ,
4-125
' cumulative impacts of the proposed project when considered in conjunction with proposed
adjacent development would be reduced.
Response R-6:
See Response C-1.
Response R-7:
The County Wetlands Protection Ordinance is still in a draft form. No specific date for
approval by the Board of Supervisors has been set at this time.
' Response R-8:
Ground subsidence in the project began with reclamation of the area, construction of the
existing levee system, and the beginning of agricultural practices. Since ground subsidence has
been occurring over such a long period of time, the precise amount of subsidence cannot be
determined,However, ground subsidence is a serious concern in some areas of the delta underlain
by thick deposits of peat. Extraction of oil and gas deposits and oxidation of surface peat soils
' have also been known to cause a lowering of existing ground surface. None of these conditions
exist at the project site. Numerous test borings confirm that except for an upper loose sand layer,
approximately 10 feet in thickness, the underlying materials are not organic and consist of dense
sand and silt soils.
Response R-9:
The uses permitted for the lake and channels are described on page 3-183 of the DEIR.
Non-motorized boating would be allowed on the lake and no skin-contact (swimming) would be
' allowed. The lakes are also proposed to provide an aesthetic feature to the project.
Response R-10:
The DEIR on page 3-179, Mitigation Measure 3.9-7, clearly states that the school site
should be enlarged to 10 acres per the OUESD requirements. The intent of the Mitigation is to
' enlarge the proposed site by redesigning the loop roadway and reducing the number of units
south of Cypress Road or through the acquisition of neighboring parcels with the cooperation of
OUESD. The DEIR, beginning on page 3-177, clearly identifies that the project would have a
' significant impact on local school facilities if additional school facilities are not provided.
It is the intent of the project and mitigation measures in the DEIR that the project provide
sufficient funding and a school site so that a new school facility is completed early in the phasing
of the project so that the project would not result in an adverse impact on the local school
districts' facilities. Also see Response_I-1.
1
4-126
Response R-11:
The water distribution of the Oakley Water District over the past five years by month is
shown in the following table. '
WATER DISTRIBUTION
(IN MILLION GALLONS)
Rear JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Total
1988 72 79 100 101 110 124 147 138 129 112 82 75 1,194
1989 64 70 67 106 145 161 174 158 132 99 86 98 1,360
1990 77 63 96 126 141 145 162 153 130 119 84 70 1,366
1991 66 1 51 1 40 1 62 115 131 135 116 116 1 75 1 75 1 82 1,100
L1992 ] 80 76 82 115 160 141 160 170 148 130 106 87 1,455
OWD estimates that the ultimate average day water demand for the proposed sphere of
influence of OWD and the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract area at build-out will be approximately
18.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and 30.7 mgd for the maximum day. The estimated average
day demand of the Cypress Lakes project under full development is expected to be 1.6 mgd,
which is included in the 18.1 mgd ultimate demand for this area. OWD's current average day
demand is approximately 4 mgd with a maximum day of approximately 6.8 mgd.
Seeing the need for approximately 30 mgd of treatment plant capacity to accommodate
the ultimate maximum day demands, OWD constructed jointly with Contra Costa Water District
(CCWD)the Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant which is now in operation. By agreement with
CCWD, OWD is currently paying for, and has the right, to use 15 mgd of this 40 mgd facility.
The plant has been designed to permit enlargement to 80 mgd which entitles OWD to increase
its allocation up to 30 mgd. The Joint Powers Agreement between OWD and CCWD for the
Randall-Bold Plant states that OWD shall have first rights to serve the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss
Tract area with treated water. As a result, OWD has the water allocation and ability to
adequately provide water service to the project.
The District's regulation No. 9 is stili in effect. The District has and continues to review '
plans for irrigation and landscaping to verify that they comply with Contra Costa County '
Ordinance No. 90-59 (Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments). Once the
landscape plans for a new development are in compliance with said ordinance the District then
approves the plans.
Response R•12:
The Oakley Water District has sized its mains in order to meet the flow requirements for
not only its current service area but also for water service to the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract
area. As mentioned in the DEIR, page 3-191, OWD has secured adequate treatment plant
4-127
capacity to serve both these areas to build-out. District policy states that the developer shall bear
the cost for extending mains to his or her development. OWD's 1991 Master Plan anticipates
' that water storage and pressure boosting pump facilities will be needed in addition to the main
extension for the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract area. These costs would also be born by the
developer. The exact costs and the scope for these facilities are generally determined after the
developer has an approved project. It would be premature to try to determine what the exact
scope of these facilities should be at this time. After the facilities are installed and accepted by
OWD the developer is then reimbursed for the portion of the facilities that were installed to serve
areas beyond the boundaries of the development. The funds for reimbursing the developer are
included as a part of the connection fees paid for each water meter that is set anywhere within
the District. Since the OWD has expressed interest in serving the proposed project and has
tadequate capacity to serve the project, additional analysis of service by a new district is not
warranted at this time.
Response R-13:
The project is not proposing to use groundwater for domestic water supplies.
' Groundwater pumped from on-site locations would be used for landscaping purposes only.
Response R-14:
OWD has the capacity at the present time to provide adequate water service to extensive
areas beyond its present boundaries. The District's Master Water Plan demonstrates the
' feasibility for possible extension of water service to the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss Tract area.
Completion of the Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant further demonstrates OWD's capability
to provide water service to not only its current service area but also the Bethel Island/Hotchkiss
Tract area which includes the Cypress Lakes project.
' Response R-15:
Mitigation Measure 3.10-1 is on page 3-199 of the DEIR. This mitigation measure clearly
states the contents of the groundwater management plan and the issues it should address. The
specific requirements contained in the measure provides an opportunity for the public to address
the adequacy of the scope of the groundwater management plans and does not violate the
' requirements of CEQA.
Response R-16:
The Ironhouse Sanitary District has a current treatment capacity of 2.3 mgd and disposal
capacity of 2.9 mgd. Of this capacity, 0.7 mgd is currently unallocated. The 0.7 mgd would be
sufficient to serve approximately 3,000 units. Therefore, there is currently sufficient available
unallocated capacity to serve the project. (David Bauer, Ironhouse Sanitary District)
4-128
The District has indicated that they are near their discharge permit limit. However, the
RWQCB has stated that the District may exceed the flow limits with no consequences. The
RWQCB does not want to update the permit until the plant expansion is completed, which is
currently scheduled for 1995. (David Bauer, Ironhouse Sanitary District, March 1993)
The District knows of only 50 units which are approved but not connected to their system.
These units would require 11,250 gal. per day of the currently available treatment capacity.
The level of treatment required for this project is the same as for all projects in the
District. The District is preparing and EIR for plant and disposal capacity expansion to
approximately 8.0 mgd. The EIR is scheduled for completion in 1994. Phased construction of
the plant would begin when flows approach 2.3 mgd.
When compared to the construction timeframe for the proposed Cypress Lakes project,
which is ten years, the District has adequate available capacity at the present time and the
District's capital improvements and expansion plans would be completed before completion of
the Cypress Lakes project. Therefore, adequate sewer treatment and disposal capacity currently
exists and would continue to exit through implementation of the Districts current capital
improvements plans.
Response R-17:
See Response R-16.
Response R-18:
As discussed in Response R-16, the Ironhouse Sanitary District currently has unallocated
capacity (including disposal capacity) for 0.7 mgd. Because the proposed project could be
accommodated within this unallocated available capacity, it is not necessary to determine the
precise amount of disposal area necessary to serve the project. (See Response R-16.)
Response R-19:
Policy 7-33 of the County General Plan states that the County shall require new
development to demonstrate that wastewater capacity can be provided either by existing available
capacity or through a funded program for additional capacity. There is currently adequate
unallocated capacity available to serve the proposed project. See response R-16.
Response R-20:
The Preliminary Environmental Assessment of the project site is contained in Appendix
B to this EIR. The Environmental Assessment is summarized on p. 3-216 through 3-217 of the
DEIR. No additional studies were warranted based on the findings of the Preliminary
Environmental Assessment.
4-129
During the public hearing process, issues regarding underground storage tanks on the
project site were raised. Response L-10 addresses this issue.
Response R-21:
See Response R-20. According to the Preliminary Environmental Assessment, no
permitting through the Contra Costa Department of Agriculture for pesticide use on the Del Porto
property has occur-red in the last five years. Prior pesticide use has consisted of only light
pesticides, for example paraquat, which generally decomposes rapidly.
Response R-22:
The DEIR on pages 3-217 to 3-218 and 3-220 discloses the current issues regarding
exposure to electromagnetic fields as well as the fact that to date these studies have not shown
conclusively a direct association with certain diseases and electromagnetic fields.
The limits imposed by other states is shown below.
State regulations that limit field strengths
on transmission line rights of way (ROW)
STATE FIELD LIMIT
Montana lkV/m at edge of ROW in residential areas
Minnesota 8 kV/m maximum in ROW
New Jersey 3 kV/m at edge of ROW
New York 1.6 kV/m at edge of ROW
North Dakota 9 kV/m maximum in ROW
Oregon 9 Kv/m maximum in ROW
Florida 10 Kv/m (for 500 kV), 8 kV/m (for 230 kV)
maximum in ROW
2 Kv/m at edge of ROW all new lines.
200 Mg (for 500 Kv single circuit), 250 Mg (for 500 Kv double
circuit) and 150 mG (for 230 Kv) maximum at edge of ROW
Mitigation Measure 3.9-10, page 3-187 specifically calls for active recreational use areas
to be located outside the power line easement including baseball diamonds, soccer fields, and
playground areas. The proposed project includes design features to minimize development in the
areas adjacent to the power-line easement. This was done by orienting the majority of the project
around the proposed golf course and lake. The WAPA line easement is 50 feet wide, which
provides a sufficient buffer to reduce exposure to EMFs. See Page 3-220 of the DEIR.
4-130
Response R-23:
Aerial spraying of pesticides is not considered a problem in this portion of East Contra
Costa County. Inquiries of existing residents indicate that aerial spraying has rarely occurred and
is not a problem (Bob Gromm, Dave da Porto). The Preliminary Environmental Assessment
indicated that permitted pesticide applications have not occurred on the project site since 1984.
In addition, the areas adjacent to the project site are used for cattle grazing, for which aerial
application of pesticides is generally not done. No evidence of increased spraying is assumed
because the adjacent properties are currently being proposed for urban-type development. For
these reasons, the potential for adverse impacts to project residents from aerial application is
quite remote and considered less-than-significant.
Response R-24:
See Response R-23. The impact from electrical powerlines was not identified as
potentially significant. The mitigation measure is provided as a way to inform project residents
regarding the current level of knowledge regarding exposure to electromagnetic fields. The
proposed project design addresses this issue (see Response R-22).
Response R-25:
The Ranchette Alternative does not include clustering but rather was evaluated under the
existing agricultural zoning. The following response addresses the commentor request that a
clustered approach to the Ranchette Alternative be evaluated.
Land Use, Planning and Public Policy
The land use pattem under this alternative would provide a cluster of 136 units on one
portion of the site. The remaining portion of the site would remain in its existing rural character.
This alternative would provide significantly fewer housing units than the proposed project. The
provision of additional housing in the Bethel Island area is a goal of Contra Costa County and
has been planned for through the establishment of the Off-Island Bonus Area. By significantly
reducing the number of housing units possible on the project site, this alternative could be
considered to have a significant adverse effect on reaching the housing goals of Contra Costa
County in the East County area. This alternative would not provide the recreational opportunities
(i.e.,golf course,lake,pedestrian/bicycle trails) that would be provided with the proposed project.
Transportation/Circulation
This alternative would substantially reduce the number of vehicle trips generated from the
project site by approximately 85 per cent when compared to the proposed project (this alternative
would result in 1,500 vehicle nips per day, 140 vehicle trips per hour). Very few roadway
improvements would be necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by this alternative.
4-131
! Air Quality
This alternative would reduce the air quality impacts by roughly 90% when compared to
the proposed project. This alternative would also reduce emissions of ozone precursors and
potentially avoid exceeding the BAAQMD's threshold for these emissions. Construction-
generated dust emissions would also be substantially reduced with this alternative as a result of
less soil disruption.
Vegetation and Wildlife
This alternative would reduce impacts on vegetation and wildlife. By clustering the 136
' units on one portion of the site, the rest of the site would remain in its existing character and
continue to provide the habitat for existing vegetation and wildlife. This alternative would
however, displace the vegetation and wildlife associated with the portion of the site developed
with the 136 units.
Visual Quality
This alternative may reduce visual impacts by clustering the homes together thereby
avoiding development on the majority of the site. However, clustered development would not
' provide a rural character consistent with adjacent land uses. This impact would be similar to that
of the proposed project.
Noise
This alternative would decrease noise levels relative to the proposed project as a result
of less traffic and no recreational uses. As a result, the need for localized noise barriers along
Cypress Road would not be expected with this alternative. Construction noise would also be
' substantially reduced with this alternative.
Hydrology and Drainage
! This alternative would result in additional storm drainage runoff entering RD-799 drainage
facilities as a result of development of additional impervious surfaces on the project site.
' However, by clustering development on the site, storm drainage facilities could be provided to
adequately serve the 136 units. This alternative would not provide an internal levee system, nor
would it be large enough to fund improvements of the existing RD-799 levee system on
' Hotchkiss Tract. Therefore, additional people would be exposed to the flood hazards which
currently exist on Hotchkiss Tract. Under this alternative, new housing would be constructed on
stilts which would create an aesthetic impact. This would be a significant adverse impact
associated with this alternative which would not be avoided with the proposed project.
' 4-132
Geology, Seismicity and Soils
Under this alternative, residents would still be exposed.to the existing geologic, soils and '
seismic conditions within the project area. However, the same mitigation measures identified in
this EIR to mitigate soil and geologic hazards could be implemented to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level. '
Public Services
This alternative would reduce the demands on local public services associated with the ,
proposed project as a result of fewer people living on the project site. However, it is not
expected that this alternative would be able to provide the necessary level of financing to
improve various public services (i.e., fire, police and schools) which would be needed. This
alternative would also not provide the recreational facilities and opportunities associated with the
proposed project. '
Utilities
This alternative would reduce the level of demand for new utilities associated with the '
proposed project. However, it is likely that under this alternative, a non-groundwater source
would not be developed for the area. Development of a non-groundwater source is a significant '
benefit of this proposed project.
Human Health ,
Clustering of the homes would allow additional space between the homes and the '
electrical powerlines and drill sites. However, the homes would still be exposed to adjacent
agricultural activities similar to the proposed project.
Cultural Resources ,
Clustering of the homes would provide additional avoidance of archaeological sites. '
However, the proposed project would avoid these sites as well.
Energy '
This alternative would significantly reduce the amount of energy consumed when
compared to the proposed project. ,
The clustered alternative of 136 units would reduce or avoid many of the adverse impacts
of the project. This alternative would not provide certain benefits which would be provided by '
the proposed project, such as: increased property tax revenues to the County and other agencies;
payment of certain development fees to various agencies; and the development of additional
housing units and recreational amenities. In accordance with CEQA Section 21085, a public '
4-133 '
agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project
alternative for a particular significant effect on the environment if there is another feasible
specific mitigation measure that would provide a comparable level of mitigation.
Response R-26:
' Clustering is only required when using the "Agricultural Lands" designation. This
alternative was analyzed under the "Off-Island Bonus Area" designation. The project site
' contains potential natural gas extraction sites, electrical transmission lines and is adjacent to
agricultural uses. For this reason, any development on the site would be near these features.
However, this alternative would have less of an impact on these areas than the proposed project
' because of the fewer units.
Response R-27:
' Theowth inducing effects of the project are substantially limited by the Contra Costa
�' g
County Urban Limit Line and topographic features of the Delta area to the north and east.
Possible growth to the south and west is discussed in detail in the Cumulative Impacts discussion
beginning on page 5-2 of the DEIR and in the EIR or the County General Plan. The Delta
Protection Act (discussed on p. 3-16 and 3-26 of the DEIR) is intended to limit growth in
' portions of the Delta Area. This Act will also help in reducing growth inducing impacts. The
General Plan permits limited commercial development in the Bethel Island Area. The future
residents are expected to utilize the commercial development as identified in the General Plan.
' There are no plans for the Board of Supervisors to amend the General Plan to allow for
additional commercial development in the area.
1
t
' 4-134
1
_ 1
Letter S 1
Darrell B. Edwards '
0 •r�}`�
4292 Sandmound Boulevard
Oakley, California 94561
(415) 684-9749
�I71N /
rcat
/ssl .
- t
4-135 '
I
f /
G
'1173-2
_ .
.►•3
� y
_ _ 4-136
S-5 -
��L.a..r p'�I��,..,-'�-_c.� ._--- __ __ Vi►...µ.-i-.�'^-/ .*.o.-' .,{.�°--4-d-' _
S-6 �J _-�-c,.�+ile.'�-/' �.+F.�t.�-•.�-Gtr.r.GJ� �..itlL..rC..�'
S-7
f ... --.- 3. 7-
S.8
. ?
?
S-s ^- - ^."J .� .�J mac✓. . -- ,rd �+
S-11
4-137
S
a y'
;�-19 7 � � ��•..�,�-1� o�'.,�--j�-' ,�,�.--ems .3j .c.,.cie...-.aJ
74-1
ii 4-13$
i
��-' - - ------ - -- �sv_ - --
19 ,lwA/
41
-30
S-20 -
-- x 6 '
D
33
i
d
- -- -- � �. . - ---- - �,�.-�-- - ----- - a------ _�,- .
4-139
S-27
A 2-
s-22
.3-13 ,a-�r�..,.�•/ . .._ ----------cam.="_�"''.�." ��
- -- - -�/J� �+ _/3 G_ �r�•v. - = -- �/L. -,per t� � �" ' _s- ---
S-26 -
• .�GLh..-d''ti-1 e.a..a./ �.�.�e.fJ .T...•�+./��-�-' .�-a-��,-..a..e..�—..0-�
� 4-140
3-1.3 7 -?✓1 .tom, �-.-
S-28 So
S-29
3- /Y.3- 3- 7. 11
S-30
127 )
�7f
7. Y'
S-31
S-32 - l/
S-33
4-1 41
y
4 !f
S-36 .—
.3.X - 7
of
S-38
S-39
3 17,f
lax
1
4-142
S-43
S-44
S-45 �_ -
S-46 G -'-"�.. _ _ � two
- - _.,.�-�-- ,cam-aK--- -•C.� .
llo� Ila
a
�i
4-143
�1
Response to Letter S: Darrell Edwards, February 12, 1993
Many of the comments are related to the financial burden that would be placed on the
future homeowners of the proposed project. These issues are unrelated to the adequacy of the
EIR and therefore, no response is necessary.
Response S-1:
Comment noted. The comment addresses the. financial burden that may be placed on
homeowners within the proposed project. This issue is not an environmental issue but rather a
financial issue. No additional response necessary.
Response S-2:
The DEIR in Chapter 5.2 specifies roadway improvements to be paid for by the project
as well as projects for which fair-share contributions would be necessary.
Response S-3:
See Response EE-6
Response S-4:
The DEIR in Chapter 3.3 presents the air quality impacts of the proposed project and
concludes that the project would result in an unavoidable impact on regional air quality.
Response S-5:
No response necessary. The landscaping would be installed by the project applicant.
Maintenance of the landscaping would become the responsibility of the Homeowner's
Association, which is a financial issue.
Response S-6:
No response necessary. The comment is not related to a significant effect on the
environment.
Response S-7:
The project applicant would be required to pay their fair-share of noise mitigation costs
necessary to mitigate the project's impacts. Noise mitigation would not necessarily be in the
form of soundwalls. Architectural treatment could be used, as pointed out in Mitigation Measure
36-1 of the DEIR. The noise mitigation would be installed when noise levels warranted.
4-144
Response S-8:
No response necessary. The comment reflects the opinion of the commentor. .The public
entity responsible for maintenance of the drainage and levee system has not yet been determined.
Also see Appendix C.
Response S-9:
See Response Z-20.
Response S-10:
No response necessary. The comment is the opinion of the commentor. Levee
landscaping plans would need to be approved by the public agency responsible for maintenance
of the Ievees. Installation of landscaping would be the responsibility of the project applicant.
Response S-11:
See Response Z-20.
Response S-12:
Mitigation Measure 3.7-13, p. 3-145 of the DEIR provides specific measures and criteria
to be contained in the final maintenance plan for the golf course including pesticide, herbicide
and fertilizer management.
Response S-13:
See Response Z-20 and S-3.
Response S-14:
Comments noted. Please refer to Response EE-6, above. The project applicant proposes
dust control measures which include posting the name and phone number of a designated dust
control coordinator on the project site.
Response S-15:
See Response Z-20.
Response S-16:
Comment noted. The comment addresses a financial issue.
4-145
r
Response S-17:
Please refer to discussion under Funding on page 3-172 of the DEIR for information on
funding of sheriff facilities.
Response S-18:
The proposed project proposes to dedicate a 7.4 acre site for a school. See page 3-178
of the DEIR. Mitigation Measure 3.9-7 on page 3-179 recommends that the school site be
enlarged to 10 acres.
Response S-19:
No response necessary. The comment is related to a financial issue.
Response S-20•
No response necessary. The comment is related to a financial issue.
Response S-21:
indicatedon . 3-20 of the DEIR residents of the project would
Comment noted. As p p �
probably work in the Concord, Walnut Creek, Hacienda Business Park, Bishop Ranch and other
East Bay job centers.
Response S-22:
Comment noted. The comment expresses the opinion of the commentor. The proposed
cost of housing within the project is from $175,000. Senior and retired individuals are often
attracted to golf-course developments.
Response S-23:
Comment noted. The comment addresses an existing condition and is unrelated to the
project as an environmental issue. No response is necessary.
Response S-24:
Refer to Response EE-14.
Response S-25:
Comment noted. The comment is related to a financial issue. No response is necessary.
4-146
Response S-26:
Comment noted. The first part of the comment restates the findings documented in the
DEIR. The issue of drowning would vary by individual. See Response S-27 which addresses
the Emergency Evacuation Plan for the project.
Response S-27:
The comment is unclear; however the text on page 3-137 and Mitigation Measure 3.7-10
on page 3-144 of the DEIR describes the proposed plans for emergency evacuation in the areas
adjacent to the proposed project.
Response S-28•
As the text on page 3-137 notes, a breach is highly unlikely to become bigger than 50
feet. This size of breach would lose energy very quickly. The 50 foot breach was selected based
on historical data regarding past levee breaches in the Delta. Fifty (50) feet was the average size
of those breaches.
Response S-29:
See Response EE-22 and EE-23.
Response S-30:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding the
County's ability to maintain storm drainage improvements. If the County cannot maintain these
facilities, maintenance would become the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association or of
a Special District.
Response S-31:
Comment noted. The comment does not address an environmental issue and represents
the opinion of the commentor.
Response S-32:
Comment noted. Mitigation measure 3.7-15 identifies that if the County cannot afford
the street sweeping program, that it should be funded by the project residents.
Response S-33:
See Response Z-20. Dewatering would occur when levee and lake/channel construction
occurs. The water that is pumped out would be conveyed into the existing open ditch system.
4-147 ,
i
Response S-34:
Refer to Response Z-20.
Response S-35:
Short-term in the context of dust emissions refers to the period during which earth moving
activities would occur. Major earthwork is estimated to take approximately one-year and be
completed as part of the first phase of the development.
Response S-36:
Comment noted. As Mitigation Measure 3.8-6 on page 3-161 states, the ground
settlement monitoring plan would identify contingency plans. Contingency plans would generally
' consist of stopping construction if ground settlement exceeds acceptable levels and implementing
alternative construction techniques.
Response S-37:
Comments noted. Please refer to Response S-3 above.
Response S-38:
Development Fees/Funding are discussed on page 3-178 of the DEIR. Mitigation
Measures 3.9-6 through 3.9-8 on page 3-179 are proposed to further mitigate the proposed
' project's impact on school facilities. Also see Response I-1.
Response S-39:
Comments noted. The comment references a financial issue. Also see Response I-1.
Response S40:
The referenced policies on page 3-181 of the DEIR pertain to the location of parks.
These policies recommend that neighborhood parks be located near elementary schools but do
not require it.
' Response S41:
No response necessary. The comment is too speculative and relates to a financial issue.
' 4-148
Response S-42:
The County's General Plan requires a community park in this area. The project complies
with this requirement. See mitigation measure 3.9-9 of the DEIR.
Response S-43:
No response necessary. The comment is related to a financial issue.
Response S-44:
Comment noted. The mitigation measure referenced was added at the request of
CCMAD.
Response S-45:
No response necessary. The comment expresses the opinion of the commentor and is
unrelated to a significant environmental issue.
Response S46:
Comment noted. The comment expresses the opinion of the commentor. The County can
approve a project which would result in unavoidable impacts if it can make findings that the
project's benefits outweigh its adverse impacts.
4-149
i.
Handle w Care Pkg TEL N0 .415-355-6584 Feb 16 ,93 15 :51 P .01
Letter T
1
04-e— 74�
T-1
705o,sL
000,11010
��� �'
4-150
�2��-/iVea , 9�s53- e�ags-
6
4-157 t
I
I
�r v
'71
60
1 t
-1
Ole
60
lam° Ae, d.��.
1 t�•a7' !'- -,r� � �� lts�i�'���s�,.tiR( 7='l��C!''a
4-152
i
KaMM1n ' rV" WKCU UUM 1 AM 16111%mal 1681
WENT TO THE East County to close this public comment nu!-
Regional Planning Commission lance. She whined about how long
meeting Monday. I WWI: the permit process had been, and
meant to write anythidg onit , ut homuch.she had tried to
my column was already .phar tvotk With the torttminity, G
But what happened at that meeting More effectively,her lather.AJ. ,.
was so disgusting I had my column Solomon,'said the magic ;wprds!
time held till 1 could get e to double "We'll Qay." a
this. He meant that he would out tip
The subject was the proposed -the money for a special hurry-up
Cyprcaa Likes development, And meeting of the planning commis-
the first problem,as readers of this sion next week.When it was point-
space already know,wall that those ed out that another developer was
who were entitled by taw to be already paying for a special meeting 3.18iuce tlidtt lfida'/6aii level y'.:fufd.we itihll fight them on the
notified weren't. The ascend prob- on that date{Monday, Feb. 8) he PAF field•.:1 lib Iobpk be11b1tes,W t6 ahall fight them in
lem was that the Revised MR,the said he'd pay more:he wanted that that. ut beUio *a'6 t on:' fhb street& Lind we&hall never sur-
document under discusslott, 'was day, he would "work it out" with They deli till dill 0 K'13IittM 111: MAWl" We6 he turned to his
not made available to the people the other developer. land for hothing:Owl bb**e'W rfriend and whispered, "And we'll
who needed to we it.Again,this is Done deal. survived, hit theta over the had with beer
a matter of law. Hotchkin residents were Ueatbd The County and deVW 'u'8''bottles.'I pt's about all we've got
1 found out about the meeting gilts tlld.I have a few things to day in for trouble until the last poor::' ,
because a neighbor put a mimeo. to Earl Wetttel, cho , Watch out for flying beer bottles•
g p Stott Plan n >itud coot is duped into ai ' Ede inert= :';,
graphed flier in myy nail hiou,sa did the test of the planning commis-' gage, It will be flay nor�1:._ _... .
most of my neJghbora. slot, end to Lyhn jochim and AJ. profitable to tam this.thing down
Some rushed out to buy the$3o Sobhtont ' our throats.
document and stayed tip half the 1.We are hot y ntidsancel We lie 4.V9hdi I llnd Gift 64140
night ting to figure out *hilt part of the democratic proem.Out ernm ent.otficdai teo"6116.
t ic
changes had been made to protect relearn are tttional, reasonible hes received oiWdi&,.or lilt fe, '
them, the homeowners and reel= and well researched. ceive one dirk,fiGM s'ttith et W i
dents affected by the plan. 2.It's going to be changed again, tion he or she tobV in favor of this
They made notes, ran.calculs- because the developers have not Project,I will climb the tallest pole
tions, called experts in hydrftulkt; tirade thlb a pr6Wj neighbors can to blow the loudest whistle 1 am
110,,98 engineering. traffic manage- five with.It takel time to get Pei- rim. 1 1,
meet. In short, thby worked very i4t#saiott to (urn people's lives uo. t Winston Gh0chlti niade a faitio�w'
long, and very hand, In the brief aide down,even in a rubber-stamp speech dur Iiitler's bombing of'
timespan (about two weeks) they county like Contra Costa, London.To fhb microphone he Bald
were given by developer Lynn Jo.
chim and the East County Regional
Planning Commission.
When the time dime for thb
meeting,about 50 residents of the
area showed up.They were disap-
pointed when they saw that Cy.
press Lakes was but one of nine or
so items on the agenda, but they
waited patiently while four other
;natters were discussed.
At about 8 p.m., chairman Stan
Planchon announced ! schedule '
change: all the other items on the
agenda would be moved ahead of
the public hearing on Cypress
Lakes.
It wasn't until 9:30 that he
sighed and opened the fklbt to dis-
cussion of the Cypress Lakes MR.
Because it was now so late,he tried
to fimit the r me to five
minutes each.Thiswent over very
badly with those who had worked
so hard, and waited io long.
Most of the comments were un-
der five minutes anyway, but the
meeting still ran past the 12 pan.
deadline. When it was obvious no
one.was going away, the board
agreed to continue the matter until
the next meeting.
At this polnt developer Lynn Jos
chim stood up to complain about
what a hardship she would endure If
she had to wait an etttrt two weeks ,
4-153
i
PARCEL NO. Return Address:
032.172-022 CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA, 84553
I
I
GARCIA GEORGE
FATOOH VERA
P O BOX 984
' BETHEL ISLAND CA 94511
' .. •.-----,..�. :.._==+..R.sem—.a.av ._..
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE SUPPRESSION
ASSESSMENTS AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
I
The Board of Supervisors as the governing body of the Bethel Island Fire Protection District will
' ! hold a public hearing on March 16, 1993, on this matter at 10:30 AM In the board of Supervisors'
Chambers, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, for final
consideration of the report submitted by the Fire Chief of Bethel Island Fire Protection
District proposing that fire suppression assessments be levied on your real property located
In the District. Your Initial annual assessment for Fiscal Year 1993.94 could range from
$0 up to a maximum of $ 546.00 , depending on the property tax losses the District may
experience as a result of State budget action.
At the time, date and place specified above, the Board will hear and consider all comments
or protests, If any, to the said report, and may, thereafter; by ordinance or resolution,
determine and levy We assessments. At any time not later than the hour set for the hearing
' on March 16, 1993any holder whether a fee owner, lessee, or otherwise of the
Interest in the property which Is proposed to be assessed and who will be obligated to pay
any proposed assessments, may make written protest against the proposed assessments. The
protest shall be In writing, shall contain a description of the property Including the
above Parcel number and the name of the fire district mentioned In the first Parauraph and
the Interest in the property which each signer of the protest represents, sufficient to
Identify the..anperty..and.-IfAhe-signers are not-shawn-on.the.last_aquailzed.assessment rdi..
as the owners of that property, shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that
the signers are the holders of the property Interest proposed to be charged and who will
be obligated to pay the proposed charge. Any such protests shall be delivered to the Clerk
of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors at 651 Pine Street, Room 106, Martinez,
CA, 94553. No other protests or objections shall be considered. A majority protest would
cause the assessment to be abandoned.
The Fire Chiers report, briefly summarized on the reverse side of this notice, containing
data Indicating the need for the proposed assessments, the amount of the assessments
proposed for Fiscal Year 1993-94, the types of property to be assessed, and other related
Information is on file In the District's office located at 3045 Ranch Lane, Bethel Island,
CA, and is available there for public Inspection prior to the meeting. Any questions
concerning this notice, the report on the proposed assessments, and protest procedure
should be directed to Jack Whitener at telephone number (510) 684-2211,
' PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator
! s/s
epu y
- QEE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS NOTICE ,
� .•art
4-154
Response to Letter T: Vera Fatook and George Garcia, February 12 and 16, 1993
Response T-1:
The comments in this letter represent the opinion of the commentor and do not address
a significant impact on the environment or the adequacy of the DEIR. No response necessary.
Response T-2:
The comment relates the project's effect on the flood hazard situation in adjacent areas.
The proposed project would not affect the flood hazards in adjacent areas. Construction of the
project levees would remove the project site from the flood hazard zone and provide a safe
evacuation point in the event of a levee breach of the existing RD-799 levees.
1
4-155
I
LAW OFFICES OF 1
,r-3 tM
GAGEN, MCCOY;-i�f-aD�iAHoN-V'XRMSTEONG
WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA fOT2 DANVILLE OFFICE
GREGORY L. MCCOY A/� R PM (�� ` � 279 FRONT STREET
PATRICK J. MCMAHON yJ3 FEB`GU „ _ _ P. O. BOX 218
MARK L ARMSTRONG -/• ►'j '.� ?�. DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 945245-0218
1 t :_ii,
LINK K. COOMBS ,. �.�:!L'`�� S�-�"' TELEPHONE: (510) 837-0585
STEPHEN W THOMAS FAX: (510) 838-5985
CHARLES A. KOSS
MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA OFFICE
MICHAEL W. CARTER
1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 315
RICHARD C RAIN ES DNAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559-301
ROBERT M.. FAN7
BARBARA
VICTOR J. UVA JEWELLetter U TELEPHONE: (707) 224-8396
AINUC CI FAX' (707) 224-5817
CAROLE A. LAW
1 ALLAN C. MOORE PLEASE REPLY TO:
ALEXANDER L. SCHMID February 16, 1993
PATRICIA E. CURTIN
MICHAEL P CANDELA
CHARLES A. KLINGE
Damme
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Art Beresford
Community Development Department
Administration Building
1 651 Pine Street, Second Floor, N. Wing
Martinez, Ca 94553-0095
i
Re: Cypress Lakes & Country Club
j Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report
i
Dear Mr. Beresford:
This firm represents Chartered Land & Cattle Company on its
development in the Bethel Island Area, commonly known as the
Cypress Lakes & Country Club project. The following are comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for that project:
1. Channel Enhancement Plan at gage 1-8 and 1-9.
U=1 There is a typographical error on page 1-9 with reference to the
' second channel. The second channel would be approximately 11 acres
in size, not 110 acres.
2. Report Evaluation of Proposed Levees (February 2. 1993) .
Enclosed please find a copy of the Report Evaluation of Proposed
Levees Bordering - Cypress Lakes Project, dated February 2, 1993.
U=2 This report will be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) for approval of the internal levee system. This
report is a modified version of the report that was evaluated in
the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The borings included in
4-156
1 �
. r
February16
1993
Page 2
1
U_2 Ithis report are the same borings attached in Appendix E of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report.
If you have any questions with regard to above comments please
do not hesitate to call. ,
Very truly yours,
GAGEN, McCOY, McCOY, ARMSTRONG
A Profe na orporation
Patricia E. Curtin
r
PEC/cjt
Enc.
cc: Lynn Jochim
is\vol2\client\19018\Art2-15.ltr '
1
r
1
1
r
r
4-157 '
REPORT
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED
LEVEES BORDERING - CYPRESS LAKES PROJECT
HOTCHKISS TRACT
CONTRA COSTS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR: CHARTERED LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY
101 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD, SUITE 1400
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
BY: KLEINFELDER, INC.
2825 EAST MYRTLE STREET
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95205
i
i
i
I
4-158 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PREVIOUS STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
HISTORY OF HOTCHKISS TRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FIELD EXPLORATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
SURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
LABORATORY TESTING ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TABLE I-A SLOPE STABILITY PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE I-B SETTLEMENT PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE 1-CSEEPAGEANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ENGINEERING ANALYSES
Description of Various Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Section 65.10 - Embankment Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Section 65.10 - Embankment and Foundation Stability
Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Seepage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table '-3 - Summary of Seepage Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
65.10 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
DEEP DYNAMIC COMPACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4-159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
ADDITIONAL SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
' LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1
1
4-160
r►�/ File No. 20-3179-01 K L E I N F E L D E R
February 2, 1993
REPORT
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED LEVEES
BORDERING CYPRESS LAKES PROJECT
HOTCHKISS TRACT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an evaluation of the proposed levees associated with the
approximate 681 acre Cypress Lakes project in the Hotchkiss Tract area of eastern Contra
Costa County, California. The project will consist of constructing a ring levee system of
approximately 27,000 feet in length. The proposed levee will surround a development
comprised of twelve to thirteen neighborhoods or clusters consisting of detached single-family
homes, access drives, approximately 30 acres of park land, and several lakes. A public golf
course is currently planned to be located within the property limits.
The elevation of the ground surface within the proposed development generally varies from
approximately -8 feet (USGS Datum) near the southeast corner of the property to +7 feet on
the west side adjacent to Bethel Island Road. There are also several hill areas up to
approximate elevation +24 feet in the northern portion of the project.
To provide protection from the 100-year flood, the levees surrounding the tract will.be raised
to a minimum elevation of +10.2 feet (USGS). This elevation includes the required 3 feet
at freeboard. According to Bohley/Maley Associates, project civil engineers, the proposed
levee will be 18 -feet wide at the crest and have minimum slopes of 3:1 and 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) for the riverside and landside slopes, respectively. Proposed on-site lakes a
are anticipated to serve as borrow areas to provide fill for the levee improvements, including
using near-surface clays and organic materials beneath proposed levee locations. The several
high areas in the northern portion of the development will be cut down to a minimum
elevation of +10.2 feet, and the soil will also be used to construct adjacent levees. The base
portion of the high areas will remain in place, creating an extremely wide "levee" varying
from approximately 50 to 200 feet wide with-minimum slopes of 10:1. Additional.details of
the planned development are not known to us at this time.
4-161
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 1 of 17
KLEINFELDER
AFile No. 20-3179-01
February 2, 1993
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF W=TGATION
The purpose and scope of this investigation were planned in discussions with Chartered Land
and Cattle Company in March 1992. The purpose of our study has been to evaluate the
proposed levees surrounding the proposed Cypress Lakes project with respect to the risk of
breaching of the levees during a 100-year flood event. The 100-year flood, as defined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is an event which has a return period on
the average of 1 in 100 years. According to published FEMA flood elevation data, the 100-
year flood elevation is +7.0 feet for the entire region of study. The proposed dry land levees
were evaluated using this criteria for static and seismicslopestability, seepage, erosion, and
settlement, in accordance with Section 65.10 of the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
and related regulations which refer to the Corps of Engineers (COE) design manual EM-1110-
2-1913 for loading conditions and analysis.
This report contains the following information:
0 Summary by Kleinfelder, Inc. of previous-studies on and near Hotchkiss Tract
• Description of the field explorations and laboratory testing performed for the current
study
• Summary of the soil and groundwater conditions along the levee alignment
• A discussion of the history of Hotchkiss Tract area
• Summary of our engineering analyses, including the following:
• Embankment Protection-Section 65.10 (b)(3)
• Embankment and Foundation Stability-Section 65.10 (b)(4)
• Settlement-Section 65.10 (b)(5)
• Conclusions
• Recommendations
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Previous studies made by Kleinfelder, Inc. on or near Hotchkiss Tract include the following:
• Report entitled "Willow Point Marina No. 2," File Na S-2309-01
4-162
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 2 Of 17
:l� File No. 20-3179-01 K L E I N F E:D E R
February 2, 1993
0 Report dated December 22, 1988, "Phase I Study, Proposed Bethel Island Area Project,"
File No. 11-1956-01
• Report dated March 8, 1979, "Geologic Hazards Report, Proposed Subdivision No. 5409,
Sandmound Road," File No. S-2361-01
• Various reports for "Sandmound Woods Subdivision," File No. 20-2909-01
We have also reviewed several reports by Harding-Lawson Associates, ENGEO, and Balbi
and Chang that pertain to Hotchkiss Tract.
SM DESCRIPTION
The project is located in the Hotchkiss Tract area of eastern Contra Costa County, California,
and consists of approximately 681 acres. The site is bounded by Sandmound Boulevard to
the north and east, Bethel Island Road to the west, and grazing land to the south. A site
vicinity map is shown on Plate 1.
As mentioned earlier, the site is mostly flat with moderate elevation changes. The proposed
levee ground surface generally ranges in elevation from approximately -8 feet to +7 feet.
The north central portion of the site is covered by areas of fine-grained, wind-blown sands
that exhibit slight to moderate cementation. The site is predominantly used as rangeland, is
covered with grasses, and is divided by fences. A high voltage power line crosses the
southwestern corner of the site on the Dal Porto property. The interior of the site contains
several shallow drainage canals used for irrigation. A Swale is located along the east portion
of the site.
HISTORY OF HOTCHI ISS TRACT - = �-
While the existing levees protecting Hotchkiss Tract have not been subjected to the.100-year
flood level, they have performed well under conditions only slightly less severe. Based on
tidal information from the California Department of Water Resources and Ms. Barbara Burns,
District Engineer, the normal average maximum monthly tidal range is about 3 feet (mean
high 3.3 to mean low 0.3). The normal annual extreme tide levels in the local area range
from a low water level of approximate elevation-1.5 feet to a high water level of approximate
elevation +4.0 feet. In addition, water elevations over +5.0 feet are common during the
winter months when high tides combine with storm runoff. For example, in the winter of
1986, Ms. Burns measured the water elevation at +6.3 feet next to the Bethel Island Bridge.
According to Ms. Burns, even though this water level was only 0.7 feet less than the 100-year
flood level, there were no observed areas of excessive seepage or other signs of instability.
In summary, the principal effect during the 100-year flood will be a sustained high water level
in the adjoining sloughs that would approach a water level about 2 feet higher than the normal
4-163
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 3 of 17
File No. 20-3179-01 KLEINFELDER
February 2, 1993
1
' annual high tide and 0.7 feet higher than what the existing perimeter levees have already
withstood.
' GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
Reference is made to Kleinfelder, Inc.'s report dated December 22, 1988 which was prepared
for the subject site. That report includes detailed discussions on regional and local geology,
faulting, and seismicity at the subject site. It is our opinion that these sections of the 1988
report still apply to the site. Although there has been a significant earthquake in northern
' California since our 1988 report was prepared, (Loma Prieta, October 1989) the estimated
seismic accelerations at the site have not been revised.
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
The field explorations for this study consisted of drilling and sampling twenty-eight test
borings to depths varying from approximately 21 to 31112 feet below existing ground surface.
' The approximate locations of the borings drilled for this investigation are shown on Plate 2.
Logs of the borings drilled for this investigation are included in Appendix C along with logs
of additional borings and 19 cone penetrometer tests performed for our earlier study. The
borings drilled for our earlier study extended to a maximum depth of 128.5 feet and the 19
cone penetrometer tests extended to a maximum depth of 28.5 feet.
All borings were drilled under the direction of an engineer from our firm who maintained
continuous logs of the soils encountered in the borings and assisted in extracting relatively
' undisturbed soil samples for visual examination, classification, and laboratory testing. A
truck-mounted drill rig equipped with rotary wash drilling equipment was used, and samples
were obtained by driving either a Modified California or Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
' sampler 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer falling approximately 30 inches.
The number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches into the soil is noted
on the Logs,of Borings at the corresponding sample locations.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
As noted in our preliminary report, the near-surface soils varied considerably in both type and
' density. In other words, high blow count, very dense, partially cemented surface sand
deposits were encountered adjacent to areas with 2 to 3 feet of low blow count, soft, organic
silt underlain by loose sand. During our field explorations, it was hoped that delineations
could be made between the dense and loose areas. However, at least around the perimeter
of the project, the more-prevalent soil profile was found to consist of a 1 to 3 feet thick
surface layer of organic silt or peat underlain by loose clean and silty sands to depths of
' approximately 10 to 15 feet. Test Borings such as B-5, B-6, B-7, B-14, and B-15 were
located on higher ground and encountered either cemented or clayey near-surface materials.
4-164
Copyright 1993 Kteinfetder, Inc. Page 4 of 17
K L E I N F E L D E R
File No. 20-3179-01
February 2, 1993
Generally, below depths of approximately 10 to 15 feet, medium dense clean and silty sands
were encountered to the maximum depth explored.
At the time of our field explorations, free groundwater was encountered in our borings at
depths as shallow as 2 feet in the low lying areas to as deep as 251/2 feet in the vicinity of the
high areas. Four piezometers were installed during our Phase 1 study and the groundwater
levels are presented in our previous report. It should be noted that groundwater conditions
within the area may vary depending on rainfall, irrigation practices, runoff conditions, tidal
fluctuations, or other factors not apparent at the time of our field explorations.
More detailed descriptions of the soils encountered beneath the proposed levees are presented
in following sections of this report. All soils have been classified according to the Unified
Soils Classification System which is described on Plate 2 in Appendix A.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples of the soils encountered in the borings
to evaluate the strength, density, grain-size, compressibility, and permeability characteristics
of the soils. The tests performed consisted of Moisture Content and Dry Density
Determinations, Unconfined Compressive Strength, Triaxial Shear, Direct Shear,
Consolidation, Gradation Analyses, Organic Content, and Permeability. The results of these
tests are presented in Appendix B.
The primary purpose of our laboratory testing program was to provide input for our slope
stability, settlement, and seepage analyses. For your information, we have summarized on
Tables 1-A through 1-C the engineering properties used in our stability, settlement, and
seepage analyses for the-various soil types encountered at the project. In our selection of soil
properties, we have attempted to be consistent with previously-approved levee projects where
similar soil conditions existed.
Copyright 1993 Kteinfetder, Inc. 4-165 Pa9e S of 17
File No. 20-3179-01 kn KLEINFELDER
February 2, 1993
' TABLE 1-A - SLOPE STABILITY PARAMETERS
FRICTION
SOIL UNIT ANGLE
DESCRIPTION WEIGHT (PCF) COHESION (PSF) (DEGREES)
' Engineered Fill -
Clean Sand 115 50 360
Engineered Fill -
Silty Sand 130 100 30°
Clean Sand (DDC)* 110 50 340
Silty Sand (DDC) 125 75 28'
Sil
ry Clay 130 400 14'
' Clean Sand 100 40 300
' * Deep Dynamic Compaction
TABLE 1-B SETTIME Nr PARAMETERS
Coefficient of
' Unit
Soil Weight Void
Description (Pcf) Ratio Compression Recompression Consolidation
' SiIty Clay 120 0.7 0.11 0.029 0.18
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-166 Paye 6 of 17
File No..20-3179-01 K L E I N F E L D E R
February 2, 1993 '
TABLE C-1 SEEPAGE ANALYSIS
Permeability Permeability
Soil Description (cm/sec) (ft/day)
Clean Sand 1.5x10 4.2x10-'
Silty Sand 5x10 1.4x10''
Silty Sand w/trace organics 1.1x10_1 3.1x10_z
Silty Clay 10-' 2.8x10
ENGINEERING ANALYSES
Description of Various Segments
Based,on the results of our field-explorations, we have divided the proposed perimeter levee
system into seven different soil profiles. Each profile is described below and presented
graphically in Appendix C.
o Profile 1 is composed of a sandy levee underlain by relatively clean sand. �I
o Profile 2 is composed of a sandy levee underlain by silty sand to depths of 8 to 12 �I
feet below existing site grade over relatively clean sand.
o Profile 3 is composed of a sandy levee underlain by silty clay to depths of 8 to 10
feet below existing site grade over relatively clean sand.
o Profile 4 is composed of a silty sand levee underlain by relatively clean sand.
.o Profile 5 is composed of a silty sand levee underlain by silty sand to depths of 8 to �I
12 feet below existing site grade over relatively clean sand.
o Profile 6 is composed of a silty sand levee underlain by silty clay to depths of 8 to
10 feet below existing site grade over relatively clean sand.
o Profile 7 (located within the vicinity of the sandy hills) is composed of relatively
clean sand.
'I
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-167 Page 7 of 17 �I
File No. 20-3179-01 KLEINFELDER
February 2, 1993
It should be noted that our analysis assumes that all near-surface organic soils will be removed
and the underlying loose sandy soils will undergo Deep Dynamic Compaction (DDC) prior
to levee fill placement.
SECTION 65.10 (b)(3) -EMBANKMENT PROTECTION
It is important to keep in mind that the dry land levees utilized in the project will never be
exposed to wave action, unless there is a levee failure along Sandmound or Dutch Slough
levees. These dry land levees will be composed of Engineered Fill and will need to restrain
only 3 to 7 feet of water. Thick vegetation will eventually cover these dry land levees. In
our opinion, the water velocities adjacent to the dryland levees, particularly in the event of
a typical break next to Sandmound Boulevard, will still be less than 3 to 4 feet per Second.
Published research consistently states that vegetated slopes can accommodate flood velocities
in this range. Additional erosion studies have been performed by Bohley/Maley Associates,`
project civil engineers. Their studies cover a wider range of hypothetical situations, such as.
narrow to wide levee breaks. The velocities of 3 to 4 feet per second assume a levee break,
of approximately 50 feet which is typical of previous levee failures in the San Joaquin Delta.
SECTION 65.10 (b)(4) - EMBANKMENT AND FOUNDATION STABILITY
Slove Stability
The slope stability analyses for this project were performed using the computer programs
TSTAB and PCSTABLE which both 'use the Modified Bishop's method. TSTAB and
PCSTABLE analyze circular slip surfaces and have the capability to research critical circles.
These programs use conventional limit equilibrium methods to compute Factors of Safety
against sliding using circular arc failure surfaces.
The main difference between the programs is the method of selecting trial failure surfaces.
TSTAB utilizes a horizontal tangent line which all circles will be tangent to. A search obtains
the critical circle for this tangent line and then the program proceeds to analyze other tangent
lines, thus obtaining the overall critical failure surface. PCSTABLE utilizes a method in
which all the potential failure surfaces are randomly generated during initialization and then
after performing the stability analyses on these circles, the ten worst failure surfaces are
presented. Stability was analyzed on both water and landside slopes for each of the
representative levee cross sections described earlier.
The analyses were performed as described in Table 6.1 of the (COE) Manual EM 1110-2-,
1913, "Design and Construction of Levees" dated March 31, 1978. Design parameter input
consisted of the geometry of the levee embankment and foundation, and the unit weight and
shear strength properties of the levee embankment and foundation materials. In all cases;
steady state seepage was considered with the water elevation at +7.0 feet. A water elevation
of +2.0 feet was used for the intermediate water stage conditions. For rapid drawdown, the
Copyright 1493 Kieinfelder, Inc. 4-168 Page 8 of 17
File No. 20-3179-01
KLEINFELDER "
February 2, 1993
�I
water level was assumed to drop from +7.0 to +2.0 feet. This water level drop is very
conservative, as explained in the "History of Hotchkiss Tract" section of this report.
The effect of ground shaking on the computed Factors of Safety was evaluated by applying
a pseudo-static seismic load of 0.20g. The values of mean and maximum accelerations to use
in the analyses of delta levees has been a matter of discussion for years. Bolt (1977),
recommended that a peak acceleration of 0.25g be used in engineering design. The
probability of such an event was estimated at approximately 1 in 100. This corresponded to
a return period of over 10,000 years, which is far more than a normal return period used in
engineering design.
Interpolating back, a 500-year return period event results in a peak mean acceleration of �I
approximately 0.15g to 0.20g. These mean peak values correlate well with ground
acceleration attenuation relationships by Idriss(1985), Campbell (1981),and Joyner and Boore
(1981). On this basis, it is our opinion that a realistic upper mean bound acceleration for
average conditions in the delta is in the range of 0.15g to 0.20g. The practice in this area is
to utilize a mean acceleration roughly approximated by a pseudo-static analysis. Based on the
proximity of the nearest faults, it is our opinion that a 0.20g design acceleration value is I�
appropriate for this study.
As previously discussed, circular arc failure surfaces were analyzed using the Modified II
Bishop's method. This method utilizes the levee slope configuration, unit weight and shear
strength properties of levee and foundation materials, and boundary and internal distribution �I
forces due to water pressures. After a potential failure surface has been assumed, the soil
mass located above the failure surface is divided into a series of vertical slices. Forces acting
on each slice.include the slice weight, the pore pressure, the effective normal force on the �I
base, the mobilized shear force (including both cohesion and friction), and the horizontal side
forces due to earth pressures. The factor of safety is calculated by determining the ratio of
the moment of resistance (cohesion and friction along the failure surface) to the moment of
the driving forces about the center of the assumed circular failure surface arc. Both programs
performed automatic searches of different potential failure surfaces to compute a critical
failure surface having the lowest factor of safety fora particular analysis condition. 'I
The results of the slope stability analyses are summarized on P1tes to a d are
graphically presented with a profile and failure surface in Appendix es all equal
or exceed the minimum requirements established by the Corps of Engineers summarized in
Table 2 below.
�I
'I
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-169 Page 9 of 17 �I
File No. 20-3179-01 K t.E t N F E C D E R
February 2, 1993
i
i
TABLE 2 ?
Minimum Required
Design Condition Factor of Safety
Case I: End of Construction 1.3
Case II: Sudden Drawdown 1.0
Case III: Intermediate River Stage 1.4
Case IV: Steady Seepage from Full
Flood Stage 1.4IL Y
Case V: Earthquake 1.0
Liquefaction
Under the discussion of I "Case V: Earthquakes," in the referenced COE manual, the
' requirement to evaluate liquefaction for important levees is discussed. The manual mentions
that earthquake loading is not normally considered along with full flood stage conditions
because of the low probability of an earthquake coinciding with periods of high water. As
discussed with you, an evaluation of liquefaction has been provided to FEMA on all previous
levee projects. For the dry land levees of the Cypress Lakes project, it is our opinion that
liquefaction is a distinct possibility with the close proximity of several major fault systems and
the presence of loose, saturated sands near the ground surface. To mitigate the risk of
liquefaction, the near-surface loose sandy soils along the entire levee alignment, except where
the sandy hills are located in the northern portion of the site, will be densified using DDC
techniques for overexcavation and recompaction. A more detailed description of DDC is
presented in a later section of this report.
Recent work by Seed on the residual strength of sands suggests that the risk of gross
instability is minimal.
Regarding slope instability within the vicinity of the sandy hills, reference is made to his
report entitled "Reevaluation of Slide in the Lower San Fernando Dam and the Earthquake
of February 9, 1979," dated April 1988. We have included in the Appendix C, Figures 8-1
and 8-3, of the referenced report showing the relationship between earthquake motion, the
initiation of sliding, and the relationship of residual strength and blow count. Using
procedures described by Seed and corrected blow counts of 8 in the upper 15 feet of slope
and 15 below that depth, we estimate from Figure 8-3 residual strengths of 200 pounds per
square foot (psf) and 700 psf, respectively. These values were substituted into the TSTAB
Copyright 1993 Kleinfeider, Inc. 4-170 Page 10 of 17
r
• KLEINFELDER �I
" File No. 20-3179-01 �"�
February 2, 1993
�i
01
program as the residual shear strength for the native sandy soils. The computed Factor of
Safety using these values and a minimum slope of 10:1 were 1.7 which further suggests that
the consequence of liquefaction (i.e. slope instability) within the proximity of the sandy hills �I
would be low.
In addition to using DDC techniques in the flat portions of the site, we also recommend that
DDC be performed on the sandy hills where slopes are less than 10:1 and or the width of the �I
plane at elevation +10.2 feet is less than 50 feet. The actual details of DDC should be
determined by field tests as described in a later section. The ultimate goal will be to densify
the inplace sandy materials so that Standard Penetration Tests indicate blow counts greater
than approximately 14. Reference is made to our more detailed liquefaction evaluation
contained in our Phase I report included in Appendix C. �I
Seepage
Since the proposed dry land levee will be composed entirely of compacted Engineered Fill
and the underlying sandy soils will be densified by DDC, we do not anticipate that significant
seepage will occur even in the unlikely event of a break on the existing perimeter levee
system. It is also tentatively planned to leave in place the dewatering system located near the r
inboard toe of the proposed levee system. This dewatering system could be pumped in the
event of flooding. We recommend that maintenance of this dewatering system be considered
as part of the operations and management plan for the project. '
To comply with requests to furnish seepage calculations, however, we have performed '
seepage analyses using the program PCSEEP for levee profiles 1 through 6 previously
described, which represent the range of soil conditions encountered. Because of a lower head
difference and a drainage path approximately three times longer than Profiles 1 through 6,
seepage analysis was not performed for Profile 7 because seepage associated with this profile
will be significantly less than Profiles 1 through 6. As reported earlier, layers of.clean and
silty sands were consistently found below the sandy and clayey soils. '
For your information, PCSEEP is a computer program that utilizes a finite element numerical
method for solving steady state seepage problems of free surface or confined flow of r
groundwater, in a two-dimensional or axisymmetric porous region. In our testing program,
three vertical permeability tests were performed and the results varied from 10' to 10-6
cm/sec. In our analysis, more permeable material was assumed based on soil type. In past '
FEMA submittals, vertical permeability was assumed to be an order of magnitude less than
horizontal permeability. However, it is our opinion that this assumption is invalid for this
project because of soil disturbance and mixing from DDC and new levee construction. We ,
feel that a horizontal to vertical permeability ratio of 2:1 or 5:1 is appropriate for this project.
Behind each flow net diagram in Appendix D is a table describing the general soil types '
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-171 Paye 11 of 17 '
� File No. 20-3179-01 kn K L E I N F E L D E R
February 2, 1993
considered in our seepage analysis and the assumed permeability values. The results of our
seepage analyses for each segment are summarized after the respective slope stability analysis
' in Appendix C. We point out that while laboratory permeability tests have been reported in
units of cm/sec, PCSEEP utilizes ft/. Our analyses indicate that with even thick layers of
relatively pervious material, such as clean sand with a horizontal permeability of 101 feet per
' minute in Profile 1, the flow through and beneath the may approach the order of 5 cubic feet
per day if exterior levees along Sandmound and/or Dutch Slough breach during high water
levels.
TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF SEEPAGE RESULTS -
Levee Seepage (ft-/day)
' Profile
No. Ratio of Horizontal to Vertical Permeability
10 5 2 1
1 10 5.3 2.1 0.78
2 4.1 1.4 0.69 0.17
3 3.8 1.2 0.74 0.28
' 4 6.1 3.9 2.1 1.2
5 5.3 0.27 0.099 0.026
' 6 2.9 0.098 0.054 0.018
' 65.10 (5) Settlement
Some settlement should be anticipated wherever fill is placed for the proposed levees,
particularly those underlain by or containing clay soils. The greatest settlement is anticipated
' to occur in the southeast portion of the project. At these locations, the underlying clay soils
are generally slightly overconsolidated.
' Estimates of the amount of anticipated settlement were calculated using the computer program
CONSOL and confirmed by hand calculations. CONSOL calculates the total and time rate
of settlement for one-dimensional layered soil masses using an implicit finite difference
' method. Ile program computes stresses caused by the placement of large area or strip fills,
such as will occur beneath the new dry land levees. The stresses at any distance from the
' center of the strip are computed using 3oussinesq's equations for an infinite strip load. Two
' Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-172 Page 12 of 17
File No..20-3179-01 K L E I N F E L D E R
February 2, 1993
conditions were analyzed in order to provide a range of expected settlement on the project.
Settlement beneath levees in the northern portion of the project is expected to be minimal
because of the lack of organic soils and the presence of firm underlying materials. The '
estimated settlement for a new dry land levee 16 feet in height underlain by approximately
8 to 10 feet of clay soils (Profiles 3 or 6) is on the order of 1 to 4 inches. This settlement
is expected to occur mostly during the construction phase '
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the results of our field explorations, laboratory tests, engineering analyses, '
and review of historical documents, we have formed the following conclusions regarding the
proposed levees for Cypress Lakes:
I ,• It is our opinion that the proposed levees should be stable with respect to gross shear type
failure which could breach the levee and cause flooding.
• The risk of seismic induced liquefaction and resulting levee failure is very low, Provided ,
deep dynamic compaction is performed prior to levee construction and the sandy high areas
are cut to a minimum 10:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. r
• The lowest factor of safety against slope failure under seismic conditions occurs under the
steady seepage from full flood stage condition. '
• The potential for uncontrolled seepage or piping is very low. ,
• Material from the interior lake areas and top of several existing high areas should be
suitable for use in levee fill. '
DEEP DYNAMIC COMPACTION (DDC)
We recommend a strip extending 5 feet beyond either side of the final levee toe be treated ,
using DDC techniques. Further, we recommend in-place densification efforts achieve a
minimum relative density as evaluated by a SPT blow count of 14 blows per foot of
penetration. A depth of improvement between 10 to 15 feet is considered feasible using ,
DDC, provided the underlying sandy soils are first dewatered.
The recommendations outlined above are intended to address foundation soils considered '
likely to lose significant shear strength during a seismic event (and hence induce a slope
failure or lateral spreading). Levee foundation soils susceptible to significant strength loss ,
include loose sands and silty sands generally encountered to depths of about 8 to 13 feet
below existing site grade in the vicinity of the proposed levee system. In general, these loose
sands are underlain by medium denselo dense sands. '
4-173 ,
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 13 of 17
File No, 20-3179-61 KLEINFELDER
February 2, 1993
Prior to initiating DDC, the Contractor in conjunction with the project geotechnical engineer
should conduct tests to determine the optimum drop weight, height of drop, number of drops,
and spacing necessary to achieve the degree of densification stated above. We recommend
the test section involve an area 40 feet by 40 feet in plan dimensions. The test section should
be located at the western limit of the area to be treated (in the vicinity of our Boring B-19).
As deemed necessary by the project geotechnical engineer, verification testing using SPT blow
counts should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the densification efforts.
Additionally, shear and compression wave velocities should be monitored to determine if they
exceed published values for causing damage to adjacent residences. At this time, we
anticipate SPT blow count testing should be performed at two additional locations to confirm
the degree and extent of densification obtained by DDC.
Modifications in the contractor's procedures may be required if specified density requirements
are not obtained and if shear and compression wave velocities exceed limiting values.
Modifications may include additional number of drops or reduced drop spacing.
Modifications may also include a change to more conventional overexcavation and
recompaction techniques especially near existing residences. Specific modifications in the
contractor's procedure should be determined by the project geotechnical engineer upon
completion of each test section and in coordination with the DDC contractor and the owner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In our opinion, as for any levee system, a maintenance and inspection program of the district
levees is mandatory, if the risk of failure is to be maintained at an acceptably low level.
Inspection of levees should include, in our opinion, at least the following:
* Periodic scheduled inspection of the complete levee system, a minimum of every 6 months.
Additional inspection for possible erosion should be performed during significant periods
of rainfall. . .
* Cross-section and elevation data on the levees kept current
* During periods of high water, inspection of adjacent Sandmound and Dutch Slough levees
should be instituted
Prior to placement of fill materials for the areas receiving levees, we recommend that the
exposed levee subgrades be stripped of vegetation. Organic material at the base of the levees
should also be removed. Dewatering trenches will likely be required near the swale on the
eastern portion of the development to facilitate the placement of Engineered Fill in the
excavation. A,
Copyright 1943 x1einfelder, Inc. 4-174 page 14 of 17
File No. .20-3179-01 K L E I N F E L D E R '
February 2, 1993
All fill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density ,
as determined by the ASTM D-1557 test procedure. In our opinion, Engineered Fill used to
construct the levee can consist of both organic or inorganic native materials from the borrow
site locations and from excavations along the base of the proposed levee. We recommend that
project specifications require that whenever organic soils are used as fill, that some blending
with the nonorganic materials occur, possibly on a 80:20 (inorganic to organic) basis. We '
suggest that a maximum organic content, as determined by the burn out test method of 10
percent, be considered. During grading periodic samples of inplace Engineered Fill should
be recovered for triaxial and permeability testing to confirm design strength and permeability '
values.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The review of plans and specifications, field observations, and testing by Kleinfelder, Inc. are
an integral part of the conclusions and recommendations made in this report. If Kleinfelder,
Inc. is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume Kleinfelder, Inc.'s '
responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction. The required tests,
observations, and consultation by Kleinfelder, Inc. during construction includes, but.is not
necessarily limited to:
• Continuous observation and testing during site preparation and grading and
placement of Engineered Fill
• Consultation as required during construction
The above listed testing and observations would be additional services provided by our firm.
The costs for these services are not included in our current fee arrangements. ,
LIMITATIONS
• The conclusions and recommendations in this report are for design purposes for the '
proposed Cypress Lakes project as described in the text of this report. The
conclusions and recommendations in this report are invalid if:
• The report is used for adjacent or other property '
• Changes of grades and/or groundwater occur between the issuance of this report ,
and construction
• Any other change is implemented which materially alters the project from that ,
proposed at the time this report was prepared
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-175 Page 15 of 17 '
File No. 20-3179-01 KLEINFELD.ER
February 2, 1993
• The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the borings drilled
for this investigation. It is possible that variations in the soil conditions exist between
or beyond the points of exploration, or the groundwater elevation may change, both
of which may require additional investigations, consultation, and possible design
revisions.
* This report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of
practice which existed in Contra Costa County at the time the report was written. No
warranty, express or implied, is made.
• It is the CLIENT'S responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the
designer, contractor, subcontractor, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety.
• This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a
reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site)
or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the
passage of time. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall
notify Kleinfelder, Inc. of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report,
Kleinfelder, Inc. may require that additional work be performed and that an updated
report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or
anyone else will release Kleinfelder,*Inc. from any liability resulting from the use of
this report by any unauthorized party.
' r
Copyright 1993 Kleinfelder, Inc. 4-176 Page 16 of 17
File No. 20-3179-01 K t E t N F E t D E R
February 2, 1993
We appreciate the omni to have been of service this r '
app opportunity ce to you on s p o�ect and oust this
report contains the information requested. If you have any question after reviewing this
report or need additional information, please contact us. ,
Respectfully submitted, I
KLETI``nLDER, INC.
G. Steve Malinke
Staff Engineer
RQF��ti9 �
COQ ZRY
No. 388 ,
Ron Heinen, G.E. E*suss .,
Regional Manager orECH��Q���
-j£OF CAl\F
GSM:md 2193
Attachments '
t
Copyrfyht 1993 Ktefnfelder, Inc. 4-177 Paye 17 of 17
GOLF COURSE t I '� t•\\ '
sl A D.�oA .\
AJEWA Toiler + .
' t. ••� -1' • - CA JEWLY AQAO 7 .1 PifIt :• •�
2-
/tet �•• ,\`• '� - -- .a -:c / I i I ♦"' V 9.
�f- •.J - _ — ,: - '. t �, _ ;�a Roo,
�..$etl�el Is . Sy °o,• ' ,__ ^"yS
fo
ST m IQ
.i4000N .PumaoBL-- gOAO �- :r'ew 7
1 _ •�.• Sta--_ � _-• � Rio '':' ^� 'r
�`•..X'.\ `• '� i' •�� - .�'/ O O
� Trailers
•r•-• Park
• .�� 1. .1�_ ia. H 0
U- PROJECT SITE � 1
L. C) U HQ V A :': .„Y" .' ' .,C•.{� + -{-- ..\
,•` 7 i sem:: +- o a ! {�� +t l e�
ILI
C.
j �>s�2�µj`>::`•.k:•:;:�.i�s'•-.,. a:_?.".".:1l - � S
!BU al
"^:[07C::•:tit:•}:•%• 1 / .
ABY 4xx
o...-__.� .e... 'w,; _. _ /=-'• � ,;�,oc.•.:Y••:'o�:.:'.>..,t} �'^'r'i / ..�. .
+ . .:M'.r.`i!%'a;•:w....ii: ii::tra�:::•'•::. rt•:t.:: ;iy�: /' •.
SLOUGH G'E1S• FIELD '-'.`"'"' " :"''• -
..kh ri,::�G'�,wl".'•, Kim e.�\•tiulY..:.,- 1
�♦✓...._i L L-� • I ,Y.K.7L•Y1�.Y.•:wvl,[ri�+.•'r.Y!aat�?\w•rd•.�.:�i�'}H�:.v%•:4%.:uwi, I` r.,.�
- - • � -.:�n,;r•;C!t?:ttw•i:'".tcw...}}ii::y :. ••�•^.vi:.40:+w•Y _•.�... 1 •,
.i I >.r.i;:ct.x::::•�: t:�A.,xt• .t+w...r„y;,:, � t a
�.' � »•2aaxni;rnisiiri:::!iit�:tiwv.•.:,v::v.•i:•ai.',.�.i:4%i�r::ti: ;\ 1 1
at•Ya'aiira:r,Y.,.,.;,;r::�.. .::::'
•:.�:.i.»Y.2%:::rt[t. ..:oi:•: r e 1
•-•rxr•t::..; >G ty�
`��.�. 1 ,,/4`', O:wrTM:i:i'%��:ywUi'',\`':•'•.'•^..7.C`'t�'`4i .:%�.flp.. ri.'L:A iG •Yip.. j...�... �a�
ot
� i•. '�,v,♦;w;rtreyr.iY.tw.....e:\,<•:,:;v:w:.:nr.x „.;t.;4;.
' ...�.. . .. - F%+rarenain waa.�k.... . .::W.::Y�cat•A• �:i.Ytra. • ' _
'\� .. . .,rt•:t•:r,�:,,,;.;,;;,., ::tit•;;• -� .S
^ ♦.' - ' ` jam.• .:r.:o:kr.isii'�muu �."�rni':� %t .i. 1 .. --- - o -
��:�'� t••-•fi: }?'X,4.
Sw,Y.�Y•:C [•:}• ;;7,n��:�`:"t.!{•i�iY;YL.., J
\\\`� '1 \: ' . I •Xnr~O\♦:.C%.(':4't,(,. AM ���.}Y4`'l�[K tt\r%•w:v-•'A' 1 I I
i / ',; :4w<P:r.��" '�'•:!�76aY iiii:•Y�Y::utt.w.Y•'�.p.:c4 \ 1�
\ I 1 :ic,i 'l.+:`..»�;:.�.- z�w::.�,ion Z•>:t:tv;�l�;{./�\�•a c� -
-♦ ♦ :I'i.o�:f:.:::'::::::" \.'':•aiY 11}%1!1';•1;�.wii'
�� .iii•Y.:w,} >xaK.:c::4�sncmc;rt;r.:;:t••,.:....r•�.;t:...i.
\\ \\ /• .,:.:4ii::4:i.•.:y �%•}'w'yw"Q..'n`^X".%`iNiii'dMaaft•Y.;�.qw�..p�
-,,)• \\ / .•, .^Y^•:<Y'y<r?ar.Y�Y.a::,'{»',�'U+ny'Y%%��.G 1iw�•'wli vr�... •IL �—J ...�..
.. �' •'�^!'!i.:<t}%:i%":;'CCI.X•)'.:/inY.,ii:UiiYAiYri": •• J•'
-�: �::i n.'ri:•Yr.•wt:ti^'lyaTwi} :
X :.:v.C:P.i4:::!^CG:q:�.:YIX•
•''I'C..'.:.r..:.tr.:.:t:.i::w::rttoY....;:::•;; »r:ax::•.;;:.: '\�• �r.
\`\ \ .I F?.::.:!rcat•in:x_;,:�crr,..,,..Y♦,•`.-::: .: rij.ix<t•o}i}ic•:au::;�:;;: V�
\ �},j�'LJii.:vi:j•i� 4%.tirt•]L•}}•4M'3
w�M).0\�
v
♦ w.} „J 1i;:....,N:t:iw::.t!\wr:a„ft{,•1.CG,.k .• i•. .i,: 4ti
\ I u]•:C•SN1M<;S:??N:.iY .+•. -•
-•\ a r
, .1e• `\ , {„_. ,.._...� III
------------
i ;�aY _... ..._ - -..._..._
•.Gas welt RsHSereens �1 Tree CageA- ------------ _ -- SCALE
' LANE 0 Q000 4000 ft
R ock
J 1
S
SITE LOCATION MAP PLATE
knKLEINFELDER - CYPRESS LA=
HOTCHKISS TRACT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A-1
PROJECT NO- 20-3179-01
' M-6
4-178
-+- DENOTES APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
NO SCALE i
U
>ti
5n' ,t0 O O
_ m a
O
Ih 1'
1 �lz
1 -
,
a
cn , ? e
n '
; o co o ,t
.1
Go ,,
� �0 1
ti =
c o
Z.
N m b
1� m+
' cot
PROPOSED LEVEE --
;c '
� 10
1 Z
ca
\ 1 N t
1 I
of
Ic
,
1 _
4 \ b
v 0 v v r, z i 735
% 1n ° m ORING 128
\ i
REFERENCE: BORING LOCATION PLOT.; BOHLEY/MALEY ASSOCIATES; UNDATED
BORING LOCATION MAP PLATE '
k%l KLEIN F E L D Ek cYPRsss L's
! HOTCHKISS TRACT
CONTRA COSTh CouNTY, CALIFORNIA 2 '
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 4_179
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DNISICNS LTR DESCRIPTION 164AKX1 D1V xxa LTR DESCAMMIN
ow W991rawe oswis or Gravel Sano mtaneos,Far0 of tnorgarX Alli od-Vyfav surdds s,roaw.
ro ma or L sats a cttryey fww sorsa or cryotr wts WIm
GRAVEL SILTS OWS oiutcty.
PbartyyraWd pnrNe a praval Sammorlua,too ---
AND G P or no yew. r ANDIn4
C L wm days of ioar to nwrtom Pttsaoty,
GRAVELLY CLAYS 9 mveM day's wraty cwm t*y cryo.Man
SOILS O M SaygmvMo,grawMmrw�4 rn~os. LL t 50 tatYL
O L Organic air ane arPnio$A-GrYs of bar
COARSE GC Ctayay9""0' raWEfaneS4ymaS+aes. FINE pfaway.
GRAINED GRAINED
SOLS S W Wo9gre0sd aloud:of graysiy sands.fmie or ne SOILS M N tnerganc site.ntiaaaoota ofdietwWwww
SAND fataa SILTS woo a airy sail.Siam illta.
ANOa P Pm*9r&*d wage a orsrap%V We.wo at no
AND
SANDY fres. CLAYS C N hw9am daq d Utpn p"iml.tat days
'S S M SIM Bands."M.ani six MUMSa> LL.v,50 O N Oryardc days d otsdYrnt to high p=wfy.
r
Ewtft Clayoy ane day ma"Mos. F
LY CROANIC SOILS P t Pau ud ottrtr dc tVWapaseas.
Standard penetration split spoon sample
Modified California sampler
1 Shelby tube sample
T Water level observed in boring
No recovery
NFWE No free water encountered
NOTE: The lines separating strata on the logs
represent approximate boundaries only.
The actual transition may be gradual.
No warranty is provided as to the continuity
of soil strata between borings. Logs
represent the soil section observed at
the boring location on the date of
drilling only.
PLATE
LK L E 1 N E E L D E.R BORING LOG LEGEND
' A-2
PROJECT NO. 20'3179-01
4-180
i
Date Completed: 3/30/92 Surface Conditions: Pasture
Logged By: JMY Groundwater: Rotary wash boring.
Total Depth: 21.5 feet
FIELD LABORATORY
+- DESCRIPTION
4- + OJ N C 4.
} CL 3 N -*.-
I+ a a } + Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -7.5
aa) e0. Ea ° L W V 6 O t m .L.. y y
o cn m co IL=cox U v) o a, USCS CIassification
(OL) ORGANIC SILT - Black, Very Organic, i 1
Soft, Moist
7 (SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine
to Fine Grained, Loose, Moist
I �
S 11
(SC) CLAYEY SAND - Light Gray, Very
Fine to Fine Grained, Loose
10 (SM) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Cemented,
33 Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense
(SM) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Not
Cemented, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense
(SP) SAND - Black-Gray, Not Cemented, r
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense
15 48
(SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Cemented
g Y
Very Fme to Fine Grained, Dense
(SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Lass
Cemented, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Dense
20-
36
END OF BORING
I
i
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE i
KLEIN F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 or Y
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CA. A-3
PROJECT NO. 20-3174-0.1 LOG OF BORING B-1
4-181
Surface Conditions-, Pasture-
Date Completed: 3/30/92
Logged By: Imy
Groundwater. Rotary wash boring.
Total Depth: 25. feet
FIELD LABORATORY. DESCRIPTION
1A C
M L W
V C 0) 0 q..
4- W L C L W Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -8.5
0. :3 0 -0" 0. 0) 4) 4-
(L E 0 :11 C 4- C 6 L 4- �cV1 C
W W - L W U 00 0 4- W *- W W USCS Classification
C3 I(Al co 00 0.1EUX U U) 0 11-- CL.
4 (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Slack-Brown, Very
Organic, Soft, Moist
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
5
9 Very Silty, Soft, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
ALoose
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Less Silt,
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Very Slight
Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
10 14 Dense
(SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
15
25
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
20— 28 Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
Medium Dense
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Cemented,
Very Fine Grained, Dense
52
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT I of 2
0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CA. A-4
t—PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-2
4-182
FIELD LABORATORY,
DESCRIPTION
E d � .
q31 '—Nf-1 *- W LC L w
'^
E a TC4- N C E L - t 4-
0. C
a, ro LWU 00 0 + •� a as Continued from previous late
o cn ( P plate)
(SP) SAND - Light brown, Very Fine to Fine I ,
Grained, Dense J
END OF BORING
a
30
35
40
45
50
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEINFELDEIR HOTCHKISS TRACT z of 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
A-4
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01
LOG OF BORING B-2
4-183
Surface Conditious-, Pasture
Date Completed: 1/10/92
Logged By: My Groundwater. Rotary wash boring
Total Depth: 31.5 feet
FIELD LABORATORY
DESCRUMON
4-
4- C
4. 31 L 4- $A 4- U10
:1 C 41 0 4- 1
3 in op
Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -8.0
4- QJ L M C L 0
-4-- d) 01 .4—
CL e 0 MC4- -_ C E L $4- C0 C0) to — LdIQ 00 0 4- 0 4) 0) USCS Classification
C-3 U)l Cm cc 0. r-u.v U M 0 CL
(PT) SILTY PEAT - Dark Gray-Brown, Soft,
W Moist
5 Organic
Content
55%
5
(SM) SILTY SAND - White-Gray, Very Fine
5 ' "il-1...: to Fine Grained, Loose
(SM) SILTY SAND - White-Gray, Graded to
Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
Loose
10- (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, More Silty,
27 -,,,Very Fine To Fine Grained, Medium Den!L_r7
(SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Dense
15
36
20—a 35
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT Tor 2
0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA-
■ PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-3 A-5
4-184
FIELD LABORATORY
4- 4- DESCRIPTION
• 4� � + 7_C O! 01 � .
+L- 0. O N a 0.L
L. d w .�-
a C E O T �-C 4- E L '- L N C
a E — = a u o C 0 +- a (Continued from previous plate)
C� cn to a o a v L) cn •-
42
30
32
END OF BORING
'1
35
I
40
45 ,
SO
r
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEIN F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 2 of 2
- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-5
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-3
4-185 ,
Surface Conditions-. Boring drilled 100 feet north
Date Completed: 4/IZ92 of stake.
Logged By: Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2 foot
Total Depth: 2I. feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
W C
31 L 1p 0; 4- fil
CW C) 4-
z W L C L 0 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -6.9
4- W 4-
0- a 0 C 4. 0— cCL E L 94- C 4W 0 C
do M — W U 0 0 4- 4- 0) W USCS Classification
0 U), cc 0 0 0. 1P to L).V L) C/) 0 (L
(PT) SILTY PEAT - Black,_Soft, Moist
(SM) SILTY
SAND - Light Gray Brown,
Very Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Loose
5 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine
6
T. to Fine Grained, Loose
(SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
10— 12
15
28
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Slightly
Silty, Hard, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
Medium Dense
20— 44
END OF BORING
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
kpq K L E I N F E L D t R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of I
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-6
LOG OF BORING B-4
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 7
1 4-186
Surface Conditions: On sandy hill 10 to 15 feet
Date Completed: 4/3/92 above most of site. '
Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 25.5 foot
Total Depth: 31.50 feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
,- m u+ 4-
4- 91 L+- %A r- N
L N Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): 14.0
0. 3 N a+ a s W +-
�
L01u OO 0 +cn +-L- mut +a�- cNr 4=t
is ori a rc� U r a YJSCS Classification
Q (I
(SM) SILTY SAND - Brown, Slightly Silty,
Yery Fine with Fine Grains, Loose, Moist
7
(SP) SAND - Light Brown, Loose, Moist
5 8 Triaxial
Comp.
10 9
Medium Dense
15 14
20-
14
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
jk09KLEINFELDtR HOTCHt5TRACT
loft
CONTRA COUNTY, CA.
A-7
PROTECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING 6-5
i
4-187
oe
FIELD LABORATORY
DESCRIPTION
1}11*- M y CLr +N-
d E o 71 C'+- — C E L 4- L U1 1
a roc.a u o 0 o t m + v a (Continued from previous plate)
ca w 38I1
30 _J
15
END OF BORING
35
40-
45
50—
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEINFELL? ER
HOTCHKISS TRACT 2 4# i
1 0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
A-7
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01
LOG OF BORING 8-5
4-188
oo, 1,
Surface Conditions: o sandy hill.
Date Completed: 4Z3/92
Logged By: )MY Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at 15.5 foot
Total Depth: 25. feet depth.
FIELD I LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
4.
0 4-
°i V a s m 0 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -2.0
Q E O M C4- — C IE L W N G
a Mo L 0) U o o +- #A +- d W USCS Classification
p to aD
cc a, �U\ U (n +- O F- o.
(SM) SILTY SAND - Brown, Very Slightly
I3 Silty, Vett' Fine with Fine Grains, Medium
Dense, Moist
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
Very Slightly Silty, Very Fine with Fine
5 29 -200 a15% Grains, Medium Dense, Moist
10-114
15 20 (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
20- 17
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATEof 2
K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-8
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 ' LOG OF BORING B-6
4-189
l
FIELD LABORATORY.
DESCRIPTION
d 4- L,. `" '`" `" i
c 9. os +.
+L- 3 t *#- 4) a W a � E
Q. 6 a T c - C E L 4- L' U1 c
m M — L a 0
0.o cn az 0 0 +- a 4- d Continued from previous plate)
cc VU w o r
j
END OF BORING
i -
30
i
35
7
i
1
i
40
I
45 i
1
i
i
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT 2of2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-6 A-8
4-190
Surface Conditions: On side of sandy hill.
Date Completed: 4/3/92
Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 19.5 foot
Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth.
FIELD j LABORATORY DESCRIPTION r
4- T L+- 0 -4- N
t m m _' +- W L L 0 + Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): 10.0 j
� 0. 3 0' 0+ a GI OJ +-
d E O TCS - C E L 4- L N C
CU ro — L 0, 0 0 0 +- a 0 a USCS Classification
o in m 00 `� E u x U in + o F- o_
$ (SM) SILTY SAND - Brown, Very Slightly
Silty, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Loose,
Moist
5 15 Triaxial
Comp. (SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine with
Permeability Fine Grains, Medium Dense, Moist
10 11
15 18
r
20 1 21 ,
END OF BORING
N.
25
CYPRESSLAKES PLATE
S
KI KLEIN F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
A-9
PROJEC'x' NO. 20-3179-01
LOG OF BORING BB-7
4-191
r ,
Surface Conditions_ On side of sandy hill.
Date Completed:_ 4/3/92 '-
' Logged By: JMY
Groundwater. Rotary wash boring.
Total Depth: 21.5 feet
I
FIELD LABORATORY
u+ t DESCRIPTION
L+- In 4- N
r 3 N u}i;' L. C v �� Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -8.0
' (. E O MC'- — C E l-0 4- C t
— n 2 a u 00 0 m v a �
d N m a s=v C) to + o N- a USCS Classification
r III
3 Organic (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray-Brows,
Content = III Very Organic, Soft, Moist
17% '
r I ' (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray-Brown,
Less Organic, Soft,
5 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Slightly
5 107 18 Direct Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose
Shear
-200 = 16%
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine
to Fine Grained, Loose
r
10 8 (S ) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Slightly
More Silt, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Loose
r ;
(SP) SAND - Black-Gray, Slightly Harder
15 Drilling, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
19 Dense
r
1
' 20 20 (SM) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Slightly
Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
Dense
FiWined,
SAND - Brown-Gray, Very Fine to Fine
aMedium Dense
END OF BORING
1
25
PLATE
CYPRESS LAKES I or I
KLEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT
' - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01
LOG OF BORING B-8 A-10
r 4-192
Surface Conditions; Drilled34 feetwest of stake.
Date Completed: 413/22 in a ditch.
Logged By: y Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 4 foot
Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
44- T L N4- N t
a
A4-
W \ :; W M 4-
0 +- W L C L 0 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -8.0
3 W 4- 0. at (1) 4-
CL r= 0 01 C4- — C E L4- (A
dM — LQ1U 00 0 +- V1 4- USCS Classification
0-
ttt
Iii (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray, Very
3 Organic, Soft, Moist
Iltilt
lit
5 3
(SM) SILTY SAND - Brown-Gray, Very Fine
to Fine Grained, Very Loose
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Less Silty,
Very Fine Fine to Fine Grained, Very,Loose
t
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, More Silty,
Very Fine with Fine Grains, Medium Dense
10
(SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
24
20-
32
Dense
END OF BORING
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT I of I
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
LOG OF BORING B-9 A-11
�—PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01
4-193
'
-- '
4-194
Surface Conditions: Low area
Date Completed: 4/6/92
Logged By: JMY
Groundwater. Rotary wash boring.
Total Depth: 26. feet
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION '
4- i
•-
`+- 71 L+- N +- N
d � C L N ~ Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -7.0
a E o 31C —c a L4- = a c r
c in m oc 0 c0 N +OP o W a°'. USCS Classification
1 �
for Organic (PT) PEAT - Black, Soft, Moist
10" Content = i i
Z 5696 I ' I (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray, Very
Organic, Soft
for
g" (ML) SANDY CLAYEY SILT - Black, Very
5 Fine to Fine Grained, Soft
5j (S) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Loose
16 113 16 Direct 4.8*
Shear
(SP) SAND - Black-Gray, Very Fine to Fine 14
Grained, Medium Dense
15 25 -
.r
(SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine
20 25 to Fine Grained, Medium Dense to Dense
25
`1 I
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
k" K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of z
10 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CA.
LOG OF BORING B-11 A-13
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 -
4-195 r
FIELD LABORATORY
DESCRIPTION
-
8t \ 4-- W L C a 4-
3 a
0-6- Q W 4J t
d a O T C 4*' — C E L 4- JG N c
a, ro — L 0; u o O o +- a •- m w (Continued from prerious plate)
0 V) m a o U.%,: U cry »- o r-- n-
END OF BORING
! * Torvane
i
s
;.
34 I
1
i
35
I
40-
45
54
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E ! N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 2 of z
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-13
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING $-11
1 4-196
Surface Conditions: Slightly higher than other
Date Completed: 5/20/92 fields.
Logged By: _ SM Groundwater._Groundwater encountered at 7.3 foot
Total Depth: 26.5 feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION i
N Q a v a 0 } Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -1.5
4- Wn°, m a0Co + a° a,u o + N aj �
o N m oo =(3. (S Cn ;- o a USCS Classification
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray, Slightly
21 104 7 ilty, Yery Fine with Fine Grains, Loose, Dry,
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Orange-Brown, i
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense,
Moist ,
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
5 9 Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
Loose, Moist
(SP/SM) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Loose
10 4 -200 - 8%
r
(SP/SM) SILTY SAND Gray, Very Slight
15 Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
15 -200 -10% Dense ,
(SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
20 29
(SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Slight Silt,
Yery Fine Grained, Medium Dense
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E I N F E L D R HOTCHKISS TRACT i of 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01
LOG OF BORING B-12 A-14
4-197
FIELD LABORATORY
ar u► r DESCRIPTION
0. E 71c4- — E L '. L N
a — Lar v o o + aCa,
o n) m 0 ( Z;UN v cn 0 a
(Continued from previous plate)
' 34 Very SIight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
Medium Dense
(SM) SILTY SAND - Blue-Gray, Very Slight
ilt, Very Fine to Fine Grained
END OF BORING '
1
30-
35
r
' 40
' 45
' 50—
CYPRESS LAKES
PLATE
KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT 2 of 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-14
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-12
4-198
- — — -- -- ------ --- . . -
Surface Conditions: Wheat field.
Date Completed. 4/16/92
Logged By: JMY - i I ,
Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2.8 foot
Total Depth: 21.5 feet _depth.
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
4- 71 L t UI +- N
t a - +- CU f- C L w a- Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -7.0 !
IL E 0 T C4- �- C E L `- C 0 C
Q1 n -- L Ol U 00 0 +- N a a USCS Classification
o cn m o o a =v v U v) t o f- a
( k Gray,
ORGANIC CLAYEY SANDY SILT -
11 Darray, Very Fine Grained, Moist
4 ;
(OL) ORGANIC SILT - Black, Moist
(OL) ORGANIC SILT - Black-Brown-Gray, . !
oist
(CL) SILTY CLAY - Brown-Gray, Soft,
Moist
5 6 118 25 -200 =28% (CL) SANDY CLAY - Blue-Gray, Very
Consol. andy, Very Fine to Fine Grained
(SM) CLAYEY SILTY SAND - Blue-Gray,
Very Clayey, Very Silty, Very Fine to Fine
rained, Loose
FT.
(SM) SILTY SAND - Blue-Gray;Very Fine
to Fine Grained
10 (SM) SILTY SAND - Blue-Gray, Slightly
13 Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
Dense
(SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine ,
Grained, Dense
15 30 '
(SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine
to Fine Grained, Dense
20-
31
END OF BORING
25
. CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT IofI
• CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. �)
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01
LOG OF BORING B-13 A-15
4-199
4 Surface Conditions; Wheat field:
Date Completed: 4/16/92
' Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2.3 foot
Total Depth: 31.5 feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY:
} DESCRIPTION
:1 LN t N
- L a Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -6.3} 3 111. Wt a W W +
a E TC`* �- C E L 4. L N C i
W cn m 00 a =Ux U (n ka d � a USCS Classlflcatlon
i
$
Ifine
OL) ORGANIC CLAYEY SILT - Dark
rown-Gray, Soft, Moist
CL) SILTY SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown,ery Sandy, Very Fine to Fine Grained
C) CLAYEY SAND - Brown-Gray, Very12 105 22 1.3ine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense
CL) SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Very
to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff
CL) SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Slightly
andy, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
tiff
12
(SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
15 34 J
20-
41
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E I N F E L D R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 2
i CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-16
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-14
4-200
FIELD LABORATORY,
+- DESCRIPTION
4- T L+- N 4- N
3C d M
+-
W L C G.
to a. E 0 T C4- --C E L �.- t C
v 0 — c. aj u 00 0 + 0 + w w (Continued from previous plate)
o cn m cc Ezux u cn +- o ►— 0-
16 16 a ri
� a
30 26 I
n
i
END OF BORING
�I II
35
a -
i
40-
45
0 45
SO ,
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT 7 of 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CA. A-16
P)2oncr NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-14
4-201
' Surface Conditions: Wbeat field.
I
Date Completed: 4/16/92
Logged By:
Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 8 foot
Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth rose to 2.3 foot I
' FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
v 4- w N t 4-
`- T L+- N +- 0
t 3 N }ut u L a L Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -6.2
4 EO TC'* - C E L � L N C
a, 0 — L a 0 0 0 0 +- N +- 0 W USCS Classification
a m m oa CL=U. U W +- o o.
' (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray-Brown,
9 103 23 1.5 Hydrometer Very Organic, Soft, Moist
IF Analysis (CL) SILTY CLAY - Gray,
Soft, Moist
(CL) SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Slightly
Y
Sandy, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Soft,
$ 8 118 I8 Hydrometer Moist -
Analysis (CL) SANDY CLAY - Light Gray-Brown,
Co.hsol. More Sand, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Soft,
Moist
(CL) SILTY SANDY CLAY - Light
Gray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Soft
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Slightly
10 Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
22 Dense
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
Slightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
Medium Dense
' - -
: (SP) SAND Light Gray Brown, Very Fine
15 to Fine Grained, Medium Dense _
12
20 14
END OF BORING
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT IofI
CONTRA COSTA COU14TY, CA. A-17
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-15
r 4-202
i Surface Conditions: Wbeat field.
Date Completed: 4/13/92
Logged By: _ JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 4 foot ,
Total Depth: 21.5 feet 10 inch depth.
FIELD I LABORATORY; DESCRIPTION I� ,
W L C L 0 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -4.6
d E 0 T C 4- y C E L 4- t LA C
O! A — L 40 0 00 0 � 0 +- a, 4) USCS CIassification
O (n to O C1 a =L)\ U (n 4-1 O E- a-
II1 ,� I I (OL) ORGANIC SILTY CLAY - Dark Brown,
III Very Silty, Very Organic, Soft, Moist
(CL) SANDY SILTY CLAY - Gray, Very
Fine to Fine Grained, Moist
12 (SM) SILTY SAND - Brown, Very Fine to
Fine Grained, Medium Dense, Moist 1
5 Triaxial
Comp.
Pei meability (SP/SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Slight
6 i
-20 -109'o Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose
I
(SP) SAND - Gray, Very SUM Silt, Very Fine '
10 to Fine Grained, Medium Dense
13 I
I
I
15 25 Of) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Slightly
Silty, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Medium
Dense
(SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense 1
20 21
END OF BORING
25
PLATE
CYPRESS LAKES i of i
KLEIN F E L D iE R HOTCHKISS TRACT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CA. A-1$
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-16
4-203 '
7 Surface Conditions: Wheat field.
Date Completed: 4114/92-
Logged By: imy Groundwater: Groundwater encountered at-8 foot
Total Depth: 26. feet depth, rose to-3.5 foot
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
4_
Ct 0 1 1P 1 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft)'. -3.0
W C L
CL 3 us jP b. CL W W
E 0 =1 C&+. - C E L 4- L jP C
Qj M LIWU 00 o ". 4A W USCS Classification
(0 as CL r_UX U (n a.
(OL-CL) SILTY ORGANIC CLAY DaArk.
5 71 32 0.9 Gray-Brown, Very Organic, Soft, Moist
(CL) SILTY CLAY - Brown-Gray, Soft,
Moist
$
9 TriQLxial
Coinp.
(SM) CLAYEY SILTY SAND - Light
.TAGray-Brown, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
10 �Loose
—
2 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
Very Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
nose
".1 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
Slightly Hard Drilling, Very Fine to Fine
15
21 Grained, Medium Dense
20-
22
25 L
CYPRESS LAKES LATE P
I
K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
A-19
LOG OF BORING B-17
PROJECT' NO. 20-3179-01
4-204
01 FIELD LABORATORY
� +. a► N x w DESCRIPTION
w-
t LN +► i �N.
Q) � V a C GI 01
— t wL C l 0
0.d E a T C4- N C E L `� .}c N C
w A_— L a, u 0 0 0 4 +- a a (Continued from previous plate)
p cn co cc aE:u x U in •- o r a
15
END OF BORING
30-
35
0 35
J
1
45 -
i
50 —
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E I N F E L D ,E R WOTCHKISS TRACT s or 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. ,
10 1A-19
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 : LOG OF BORING B-17
4-205 r
Surface Conditions: Wheat field.
Date Completed: 4/I4/92
' Logged By: JMY j Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2.3 foot
Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth.
FIELDI LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
4- t GJ N L 4.
71 L+- N r- IJ1
W L C a + Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -2.9
b EO 71 C V. .- C E L 4. C U1 C
CU L a, i o 0 04- a +- a
O L USCS Classification
(J) m CIO a�V X U lA r 0.
F-O
' . . . (OL) ORGANIC SILTY CLAY - Dark
Gray-Brown, Very Organic, Very Silty, Soft,
5 _ Moist
' 5 6 93 29 Copsol. (CL)
) SILTY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Soft,Mois _
r -
10 3 _
' (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Slightly
Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Very Loose j
15 (SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine
16 97 21 Direct Grained, Medium Dense
Shear i
i
' (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Slightly
20 28 Silty, Very Fine with Fine Grains, Medium
Dense
(SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
END OF BORING
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
Ilk" KLEINFELD E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 1
' - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01
LOG OF BORING B-18 A-20
4-206
Surface Conditions: Pasture.
Date Completed: 4/14/92_
Logged By: JMY Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 2.8 foot '
Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION '
} 07 a m 0 a s L Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -2.2
0. E O 71 C 4- •— C E L 4- C in C
W cn m ao a EvX v N } C � a USCS CIassiflcation
(OL) ORGANIC SII.TY CLAY - Black,
Slightly Organic, Soft, Moist
10 (C-) SANDY CLAY - Brown-Gray, Very
Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff
5 (SC) CLAYEY SAND - Brown-Gray, Very ,
13 Fine to Fine Grained, Loose
(SM) SILTY SAND - Brown-Gray, Very Fine
to Fine Grained, Loose ,
l0 8 —�
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
Very SIight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
Loose
15 22 _
(SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Slight Silt,
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense '
20-
15
(CL) SILTY CLAY - Brown-Gray, Stiff ,
END OF BORING
25
CYPRESS LAKES
PLATE
K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
LOG OF BORING B19 A-21
-
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 '
4-207
01 Surface Conditions: Pasture
Date Completed: 41131,92
Logged By: -JMY Groundwater Groundwater encountered at 7 foot
Total Depth: 25. feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
4.. +. m ui C 4.
31 L 0 4-
+_ IV 0
Z tA -*z- 4)C L C L 0 Approximate Surface Elevation (ft); -4.5
3 to 4. 0. Qj 0 4-
6 0 M CU.. .- C E L 4- Z 0 (F
M - LWU 00 0 +- 1A 4.. 41 0) RSCS Classification
0 01 03 0 0 0. r-UX U LO 4- 0 Q.
(OL) ORGANIC SELT - Dark Gray-Brown,
I 1 1 (OL) ORGANIC
Organic, Medium Stiff, Moist
(OL) ORGANIC SILTY CLAY - Black,
9 Medium Stiff, Moist
(ML) CLAYEY SANDY SILT - Gray, Very
Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Grained,
oist
Fine
(SM) Y ND -Very to Fine Grained, Loose, Moist
MI.,
Slightly
llr)t( Clayey,
SILTY SAND - Black-Gray,
gh 17
y
Very Fine to Fine Grained,
*�ose, Moi
oose, Moist
(CL)
L) SANDY CLAY - Black-Gray, Very
Sandy,
Ver
Sandy. Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
tiff, Moist tiff, Moist
10 10 (CL) SANDyY CLAY - Black-Gray, Slightly
(CL)
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
tiff,
Moist
(SM) SILTY SAND - Black-Gray, Slightly
Silty, ry Ve Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
Dense
(SM) SILTY
SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine
15
18 Grained, Medium Dense
.3
(SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
20 - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine
—
(SP) SAND L1
2'6 Grained
(SM)
SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine
to Fine Grained, Medium Dense o—
(CL) SANDY CLAY - Light Brown-Gray,
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEIN FELDeR HOTCHKISS TRACT I of 2
LCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
A-22
LOG OF BORINIG B-20
�FROJECT NO. 20-3179-01
4-208
FIELD LABORATORY
DESCRIPTION
3% L
4- V a 00
4A - 4- W L c
CL 4- CL 41
M c4* 0
— 6 L c
0 0 aj (Continued from preYlous plate)
CL I
Medium Stiff to Stiff, Very Fine to Fine
�Grained, Stiff
END OF BORING i '
30-
35
40-
45
so—
A
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
2 of 2
KLEINFELU t; K HOTCHKISS TRACT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTYv CA.
A-22
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-20
4-209
Surface Conditions; Pagure,
Date Completed:— 412/92
Logged By; jhdy
Groundwater. Groundwater encountered a-t-2.1- foot
Total Depth: 21.5 feet de
FIELD LABORATORY._ DESCRIPTION
-C4-
4- +-
to 4-: L M g GjL Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -5.8
0. 3 in W 4-
(L E 0 31 C4- — C 6 L q-
(V 4v — L 0 -)-- 0.4 4- W
U)j go C 3 00 00 2 30 X +-CO USCS Classification
(OL) ORGANIC CLAY - Black, Very Soft,
5W Moist
1 105 22 Direct y (PT) PEAT - Black, Very Soft
for Shear
12* (O
L
)
O
R
G
A
N
IC SILTY CL
A
Y
- Black
, V_
e
r_y2 Soft
for (CL) SANDY CLAY - Gray-Brown, Very2 98 22 Consol. Fine to Fine Grained, Softfor
8" (SC) SAND - Brown-Gray, Very
Fine to Fine Grained, Loose
(CL) SANDYCLAY - Dark-Gray, Very fine
to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff
(SC) CLAYEY SAND - Gray, Very Fine to
Fine Grained, Medium Stiff
10 8 (SM) SILTY SAND - Gray. Very Fine
Grained, Medium
_T
Stiff
(SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Gained, Medium Stiff
15 20 (SM) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown,
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Stiff
(CL) CLAY - Orange-Gray-Black, Medium
Stiff
(CL) CLAY - Light Brown, Very Stiff
20— 34
(SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine
-\drained, Dense
END OF BORING
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEINFELDE; R HOTCHKISS TRACT I Of I
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA,
LLOG OF BORING B-21 P:R:O]JECT Na. 20-3179-01
4-210
Surface Conditions: Pgstgre.
Date Completed: 4/2/92
Logged By: I ,
Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 1.4 foot
Total Depth: 21. feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION '
4- 71 L 4- N N
t d a ) a C L+ Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -7.0
d E 0 MC`* — [ R LM-
W ro — LWU 00 0 ,- N •- d USCS Classification
O (A m 00 Q. E U\ U (A +- to 1- Q.
(OL) ORGANIC SII T - Black, Very Organic, ,
4 l Soft, Moist
(SIA) SILTY SAND - Light Gray-Brown, '
1. Very Fine to Fine Gained, Soft
5 9 Triaxial '
Comp. (SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Slight Silt,
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense
10 12 113 15 Direct 3.0*
Shear ,
(SP) SAND - Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Dense ,
15 30 111 18 DiFect .0*
Shbar ,
(SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine '
Grained, Dense
20 Stiff
42 •$t (CL) CLAY - Light Brown, Very '
(SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Dense
END OF BORING ,
# Torvane
1
25
,
� CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
1 of i
KLEINFELQER HOTCHKISS TRACT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-24 '
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 i LOG OF BORING B-22
4-211
Surface Conditions: PgZZIre. i
Date Completed: 4/1/92 i
' Logged By: JMY
Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 6 foot i
Total Depth: 21.5 feet death. i
FIELD LABORATORY
} DESCRIPTION
v- T (--4- m 4-z C
n
d 3 N N 9) C0- CL as aLi A Appro-druate Surface Elevation (ft): -4.0
0.p. E O M C'+ �- C E L 4- z N [
a m LWO 00 0 +- � +- a USCS Classification
G m cc EUX U N p N- 0.
1 Im (PT) SILTY PEAT - Black, Soft, Moist
10
1
' S (SNI) SII.TY SAND - Brown-Gray. Slightly
9 102 20 Direct Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose
_ Shur
•� I
1 '
i
' 10 —i
7
I
(SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Very Fine
Grained, Loose
20
15
(SP) SAND - Gray, Yery Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense 1
I
20 34
END OF BORING
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
KLEINFELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT loft
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-25
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-23
' 4-212
Surface Conditions: 10 feet high than B-25
Date Completed: 4/1/92
Logged By: ]MY - Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 15 foot ,
Total Depth: -26. feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIMON '
4- + 41 N L `►'
4- T L+- N + N
". 0 aC, Qj m L ,� Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): 3.2
3 a W+_ a GCI W +
CL E O TC4- - C 6 L L N C
W to L a� u o 0 0 .- w a �+ USCS Classification
o (n m o o a U. L) cn o a
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Very
I
17 Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
edium Dense, Moist
(SP) SAND - Light Brown, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense, Moist '
(SP) SAND - Light Gray-Brown, Very Fine
5 18 to Fine Grained, Medium Dense, Moist ,
i
(SP) SAND - Light Brown-Tan, Very Fine to '
10 16 Fine Grained, Medium Dense, Moist
I ,
(SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine ! '
Grained, Medium Dense, Moist
15
10 (SM) SILTY SAND - Gray, Slightly Silty, , r
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium Dense
i
20 14 '
25
CYPRESS LAKES
PLATE
KLEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-26
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-24
4-213 '
S. • FIELD LABORATORY
DESCRIPTION
T L f- N t }
z C a W
M CL F O MC%- N C F- L w s w C
a cn cc Q o ,- a a ar (Continued from precious plate)
END OF BORING
30
- I
1
I
35
I.
' 40
1
45
' SO
i
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 2 of 2
' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-26
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-24
4-214
oe
Surface Conditions: Pasture-
Date Completed: 4/j/92
Logged By: 7MY
Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 3.9 foot
Total Depth: 25.5 feet depth.
FIELD LABORATORY '
+ DESCRIPTION
?1 L♦- in 4-
N i
} � N �+ L v WApproximate Surface Elevation (ft): -7.7
CL 6 0 D,C4 — C E L 4- rea — N C
0 cn ao 00 0.0. Z U x U W + o � a USCS Classification !
4
; (OL) CLAYEY ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray, ! ,
..,,-\Very Organic, Soft, Moist
PEAT - Dark Gray, Soft
i
8
5 '(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown-Gray,
SIightly Silty, Very Fine to Fine Grained, 1
Loose
(SM) SII.T'Y SAND - Black-Gray, Very Fine I
to Fine Grained, Loose '
10 9 (SC) CLAYEY SAND - Black-Gray, Very
Fine to Fine Grained, Loose
(SP) SAND - Black-Gray, Very Fine to Fine ,
Grained, Loose
(SP) SAND - Light Gray, Very Fine to Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
15 23
(SM) SIZT'Y SAND - Light Gray-Black, Very
1
Silty, Hard, Very Fine Grained, Medium
Dense '
20 53
(SP) SAND -. Light Gray-Black, Very Fine to
Fine Grained, Dense ,
37 '
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE ,
k" K LEIN F E L D E' R HOTCHKISS TRACT 1 of 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. _ ,
PROJECT NO. 20-3I79-01
LOG OF BORING B-25 A 27
4-215 '
i
t, FIELD LABORATORY
'- DESCRIPTION
t 3 w a+� M ri w +
CL e0 ZIc 4- -- c 6 t_ 4- .c a c
m m L QJ u 0 0 0 +- to *- a a (Continued from previous plate)
O to m CO3(03 Z;U z U W O i- 4
END OF BORING
i
I
1
30-
35
40
i
45
S0
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E I N F E L D E� R HOTCHKISS TRACT 2 of 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA.
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01
LOG OF BORING B-25 A-27
4-215
y
1 Surface Condition • ClIt wheat
Date Completed: 5/20/92
Logged By: jNry Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at 6,5 foot
Total Depth: 26.5 feet death.
-- j
FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
�.
} 3 a a W L C nLr '' Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -5.9 j
1 d E O T C-4- �- C E L S L N C
c+ m -- L a, 0 0 0 } a a USCS Classification
o cn m 00 =U X U W 4- o F- n. {
III i
8 109 14 (OL) ORGANIC SILT - Gray-Brown, Moist
(SM) SILTY SAND - Yellow-Gray-Brown,
Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose, Moist
1
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown-Gray,
' S 7 Very Fine to Fine Grained, Loose, Very
Moist
I
i
(SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Very
Slight Sand, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
Medium Dense
10 13
(SP/SM) SAND - Light Gray, Very Slight
Sand, Very Fine to Fine Grained, Medium
1 Dense
15 21 -200 =11%
1
' (SP/SM) SAND - Light Brown VeryFine to.
Fine Grained, Dense
' 20 31 -200 = 7%
i
i
25
-CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
k" KLEIN FELDER HOTCHKISS TRACT Iof2
' 0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-29
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-27
4-218
FIELD LABORATORY
v. 4- L a + DESCRIPTION
d 4- c or m +-
CL 3 N N� (LFA, C C N
OaJ to [�. 6Ci (? O 94- O O If1 0! 0�1
o cn m np s=U V U M +- o (Continued from precious plate)
32 I. 1
1
' 1 END OF BORING �
30 1
1
35
_ 1 .
1
40 1
i
45
. 1
1
50 1
1
- 1
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E I N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT 2of2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. 1
A-29
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING BB-27
4-219 1
Surface Conditions: Cut wheat field.
' bate Completed: /2n/9
' Logged By: JMY - Groundwater. Groundwater encountered at IO foot
Total Depth: 21.5 feet depth. i
' FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION
v}. T a
d L c L N Approximate Surface Elevation (ft): -6.6
a e 7+C+* `0C e � v. C w 1 I
IV ro 0 L v u o 0 0 4- 0 a a USCS Classification
C3 rn co ca o s u x Lz m « o }- d I
ti 70 28 (OL/ML) ORGANIC SANDY SILT -
Gray-Brown, Slightly Organic, Slight Sand,
Very Fine Grained, Moist
sic (ML) CLAYEY SANDY SILT - Dark Gray,
3 58 69 t 1171,
1 Very Fine Grained, Moist
i i (ML) SANDY ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray,
77 Very Fine Grained, Moist
' 5 PT) SILTY PEAT - Black-Gray, Very Moist
(OL) ORGANIC SILT - Dark Gray, Very
7 11�/ rganic, Soft
(CL) CLAYEY SILT - Light Brown-Gray,
lightly Clayey, Very Moist
CL) SILTY CLAY - Gray, Medium jr
CL) CLAY - Black-Gray
10 = (CL) SANDY CLAY - Black-Gray, V
9 -200 -11% with Fine Grains
(CL) SANDY CLAY - Black-Gray, V
' andy, Very Fine to Fine Grained
(SM) CLAYEY SILTY SAND - Black
Yery Fine to Fine Grained
SF/Sly SILTY SAND - Gray, Slight ery Fine to Fine Grained, Loose
15 23 (SP/SM} SILTY SAND - Gray, Yery
ilt, Very Fine to Fine Grained
(SP/SM) SILTY SAND Gray, Very Fine
Grained, Medium Dense
' _j
(SP/SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown-Gray,
Very Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained
(SP/SM) SILTY SAND - Light Brown, Very
Slight Silt, Very Fine to Fine Grained,
' 202$ -200 -11% Medium Dense
END OF BORING
25
CYPRESS LAKES PLATE
K L E 1 N F E L D E R HOTCHKISS TRACT ; °f I
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA. A-30
PROJECT NO. 20-3179-01 LOG OF BORING B-28
i 4-220
Response to Letter U: Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, February, 16, 1993
Response U-1:
Comment noted. The last sentence on page 1-8 (continuing on the top of page 1-9) is
revised to read:
"The second channel would be approximately 11 acres in size."
Response U-2:
Comment noted. No response is necessary.
4-221
Letter V
February 1 , 1993
VIA FACSIMILE AND
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Earl Wetzel
Chairman
East County Planning commission
c/o Art Beresford
Planner
Contra Costa County Community Development
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94543
Re: Cypress Lakes and Country Club
Project Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Report, December 1992
Dear Art:
This letter is to provide the comments of the
Emerson Dairy and the Burroughs family on the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report dated December 1992 (the
"Revised DEIR11) for the Cypress Lakes and Country club
Project (the "Project") . The Emerson Dairy and the
Burroughs family own two of the three properties included in
the Cypress Corridor area near the Project site. The
Cypress Corridor area is the Oakley Community Center Mixed
Use (M8) District in the Contra Costa County General Plan
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in January 1991 (the
"County General Plan") .
1. We would appreciate clarification that the
Cypress Corridor land use assumptions (Mixed Use) were
incorporated into the traffic forecast data base used for
the cumulative traffic analysis in the County General Plan.
[See attached County General Plan EIR Response to Comments,
to Letter D-14 from Robert Lamb Hart dated August 16 , 1990 ,
v.1 confirming inclusion of information for Traffic Zones 488 ,
491 , and 492 within the Cypress Corridor. ]
Contrariwise, the Revised DEIR states that it
utilized traffic forecast information from the General Plan
traffic model (the "County Traffic Model") which "does not
4-222
Mr. Earl Wetzel
February 1 , 1993
Page Two
include full build-out of the Cypress Corridor project"
(See attached, page 3-50 , Revised DEIR .
According to the Revised DEIR, the reason for this '
lack of traffic analysis for Cypress Corridor is related to
V-1 the adjustments made to the General Plan land use data to
reconcile Association of Bay Area Governments regional
development assumptions with the County's list of reasonably
foreseeable projects. It is not clear from the text of the
Revised DEIR that these adjustments were made by the Revised
DEIR, if that is the case, and were not made in the County
Traffic Model.
2. We are concerned with the adequacy of
mitigation measures for the Project traffic impacts listed
in the Revised DEIR.
This Project should pay its proportionate share of
the mitigation measures listed in Parts B and C of
Table 3 . 2-6. (See Revised DEIR pages 3-54 and 3-55 ) . An
V-2 adequate mitigation monitoring program and financing plan
should be adopted to assure this.
Mitigation Measure 3 . 2-5 fails to assess this
Project's contribution to area and regional traffic and then '
measure the proposed mitigation measures against that impact
to assess their sufficiency.
We would appreciate your attention .to the above
matter. Please do not hesitate to contact either of the
undersigned if we can be of any assistance. '
Very truly yours,
David A. Gold Robert L. Henn,
Morrison & Foerster Henn, Etzel , Mellon & Weiss
( 510 ) 295-3310 ( 415) 392-4600
KB:abm
Enclosures
cc: Robert Burroughs '
Stan Emerson
Mark Gilbert
Karen Bowers
W63325 (15277/1]
4-223 t
4 l l,-l;,,,, R40k +r 44"6 X71/7
D14.24
p" dation Data for C"fm Corridor
• s .
chamcmdak haw TOW-
N*
OW-No of now"mdfr SAM 100 4,800
VM 6%
No et 3AM
�oElil/HpQMUOid 2.33 1.10 7.f0
Toll °'4 a,720 1,610 10.2td
No of Omplvyed Rmidwm 300 710 3.710
'Implaymew Data tot Cypress Corridor
Type of>tmpie mmu f1pwym
9ee.r�s
1AW
O"m ao
Tod! zO
Data S"vided By T:affic Una
zone 40 ze"M Zen Nt TOW
No d Iiosud+olds _
285 190 m
Lh�
ToW .
LAW 030
no UO 11 ISM
LM LM 'm
='iso no 230 160 SAO
1 z9w _ 490 __90 3m
1VomberdJobs �p 100 200 i30
' ze8111 1m(Mae !In f00 ii00
. ��• dp ZO • 00 �
Tad 30
r
r
4-224
r
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
LETTER D14 ,
RESPONSE D14-1 Comments regarding the Cypress Corridor Study are incorporated
into the Comments and Responses document.
RESPONSE D14-2 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-1.
RESPONSE D14-3 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-1.
RESPONSE D14-4 All comments and responses become a part of the EIR issued by
the County. Please refer to Response to Comment D5-5.
RESPONSE D14-5 Graphics that are revised will be presented with the Draft
General Plan and will be included as a part of the EIR. '
RESPONSE D14-6 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-1.
RESPONSE D14-7 No response required 'These comments are noted as
background information that was used to prepare Responses to
Comments D14-39 through D14-48.
The requested revisions to the General Plan map will be made.
RESPONSE D14-8 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-7.
RESPONSE D14-9 See Response to Comment D14-7.
RESPONSE D14-10 This comment was received on the previous Proposed General
Plan, released in 1989. The requested change has been
incorporated into the current Draft General Plan and appears on
page 3-23.
RESPONSE D14-11 This comment was received on the previous Proposed General
Plan, released in 1989. The requested change has been
incorporated into the current Draft General Plan and appears on
page 3-34.
RESPONSE D14-12 No response required These comments are noted as
background information that was used to prepare Responses to
Comments D14-39 through D14-4&
RESPONSE D14-13 (TEXT]
Administrative Drax
Subject To Revision 4-225
Responses to Comments
Letter D14
RESPONSE D14-14 Figure 4.5-8 of the EIR of September 1990 (Figure 7.6 in the
DGP of October 1990) shows a future fire station symbol north
of Cypress Road in the vicinity of its intersection with Knightsen
Avenue as shown on the commentor's map.
RESPONSE D14-15 Figure 9-4 in the Draft Contra Costa County General Plan
(October 1990)shows the five proposed neighborhood parks and
one proposed community park as shown on the commentor's
' attached map.
RESPONSE D14-16 Page 291, Figure VIII-2, the Important Agricultural Areas
designation will be eliminated for the Emerson, Mbert and
Burroughs properties, if appropriate after discussion with the
County stafL
iRESPONSE D14-17 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-7.
RESPONSE D14-18 See Response to Comment D14-7.
RESPONSE D14-19 See Response to Comment D14 7.
' RESPONSE D14-20 See Response to Comment D14-7.
RESPONSE D14-21 No response required Responses to Comments D14-21 through
D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to
prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D1448.
RESPONSE D14-22 No response required. Responses to Comments D14-21 through
D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to
prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-4&
RESPONSE D14-23 No response required 7bese comments are noted as
background information that was used to prepare Responses to
Comments D14-39 through D14-48.
l J
1
RESPONSE D14-24 No response required Responses to Comments D14-21 through L mac,D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to
prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-4&
1 RESPONSE D14-25 No response required Responses to Comments D14-21 through
D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to
prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D144&
RESPONSE D14-26 No response required Responses to Comments D14-21 through
D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to
prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14.48.
RESPONSE D14-27 No response required. 'Ibese comments are noted as
Administrative Draft
Subject To Revision 4-226
Responses to Comments
Letter D14
background information that was used to prepare Responses to
Comments D14-39 through D14-48.
RESPONSE D14-28 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-11.
RESPONSE D14-29 All proposed changes that are based on comments on the Draft
EIR become a part of the EIR issued by the County.
RESPONSE D14-30 No response required 'These comments are noted as
background information that was used to prepare Responses to
Comments D14-39 through D14-48.
RESPONSE D14-31 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-11.
RESPONSE D14-32 No response required. These comments are noted as ,
background information that was used to prepare Responses to
Comments D14-39 through D14-48.
RESPONSE D14-33 No response required These comments are noted as
background information that was used to prepare Responses to
Comments D14-39 through D14-48.
RESPONSE D14-34 No response required These comments are noted as
background information that was used to prepare Responses to
Comments D14-39 through D144&
RESPONSE D14-35 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-14.
RESPONSE D14-36 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-15.
RESPONSE D14-37 No response required These comments are noted as.
background information that was used to prepare Responses to
Comments D14-39 through D14-48.
RESPONSE D14-38 No response required. Responses to Comments D14-21 through
D14-38 are noted as background information that was used to
prepare Responses to Comments D14-39 through D14-48.
RESPONSE D14-39 Page 3-7, Figure 3-3, is changed to include the three C)►press
Corridor properties.
RESPONSE D14-40 Page 3-34, the following paragraph is added after the third
paragraph:
Mrs
�rLd:sai>: lc�ela�dturs'
RESPONSE D14-41 The County land use map now shows that property M13 has
Administrative Drab
Subject To Revision 4-227
Responses to Comments
Letter D14
been dropped, and that property M9 has been added as the
Burroughs property. The M8 designation for Cypress Corridor
accurately depicts the area as submitted by the commentor.
The reference to Footnote 6 on page 4.2-22, change to FC tnote
5.
RESPONSE D14-42 This information was incorporated into the Population,
Employment and Housing Section of the EIR, page 43-22,Table
4.3-10.
RESPONSE D1443 This information was incorporated into the Population,
Employment and Housing Section of the EIR, page 4.3 Table
4.3-11.
RESPONSE D14-44 This information was incorporated into the land use and
circulation analysis of the EM
RESPONSE D14-45 Figure 45-2 of the EIR is revised and is shown on the following
page.
RESPONSE D14-46 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-14.
RESPONSE D14-47 Please refer to Response to Comment D14-15.
RESPONSE D14-48 Please refer to Responses to Comments D14-43 through D1447.
l
1
Administrative Draft
Subject To Revision 4-228
bcc. ,ber r 4f1
Cumulative TraMc Forecasts (Year 2010)
This scenario is assumed to approximate the land use and development conditions that will
exist in the Year 2010. For this scenario, General Plan Amendment projects have been added
to the travel model database. The traffic forecast data base is consistent with the cumulative
traffic analysis included in the Contra Costa County General Plan. Them ate several new
roadway projects that are included in the General Plan network. The proposed Delta Expressway
would be completed, with interchanges at Laurel Road and Lone Tree Way. SR 4 would be
widened and improved between Bailey Road and Highway 160. The Laurel Road extension
would be completed to Cypress Road Bethel Island Road would be extended to cormect to
Byron Highway. O'Hara Avenue would be extended south to Brentwood.
Although the Delta Expressway is in the General Plan, construction would not be
completed until Year 2005, and then only if adequate funding becomes available. Similarly, the
SR 4 widening project between Bailey Road and Highway 160 would be a critical component
of furore cumulative improvements. Projected traffic forecasts will exceed the capacity of the
existing four-lane freeway by the Year 2004. This section of road will be significantly impacted
by cumulative traffic.
The resulting ADT and tate estimated PM peak hour LOS that is forecast to occur under
cumulative conditions is shown on Figure 3.2-11. With this level of development, traffic
problems can generally be mitigated to an acceptable Level of Service by the improvements
discussed above and listed in the General Plan.
this EIR has utilized traffic fortxast information from the Contra Costa County General
Plan EIR. The cumulacive Iand use assumptions in this EIR art:a hybrid of the ABAG regional
land use model, and the at of proposed projects that has been developed by Contra Costa
iCounty based on build-out of the General Plan. The Wfic foreca=in the Gencml Plan t not
{include traffic projections for the full build-out of the Cypress Corridor.
The cumulative traffic fbrewts have been based on the Year 2010 land use sc enano. The
2010 land use data is based on General Plan build-out that has been adjusted to be consistent
with ABAG regional forecasts. To make the adjustment between ABAG regional development
assumptions and the County's list of reasonably forseable projects involved making the total land
use conditions consistent with one another. Cermin land use assumptions were reduced. while
others have been deferred to occur beyond the year 2010 time period.
The C Ovral Plan traffic model, therefore, does not include full build-out of the Cypress
Corridor project. Since no specific Cypress Corridor project has been defined at this time, and
the expected changes to the roadway networic due to the Cypress Corridor have not been defined,
the project at full build-out cannot be accurately modeled However, the Cypress Corridor
project will need additional roadway links into Oakley and could result in significant traffic
congestion impacts if the only access were to be onto Cypress Road
4-229
1�5' NOT3J 13213 NN3H CO:TS ES, 90 wur
g
d
a
V d
G t1N y
� a
W u t!1
Ste` ''' •,
a fa�►`�atN ucsJ•9
ow 0
d A
� u
a1.V csatlK
sa �
�yb
ti� d
U ,� � � ,' fir► F
,
a ,
ts�KA r �p0.4Z rri+
Iz
WOW
� r
(IQJY� k
I
l
t
r y
�o 0 `
Q a ;
.r
.230
Response to Letter V: David Gold and Robert Henn, February 1, 1993
Response V-1:
The traffic model that was provided by the County at the time of preparation of the DEIR
was entitled as "General Plan Build-out for the year 2010." Although the General Plan does
include the Cypress Corridor project, it was not included in the traffic model. The reason for this
is that the totals for the land use proposals in East County were significantly beyond what was
projected by ABAG for the maximum growth that could occur by the year 2010. The County
staff developing the model made decisions as to which parcels would likely be developed by
2010, in order to reconcile the differences between the two sets of land use assumptions. Many
developments were assumed to be of smaller size, or to occur after 2010. ,
Response V-2:
The protect applicant will pay their proportionate share of the projects listed in Table 3.2-
6; Part B. All of these projects and the costs would be shared proportionately by all development
in the Bethel Island Area.
For the projects that are described in Table 3.2-6,; Part C, there are a number of sources
of funding that have been identified. These include the Oakley-North Brentwood Area Plan, and '
the County area of benefit (AOB) financing plan for the East Contra Costa County Bethel Island
Area. With regard to regional traffic impact fees that could be used for projects such as the
Delta Expressway, additional Highway 4 improvements, and other regional projects, there is no
procedure in place at the present time. If a regional traffic fee for East Contra Costa County is
approved and implemented, the Cypress Lakes Project could be required to participate in this
program.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-16, Page 3-63, addresses the project's fair share toward area and
subregional roadway improvements such as impacts to State Route 4.
4-231
Letter W
15 January 1993 93-CC-7E
re: Revised EIR for Cypress Lakes and Country Club
Dear Mr. Beresford:
Our office has no additional comment on the above report.
W-1 However, thank you for your continued interest in protecting
cultural resources.
IS�cer
Ly
�eig Jor n6
Assistan Coordinator
':: �•::TS'(��:.•ti=..:�::::.::•.:.::.-.:::....r:•:::. _. ... :�ti1=r:•::=j- .'ti'•fii::;v�;..�.�ti:.v::.-.iii:::-::. .::��.•.�.ti•:�.:.•.-�:�:f:�•.•ti7G:G.:;..j�v.�::f;��;.'CDC:t•C\�;.r... .::�\.1:�: .. .. .
1
4-232
Response to Letter W: Leigh Jordan, January15 1993
Response W-1:
Comment noted. No response necessary.
r
.i
t
4-233
MKLH
ENGINEERING GROUP & Murphy, Inc.
J• j' A' bsidlar o KLH Engineering Group, Inc.
' ,` ►TCFPT
Letter X
February 5, 1993
Mr. Art Beresford
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
RE: Draft EIR for Cypress Lakes and Country Club Project
Dear Mr. Beresford:
KLH-Bryan&.Murphy Associates represents Mr. Dean Lesher on the property west of the
Cypress Lakes project. We have an application on file with your department for Mr.
Lesher's property(subdivision 7588). A revised application was submitted on 2/5/93 for 571
units on approximately 361 acres of the southerly land.
I appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Cypress Lakes project and
request that the Final EIR clarify the following matter relating to water service:
• The project proposes 2-12" water lines to the project which 'would have sufficient
capacity to serve the proposed project as well as some limited additional
development in the Bethel Island Area." (P. 3-198). .However, the Oakley Water
X-1 District Regulation No. 7 discusses the design, size, type and location of all facilities
". . . taking into consideration such factors as anticipated future land uses and water
requirements of the entire area . . . (Section 3.a)" There seems to be an
inconsistency here which should be addressed.
X-2 I • What is the Oakley Water Districts position on the proposed duel pipe system?
• The Oakley Water District Master Water Plan and the preliminary design used for
X-3 the Bethel Island Specific Plan concluded that a storage tank was required to serve
this area. The project proposes that a storage tank can be eliminated due to the use
1
CMH62011.008
2527 Camino Ramon, Suite 160, San Ramon, California 94583 (510)867-3380 FAX(510)867-3388
4-234
of the dual pipe system (P. 3-198). Please clarify this. What is the Oakley Water
X-3 Districts position on this?
Sincerely,
Michael J. Helmes
President
MJH:kc
cc: Jerry Alves
i
1
t
1
2 1
CMHE2011.008
4-235
Response to Letter X: KLH - Bryan & Murphy, Inc., February 5, 1993
Response X-1:
Mitigation Measure 3.10-8, page 3-200 of the DEIR suggests that the size and design of
the off-site water system meet all standards and requirements of the Oakley Water District. As
indicated on page 3-198 of the DEIR, the Oakley Water District Master Plan calls for an 18" line
to be extended along Cypress Road to serve the Bethel Island Area.
Response X-2:
See Response X-1.
Response X-3:
See Response X-1. If the off-site water system is constructed as proposed (two 12" lines)
no water storage tank would be required. However, the Oakley Water District may require the
off-site facilities to be constructed in accordance with their Master Plan which would require a
storage tank to serve the area. The design of the off-site water improvements would be reviewed
and approved by the Oakley Water District prior to their construction.
4-236
February 16, 1993 �'' UN TY
93 FEB 16 PH 4: 10
Letter Y �� ■
c i ADEPT.
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor N. Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Attention: Mr. Arthur Berefond
THE SILENT SPRING* FOR SANDMOUND
Others are interrupting our environmental existence.
Donating our time and efforts since September 1, 1992 to review and
comment in person and writing on the Mother Goose Fairy Tales
presented to us, the people, as an EIR Report. EIR meaning
Environmentally Ignorant Report.
We use to believe that it is only when you have committed a serious
crime that the County Officials can impede and alter your life
style. This is simply not true.
Please tell me, haven't we paid our taxes? Or maybe we haven't
paid the right taxes.
For five (5) individuals to be able to dictate to people who have
lived in this area all their lives. is beyond me. What about a
jury trial, 12 people that are un-bias not friends with the
influential few.
Are the hundreds that dwell on Sandmound Blvd. guilty of some crime
where five appointed judges dictate their future living conditions
and how their sentence of death is to be implemented?
Air Quality alone, has already proven to be a hazard now, deadly in
a few years given us 2,300 more vehicles, 1300 bar-be-ques, gas
lawnmowers, and fireplaces.
Even convicted killers are subjected to a humane death. ' We, the
people, will be subject to a deliberate prolonged agonizing,
decaying death, as sentenced by the supposed "servants of the
county" .
* The Silent Spring written by Racheal Caron 1962 regarding
deteriorating existence.-
4-237
Then you wonder why the officials have to hire more police to
Y Y
control these prisoners held on Sandmound Blvd. You'd wonder why
this is. Could it be the polluted air from cars, dust, etc. eating
at our lungs making simple things such as breathing and thinking
difficult, or their drinking water so contaminated, it's unfit for
fish? Are we dilirious or has the dust from Cypress Lakes Project
finally deteriorated us? We, the people, are weak now, unable to
fight and too ill to work and pay our taxes. We are now criminals.
' You know the rest or the story. It happens anytime the people ask
the judges not to impose impossible, inhuman conditions on the now
existing Sandmound Souls.
i
Respectfully submitted,
1 011A-k4,� � -
Barbara LaFargue
4900 Sandmound Blvd.
Oakley, CA 94561
BL:ld
1
4-238
e
Response to Letter Y: Barbara La Fargue, February 16, 1993
Comments noted. The comments in this letter reflect the opinion of the commentor and n
does not comment on the adequacy of the DEIR. No response necessary. p
a
0
a
�u
e
4-239
' Letter Z17 p
6t-o 7
g3FE8
ly
1
1 Z-,
Z-2 WA
Z-3 -- - — --- - --
'Z-4
I Z-5 Z�Aleoo�
r
4-240
�¢,zP �-�.�- ,C,z�. .�dG�.f C�C4C% 1
„2�,_ ,ao,, � s4 e
s �� .�. � <�,.0 _ ,ems- .�_y� �� 1
an,� mat —_ �
= ,off /�� �,ut�� �° - A�-��-��� � _7
'�.a1..�a ,aurl.�e ,�-� 799 �.*� _�
1
la
-A 4
&04-
1 �
7 . ao [Pct;
die -- --- . ..
Aei /46
' ,-z.z
Z-19
(v/
a -a3 ��_ ��, E, ice- -2 .
Z-20
_ i ell
Z-21
,ol
Z-22
Z-23 ze,
ol-
4-243
1
j• CO,/ to (J aeeu- _fie..
le
Z33
alu-
4-245
=r /711
49
zt
i
' 4-296
1
52
0-53
t54 �
-55
aloal
4-298
YL
Z.58�/3y44
d 0
Z-59 10
...........
14 tgl�t-
4-249
�-.�
1-63
1.64
�/-vf-lz
1.66
67
69
4-250
r p
Z-760'// �jSijk,�Gd,J�L�¢E.CJ Icsv�ost _L�tivG6c6'I�. �Ldfi
U
9-251
1
o .s eke.
OL
79
80
77 -
81
�Q 0.00
7l
oe
82
Ole
83
4-252
Response to Letter Z: Diane Ma bee received February 17 1993
Response Z-1: '
The secondary access via Sandmound Boulevard was recommended by the Public Works
Department in initial meetings and was included in the applicants' development plans. This
access provides improved safety and an additional route into and out of the project site for
project residents. It would also provide an additional emergency access in the event the primary
entrance/exit at Cypress Road/Bethel Island Road is blocked.
Response Z-2: '
Comment noted. This comment relates to the legality of the Protection Fee and how
much it should be. These issues are unrelated to the DEIR and are a policy issue for Contra '
Costa County.
Response Z-3: ,
Comment noted. The page reference in the comment does not appear to be correct. The
Agricultural Protection Fee is referenced on page 2-4. The Protection Fee is identified in the '
County General Plan and is currently being drafted by County Staff. The amount of the fee is
not known at this time.
Response Z-4: '
Comments noted. Caltrans warrants for traffic signals clearly show that traffic signals can '
be significant traffic and safety problems if they are installed before they are justified. The
signals should be installed only when traffic volumes rise to the level where they will be safely
used and effective in controlling traffic. The County will monitor future traffic conditions to ,
determine when they are needed.
Response Z-5:
Comments noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding how
regional fees should be allocated. This issue is a policy issue for Contra Costa County.
Response Z-6:
Comments noted. Mitigation measure 3.2-9 specifically addresses the need for the ,
proposed project to provide right-of-way for the extension of Bethel Island Road to the south.
4-253
1
Response Z-7:
Comments noted. The comments reflect the opinion of the commentor and relate to
County policy regarding the timing of regional roadway improvements in East Contra Costa
County.
Response Z-8:
Comments noted. The comments reflect the opinion of the commentor regarding how
traffic mitigation fees should be spent. This is a policy issue for the East County Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Response Z-9:
The DEIR does not identify a specific entity for maintenance of on-site drainage at this
time. However, RD-799 would be the most likely agency to take over the maintenance of on-site
drainage facilities. If drainage facilities are to be maintained by RD-799 the drainage facilities
should be constructed to RD-799 standards.
Response Z-10:
See Response Z-3.
Response Z-11:
Mitigation measure 3.7-12 specifically states that the "project site shall continue to be a
part of RD-799 and shall be prohibited from seceding from this district." It is also intended that
RD-799 take over the long-term maintenance of the project levees once constructed. See
Appendix C.
Response Z-12:
Compliance with the mitigation measure reference would generally occur by requiring
project applicant to install construction routing signage directing all construction traffic via
Cypress Road only. The method of compliance should be specified in the conditions of approval
for the project.
Response Z-13:
See Response Z-9.
4-254
Response Z-14:
Comments noted. As identified in mitigation measure 3.7-5 the project levees shall be
constructed in accordance with the standards and requirements of FEMA.
Response Z-15:
Comments noted. A number of soil compaction techniques were analyzed in the DEIR,
including overexcavation and compaction. The type of soil compaction technique should be
specified as a condition of approval of the project.
Response Z-16:
Comments noted. See Response Z-11.
Response Z-17:
See Response Z-15.
Response Z-18:
Comment noted. If RD-799 will be responsible for maintenance of the project levees, the
design of the levees and construction methods should be reviewed and approved by RD-799.
Also see Appendix C.
Response Z-19:
Mitigation Measure 3.8-7 identifies that watering of exposed or disturbed soil surfaces be
conducted at least twice daily, including weekends and holidays. It does not limit the amount
of watering that would be required.
Response Z-20:
Comments noted. The project includes a ground monitoring program which is intended
to identify any ground settlement to avoid damage to off-site property and structures. The
monitoring plan would identify ground settlement before any damage to off-site property
occurred, so that contingency measures or alternative construction methods could be implemented
to avoid damage to off-site properties and structures. For these reasons a performance bond
would not be necessary.
Response Z-21:
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 identifies that,if necessary, a special district fee be required to
provide funding to fully staff the new station. The project applicant is proposing to petition
4-255
LAFCo for annexation of the site into the Bethel Island Fire Protection District (see page 3-169
of the DEIR).
Response Z-22:
The fees for sheriff protection would be determined by the County at the time of issuance
of building permits for the project (see Mitigation Measure 3.9-4, page 3-173 and 3-174 of the
DEIR).
Response Z-23:
Mitigation Measures 3.9-7 and 3.9-8, page 3-179 of the DEIR, specifically address the
proposed school site and what should happen if the site is not acceptable to the OUESD. The
Liberty Union High School District would receive school impact fees as established by state law.
(See Mitigation Measure 3.9-5, page 3-179 of the DEIR). Also see Responses 1-1 and EE-33.
Response Z-24:
The special district would be made up of project residents to pay for maintenance of the
proposed parks if Contra Costa County does not accept dedication of the parks.
Response Z-25:
FEMA would be consulted regarding the project levees and would be responsible for
certifying the levees and removing the project site from the 100-year flood hazard zone before
any proposed development could occur on the project site.
Response Z-26:
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1, page 3-221 of the DEIR, specifically requires disclosure of
these issues in the CC&Rs.
Response Z-27:
Mitigation Measure 3.11-4, page 3-222 of the DEIR, specifically addressed this issue.
Since studies have indicated a potential association of leukemia with exposure to electrical
transmission lines, it would be appropriate to include in the CC&R's.
Response Z-28:
The five potential drill sites referenced on page 3-1 of the DEIR are depicted on Figure
1-3, page 1-5 of the DEIR.
4-256
Response Z-29: '
Comment noted. This comment addresses a legal issue which is unrelated to an impact ,
on the environment. No response necessary.
Response Z-30: '
The comment references Policy 3.74 of the Contra Costa County General Plan which is
a policy directed at development in the Bethel Island Area. '
Response Z-31:
Comment noted. The comment addresses a legal issue which is unrelated to an impact
on the environment. No response necessary.
Response Z-32•
See Response Z-3. ,
Response Z-33: '
See Response Z-27.
Response Z-34:
See Responses Z-3 and Z-29. '
Response Z-35:
The reference to a 100-foot setback is derived from the Contra Costa County General ,
Plan, Implementation Measure 8-k, page 3-87 and 3-88 of the DEIR.
Response Z-36: '
Comments noted. A trail is only proposed for the proposed project levees, not the
.existing levees.
Response Z-37: ,
See Response Z-3.
4-257
tResponse Z-38:
rComments noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding
needed traffic improvements.
Response Z-39:
' See Response Z-4.
Response Z-40:
' See Response Z-7.
Response Z-41:
Table 3.2-6, p. 3-53 of the DEIR identifies specific timing of roadway improvements.
Response Z-42:
See Response Z-4.
Response Z-43:
See Response Z-4.
' Response Z-44:
The comment represents the opinion of the commentor. The traffic study conducted for
the project indicates that the improvement referenced is not warranted until 1,000 homes are
completed on the project site.
' Response Z-45:
See Response Z-1.
' Response Z-46:
See Response Z-8.
Response Z-47:
The mitigation measures on p.3-63 of the DEIR are proposed in the event the Delta
Expressway improvements are not implemented which addresses the concern of the commentor.
4-258
Response Z-48:
Comment noted. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, page 3-97 of the DEIR is revised to include
RD-799 in the review of the detailed Channel Enhancement Plan.
Response Z-49:
See Response Z-3.
Response Z-50:
The comment appears to be referencing Contra Costa County General Plan policy 9-24
and its enforcement with respect to previous projects. No response necessary.
Response Z-51:
Comment noted. Other noise mitigation could be implemented, such as architectural
treatments, desired by local residents and the County. No additional response is necessary.
Response Z-52:
See Response Z-9.
Response Z-53:
The comment addresses levees under the control of the Contra Costa Water District which
are not part of the proposed project or the subject of the EIR. No response necessary.
Response Z-54:
The comment represents the opinion of the commentor that they agree with RD-799s'
comments. No response necessary.
Response Z-55:
Comment noted. The comment represents the opinion of the commentor regarding the
legality of delaying the project to improve the existing levee system first. No response necessary.
Response Z-56:
Comments noted. Monitoring wells placed on private property would require the
permission of the property owner.
4-259
Response Z-57:
Comments noted. The comments represent the opinion of the commentor regarding levee
improvements. No response necessary.
' Response Z-58:
The last sentence of the first paragraph under Water Quality on page 3-139 of the DEIR
is clarified as follows:
"Therefore, the proposed storm drainage system would have a less-than-significant
mima} impact on groundwater quality."
Response Z-59:
If RD-799 is the public agency responsible for maintenance of the drainage facilities, the
drainage facilities should be constructed in accordance with RD-799 requirements.
Response Z-60:
See Response Z-9.
Response Z-61:
As indicated in Mitigation Measure 3.7-10, page 3-144 of the DEIR, the emergency
evacuation plan should address methods for notifying and evacuating "area" residents which
would include residents along Sandmound Boulevard and other adjacent areas on Hotchkiss Tract.
Response Z-62:
Comment noted. Mitigation measure 3.7-12, p.3-145 of the DEIR specifically addresses
that the project site should not succeed from RD-799 to provide continued funding for
maintenance of the existing levee and drainage systems.
Response Z-63:
Mitigation Measure 3.7-11, page 3-145 of the DEIR has been revised to include RD-799
as a responsible agency.
Response Z-64:
The agency responsible for maintenance of the lakes and drainage facilities was not
known at the time of publication of the DEIR. However, RD-799 would be the most likely
4-260
i
agency for maintenance of the lakes and drainage facilities if acceptable to the District. Also see
g Y
Appendix C.
Response Z-65: i
Mitigation Measure 3.8-5, page 3-161 specifically addresses measures to mitigate
liquefaction potential on the project site.
Response Z-66: i
See Response Z-18.
n
Respo se Z-67:
See Response Z-15.
Response Z-68:
The lake is proposed to be approximately 17 feet dee (see Figure 3.7-5, page 3-142 of '
the DEIR). Therefore, dewatering would not need to exceed 20 feet for excavation of the lake
and channels. The intent of the comment regarding submersible pumps is unclear and therefore, '
no response is provided.
Response Z-69: '
Comment noted. The comment represents an opinion regarding on-site monitoring and
who should pay for it. An engineer will be on-site or available during construction of the
external levee system and lake/channels. The project applicant will be responsible for the cost
of monitoring levee construction. ,
Response Z-70:
See Response Z-15.
Response Z-71: '
See Response Z-18.
Response Z-72:
Comment noted. The comment addresses a policy issue for Contra Costa County. The ,
project applicant is requesting that the project site be annexed to the Bethel Island Fire Protection
District, see p.3-169 of the DEIR.
4-261
i
Response Z-73:
See Response Z-21.
Response Z-74:
See Response Z-21.
Response Z-75:
See Response Z-72.
Response Z-76:
See Response Z-23. The project site is not located within the Knightsen School District.
Response Z-77:
Comment noted. Mitigation Measure 3.9-10 of the DEIR recommends that active
recreational uses (i.e., playfields) be located outside the powerline easement.
Response Z-78:
If the project includes a day-care facility adequate to serve the project, as proposed, no
child care fees would be required of the project.
Response Z-79:
Comment noted. The project is requesting annexation of only the project site to the
Oakley Water District. Adjacent areas would not be required to hook-up to new facilities as part
of this project.
Response Z-80:
Comment noted. The project is requesting annexation of only the remaining portions of
the project site to the Ironhouse Sanitary District. Adjacent areas would not be required to hook-
up to new facilities as part of this project.
Response Z-81:
Comment noted. The PG&E gas line being constructed in East County is not to provide
local service, but rather as part of the regional distribution system.
4-262
Response Z-82: '
As part of compliance with mitigation measure 3.11-4, the CC&R's are required to
disclose specific health hazards associated with living near electrical powerlines. Childhood
leukemia could be included as a potential hazard and included in the CC&R's.
Response Z-83• '
Comment noted. See Responses Z-4 and Z-6. 1
1
1
1
1
4-263
1
' MONTAGUE & COCHRANE Letter AA
Attorneys at Law
1500 River Park Drive.Suite 110 J. MICHAEL_COCHRANE
Sacramento,California 95815 JOHN D. MONTAGUE
Telephone:(916)9295018
GEORGE C.MARTINEZ
Son Francisco.California
(Of Counsel)
February 11, 1993 c
r n
ca 7
Community Development FEDERAL EXPRESSED
= n
Contra Costa County T
651 Pine Street, cn
4th Floor North Wing :a F
Martinez, California 94553-0095 '{
Attention: Arthur Beresford
' A. J. Salomon CERTIFIED MAIL
101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 400
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Re: Deeded Easement - Dannelley
Gentlemen:
' On behalf of C. Elaine Dannelley, you are hereby notified that
Ms. Dannelley objects to, and does not agree with, any relocation
of her easement for ingress and egress as described in the attached
1 Corporation Joint Tenancy Grant Deed, document No. 84 16555, Book
11642, Page 655, Contra Costa Official Reco s.
Very truly you s,
John,,D. n e
L�
JDM/blb
cc C. Elaine Dannelley
4-264
IVILU4 HLLIL)RULL) RLIVUHNL I
j-L B -6 1984
it Mr. & Mrs. Donald Dannelley, r. H:jcoz-ded at request
�IRoute 2, Box 226-C 84 16.555 sar000 Title Insuranos Co.
Oakley, CA 94561
At
311C #711910-'JSof
f0rWf.R TAX J. V. Wo-114011
:%Nj) County Recorder FEE S
.;kviTrRA CMCA C'A ConLra Co�ita County
VHVEY,
CORFORATIUH JOJNT TENANCY GRANT DEED
[UNDI$10
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR DECLARES
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFFR TAXES IS $ 102.85 computed on full value of property conveyed, or
1 ) computed on full value less value of liens or
encumbrances remaining at time of sale, and
P# '
2' .22C)- 03(3
FOR A VALUAPLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged,ZGENERAI, MOTORS CORPORATION, a Corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its
1. principal office at 3044 West Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48202, hereby GRANTS to DONALD R. DANNELLEY, SR. AND CLIDE E. DANNELLEY,
uusaAw & wirm,, As join uNmrs, whose address is East Cypress
J.'xtension, Oakley, California 94561 , the following described
real property in the City of Oakley, County of Contra Costa,
State of California:
PARCEL ONE:
Pnrcel B of Parcel Map filed October 12,
01
1972, Book 24, Parcel Maps, Page 41, 3: %a C-D
Contra Costa County Records. -n T ,
EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL ONE: "All oil,
gas and other hydrocarbons and minerals
now or at any time hereafter situate
d therein and thereunder" as reserved in o
4
the Deed from Bank of America National cn
Trust and Savings Association, recorded ro
April 24, 1942, Book 658, of Official
Records, Page 129.
pi PARCEL TWO:
Right of way granted in the Deed to
Robert Campbell, ,et ux, recorded July
16, 1959, Book 3413, Official Records,
Page 352, as follows:
"A right of way (not to be exclusive) as
an appurtenance to Parcel One above, for
use as a roadway for -vehicles. of all
kinds, pedestrians and animals, for
is water, gas, oil and sewer pipe lines,
and for telephone, electric light and
power lines, together with the necessary
poles or conduits over a portion of the
North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of
4-265
I
I
it
Section 27, Township 2 North, Range 3
East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
being a strip of land 20 feet in width,
the Fast line of which is described as
follows:
j BEGINNING at Station "A' , as designated
in the description of Parcel One above;
thence from said point of beginning
i North 7.8 degrees 08 minutes 59 seconds
West 189.89 feet; thence North 14
degrees 11 minutes 40 seconds West 21.19 i
feet to a 2-inch by 2-inch hub; thence
North 14degrees 11 minutes 40 seconds
West 249.77 feet; thence North 34
degrPcs 05 minutes 06 seconds 41est
289.56 feet to a point herein designated
' as Station 'B' which bears North. 89
degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds East 23.22
feet from an iron pipe.
The South terminus of said strip of land
is a line drawn South 69 degrees 22
minutes 17 seconds [gest from Station 'A' �
above and the Horth terminus thereof in
a line drawn South 89 degrees 44 minutes
47 seconds West from Station 'B' above." '
YAItCI:L THREE
"A right of way (not to be exclusive)"
created in reference to Parcel One above
in the Deed to Hownrd R. Sullivan, et i
ux, recorded November. 30, 1949, Book
1.469 Official Records, Page 19, "for use
as a roadway for vehicles of all kinds, I .
pedestrians and animals, for water, gas ,
oil and sewer pipe lines and for tele-
phone, electric light and power lines,
together with the necessary poles or
conduits to carry said lines ' over a
portion of the West 1/2 of Section 27,
Township 2 North, Range 3 East, Mount
Diablo Base and Meridian, being a strip
�I of land 25 feet in width, described as
follows:
Commencing at an iron pipe set at the
Northwest corner of the parcel of land
described in the Deed to Harry E.
Chesney, et ux, recorded January 28,
�I
!I
4-266
i
1942, Book 657 , Official Records, Page .'
j 274; thence from said point of conimence-
ment South 89 degrees 44 minutes 47 i
seconds West 173.10 feet to an iron pipe
and the actual point of beginning of the
herein described strip of land; thence
from said point of /beginning South 89
degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds West
645.80 feet; thence North 0 degrees 30
minutes West 65 feet; thence South 89
degrees 3U minutes West 25 feet to the �
West line of said Section 27; thence
South 0 degrees 30 minutes East along
said West litre at 65 feet an iron pipe,
i a total distance of 90 feet; thence
North 89 degrees 44 minutes 47 seconds j
I East 685.53 feet Lo a point which bears
South 30 degrees 56 minutes 42 seconds
East, 29.07 feet to the point of
beginning; thence North 30 degrees 56
minutes 42 seconds West 29.07 feet to
the point of beginning.
PARCEL FOUR:
II
"A right of way (not to be ei:clusive)"
created in reference to Parcel One above
in the Deed to Howard P. Sullivan, et
ux, recorded November 3.0, 1949, Rook
1469, Official Records, Page 19, "for ,
use as a roadway for vehicles of all
kinds, pedestrians and animals, for
water, gas, oil and sewer pipe lines,
i and for telephone, electric Light and
power lines, together with the. necessary
poles or conduits to carry said lines",
!� over a portion of the East 1/2 of
Section 28, Township 2 North, Range 3 '
East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian,
%I being a strip of land described as
follows:
�I
Commencing at an iron pipe set at the
Northwest corner of the Parcel of Land
described in the Deed to Harry r.
;I Chesney, et ux, recorded January 28,
1942, Book 657, Official Records, Page
274; thence from said point of
commencement South 89 degrees 44 minutes
i 47 seconds West at 173.10 feet an iron
pipe a total distance of 818.90 feet;
thence North 0 degrees 30 minutes West
65 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30
• I
4-267
minutes West 25 feet to the East line of
said Section 28 and the actual point of
beginning of the Herein described strip
of land; thence from said point of
beginning South 89 degrees 10 minutes
West 120 feet to the East line of the
County Road known ap Bethel Tract Road;
thence South 0 degrees 30 minutes East
i along said East line, 25 feet; thence
North 89 degrees 10 minutes East 120
feet to the East line of said Section
28; thence North 0 degrees 30 minutes
West, along said East line, 25 feet to
the point of beginning.
PARCEL FIVE:
A right of way (not to be exclusive) for
use as a roadway for vehicles of a].1
kinds, pedestrians and animals, for
`I water, gas, oil and sewer pipe lines,
! and for telephone, television service,
it electric light and power lines, together
with the necessary poles, or conduits,
as an appurtenance to Parcel One above
flliover that portion of Parcel A of Parcel
�I Maps, filed October 12, 1972, Book 24,
Parcel Maps, Page 41 , Contra Costa
County Records, designated "Proposed
I �I Easement for Access Roadway &
Utili.ties."
Thi.s Deed is prepared, executed, delivered and
recorded in connection with General Motors Corporation's
reconveyance of the subject Property, which was acquired
relative to its employe relocation program.
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Corporation has caused its
Corporate name and seal to be affixed hereto and this instrument
i
I
i
i
�I 4-268
i
' |
| �
| / / w4u:auuo
U�
|
to be ^x^^~^^~ by its ~^^~^^~^ ~~ ^~^^^^' i~~ and A""^"^a"^
|
Secretary thereunto duly tx id
|'
� d
/ ~~^~ i ~~
|
. /
�
/ L -'
. GENERAL
| '
n " i
�~ | �~ !
orectzo
r, C Fac lities
|� '
| /
'! --`��
|/ dsiotaut Sec/etory
--
,
/
STATE OF MICHIGAN ) `�
1
) ss.
COUNTY OF 14AY0C )
�
On ` \;^�'```\��� � i ' ``\~� '� , before me, the | --
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally i
i
appeared yV J. O'Keefe. , known to me to be the '
'
Director, CM Facilities, and ,
/
known �o mc �o he �axiu�en� Secretary of
�i �
� ecar� oz the Corporation �ba !
executed the ~i-
thin 1outrun`unt, known to me to be the persons
who executed the within Instrument on behalf of the Corporation
therein named, and acknowledged to me that such Corporation
'
executed the within Instrument pursuant to its by-laws or o
�|
resolution of its Board of Directors' !
!� |
� 70 WITNESS ul\EaC0n, I have hereunto set my hand and
etfixed my official seal the day and yenr in this certificate
|
first above written. �
|
�m
|�
Notary Public!Ain d c-w,
for -said State
/
�
GORDON PHILIP�~^'"""""
'
1 ^~
.. Oakland County.w/
|| wwComu,*nsxpxmwmay os,mm
|'
THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY:
! William A. Hayes
| 3044 West Grand Boulevard
\
Detroit, Michigan 48202
!
! �
/
|
|
END OF V0CUm[Ny ! �
4-2Gg �U
'
/
/
Response to Letter AA: Montague & Cochrane, February 11, 1993
Response AA-1:
The following mitigation measure has been added to the EIR on p. 3-27 to address the
easement referenced in the comment.
3.1-5: The project site plan shall be revised to clearly depict the existing easement from
the Dannelley property to Cypress Road. This easement shall be maintained in
its existing location unless otherwise agreed to by the property owner and the
County (Responsibility: Project Applicant/Contra Costa County).
r
4-270
O'tTfiq COSTA
Letter BB FEB -I PN 2= 26
(. I,_
Manuel & Cecelia Peixoto DEVELY-'ui-iJ'Y `'
Route 2, Box 387
Oakley, California 94561
January 30, 1993
J
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Dear Mr . Bragdon, Director;
This letter is to comment on the completeness p ss and accuracy
of the Revised Draft EIR for the Cypress lakes and Country Club
A.J. Salomon/Chartered Land & Cattle Co County File #2918-RZ,
Final Development Plan 3032-90, Subdivision 7562 .
As stated on page 3-54, item #3 of the revised draft EIR
referred to above, the construction of the Laurel Rd.. Extension
to Machado Lane, including Marsh Creek bridge & RR overcrossing
would not be needed until the Delta Expressway is completed .
"Until that time, this project would not be necessary. "
The second paragraph on page 3-50 states that "Although the
Delta Expressway is in the General Plan, construction would not
be completed until 2005 . . . . "
In numerous conversations with the Public Works Department I
find an inaccuracy in item #3, page 3-54 as stated above . The
Public Works Department informs me that an alignment for the
BB-1 Laurel/Cypress Connection has been established . A precise
alignment would be prepared for adoption by the Board of
Supervisors in the 94/95 Fiscal year . It is possible that the
construction on the Laurel/Cypress Connection would commence
prior to the completion of the Delta Expressway.
The Revised Draft EIR also states that the Roadway
Improvement Project of widening Cypress Rd/SR 4 intersection
along with additional turn lanes would be necessary if the Bethel
Island area is built out before the Delta Expressway is
BB-2 completed. In addition, page 3-63 states that if the Cypress
corridor development moves quickly to implementation, prior to
the completion of the Delta Expressway, that a widening of
Cypress Road on the east leg of the intersection would be
necessary.
4-271
No where in the planning fox the widening of Cypre55 Road on
the east leg of the intersection has the Issue been addressed of
safety to entrances to the private driveways all along Cypress
Road. That is my main concern. As my driveway fronts Cypress
Road, the additional traffic caused by the construction of the
Cypress Lakes project along with the increased traffic flow would
make it a hazard to entering and exiting my driveway and those of
my neighbors .
BB-2 My recommendation to mitigate the above problem would be to
create a middle turn lane into the various driveways along
Cypress Road . This would allow a car traveling West on Cypress
Road and wanting to make a left turn Into a driveway to stop
safely as it waits for the oncoming traffic to pass. This avoids
any other cars traveling West to go off the shoulder to pass as
Is now often done. Most importantly It avoids any accidents
caused by rear end collisions .
Sincerely,
Cecelia PeIxoto
4-272
1
Response to Letter BB: Manuel and Cecelia Peixoto, January 30, 993
Response BB-1:
Comments noted. The comment provides additional clarification regarding the
Laurel/Cypress connection. No additional response is necessary.
Response BB-2:
The DEIR describes the future cross-section of Cypress Road. A precise plan line for this
YP
road has not been established, but it is understood that it will have four through travel lanes, plus
a center area for left turn lanes and possibly a median island. The final design of the road
relative to individual driveways on Cypress Road has not been established. The County will
work with individual property owners during the final design process to ensure proper access, and
a safe, efficient design of left turn lanes.
4-273
J
xsRY k R '4 Letter CC JM*120-993 .
� aAsr MIUM Rn.
OAKt Y s CALIF. �2
J ;J
DEAR MR. BERSFORD: �'� = Pil
1 2. v3
WHEN WE FIRST' RECEIVED PQ PR' THE CYPRESS LAKES
EPT
AND COUNTRY CLT—TB 7PROJECTr, ),I WROTE YOU A LETTER EX—
PLAINIING MY REASONS FOR NOT WANTING THIS PROJECTr TO
GO THROUGH. I STILL DO NOT. AND MY REASONS ARE THE
SAME.
I AM ENCLOSING ONE OF THE NOTICES WE RECEIVE EVERY
SO OFTEN FROM DU FONT.
IN MY FIRST LETTER TO YOU, I MADE A MISTAKE AND NAMED
DOW CHEMICAL CO. WHEN I REALIZED MY ERROR Z CALLED YOU
AND ASK YOU TO CH"GE MY LETTER TO READ DU PO". IN
FACT,YOU ASK ME H[OW TO SPELL IT. THE REASON I ADD THIS,
a�
IS SO YOU MAY REMEMBER ME.
SINCE I HAVE ALREADY HAD CANCER , I THINK I CAN ATTEST
TO THE ACCURACY OF THIS NOTICE.
SINCERELY,
?%RY" L. REE3
r
4-274
FE. 1.
MMUNITY NOTICE UNDER PROPOSITION 65,
ont de Nemours and Company operates a facility at 6000 Bridgehead Road, Antioch, California,
manufacturing white pigments and refrigerant gas.During the operation of this facility,substances which have
been listed by the State of California as known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive harm are released to the
environment.Detectable amounts of these chemicals may be found in and around the facility.Therefore,to meet
its responsibilities under the California Health and Safety Code,Sections 25249.5 through 25249.13,Du Pont
provides the following -
WARNING:Du Pont's Antioch facility emits certain chemicals known to the State of California to cause
cancer,birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Du Pont operates the Antioch Works in compliance with the law and is recognized as a responsible corporate
citizen and a good neighbor.The overall safety and health of our employees,the public,and our customers is our
number one priority.
Should you require further information,please feel free to contact us—P.O.Box 310,Antioch,California 94509.
..........................................................................................................................
Este es un aviso de E.1.du Pont de Nemours and Company de 6000 Bridgehead Road,Antioch,California De
conformidad con la Proposici6n 65 del Estado de California Du Pont les provee a uds.el aviso siguiente:
AVISO: La fabrica Du Pont en Antioch emite unas substancias quimicas conocidas por el Estado de
California tomo causantes de cancer,defectos del nacimiento u otros da-hos reproductivos.
Si requiere ma's information por favor escn'benos—P.O.Box 310,Antioch,California 94509. }
4-275
J�.
Response to Letter CC: Mary Reeves, January 12, 1993
Comments noted. This issue has been addressed in the DEIR at Page 3-221. No
additional response is necessary.
I�
;l
i
4-276
February 9 , 7993
Letter o�u�
���� -vy�m '+
�� �� =
'o
~� I& ~^ ��
. .��
Mr , Art Beresford
Contra Costa Co . Community Dept ,
651 Pine Street
Martinez , CA. 94553-0095
RE : CYPRESS LAKES & COUNTRY CLUB
Dear Mr' Beresford :
As the lead agency for the above project , | would think that the Community
Development Agency would have been MUCH MORE STRINGENT in checking the --
E | R to see that it was as accurate as possible BEFORE printing same . It is
apparent that most of the items covered in the E1R have been dictated by
DD-1 the developer and his crow, without any thought to the dangers this project
will have on the owners and residents on Sandmoun6 Blvd . and adjoining areas .
As paid employees of Contra Costa County , | believe much more consideration
should be given to the "people" and their safety rather than to a developer
|whom the County is looking to for money to fill their coffers .
It is hard to believe that you can ' t sem the dangers of allowing the building
of an internal levee. Has any thought been given to the fact that IF there �U
is a break on the existing levee where the water will go - it will go North
and South and everyone in the area , including the Condos , will be subject to
flooding and the possibility of being stranded as well as the possibility of
DD-2 drowning. Can the Agency and the County live with that thought? How about
the residents who have not been included in your haphazard mailings of notices
(the Condos at the end of 3andmoun6) because the law states only those who are
within 300 feet of the project are to be notified - these residents are in
�
danger as much as anyone.
Have you ever been near a pile-driver inaction? Can you say that the constant
hammering and shaking 6Y6m / t bother you? | doubt it - so what 6o you think
is going to happen when this ten 110) ton monster starts for the dewatering
0D'3 process? Are you going to insist that the developer post a bond for damages
to property or is it possible that your Agency feels the residents don ' t count
or maybe they will move out of the area and you and the developer can do -~
|whatever???
|
The County is in a budget crisis and it appears it is going to get worseso who ' s
�m
going to pay for equipment and manpower for a fire station , sheriff
protection , schools , etc . ? Who is going to live in this project - a great
DD-4 percentage of the projects in the County now are empty - do you and the County
expect to draw from other areas? If so , how are they going to like the idea
f commuting with insufficient roads? Can you provide a definite date as to
give the cost of same?
when ��m highways will be built? Can you g
!- ,
U�
4-277
��
February 9 , 1993
Page 2
Art Beresford
Contra Costa Co , Comm, Dept ,
The developer ' s map shows the tentative location of the proposed school
VERY NEAR a drill site . It would seem to me that your Agency would have
-5 spotted this and would have moved the school to another site . Have you ever
heard of a well exploding? What about the children - don ' t they count?
When questions are ked a f
s o Staff , most of the time they have no answers and
the East County Regional Planning Commission , for the most part , is so bored
they don ' t even hear what is being said by the speakers . It certainly appears
that this project i.s "cut & dried" and only motions are being gone thru in
order to stay within the law. A perfect example was the meeting of 2/1 /93 -
the Commission set March 1st for the next meeting BUT the developer cried
-6 ( literally) to have the meeting on February 8th because they had already
spent a lot of money , wanted to get started on their project , etc . . . . .no
consideration given to the owners/residents . I am aware that the Commissioners
are volunteers ; however , if they are willing and able to volunteer then they
should be willing to put forth their obligations rather than making people
feel they are ignorant and don ' t know what they are talking about .
At the meeting of 2/1 /93 ( I believe I heard you correctly) you made the follow-
ing statement when you were recapping the project - "developer wants an in-
DD-7 ternal levee in order to get out of the 100 year flood plain" - where did
this information originate , is it in writing and by whom? I don ' t recall
D seeing a document this important included in the EIR.
As I understand from last night 's meeting , your Agency assured all that when
the final EIR is returned to the East County Regional Planning Commission ALL
-8 QUESTIONS AND SUBJECTS BROUGHT UP DURING THE HEARING WILL BE ANSWERED . I
personally find this hard to believe as NONE of the subjects have been covered
to the satisfaction of the owners/residents in any of the draft EIR' s .
We were advised that letters would be received until February 16th . . .however ,
I quote from Page Two (2) of the East County Regional Planning Commission
1February 8 , 1993 agenda - "The Planning Commission at hearings on zoning
matters , variances or land use permit applications , must base their decision
-9 on competent evidence . LETTERS WILL BE RECEIVED ECEIVED AND FILED BUT CANNOT , IN
GENERAL , BE CONSIDERED COMPETENT EVIDENCE UNLESS PERSONALLY PRESENTED AT A
HEARING BY A WITNESS , SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION . " I believe someone needs to
# elaborate on this statement - it appears that letters you do receive WILL NOT
BE IN ORDER AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED . Please comment .
'-Ve ru l y your
o
M s . m M
�LM. herwood�
4818 Sandmound Blvd .
Oakley , CA. 94561
cc Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa Co.
1�
4-278
Response to Letter DD: Mrs. William Sherwood, February 9, 1993
Response DD-1:
Comments noted. The DEIR was prepared by an independent environmental consultant
hired by Contra Costa County. The County Development Department thoroughly reviewed the j
DEIR and feels that it discloses the potential impacts of the project on adjacent residents.
Response DD-2:
The DEIR discusses potential impacts from the proposed internal levee on pages 3-130
to 3-139. The county is required by law to notice all meetings of the East County Regional
Planning Commission. Notification of all meetings involving the Cypress Lakes Project included
direct mailing of notices to properties within 300 feet of the project site and placing an ad in the
Antioch Daily Ledger so that all area residents who may be interested are provided notice of such
meetings.
Response DD-3:
Refer to Responses L-7 and Z-20.
Response DD-4:
Impacts and mitigation for local service providers are discussed in Chapters 3.9 and 3.10
of the DEIR. The project would be required to pay its fair share to all local service providers.
In addition, the applicant would construct the roadway improvements listed in Table 3.2-6(A) on
page 3-53 of the DEIR. '
Response DD-5:
Refer to Response Z-23. Also see the discussion in the DEIR at Page 3-218.
Response DD-6:
Comment noted. This comment addresses County staff and meetings held regarding the
project, which are issues unrelated to the DEIR.
Response DD-7:
As discussed in Chapter 2.7 - Hydrology and Drainage (pages 3-118 to 3-146 of the
DEIR) and two technical reports: Evaluation of Proposed Levees Bordering Cypress Lakes
Project by Kleinfelder, Inc. (August 1992) and Informational Report for the Proposed Levee �.
System by Bohley/Maley Associates (1992), the purpose of the proposed internal levee is to
remove the project site from the 100-year flood zone. However, as stated on page 3-130 of the
4-279
DEIR, FEMA approval is necessary before the site can be removed from the flood zone. Also
see Response EE-20.
Response DD-8•
Comment noted. The Draft EIR was not required by CEQA to include public comments
and responses to those comments. This is the role of this Final EIR, which includes copies of
all written comments and transcripts of all verbal comments made on the Draft EIR, as well as
written responses to all comments made on significant environmental issues (Section 15088,
CEQA Guidelines).
11 Response DD-9:
The public comment period on this project officially ended on February 16, 1993. All
comment letters received through February 16 are responded to in this Final EIR.
�I.
N
4-280
Diane Shipway
v r!, JI
Letter EE P.O. Bog 872 '�'{fi°�'-
Bethel Island, CA 94511 a� �H AD$tq
(510) 684-3967 F Ee 3
�Y 20 1993�F r;, �v
Jana , ! 2' ?3
� ��,
E�oY,�`,,,ry,
Contra Costa County Communievelopment Dept. `' T DEpr
ATTENTION: Art Beresford
651 Pine St.North Wing -Fourth Floor
Martinez,CA 94553-0095
RR Cypress Lakes& Country Club
Dear Mr.Beresford,
Again I am complaining about the meeting notifications on this project. My neighbor called
me on 1/15/93 and asked if I was going to the planning meeting. I told him that you had
personally called me a few weeks before and had told me about it but I hadn't received a notice
of the meeting as yet. He told me he had his for about 8 days which gave him a chance to get a
hold of this 1 3/4'docwnent. I am not the only person who has attended these meetings and then
have not gotten notification of the meeting (Rhonda Hansen,Bob Counc$,John Zukaukas, Richard Kent,
Gus Burkholtz). I called your office on 1/15/92 and left a message for you to call and I did get a
call back a few days later. Beings that I couldn't even get through to a government office till
EE-1 1/19/93 to obtain a copy of the EIR, I was luckily able to borrow a neighbors copy for a few
days. I have read quite a bit but I still feel I am unprepared to address all the issues without more
time to peruse the material. I am requesting that you hear what I have to say tonight but I am
also asking that another public meeting be held to give everyone a chance to read the copious
amount of material that has been presented to us. This is to big of an issue to be decided in such ;
a short amount of time,my neighbors and I will be effected by this project forever,the developer
will be gone in 5-10 years,this commission will be filled with new faces and the supervisors will
be on to other things. You have to listen to our concems and apprehensions and realize why we
want some guarantees. This is my families and my life and future you are planning so please
take us into consideration when you make your decisions.
Traffic (PG 3-35) This report states that summer weekend traffic can occasionally be quite
heavy due to boaters and recreational activities on the Island. But the report doesn't think it will
EE-2 be any problem. Did they take into consideration that Bethel Island's economy is based on these
boaters and RV's to get here easily. If we are subjected to 5-10 years of road work(Pages 3-56
&3-74)these people will go somewhere else because of the hassle of getting here. 5-10 years of
construction traffic and road work is a long time for a small recreational area's economy.
On Page 3-38 the report states that most of the bike traffic "were children riding to school".
EE-3 That's because our area has grown so fast and the funds for schools are not enough to keep up
with the schools and these parents don't have the $250.00 to pay the bus fees.
On page 3-40 It states "This traffic analysis has not been conducted in detail beyond SR 4 in
EE-4 I Antioch. well dont you flunk it should? That's where the jobs are, and the hospitals.
I'm worried that on page 3-53 the 'Projects that would be required by Cypress Lakes Itself
EE-5 (without any other development taking place) will come to be. Like the Hoffman/Vintage Park
School deal. where are the guarantees?
4-281
,J
=f
Page 3-70 Name 8t phone number of a designated dust control coordinator will be posted at the
site. Shouldn't the neighbors be given this information up front. How can we be sure where on
the 685.9 acres this notice will be? Will an on-site construction office be on site?
EE-6 Will it have regular office hours? With a PERSON to talk to?
What do they consider "High Winds"? Small Craft Warning? Gale Warning? Storm
Warming?Hurricane Warning? We need a definition. On page 2-22 they state extreme winds.
Small Craft is up to 38 MPH, Gale is 39-54 MPH Storm is 55-73 MPH, Hurricane is 74 MPH.
Now what is their definition of Extreme winds?
�. EE-7 Again on page 3-99 there are still no 4 story homes on Sandmound.
Pg 3-101 Those pesky power lines again. Will Medivac be able to land behind the fire house?
EE-8 Would it be safe for pacemaker patients? I understand that there are experts on both sides of this
issue but from a lay persons view I feel the power lines need to be studied more before we put
homes right next to them,and parks and children's playgrounds underneath them.
Pg 3-101 States "often times smoke and haze obscures the mountains making them less visible"
EE-9 (See Figure 3.5-3) The views in Fig 3.5-3 face east, north and north west, there are no views
toward the mountain If we have a hard time now seeing the mountains because of smoke and
haze do you think we need 1330 more fireplaces BBQ's and traffic?
Pg 3-105 States " Views to the west from existing homes along Sandmound would be obstructed
by the levee and proposed project." FEMA states the levee system should provide protection
from flood. From their standpoint It will protect them but from our view point it will increase
EE-10 our damages. I would like to see a report from FEMA stating how this levee has to look from
my side. The report says no rock - what does FEMA say? The projects describes landscaping -
Will FEMA want rip-rap? Won't that be a pretty site? Depends on which side of the levee you
are looking. Again one of the unavoidable consequences of the project.
Pg 3-106 Report talks of landscaping outside the project levee to provide additional screening.
EE-11 Should be trees and shrubs if it doesn't affect levee maintenance. When the district cleans our
ditches now there are no trees or shrubs left. Then these people want to plant cottonwoods? Not
a good choice for those of us with allergies.
P 3-109 "Noise measurement program was conducted during the weekday because it is
8 P g� g Y
typically noisier than weekends." Study done on May 26-27. How can it it noisier? The kids
EE-12 are in school,the tourists are gone and every one else is back to work. Another report that can be
written for the results you want to obtain.
EE-13 Pg 3-113 States levee would reduce noise level ON THE PROTECT SITE but no mention of
how the noise will echo between our levee and theirs down in our gulch.
Hydrology and Drainage
I would like to see Rec Dist 799 reports. But on a few things I do have comments.
Water QuaLty
Pg 3-129 Again pump station for benefit of project and their capacity. During storm periods
excess water would then be pumped to ultimate disposal in Sandmound Slough. This would
EE-14 increase the amount of water into Sandmound Slough along with whatever else is in the water.
Will this have a great impact on us when we have 6' tides, full moons and a south storm
happening? I TBINK SO!
Pg 3-130 Rock will not be utilized, generally placed on the exterior slope (our side) of the water
EE-15 side to protect from erosion. The proposed levee will be built on dry ground and not adjacent to
any waterway. For now that may be true but if we flood it will be adjacent real quick.
'. 4-282
Pg 3-133 To prepare for future raising of the levee the report proposes adding material to the
EE-16 outside of the levee (our side), no change to the interior side of the levee (their side), and the toe
ditch would need to be relocated(again our side).
New levee may settle during construction. Consolidation would occur during levee
EE-17 construction and possibly one or two years thereafter BUT would not have any effect on
adjacent structures. Again what guarantees do we have?
Ground water Pg 3-133
Along with the levee this is another major concern to me. While the project is de-watering and
pounding a swath 100'wide by 15'deep I really feel My house will rattle itself apart -I don't care
EE-18 what all their fancy engineers say. Also nothing was mentioned about our underground water
and sewer pipes being affected by this pounding and de-watering. We need some sort of bond to
protect us from such eventualities.
Pg 3-135 If the existinglevee fails the project will be protected b internal levee. Isn't that nice '
P J P Y
EE-19 they'll be protected and stranded and we get to go over there for evacuation. Do we go to the
golf club house or the bead club house? Then what?
References to Appendix F which is the will serve letter from Oakley Water Dist.
States flooding is speculative & cannot be quantified. But its a big enough possibility that a
EE-20 levee needs to be built all the way around the project because their engineer says our levees are a
night mare. Sounds ambiguous to me.
EE-21 I Pg 3-139 I'm very concerned with excess storm water runoff
Pg 3-141 Who will monitor&maintain water quality of the lake& channels? States "Pumping
of this water into Sandmound Slough would provide a beneficial impact on water quality of
EE-22 Sandmound Slough as long as the water quality of the lake and channel is properly maintained."
The phrase "AS LONG AS" is very important. Well what if it's not properly maintained? Who
will be responsible?
Pg 3-143 States the County would periodically monitor storm water discharge for pollutant
EE-23 levels. Does the County have the man power and funding for this? Who is going to monitor
during the storms and periods of high run off. What if they have to make a choice between
releasing polluted waters or them flooding, what would they choose?
EE-24 3.7-2 They get underground storm drainage pipes
3.7-3 Exterior side (my side) gets drainage ditches
Water Quality
Pg 3-146
EE-25 3.7-14 Information packet shall be distributed to project residents upon purchase of each house.
What about on the resale? Down the road people will come and go and newcomers will not be
informed? What about new residents who don't care to be educated?
3.7-15 I love this one. The sheet sweeping I can't tell
eeP g Program, you how many times I've had to
EE-26 swerve around all the street sweepers I've seen from the county on our road .I'm joking. I would
like to see the Counties"existing street sweeping program" in June with new budget.
EE-27 I
3.7-16 I don't trust the project to maintain the lake&channels. I think an impartial entity should
maintain water quality.
EE-28 What will the Homeowners fee ultimately be. They sure state in a lot of places that if the
County won't pay the Homeowners will. What will that be on top of a 320,000 dollar mortgage
4-283
payment?
PG 3-157 Liquefaction
Excavate, rework and densify the loose clean and silty sands under the levee to a depth of 10 to
15 feet. That heavy weight has me worried. They say would not have any affect on adjacent
l EE-29 residences. If they are so sure of their statements then a cash bond would not be an unreasonable
condition. I can feel the school bus come down my road now, what will constant vibration do to
my house? I don't know but I know my homeowners insurance won't pay for it. I think this
problem is going to make some lawyer, somewhere a very rich man.
Pg 3-163 3.9 Public Services
Fire Services- I would like to see the Fire Dept. responses. Building a site is one thing but the
EE-30 emergency response equipment,administration, staff training and overall maintenance is another.
We're facing a new assessment on us now because of state budget cuts and the county is talking
of cutting fire services so how will they afford this addition?
Police Protection- Another County service that is facing large budget woes. With the budget
EE-31 cut backs how will we fund another officer and equipment? We'll know in June if the sub station
stays open. It's already shut down at night. I would like to see the Sheriff Departments report. I
still see no mention of the Marine Patrol.
Schools-3-174
States "Liberty Union High School District provides busing" It should say that it provides
busing for a fee of $250 per child. We've built 3 new schools and they are all at or beyond
capacity. More funding will be needed to fiord new schools. If we vote down Bond Measures
well just be hit with a Mello-Roos tax on a permanent, annual basis.
EE-32 What will happen to that 10 aces after OUESD determines the school site is unacceptable due
to location within project,next to slough,wetlands,lake and pump out? Will this be 10 acres of
RV storage?
County Code says Street lighting shall be provided along all streets within one mile of schools.
- If we get a school at the designated site well be lit up like day time. That will be more than just a
glow".
Parks&other Recreation Facilities
EE-33 P 3-183 The Lake and channels would be cared for maintained and operated perated by the
homeowners association. I don't trust them to protect my interests on the outside of the project.
. It's my understanding that the project was paid big bucks for the easement for the power lines,
now they can use that land as open space and parks, build right up next to them, then give it to
EE-34 the county for public parks and the general fiord maintains it? Is that right? It still looks like the
major portion of the Public Park is under the lines. This issue was sort of skimmed over.
When incoming residents get a copy of the CC&Rs stating they are aware of the health issues
related to living near the transmission lines will that release the developer of liability?
The project still wants trails on top of the levees encouraging bikes, pedestrians and golf carts
which is still inconsistent with the existing levee uses. If you can use one levee the residents will
EE-35 � they canuse others and that's not the case. How do they plan to keep these people out of
Water Pg 3-190 Still doesn't recognize the Oakley Mutual Water District wells. Does that mean
EE-36 the,don't have to worry about us?
4-284
I know thero' t o
p sect has spent a to f money on the original report and this second report and it
certainly looks like they have addressed all of our concerns but the out come is still the same.
They paid big bucks to get the issues addressed so it would pass through you and on to the
supervisors but nothing is resolved about the levee's and the de-watering, I'm still concerned and
EE-37 I don't feel they have put in any protection for the neighbors already here. The phrase I find
consistently is "unavoidable short term impact" which I translate to mean "Stuff Happens" and
you know what I mean. I recommend a cash bond be posted so when "Stuff Happens" we will
not have to spend years in court with high dollar lawyers trying to get compensated for problems
we are telling you about now.
And again I would like to request another hearing on this matter so the people who didn't get
notified have a chance to respond.
Respectfully,
Diane Shipw
4-285 '
i
Response to Letter EE: Diane Shipway, January 20, 1993
Response EE-1:
Comment noted. Two public hearings were held on the DEIR (February 1 and 8, 1993)
and written comments were accepted from December 31, 1992 until February 16, 1993. This
FEIR responds to all comments received regarding the DEIR.
Response EE-2:
The timeframe for constructing the road improvements necessitated by the proposed
project is described in Table 3.2-6(A) of the DEIR. These improvements are not expected to
require the 5-10 years of road work inferred by the commentor. Improvements to the Cypress
Road/Bethel Island Road intersection would be completed when about 500 units are occupied.
Construction of Cypress Road from Machado Lane to 1,000 feet east of Knightsen Road would
be completed before 1,000 units are occupied. These improvements would occur in less than a
five-year period. The timing of other road improvements would depend on other developments
in the area, and is not possible to be estimated at this time.
Response EE-3:
Comment noted. See Response I-1. Issues regarding school funding and bus fees are
unrelated to the proposed project and EIR. No additional response is necessary.
Response EE-4:
. The traffic analysis for the General Plan addresses traffic issues and impacts of regional
development. A discussion of the jobs/housing balance appears on page 3-7 of the DEIR. While
many East County residents now commute to various East Bay employment centers, the
jobs/housing ratio is expected to improve with increased demand for new services and businesses
in the East County area.
Response EE-5:
The roadway improvements identified on page 3-53 of the DEIR are specific mitigation
measures required of the project. As such, they would be made conditions of the project's
approval if accepted by the County Board of Supervisors.
Response EE-6:
The following mitigation measure should be added to the EIR regarding the dust control
coordinator:
4-286
• In addition to the dust control measures proposed as part of the project, the project
sponsor should post the name and phone number (business and non-business hours) for
the dust control coordinator along the perimeter of the project site and provide this
information by mail to residents within 1,000 feet of the project site.
It is not possible to specify a threshold wind speed that would result in the suspension of
dust-producing activities since the effect of wind on dust production is greatly affected b soil
P g P �' Y Y
moisture and other factors. The following mitigation measure has been added to address this
concern:
• Earthmoving and other dust-producing activities should be suspended when watering and
other dust-control measures are unable to eliminate visible dust plumes.
Response EE-7:
According to field surveys, many homes in the project vicinity are three or four stories
tall (two to three stories over a garage). However, there are a number of homes in the project
vicinity that are single-story.
Response EE-8:
Please refer to Response to Letter P for a discussion of potential effects from power lines.
Response EE-9:
The air quality impacts of the project are evaluated in detail in section 3.3 of the DEIR,
beginning on page 3-64. The DEIR identifies that the project would result in an unavoidable
adverse impact on regional air quality ( for the pollutants NOx and ROG).
Response EE-10:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not have any criteria
regarding the visual appearance of the levee from surrounding areas. FEMA's engineering
consultant will look at the levee proposed for the project and will evaluate not only the design
and maintenance issues, but also the proposed landscaping and other protective measures that
would be built into the facility to assure its continued protection to the development. A portion
of the information to be sent to FEMA is attached to Letter U. At the time an application is
made to remove the project area from the flood hazard zone, complete construction documents
(plans and specifications) would be required to be submitted along with the requests for removal.
The project applicant is not proposing to rip-rap (rock) the exterior slope of the proposed levee.
Rip-rap is generally required for levees that are exposed to water. The rip-rap is used on the
water side to prevent erosion.
4-287
Response EE-11:
Visual mitigation includes two types:
1) Landscape on the proposed levees (see Mitigation Measure 3.5-8) and
2) Landscape outside the levee cross-section (see Mitigation Measure 2.5-4)
The second mitigation measure is proposed so that screening of the levee would occur
even if no landscaping is allowed on the levee. This type of landscaping would not be affected
by maintenance activities.
The listing in the DEIR of trees suitable for planting on residential levees contains the
Fremont Cottonwood Po ulus fremontii . The project sponsor will attempt to guide the
landscape architect to limit the use of this tree on the levee system.
Response EE-12:
The noise measurement program was conducted during the weekday because the noise
consultant's experience indicates that weekday noise levels are typically higher than weekend
levels; the program, therefore, is based on conservative figures. The major noise in the vicinity
of the project is vehicular traffic on Bethel Island Road. Normal commute traffic will generate
the most noise during the day. This commute traffic will tend to control the 24-hour noise level
(DNL). Although children are in school, they travel between their homes and school during
weekdays and this would also contribute to the daily noise levels. On the weekends, children
are not in school and, therefore, they do not travel to and from school. It is possible that mid
day noise levels might be slightly higher on the weekend with heavy recreational traffic.
However, it is unlikely that it would contribute significantly to the 24-hour noise level or exceed
existing weekday noise levels.
Another aspect of environmental noise that will help to clarify this issue is the relationship
of traffic volumes to traffic noise. In order to increase noise levels by three decibels (considered
"just noticeable"), traffic volumes must double. Consequently,a 10% or 20% difference in traffic
volumes would contribute to a change of one decibel or less in the noise level in the project
vicinity. Taking this into account, minor fluctuations in traffic volumes, whether during the peak
hour or off-peak hour, would have a less-than-significant effect on the 24-hour noise level.
Response EE-13:
f
Sound echos (or reflections) are typically produced in rooms where there are many hard
surfaces for sound to reflect. In the outdoor noise environment,achieving this situation with hard
surfaces is difficult except for inner city areas where there are tall buildings and relatively narrow
streets. It can also be a concern on freeways where noise barriers are constructed. For the
project site, the distance between the levees is relatively great with respect to the height of the
levees. Since these levees are basically earthen berms, they are graded such that the faces of the
4-288
i
levees are notP erfectly parallel. In order for sound to reflect between the levees, the levee
surfaces facing each other would need to be parallel. In the project vicinity, the sound would
tend to hit a levee and be partially absorbed and reflected upwards due to the slope of the levee
sides. There would be no measurable effect.
Response EE-14:
The maximum quantity of water that is intended to be pumped from the interior lagoon
of the project would be insignificant in relation to the size of Sand Mound Slough, even during
extreme tidal elevations. The preliminary concept for the pump station is that it would be
capable of pumping 35 cubic feet per second (CFS), which would be the required pumping
capability to limit the water surface elevation rise in the interior lagoon to no more than one foot '
during a 100 year storm event (Bohley, 1993). This 35 CFS of pumping capacity can be
compared to an average flow rate during a low-to-high tidal cycle into Sand Mound Slough, of
approximately 450 CFS. This 35 CFS can also be viewed as an increase in the water surface
elevation of Sand Mound Slough of approximately 1-1/2".
As to the comment on water quality, the mitigation measures numbered 3.7-13 through
3.7-17 of the DEIR would be required of either the project applicant or the Contra Costa
County/Homeowners Association. The water that would be discharged must comply with the
required NPDES permit that must be issued for the storm water discharge. The project applicant
intends to construct a biological cleansing process within the lake/channels to clean the water
before discharge to Sand Mound Slough. See pages 3-139 through 3-143 of the DEIR for
additional discussion of water quality issues.
Response EE-15:
See Response EE-1 .
p 0
Response EE-16:
The project plans include a specific setback (20 feet) for future raising of the levee, if
necessary (see Figure 3.7-3, page 3-131 of the DEIR).
Response EE-17:
See Response Z-20.
Response EE-18:
The perception is that there will be significant vibration occurring during the densification
of the subgrade under the proposed levee. In Appendix E of the DEIR, there is a letter from
Kleinfelder,Inc. discussing the magnitude of the expected vibrations and setting forth precautions
that would be undertaken to minimize such vibrations. If deep dynamic compaction is not
4-289
feasible, other methods are available to obtain the same compaction results, such as excavation
and recompaction.
Response EE-19:
Comments noted. Mitigation measure 3.7-10, page 3-144 of the DEIR specifically calls
for the preparation of a detailed Emergency Evacuation Plan to address these concerns.
Response EE-20:
The General Plan precludes substantial residential development in the flood plain.
Response EE-21:
As explained above (see Response EE-14), excess storm water runoff from the project
would be contained within the project and pumped to disposal directly into Sand Mound Slough.
Existing storm runoff from the project area that is presently being pumped by RD-799 to Sand
Mound or Dutch Sloughs, would be pumped by the project pump station.
Response EE-22:
The Homeowners Association would be responsible for the continued maintenance of the
quality of the water within the lake/channels. As outlined on Pages 3-141 and 3-142 of the
DEIR, the County would perform periodic monitoring to ascertain compliance with the NPDES
permit that will be required for discharge of excess waters into Sand Mound Slough.
Response EE-23:
The intent would be for the Homeowners Association to perform all of the monitoring,
with the reports being furnished to the County on an agreed upon schedule. In the absence of,
or a breakdown in, the water quality being reported, the County would probably take samples on
an unannounced basis and perform their own analysis to assure compliance with the NPDES
permit.
Response EE-24:
Comment noted. The project applicant is proposing an underground drainage system on
the project site.
Response EE-25:
Comment noted. Mitigation measure 3.7-14, page 3-146 of the DEIR is revised as
follows:
4-290
3.7-14 An informational packet shall be distributed to all project residents to educate
them on the use and disposal of undesirable materials such as motor oil, paints,
garden pesticides and other household products. The informational packet should
be distFibuted t„ ., ,.* idents upon purchase of each house contained in the
CC&Rs for each house. (Responsibility: Project Applicant)
Response EE-26:
Comment noted. The comment addresses the County's street sweeping program, not the
proposed project or DEIR.
Response EE-27:
Please refer to Response EE-14, above.
Response EE-28:
No response necessary. The comment is related to the financial burden of future
homeowners and is unrelated to the DEIR.
Response EE-29:
See Response EE-18 and Response Z-20.
Response EE-30:
Impacts to local service providers are discussed Chapter 3.9 in the DEIR. Both fire
districts were contacted regarding the project's impacts and the proposed fire station. Their
responses are provided in Chapter 3.9 of the DEIR. The applicant would be required to pay its
fair share for all public services and utilities necessary to serve the proposed project.
Response EE-31:
Please refer to Response EE-30, above. Existing development would not be responsible
for funding of improvements necessary to serve the project.
Response EE-32:
Comments noted. The comment expresses a personal observation of the commentor. See �.
Response I-1 regarding school impact fees. The DEIR evaluated a school at this site. If a
different site is proposed, additional review and approval by the County would be required. The
County Subdivision Ordinance does require street lights on public streets within one mile of any
school. The County could consider an exception to this requirement along Sandmound
Boulevard.
4-291
Response EE-33:
Comment noted. The comment addresses mistrust of Homeowners' Associations to
adequately maintain the lake and channels. Homeowners' Associations are often responsible for
such maintenance activities. No additional response is necessary.
Response EE-34•
The location of the proposed park is discussed on pages 3-183 and 3-185 of the DEIR and
mapped on Figure 3.9.3, page 3-184, and on all other maps of the project site. Mitigation
Measure 3.9-10 proposes that no active recreational uses be located within the powerline
easement. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 describes the CC&R's. The question of indemnification
is a legal issue, not an environmental issue. The acquisition of easements for the WAPA line
is not the subject of this EIR.
Response EE-35•
Comment noted. The proposed levee system would allow pedestrian and bicycle access,
which is different than the existing levee system. However, pedestrian access to the existing
levee is not allowed.
Response EE-36:
Figure 3.10-1 on page 3-190 of the DEIR is not intended to represent all wells in the
project vicinity. The Oakley Mutual Water District is mentioned on page 3-189. As stated on
page 3-189, there are also an unknown number of private wells, these are not all mapped.
Response EE-37:
Comments noted. The purpose of the revised DEIR was to address all concerns identified.
The decision-making body may still approve a project that has unavoidable adverse impacts.
Before doing so, however, the decision-making body must make findings demonstrating how the
benefits of the project outweigh the impacts of the project. The Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be approved with certification of the EIR. Also see Response Z-20.
4-292
L i n d a Wadswc it t.h
Ix10odhaven Lane
Letter FF Cal 1e-.;, C:a1ifcernia '345G1 '
FER "S PM2: 18 February , 1993
DE V,
Ccintra fDost-a L:ou-nt•v Community Dev l'opLirlT-, t• Dept .
Attention : Mr . Arthur Beresfc-rel
651 Pi-ne =,t.reet.
Martinez, C:alifc i,nia 4�L_
Re : Cautnt.y File 'T '-!1 ;=-RZ - Request to re-Zone and approve EIR
for property in Reclarriat,ion District. 799, i . e . .Cypress Lakes
and County Club et-c .
Dear Mr . Beresf oral;
The environmental Impact. Report for this project. does not reveal
the impact of this levee on the property owners on Sandmound and the
area ir, general . What. will the effect of noise between these levees
be? What about our entrapment between these levees? What about. air
quality between the levees? I feel it. is totally wrong for this
subdivision to be considered for re-zoning In it' s present form .
Almost everyone in the area would 1 ik:e to sec a new development such
as this come into our area . the k:.eyword is into our arca, and not tie
allowed to become a community ont.o itself . Their levee within a levee
would tear our neighborhood into separated spaces (safe and unsafe
zones) . This would be e:.::t.rerne'ly unfair to the people living on '
E:andm mound, Cypress and all areas nearby . This subdivision would not be
an improvement to the area and instead would be a total injustice to
our entire community .
It isobvious to anyone, that a levee surrounding the new
subdivision would immediately speak:. a thousand wards and the huge
statement. would imply that the rest of the immediate area should be
considered less than desirable and unsafe . If , in fact a re-zoning
were to be considered, the entire area rightfully should be included
in this safe gone . This new subdivision should be part of this
expensive recreational area and not be barricaded within a dry levee
and becc�rrie a interruptive community within our community . The only
reason one would even consider such a disturbing venture, would have
to tie the added t.a:::: revenue the county would gain. I certainly hope
this re-mooning issue is re&,lved to benefit. the entire existing area
instead of just. this particular developer . I sincerely hope our Board
of Supervisors will consider the devastating effect this will have on
our property, and insist that. this new development come into our
neighborhood in a more friendly fashion .
It is appalling to me that only recently has it become clear that
they intend to surround the new subdivision with huge dry levees .
Please stop this prcaject with it' s levees now, and make sure we all
become safe. . . . .
Si rely,
Linda Wadsworth
4-293
Response to Letter FF: Linda Wadsworth February 2 1993
Response FF-l:
See Responses EE-12 and EE-13 regarding noise impacts.
See Chapter 3.3 of the DEIR and Response EE-9 regarding air quality impacts.
See the DEIR, Page 3-139 for a discussion of alternative levee improvements. The
potential for internal levees was discussed as part of the Bethel Island Specific Plan, the County
General Plan, and in the NOP and DEIR for these projects. Also see Response EE-20.
Comment noted. The remaining comments represent the opinion of the commentor and
C g P P
does not address a significant impact on the environment or the adequacy of the EIR. No
additional response is necessary.
4-294
4.5 PUBLIC HEARINGS
1
.r
4-295
Letter GGPublic testimony)
Y)
EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 1, 1993
Present: S. Planchon, E. And=ieu, J. Hanson, D. Maybee,
E. Sobalvarro and E. Wetzel
Absent: H. Hern
Staff: M. Fleming and Art Beresford
Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, now we'll get down to the stuff
that all you people are really here for tonight. It's about time,
ha. Before we get started, before we get started and open this up,
any of you who wish to speak on the Hotchkiss Tract bring your
papers up and give them to Debbie there.
Commissioner E. Sobalvarro: We have a whole stack, move to 5
minutes.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Before we get started on this again, a
little bit of background on this and what we're going to consider
tonight so they'll be no mistake in what we're trying to do. (In
background, number 1 is on the top, thank you. ) We're going to
open up number 4 on the agenda and we're going to talk on the
modified EIR. We're going to spend the evening on the modified
EIR. Staff recommends that the East County Regional Planning
Commission take testimony . concerning the revised draft
Environmental Impact Report, close the hearing and allow further
written comment on the EIR to 5: 00 p.m. , Tuesday, February 16.
That's only a recommendation at this point. Last August, but
rather last September and October, the East County Regional
Planning Commission held hearings on the EIR for the Cypress Lakes
Project. As a result of those comments the EIR was revised and a
new draft EIR was circulated. In December 1992 the State Court of
Appeal set the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan aside. As a result
of that court action there is no longer a Bethel Island Specific
Plan. The controlling document in regards to development in the
Hotchkiss Tract area is now the county-wide General Plan. Would
you like to give us some background on this, staff?
M. Fleming: Okay, just for the record I just want to clarify
that this is A.J. Salomon Chartered Land & Cattle Company,
Applicant, and Three Sisters Trust and it's County File 2918-RZ
3032-90 and Subdivision 7562 , and we will be taking testimony on
the EIR and we just like to remind people that, um, the comments
need to be on the adequacy of the EIR. We're not ready to address
the project itself yet so we would ask the people confine their
comments to the EIR question. Um, I don't think we have any other
comments unless you'd like to have Art just go over the general
1:\vol2\clicn1\19018\I-CRPC.021
4-296
description of the application before you do this. Would you like
to hear from him on that?
Chairperson S. Planchon: Uh, would the Commission like to hear?
They nod "yes. "
M. Fleming: okay.
A. Beresford: Well, you've heard this before commissioners and the
large map behind you is the site plan proposal for the so-called
Cypress Lakes development which is a planned unit development
consisting of the applications of 9-1802 to be zoned a site from
general heavy agricultural zoning districts to planned unit
developmental, P-1. Within that development would be a planned
development, planned subdivision to create 1, 330 residential units
surrounding partially a lake and a golf course. There's also a
proposal part of the development is to levee the site, to remove
it from the 100-year flood plain to allow for construction of
residences on the ground surface and I might say there would be
further development plans that need to be filed for the club house
site and let me see, correct me if I 'm wrong, I think that's it.
Uh, there is also a proposal for a fire station on the site which
the developer would have to construct, a school site, a beach club
and day care center. Uh, the extension of Cypress Road across the
site to Sandmound Boulevard and, of course, off-site the
improvement of Sandmound, excuse me, Cypress Lakes then Byron Road
off-site. Also connection from the site to Sandmound Boulevard to
the north. Um, that kind of covers the general gist of what the
proposal is for. What it essentially is 1, 330 single-family
residential units, um, surrounding a lake and channels and a golf
club and golf course. There are also wetlands on the site probably
in the area to the east so called Willows area south of the school
site, I'm not sure along somewhere, but wetlands are to be
preserved and, uh, protected along the site, oh, I'm sorry, there's
a wetlands area near the golf club house site. Um, as I say, this
hearing is primarily on the adequacyof the revised draft EIR,
taken particularly because some, of the issues raised and also as
you no doubt know as Chairman Planchon mentioned the Bethel Island
Specific Plan does not exist any longer so the EIR would have
removed those references to the Bethel Island Specific Plan. The
governing document now is the county General Plan. I could pin it
up for you but it says Specific Plan and I would have to modify it
but the land use designations are the same. This is still the off-
island bonus area and it allows for residential developments up to
2 .9 units per net acre if adequate publicly accessible recreational
facilities are provided. Itl.s . one of the decisions you'll
ultimately have to make, is this adequate for the density proposed?
I also mentioned there is the . existing power lines which run
through the extreme southwest corner of the site, the older power
lines, are you all familiar with that I'm sure, and of course you,
I always want to say WAPA ,but the new power lines that run through
1:\vof2\clicnt\19018\1-*(:RI'C.021
4-297
the southeast corner of the site and those have recently been
constructed. There are also three small, relatively small parcels
which are not part of the project, �uh, property owned, there's two
one acre, approximately one acre sites. and I'm sure this site here
I think is about a half an .acre ..or .a little less. They are not
part of the project and.. � you :Tought. to. consider some of their
conflicts and I'm sure you'll`' hear their discussion on that with
the project. I don't know, are there other questions? Essentially
what you're hearing now is the 'adequacy or non-adequacy of the
revised draft EIR for the projects.
Commissioner J. Hanson: You said there are still the three units
that are within.
r -
A. Beresford: These three properties are not a part of the
project.
Commissioner J. Hanson: They're still within the project.
A. Beresford: Those are still there, yes.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Okay, thank you, Art.
A. Beresford: Sure.
�. Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, we're going to open this up for the
public hearing. I have. . .
A. Beresford: May I say. I should have introduced Scott
Steinwert, who is the consultant on the Environmental Impact Report
who will give a presentation and answer any additional questions
you may have.
Chairperson S. Planchon: At the end or right now would you like to
have him?
A. Beresford: Usually I think at the. beginning of it. .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Sure, come forward.
A. Beresford: Go over some of the changes that I should have
mentioned.
S. Steinwert: I 'm Scott Steinwert with Public Affairs Management
and as Art indicated our firm prepared the revised draft EIR. Just
as a point of reference our firm also prepared the first draft EIR
that was beforeou several months ago. Um I'd like to
Y g dust point
out some of the changes. I know it's getting late and we got a lot
of people here who want to speak on this subject so I'll try to be
brief. I' ll just try to highlight some of the changes that we've
incorporated into this revised draft EIR. As Art mentioned in
L\vo12\c1icnt\19018\1'CRPC.021
4-298
�i
show this conflict? To me, it looks like a conflict of property
ownership or you know, when I look at what the map looks like.
M. Fleming: Well it is a matter of concern, it's an issue that
we want to examine in making a determination on the project itself
but it is not something that would seem to be an environmental
L\vo12\c1icnt\19018\1:C RIT.021
4-300
response to comments on the .first draft EIR, the project applicant
revised their application to include some additional information
about the project design and their mitigation measures. That
information has been incorporated into this document into the
revised EIR and evaluated as to its ability to mitigate the impacts
of the project. There has also been some additional technical
analyses that were conducted in response to some of the comments
on the first draft EIR. To point out some of the areas that have
been revised and where additional information has been included,
some of the additional information that has been included regarding
the landscaping of the project and the golf course maintenance
issues. That has been added to the EIR and we've evaluated that
as part of the revisions. Um, additional information about the
issue that needed to be addressed in the EIR. So that is something
that when we talk about the project itself is an issue that should
be included. That item will follow the EIR hearing. Once we have
finished with that then we will open the hearing on the project jI
again and discuss.
Commissioner J. Hanson: So it's not appropriate to hear. It would �I
be a traffic issue -- we don't hear traffic issues?
. M. Fleming: Yeah, when they are part of the environmental
impacts and that is what we are hearing with. the EIR, traffic
li
issues.
Commissioner J. Hanson: I mean, to me it would be a traffic issue �)
because it involves a public, it involves access to property and
a road. It just seems to me that that would be an environmental
it is an impact.
S. Steinwert: Right, in the fact that you have brought it up at J
this public hearing we will make sure that we will address it in
the final EIR.
Commissioner J. Hanson: I would like to see it.
M. Fleming: Any comments that the Commissioners have as well as �
the public on . issues in the EIR will be examined in the final.
Commissioner J. Hanson: Okay.
S. Steinwert: Thank you.
Chairperson S. Planchon: What we are talking about mainly here is
impact and mitigation measures. We are going to be talking again
about the modified .EIR.. I have 12 requests here to speak and
looking at the time over there, we'd like to be out of here by 11 1
if possible. If we take each one of these, when I have 12 and give - j
them each 5 minutes maximum to speak. .
I
Voices in audience: No, no, you're not fair.
Chairperson S. Planchon: At . this point in time let's try that and
we will go from there.
Voices in audience: I have a certain amount of talking to do.
So do I. So do I .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, we will play it by ear. And
one more makes 13 . (background voices) Again,. we would like to
have you confine your speaking to the impacts and mitigation
measures of the EIR and if someone before you says certain things,
1:\vol2\crc n I\19018\r:CRI :.021
4-301
try not to repeat that if possible, so we can move this thing
along. So with that we will have the first speaker, Diane Shipway.
Diane Shipway: I am going to try to be brief, it may not work.
First, I have to complain about the meeting notifications of this
project. My neighbor called me at 1: 15 and asked me if I was going
to the planning meeting. I told him that Art had called me a few
weeks before and had told me about it but I hadn't received a
GG-1 notice. My neighbor told me he had his for about 8 days, which
gave him a chance to look over this 1-3/4" document. I'm not the
only person who has attended these meetings and then have not been
given notification. Rhonda Hanson didn't get noticed, Bob Counsel,
,John Zoocaucus, Richard Kent, Gus Burkaltz. They haven't gotten
notices. Anybody else? Some people didn't get notices.
chairperson S. Planchon: Just a moment, I will ask the Staff
over there. Have they been properly noticed on this, everyone in
that area?
D. Shipway: I found out mine was the wrong address. I did find
that out. I did call Art, Art called me back, it was a problem.
I have had a post office box for 20 years that I have lived on
Bethel Island. They sent it to my post office box in Oakley.
Chairperson S. Planchon: My concern is, is have they been
mailed out? That's my main concern.
M. Fleming: Notices should have been mailed out to anyone that
was within 300 feet as well as anyone that had given us a green
card before. Now if something got overlooked, I 'm not aware of it.
D. Shipway: I have been to all of the meetings and I put my
correct address on everything I have spoken about and I still
didn't get a notice.
Female from audience: They sent this out 2 or 3 days ago telling
us about a meeting the 16th. Nobody said anything about this
meeting. (background voices -- I got that one, I didn't)
D. Shipway: I got that one with my corrected address.
A. Beresford: Chair, 400 notices were sent out about the meeting
for hearing tonight.
Chairperson S. Planchon: 400 notices were sent out.
A. Beresford: And that may have been inadvertently . . .
D. Shipway: I did talk to Art, there was a problem with my
address.
1: vola clicnt 19018 FCR11C.021
4-302
Chairperson S. Planchon: Let's go ahead and continue.
D. Shipway: So I was lucky enough to get my neighbor's EIR and
I borrowed that for a few days and I have read quite a bit, but I
still feel that I am unprepared to address all the issues without
more time to peruse the material. I am requesting that you hear
what we have to say tonight, but I am also asking that another
public meeting be held to give everyone a chance to read the
copious amount of material that has been presented to us. This is
a big enough issue to be decided, this is too big of an issue to
be decided in a short amount of time. My neighbors and I will be
affected by this project forever. The developer will be gone in
5 or 10 years, this Commission will be filled with new faces and
the Supervisors will be on to other things. You have to listen to
our concerns and apprehensions and realize why we want some
guarantees. This is my family's and my life and future you are
planning, so please take us into consideration when you make your
decisions. On page 3-35 the report on traffic, the report states
that summer weekend traffic can occasionally be quite heavy due to
boaters and recreational activities on the island but the report
doesn't think it will be any problem. But did they take into
consideration that Bethel Island's economy is based on these
boaters and RVs to get there easily. If we are subjected to 5 or
10 years of road work, which they state on page 3-56 and 3-74 ,
these people will go somewhere else because of the hassle of
getting here. Five to 10 years of construction traffic and road
work is a long time for a small recreational area's economy. On
GG-1 Page .3-38 , the report states that most of the bike traffic for
children riding to school. That is because our area has grown so
fast and the funds for schools are not enough to keep up with the
schools and these parents don't have $250 to pay the fees to get
their kids bused to school. On page 3-40, it states that this
traffic analysis has not been conducted in detail beyond State Road
4 in Antioch. Well don't you think it should? That is where the
jobs are, that's where the hospitals are. It needs to be
considered. I 'm worried that on page 3-53 , the thing that states
projects that would be required by Cypress Lakes itself without any
other development taking place will come to be. I 'm sure everybody
knows about the Hoffman Vintage Park School deal. What are our
guarantees? On page 3-70, it states that the name and the phone
number of a designated dust control coordinator will be posted at
the site. Shouldn't the neighbors be given this information up
front? How can we be sure where on the 685. 9 acres this notice
will be? Will an on-site construction office be on-site, will it
have regular office hours, with a person to talk to? What do they
consider high winds, small craft warnings, gale warnings, storm
warnings, hurricane warnings? We need a definition. on page 2-
22 , they state extreme winds. Small craft is up to 38 mph, gale
is 39-54 mph, storm is 55-73 mph, hurricane is 74 mph. What is
their definition of extreme winds? And again on page 3-99 , there
is still no four-story homes on Sandmound. On page 3-101, there
I:\volt\clicnt\19018\1?CRI'(:.0?1
4-303
is pesky power lines again. Will Medi-Vac be able to land behind
the fire house? Would it. .be safe for pacemaker patients? I
understand that there are experts on both sides of this issue, but
from a lay person's view I feel the power lines need to be studied
more before we put homes right next tothem and parks and
children's playgrounds underneath them. On page 3-101, it states
often times smoke and haze obscures the mountains making them less
visible. And it says to see Figure 3 . 5-3 . But the views in Figure
3 . 5-3 face east, north and northwest, there are no views towards
the mountains. If we have a hard time now seeing the mountains
because of smoke and haze, do you think we need 1, 330 more
barbecues and traffic? On page 3-105, it states views from the
west from existing homes along Sandmound would be obstructed by the
levee and proposed project. FEMA states that the levee system
should provide protection from flood. From the project standpoint,
it will protect them; but from our viewpoint it will increase our
damages. I would like to see a report from FEMA stating how this
levee has to look from my side. The report says no rock, but what
does FEMA say? The project describes landscaping, will FEMA want
riprap? That is going to be real pretty. It depends on which side
you are looking on and again it is one of the unavoidable
consequences of this project. On page 3-106, the report talks of
landscaping outside the levee project to provide additional
screening. Should be trees and shrubs if it doesn't affect levee
maintenance. But when the levee district cleans our ditches now
GG-1 there are no trees or shrubs left, then they want to plant
cottonwood. Not a good choice for those of us who have allergies.
On page 3-109 , the noise measurement program was conducted during
the weekday because it is typically noisier than weekends. The
study was done on May 26 and 27 . How can it be noisier? The kids
are back to school, the tourists are gone and everyone else is back
to work. Another report that can be written for the results that
you want to obtain. On page 3-113 , it states levees would reduce
noise level on the project site but no mention of how the noise
will echo between our levee and theirs down in our gulch. On the
hydrology and the drainage, I would like to see 799 reports but I
do have a few comments. On the water quality on page 3-129, again
the pump station for benefit of project and their capacity. During
storm periods excess water would then be pumped to ultimate
disposal and Sandmound Slough. This would increase the amount of
water into Sandmound Slough along with whatever else is in the
water. Will this have a great impact on us when we have 6-foot
tides, full moons and the south storm happening? I think so. On
page 3-130, it says rock will not be utilized generally placed on
the exterior slope which is our side of the water side to protect
from erosion. The proposed levee will be built on dry ground and
not adjacent to any waterway. For now that may be true, but if we
flood, it will be adjacent real quick. On page 3-133 , to prepare
for future raising of the levee, the report proposes adding
material to the outside levee which is our side. No change to the
interior side of the levee which is their side and the toe ditch
1:\%,o13\c1icni\19018\1:(:R11C.021
4-304
would need to be relocated. Again, on our side. New levee may
settle during construction. Consolidation would occur during levee
construction and possibly one or two years thereafter, but would
not have any affect on adjacent structures. Again, what guarantees
do we have? The groundwater, along with the levee this is another
major concern to me. While the project is dewatering and bounding
a swath 100 feet wide by 15 feet deep I really feel my house will
rattle itself apart and I don't care what all their fancy engineers
are saying. Also, nothing was mentioned about our underground
water and sewer pipes being affected by this pounding and
dewatering. We need some sort of bond to protect us from such
eventualities. On page 3-135, if the existing levee fails, the
project will be protected by the internal levee. Well that's nice.
They are protected and stranded and we go over there for
evacuation. Do we go to the golf club house or do we go to the
beach house? Then what? On the same page, it makes references to
Appendix F which is a will-serve letter from the Oakley Water
District and has nothing to do with the water quality.. State
flooding is speculative and cannot be quantified. But it is a big
enough possibility that a levee needs to be built all the way
around the project because their engineers say our levees are a
nightmare. It sounds real ambiguous to me. I 'm very concerned
with excess storm water runoff. Who will monitor and maintain
water quality of the lake and the channels? The report states the
GG-1 pumping of this water into Sandmound Slough would provide a
beneficial impact on water quality of Sandmound Slough as long as
the water quality of the lake and channel is properly maintained.
The phrase "as long as" is very important. What if it is not
properly maintained? Who will be responsible? On page 3-143 , it
states that the County would periodically monitor storm water
discharge for pollutant levels. Does the County have the manpower
and the funding for this? Who is going to monitor during the
storms and periods of high runoff? What if they have to make a
choice between releasing pollutant waters or them flooding? What
will they choose? On the same page in paragraph 3 . 7-2 , they get
underground storm drainage pipes on page 3 , on the next paragraph
3 . 7-3 , exterior side--my side--we get drainage ditches. Something
is not right there. On page 3-146, paragraph 3 .7-14 , the
information package shall be distributed to project residents upon
purchase of each house. What about on the resale? Down the road
people will come and go and newcomers will not be informed. What
about new residents who don't care to be educated? On paragraph
3 . 7-15, I love this one--this is my favorite--the street sweeping
program. I can't tell you how many times I have had to swerve
around all of the street sweepers I have seen from the County on
our road. (Ha) I 'm joking. I would like to see the County's
existing street sweeping program in the June with the new budget.
On 3 .7-16, I don't trust the project to maintain the lakes and
channels. I think an impartial entity should maintain water
quality. What will the homeowner's fee be ultimately? They sure
state in a lot of places that if the County won't pay, the
1:\vo12\c1icnt\19019\1'CR 11C.021
4-305
i
homeowners will. What will that be on top of a $320, 000 mortgage
payment. I'm getting there--I'm reading fast. Okay, on page 3-
157 on the liquefaction, it says excavate, rework, intensify the
loose, clean and silty sands under the levees to a depth of 10 to
15 feet. Its heavy weight has be worried. They say would not have
any affect on adjacent residents. If they are so sure of their
statements, then a cash bond would not be an unreasonable
condition. I can feel the school bus come down my road now. What
will a constant vibration do to my house? I don't know, but my
homeowner's won't cover it. I think this problem is going to make
some lawyer somewhere a very rich man. On public services, for the
fire department I would like to see the fire department responses.
Building a site is one thing but the emergency response equipment,
1 the administration, the staff training and overall maintenance is
another. We are facing a new assessment on us now because of State
budget cuts and the County is talking of cutting fire services.
So how will they afford this addition? On police protection,
another County service that is facing large budget woes. With the
budget cutbacks, how will we fund another officer and equipment?
We will know in June if the substation stays open. It is already
shut down at night. I would like to see the Sheriff's Dept. report
and I still see no mention of the marine patrol. On the schools
on page 3-174 , states Liberty Union High School District provides
busing. It should say that it provides busing for a fee of
$250/child. We have built three new schools and they are all at
or beyond capacity. More funding will be needed to fund such
schools. If we vote down bond measures, we will just be hit with
GG-1 a mello roos tax on a permanent- annual basis. What will happen to
that 10 acres after OUESD just determines that the school site is
unacceptable due to the location within the project. It is too
close to the schools, it is too close to the wetlands, it is too
close to the lakes, it is too close to the pump outs. What will
this 10 acres be when this 10 acres is not going to be a school
site? What is it going to turn out to be, will it be 10 acres of
RV storage? We'd like to know. County Code says street lighting
shall be provided along all streets within one mile of schools.
If get a school at the designated site, we will be lit up like day
time. That will be more than just a glow. On parks and recreation
facilities on page 3-183 , the lake and channels would be cared for,
maintained and operated by the homeowner's association. I don't
trust them to protect my interests on the outside of the project.
It is my understanding that the project has paid big bucks for the
easement for the power lines, now they can use that land as open
space and parks, build up right next to it, then give it to the
County for public parks and the general fund pays for it. Is that
right? It still looks like the major portion of the public park
is under the line and this issue was sort of skimmed over in what
I have read. When incoming residents get a copy of the CC&Rs
stating that they are aware of the health issues relating to living
near the transmission lines, will that release the developer of
liability? The project still wants trails on top of the levees
I:\volt\clicnt\I90IR\1:(:I&C.0?1
4-306
encouraging bikes, pedestrians and golf carts which is still
inconsistent with existing levee uses. If you can use one levee,
the residents will assume that they can use others and that is not
the case. How do they plan to keep these people out of my yard?
On the water on page 3-190, they still don't recognize that the
Oakley Mutual Water District has two wells on the street and I know
that there is other wells that are not in the map. Does that mean
that they don't have to worry about us? I know the project has
spent a lot of money on the original report and this second report
GG-land it certainly looks like they have addressed all of our
concerns, but the outcome is still the same. They paid big bucks
to get the issues addressed so it would pass through you and on to
the Supervisors, but nothing is resolved about the levees and the
dewatering. I 'm still concerned and I don't feel they have put in
any protection for the neighbors already here. The phrase I find
consistently is "unavoidable short-term impact" which I translate
to mean stuff happens--and you know what I mean. I recommend a
cash bond be posted so when stuff happens we will not have to spend
years in court with high dollar lawyers trying to get compensated
for problems we are telling you about now. And again, I would like
to request another hearing on this matter so the people who didn't
get notified have a chance to respond. Thank you. (Applause) .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Diane has to be first because she said she
couldn't speak very well . (Ha) Darrell Edwards?
Darrell Edwards: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am Darrell
Edwards, resident of Sandmound Blvd. soon to be Sandmound Gulch.
I really feel very limited after that eloquent presentation by
Shipway, I mean she is something else. Uh, I want to address
something that probably isn't something that is supposed to be
addressed tonight, but it is the economics of this project. To
make it viable people have to buy these homes on these 5, 000 square
foot lots. Now, if they don't buy the houses, then the project
fails but in the meantime we have levees that have been built after
we have had this wonderful thing called "deep dynamic compaction. "
We've also experienced the joys of dewatering. So we have gone
through the hell and now we have a levee that we have to live with
GG-2 and a project that may or may not be viable. In the EIR they
mention that parks are going to be dedicated. Well this is 1993 ,
Bill Clinton is going to raise taxes on all middle class people
because we have a terrible deficit. The State of California has
a terrible deficit. We are firing anybody in the County that can't
do three jobs. We cannot expect that the County is going to take
over the maintenance of parks, beach clubs, golf courses or any
other thing in this project. This project has to be self-
sustaining. The project residents must pay for everything that
happens in this development, unless we have a miracle and everybody
becomes fat and sassy. So my concern is, what are all these costs
going to be? They are not addressed in the EIR. I did some
preliminary numbers and because I don't have anything to go by I
L\vo12\c1ient\19019\1 iC.RPC..021
4-307
/J
just kind of guessed at what some of these costs might be based on
a little bit of experience -.with 799 and what their costs are for
pumping water around, etc. Now I took a typical sales price for
the cheap seat house at $175, 000, took a 10% down payment, which
left a balance to finance of about $162 , 000, 30 years at 8%, puts
it around $1, 200 a month just for the payments. Now the taxes are
around $2 , 200 per year, about $182 a month. Insurance I just
factored in about $100 per month. Then we get down to lake
maintenance. Now we have to have according to the EIR this water
running around 24 hours a day. They don't tell us how big a pump.
Now in rec 79 we have 50 horsepower pumps, 40 horsepower pumps, but
they don't run 24 hours a day. When we are pumping a lot of water
we are running $2 , 000 to $3 , 000 a month. What is it going to cost
to circulate all of this water 24 hours a day. I say it is going
to cost every homeowner in there $100 a month. They are going to
have to pay because they can't get out of rec 79 , they are going
to have to pay at least $25 a month probably towards the rec 79
fees. The golf course is going to cost them $50 a month, the park
maintenance is going to cost them $50 a month, the street sweeper
that Diane Shipway has to run around is going to cost them $10 a
month, and the beach club is probably going to cost them $20 a
month. That is roughly $300 a month on top of all of these other
costs that these people are going to have to afford. That equates
to almost $2, 000 a month and you have to make about $6, 000 a month
to be able to afford that kind of payment. People that are making
$6, 000 a month in grossincome are not flocking to East County to
move into Cypress Lakes. The retiree is certainly not going to
1 GG-2 come into a 5, 000 square foot lot to spend his weaning years when
he has an ozone thing thatis going to make his respirator work
overtime. My concern is that if we are subject to the deep dynamic
I compaction, the dewatering and this unsightly levee that is going
to put us at jeopardy and this project fails, what are we stuck
with? So, maybe we need a completion bond put up by the developer.
Diane Shipway mentioned the bonds for all of us on Sandmound who
maybe affected by deep dynamic compaction. I think it is only fair
because we can't afford to go out and hire an attorney if we have
a problem. Now, if it seems equitable that prior to this deep
dynamic compaction the developer wants to bring people into our
house with video cameras and do the outside and the inside and
let's see this is how the house looks before deep dynamic
compaction and here is what is left of it afterwards,
Voice from the audience: I ' ll volunteer.
D. Edwards: That sounds pretty reasonable to me. But I don't
want to be placed nor do I want to put my neighbor's place in a
position where they have to go out and hire a $195/hour attorney
to protect their rights. We are here, we don't need problems.
There are so many things that have to be paid for in this thing,
I don't see how anybody is going to have the money to make this
thing a viable attraction. We have houses right now, single-
•` I:\vola\clicnl\1901R\1:(:Itl'('.11?I
4-308
family detached, 3 to 4 bedroom houses that are sitting vacant, and
they are for sale at $129, 000. Now, I can't see a stampede to
Cypress Lakes. I 'm sorry. Lakes that you can't go swimming in.
"No skin contact. " If you did you'd probably die of some sort of
overdose of chemicals anyway from the golf course. So, you know,
it just doesn't make any sense to me. Again, the definition for
extreme wind. Mr. Chairman, you are a handsome man--that is a
pretty broad statement, but I need to know what extreme wind is.
Is that 10 mph, I want to know. Because you know we all have these
little things that tell us how the wind, we are all down wind from
this project. We want to know what extreme wind is so if it says
it is 22 mph, at 23 mph I am going to be on the phone to that
number that I had been provided and I'm going to be calling that
guy and say shut that sucker down because we have extreme winds.
And by the way send the street sweeper over to sweep up Sandmound.
It's terrible. I mentioned the last time I was up here (or one of
the times I was up here) that we have what is called poor men's air
conditioning out where we are. In the afternoon the wind comes out
of the west so you open up the windows and that lets the heat go
down. Can't afford PG&E.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Is it a strong wind?
D. Edwards: It is an extreme wind. (Ha) The last thing that,
you know, I don't have any experience with this document and quite
frankly this is a real snoozer. I question, like on the last page
of the green sheet or blue sheet (excuse me) it says, energy an
GG-2 average dwelling unit could be expected to consume approximately
4 , 869 kilowatt hours a year. These. are all electric houses there
is no natural gas. They do have an option for propane. Do you
know what PG&E says? I called the rate department in San
Francisco. They said, son you are reading a sales brochure. Talk
maybe 10, 000 hours, we are talking 6, 000 more hours per year than
what they say here. That equates to $150 a month in PG&E bills
before the County adds its little utility tax on it because we need
more money in the general fund. This is going to be an awfully
expensive project. I'm going to sit down because other people have
very interesting things to say but we are going to talk about water
quality going into Sandmound and all of these great things and they
have to be addressed. I am not personally convinced that a 50-
foot reach in the levee is. going to stay 50 feet wide and only
going to put in, there are nice little charts in here, but I'm not
an engineer. I don't believe it is going to stay 50 feet wide and
I don't think that there is going to be just X number of gallons
per minute going through that ditch. I think from what I've heard
that these levees when they do break all of a sudden they get 400
feet wide. Now if it is 2 o'clock in the morning and we have a 7
foot tide and Earl is sitting across the street and his house is
on the ground, how much water is going to come through that broken
levee real fast and make it awful difficult for these folks. You
people have a huge decision to make and I don't envy you, and they
1:\%•o12\c1icnt\I1X)IA\1 iCla1C.02I
4-309
couldn't pay me enough to do what you have to do and listen to nuts
like me. Give some real serious thought and thank you so much for
your time. (Applause)
Chairperson S. Planchon: Elaine Dannelley?
Elaine Dannelley: (Read from letter dated January 26, 1993,
attached) I want to know if three times is out? How many times
do the residents of the Hotchkiss Tract area have to review and
respond to an EIR that does not address the hazards and extra costs
the developer and the County are trying to force upon us? On
rezoning, residents moved to this area because they wanted to enjoy
the country climate, not to have a city brought to us. We do not
1 want our A-2 zoning changed to P-1, limiting us to the number and
kinds of animals we can enjoy on our property. Okay, with uses,
we feel that this area could be used for other purposes, such as
a wildlife preserve. Since there are at least three special status
animals on the property. These are burrowing owls, pond turtles,
Northern harriers and possibly others because it is in the range
of the kit fox and the golden eagle. Ms. Hanson brought up the
fact about my easement and to me it is traffic and it is very
important. I have horse trailers, I have to be able to get in and
out of my property. With the change of the easement is proposed
on this development I would have four and five 900 turns and if
there is a sound wall up, I cannot. possibly make it. I don't have
a big rig, I have a smaller rig, but I can't make it. My easement
has been in existence for over 50 years and I do not feel that I
should be jeopardized because someone else wants to take my
recorded right. I will fight for these rights, I will not give up
easily on it. Personal reasons, here again I moved to Bethel
GG-3 Island area for the country atmosphere and to have and enjoy my
animals. I do not feel my property should be impacted for the
developer's desire and personal gain. I fully expect the county
to have the applicant completely disclose to the possible future
homeowners the existence of smells, insects, and other hazards of
agricultural operations. My setup also has an attractive nuisance
of horses and other animals. People in close proximity to my
property will increase my liability insurance and emotional stress
and strain. This does not mean that I am going to change my
lifestyle so the developer can make a fast buck. Sound walls, I
see that they are in the EIR again now. I do not want my view
blocked and my air circulation cut off by such structures.
Cultural resources, the EIR quoted the CEQA standards that an
archaeological monitor should be present when grading, excavation
1 and trenching are done. When in reality, trenching was done last
Fall without anyone present and will possibly be done again if
possible. I request that the archaeologist be dressed in Native
Indian garb and have a sign so we can tell him from the others.
In the EIR, it also states that Lots 10 and 11 should be removed
from the project because they are sensitive to the archaeological
conditions and yet they are still on the plot maps. Visual
1:\vol2\clicnt\19018\1:C1ZPC.021
4-310
i
aspects, the EIR tries to say putting up a 20-foot levee around 682
acres, building a 60-acre lake and 160-acre golf course does not
change the view or the topography of the land. Did they even build
a clay model to see the difference from flat? Adverse
environmental impacts for "not a part of" residents and I'm the
lowest little white spec up there. Since these homes are unique
in that they are almost in the center of the development, we feel
that if this project comes under construction, the developer be
required to indemnify those residents for cleaning dust' and dirt
from residences (interior and exterior) , medical costs for
unforeseen hazards, and any costs due to injuries to animals,
livestock and pets (such as cats, dogs, horses, livestock, and the
wild critters) caused by the applicant's construction operations.
Compaction for levees and I love this one. Since this compaction
method is as they say a "relatively new" process and untested in
the area, I feel that a bond should be posted to compensate present
residents for any damage to wells, houses, and other structures as
a result of the constant seismic effect caused by the compaction
procedure. Interior .levees, 20-foot walls across from Sandmound
Blvd. homes expose these residents to life threatening dangers such
as poor air quality from dust and air pollution caused by
construction equipment during the 10-year building process,
pollution from the new traffic added to the already poor air
quality, possible outside levee breaks by storms, winds,
earthquakes or compaction process, or high tides, filling the
corridor between the levees with no escape for the residents, fire
GG-3 danger in which there will be no escape route leaving the residents
exposed to toxic fumes and smoke with danger of suffocation, poor
or little air circulation in the corridor exposing the residents
to pollution and health hazards and exposing the elderly and sick
in the area with all of these hazards and causing them undue
stress, stress due to the noise from the vehicles, compaction and
general construction. Alternatives for the project, presently the
best choice for the project would be ( 1) no project or (6) off-
site project, because these have no or none of the adverse impacts
of the present project proposal. 500 kV transmission lines, these
bisect the property exposing much of it to the electromagnetic
force which is associated with increased incidents of childhood
leukemia, adult leukemia, lymphoma, nervous system cancers, brain
tumors, malignant melanoma of the skin, and breast cancer in men.
There have been over 100 studies done since 1987 to 1992 that I am
aware of showing the adverse effects to people. This one list I
have came from Berkeley, the State Health Department. To compare
the hazardous conditions of 24-hour exposure to a hair dryer which
is used about 3 minutes is ludicrous. From all of the TV and
newspaper coverage, people are becoming more concerned about their
health and devaluation of their property. Yet, this developer is
proposing homes butting up to the corridor possibly causing an
immediate ghetto in the area. . There is no cost-effective shielding
for EMF other than distancing from the source. Lots with
accelerated magnetic field levels over 1 mG should be land-banked.
1:\vo12\c1icn1\1901 8\GC1U'C.021
4-311 '
The "fear of" EMF has been determined to be compensable damage
under California law and this factor materially affects the value
and the utility of property. Parks, the now (and they have
increased it to) 22 .4 acre park at the entrance of the development
is still partially under and all adjacent to the 500 kV power lines
which expose the public to the hazardous EMF forces. The
mitigation is that the intensive recreational uses should be
outside the easement. It is still being dedicated to the County
so that the taxpayers can support a park that is so hazardous to
their health. Why should we be expected to pay for something that
can kill our kids? Animal life, changes in the diversity of a
species or numbers of species of animals (birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fish and shellfish or insects) by disrupting, polluting
and destroying their natural habitats will ultimately kill these
species. Unique species of animals such as opossums, foxes,
coyotes, jack rabbits, quail, pheasants, cottontail rabbits, ducks,
and many others, live in the area. The destruction and
deterioration of wildlife habitat gives them no consideration or
right to life. According to the EIR, some of the species observed
during studies on the area are on the Contra Costa County Special
Status List and also on the State and Federal lists for threatened
and endangered species. These are the burrowing owls, pond
turtles, Northern harriers, and possibly southwestern pond turtles.
The EIR says there is 9 . 1 acres of wetlands. I'd like to have you
come out there right now because now there are more than 60 acres
of wetlands. Right? And the gentlemen tonight said that if water
stands on property more than two weeks it could be considered
GG-3 wetlands. Come on out guys and take a look at it. Plant life,
changes in the diversity of species of plants including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic plants by the destruction of the
existing habitats and introduction of new species will completely
change the appearance of the area. Relocation and reduction of
unique, rare or endangered species such as those in wetlands can
completely destroy them. Water, alteration to groundwater by
filling lakes can allow an influx of salt water contaminating
private and public wells. Aesthetics, the scenic view of open
fields, wetlands and small hills will be destroyed and replaced
with architecturally mediocre homes. Roads, roads to handle the
increased traffic should be in place before the construction begins
and not just by saying that there are future roads planned such as
widening Highway 4 and constructing the Delta Expressway (which you
just said was 10 to 20 years down the road) . If the project needs
these roads to handle their new community traffic, the developer
should be forced to build the project after the completion of the
1 highways. This project has the potential to degrade the
environment, reduce the wildlife habitat, cause the taxpayer a huge
increase tax burden, impact the area with increased traffic, noise,
pollution, lack of schools, crime and population. All this comes
at a time when the County has cut back in all services and is
already considering increased taxes to maintain the status quo.
Litigation and investigations, I feel this County should postpone
1:\volt\client\1IX)1K\IiCRI'C.0?I
4-312
any consideration of this project until pending litigation is
settled and any government investigation completed so the County
GG-3 will not be responsible for possibly completing a failed project.
Presently, this subdivision appears to be an environmental disaster ,
to both the animals and residents of the Bethel Island area. I
hope the Commission will take these points under serious
consideration before approving this development. Thank you.
(Applause) .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Fred Davis?
Fred Davis: Mr. Commissioner, members. Before I get started I
would kind of like to nail down what Commissioner Hanson was
attempting to establish at the beginning of this particular part
of the process. This map that comes with this wonderful document
seems to be prepared by Huffman & Associates and it doesn't appear
like there is any communication between the map and the people from
Public Affairs Management. In particular, about what Ms. Hanson
and my wife brought up about our deeded legal easement, cannot be
changed, we have attorney's opinion on that. Yet it has been
changed on the map. Their own archaeological resource says that
about four of the lots to be redrawn or withdrawn from the project
and yet they are still on the map. So, what I am asking you is
where does the information come that produced the map that you have
on the wall?
Chairperson S. Planchon: I can't answer that question. We are
hear to listen to you tonight.
F. Davis: Well, I 'm asking a question. I want to know how
come the map doesn't reflect the information?
GG-4
Chairperson S. Planchon: I don't have that answer. Does Staff
have that answer?
M. Fleming: I 'm not aware of the map, the map reflects the
application that was submitted by the applicant.
F. Davis: Huffman?
M. Fleming: Whoever the applicant is on the project.
F. Davis: Have you ever looked at the map?
M. Fleming: No I haven't looked at the map.
F.Davis: How can you comment on it?
M. Fleming: The EIR basically is written to discuss the impacts
of that project on the environment. [New tape] . . . Get changed
until after this whole process is completed. Once the EIR has been
1:\vo12\c1ient\1901fi\1?Clil'C.0?I
4-313 ,
completed and it is determined that certain changes need to be made
in the map, then those changes will be made later on.
F. Davis: Well, my concern about the map not accurately
GG-4 reflecting the information in the EIR is just simply that it is
misinformation and people have a tendency when they look at a
document like this to automatically assume it is correct. So I
still haven't heard an answer to Hanson's question when this
started.
M. Fleming: Well, the consultant indicated that he would look
at that in the EIR and address that issue in the EIR. In the final
EIR.
F. Davis: Why can't we get an answer. Specifically when can
I get an answer to that?
' M. Fleming: Not at this time, we are not prepared to answer
questions right now. It will be addressed in the final EIR. That
is why we are taking comments now?
Chairperson S. Planchon: The final EIR will be brought to the
Board of. Supervisors and you will have another opportunity. You
raise the question at this point and time and before it gets to the
Board of Supervisors for the final EIR, that question should be
answered. Correct.
F. Davis: Well, just one other question it's about the catch
22 that you have on the back of the agenda . I noticed the comment
period has been extended to the 16th of this month and it says
letters will be received and filed but cannot generally be
considered confident evidence unless personally presented at a
hearing by a witness subject to examination. Now are you waiving
that? Because this is a rough draft and I have no intention of
handing this over tonight and calling it complete. Because I
haven't had enough time.
Chairperson S. Planchon: I don't understand your question sir.
F. Davis: Well, I'm just quoting this catch 22 at the bottom.
You got a disclaimer that says if I don't personally present this
and then hand it in, you are not going to consider it as evidence.
M. Fleming: Mr. Chair?
Chairperson S. Planchon: Respond to that.
M. Fleming: You have until the 16th to submit any comments you
have on the EIR. Any comments you have.
F. Davis: They won't be just filed as it says in here then?
4-314
M. Fleming: No, that has to do with the hearings in general, it
doesn't have to do with EIR hearings specifically. he
F. Davis: Thank you. I ' deleted about half of this for t
rest of the people here this evening.
Commissioner E. Sobalvarro: Small point of clarification from
Staff. The final . . . what we are gathering now is all the
objections, all the questions that they have about the EIR. Then
those answers will come to us, is that correct?
M. Fleming: Right, there will be another document prepared that
will be an addendum to the draft EIR and that will create the final
EIR which is what you will end up reviewing and making a decision
on.
Commissioner E. Sobalvarro: Hopefully all of those questions that
there are being asked now will be then answered in that addendum.
Is that correct?
M. Fleming: Right, any questions or concerns that are raised now
will be addressed in that final EIR.
Commissioner E. Sobalverro: Right, so you see there is where we
have more questions and then from here after depending on what we
do here, then it goes to the Board of Supervisors. So you still
have us to come back to as well as the Board of Supervisors.
F. Davis: In an advisory capacity.
Commissioner E. Sobalverro: So there is a lot of time.
F. Davis: Alright, try that for a while, thank you. Reference
page 1. 6 under discretionary I noticed a reference to LAFCO and I
also know that one of the stated purposes of LAFCO for being in
existence is for discouraging and limiting urban sprawl. It seems
to me that this project certainly would qualify as urban sprawl .
Reference page 1 . 12 , financing and maintenance districts. The
language is so ambiguous and vague as to defy a rational
understanding of the entire paragraph. #3 national pollutant
discharge elimination system. It is my understanding
nding from rec 799
that permits shall be required and/or water treatment prior to
GG-5 discharge in Sandmound Slough. Section 4 on the Section 40 permit,
according to the EPA Chief Enforcement Jacqueline Wiley, section
401 (b) guideline generally precludes issuance of a permit to
backfill wetlands for a subdivision. #5 development agreement,
since it has been dissolved in the absence of a present agreement,
how can the terms and conditions be reviewed by the public under
which the project will be developed. Page 1. 6, stream bed
alteration permit, the local residents will request a public
1:\vo[2\cticnt\11)019\1'(:I2I'('.021
4-315
hearing upon application for a stream bed alteration permit from
California Dept. of Fish & Game. Also for the Section 404 permit
residents will request a public hearing on permit application.
' Page 2. 4 , 3-1, land use planning and public policy, general plan
policy. That development plan density should be at density maximum
causes nearly all of the problems associated with the attempts to
mitigate the adverse impacts of density. Jobs/housing imbalance
is not mitigated by calling a 10-year build-out a short-term
unavoidable impact. EIR should provide a description of the number
of jobs, types of jobs, pay scale and whether or not those job
holders could afford a house in the project. Page 3 . 56, section
3 . 2 , transportation circulation. The EIR variously lists 10, 287
vehicle trips a day on page 2 . 6 to 12 , 017 trips a day on page 3-
29 . Small discrepancy there of about 2 , 000 trips and in addition,
page 3-56, second paragraph states that without the Delta
Expressway project and Route 4 improvements the Bethel Island Area
cannot be accommodated without severe traffic and congestion
problems. The firm on the road improvements to the future is not
a mitigation. We are in agreement with well planned communities
such as Brentwood who require street road improvements to be in
place before the first house is built. Anything less than this
stands to make East County residents second class citizens.
Construction traffic impact, does not begin to address the
1 discomforts and inconvenience and associated health hazards from
living down wind from 700 acre dirt storms for 10 years. Should
be mitigation measures for cleaning peoples houses, boats, vehicles
on a weekly basis and indemnification for damage to residents'
GG-5 property, personal and real . Simply stating that the traffic
exceeds Bay Area Quality Management District guidelines for Rog and
Nox pollutants does not relieve the developer and the County from
responsibility for compliance with the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air
Plan. In light of the Clean Air Act of 1991, why would applicant
use 1970 Federal Standards and 1967 State Standards for the
pollutants mentioned on air quality data table for Bethel Island
1988-1991? Page 3 . 4 , vegetation and wildlife, animal population
tabulation, was done inefficiently and incorrectly. Mainly by
omitting many species and incorrectly stating others may be present
when in fact they are present. We feel that removal of 700 acres
of habitat adversely impacts the wildlife simply to infer that this
is not detrimental to wildlife because there is still some habitat
left is willfully ignorant, inherently dangerous to the survival
of all wildlife. 3 . 106 performance for visual resource policies,
the statement that the project site topography would not be changed
visually is outrageously wrong. We feel that it is impossible to
dig a 60 acre lake plus channels 20 feet deep and pile the
recovered spoils into a containment dike 20 feet high and at the
same time contour grade 160 acre golf course and erect 1, 330 homes
with associated streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks and then say
that the visual characteristics have not been changed
significantly. This is an amusing grave example of fork tongue
english. Additional mitigation measures, the entire paragraph
1:\voi2\ciicnt\19018\LCR 11c.021
4-316
about a landscape maintenance district and/or other funding source
is vague, imprecise, and ambiguous in that no one place in the EIR
ever states how much of a monthly burden homeowners are assuming
in terms of assessment district and/or homeowners, association dues
and other so far not revealed costs. Section 3 . 6, noise, it is
idle speculation to attempt to qualify the noise that will be
generated by doubling the area population. Under the construction
noise aspect of that section, on B, "operations of any machine or
device which generates a noise level greater than 95 decibels at
50 feet should be prohibited wherever is feasible" You know I got
a picture of a guy running around with a tape and a sound meter in
one hand. Who decides what is feasible and why would the
prohibition be conditioned? This is an example of inadequate
attempt at noise mitigation. This temporary short-term impact '
would be unavoidable. This bears keeping in mind that their
definition of a short-term impact appears to be as long as 10 years
based on their own build-out schedule. Hydrology and drainage, ,
(a) in general detention basins are a poor design feature and cause
more problems than they solve, (b) parks and playing fields should
not be required to act as detention basins simply when the park is
the hottest point on the project site. Ground subsidence on page
3-125, the EIR attempts to down play the seriousness of the ground
subsidence potential when the following factors are considered
(while ground liquefaction during but not necessarily limited to
seismic advance dewatering of the ground during construction then
followed by excess pumping of 805, 200 gallons a day of
groundwater) . The above combined with a new and relatively
untested method of compaction by the soils engineer reports own
GG-5 admission could very well damage existing levee and residences.
Therefore, we insist a bond should be put up by applicant to
indemnify a present homeowners and RD 799 against any damage caused '
by applicants construction activities. Page 3-129, drainage on-
site impacts, section 1, second paragraph statement that they would
pump excess storage water from lake in the Sandmound Slough
violates MPDES requirements that water be drinkable before
discharge and that is coming according to 799 . Page 3-133 , the
groundwater, first sentence, the proposed project is short-term
"three to six months localized impact on groundwater during
excavation activities for the levee channels and lakes. " The above
sentence either represents an all time record and heaping, piling
and throwing the soil or is a minor one lying as a pastime. The
section on seismic resistance in regards to seismic resistance
engineers in general have a very poor track record in designing
earthquake resistance structure as evidenced by the numbers of
buildings, bridges, overpasses and dams that have failed during
earthquakes in the last 30 years. Water quality, the quality of
Contra Costa County District water depends on what you are
comparing it to. Few people drink it, those that do generally
regret it. The Delta is not subject to a sonami anyway. Any
school boy in California knows that a sonami is generated by
seismic activity and not the wind. The statement that the storm
I:\vci12\clicnI\1701 8\1:(:Itl'(..02I
4-317 '
' drain system would be a wet system with water standing in a storm
drain pipes at all times converts the storm drain system to a sewer
system. Truck disposal stored drainage is the most inefficient
expensive method I have ever heard proposed. The last paragraph
on page 3-139 states, "no additional pumping of ground water is
proposed to maintain the water level of the lake and channels. "
This cannot be true in view of the statement elsewhere in the EIR
that irrigation of golf course and landscaping requires 8502
gallons a day taken from the lake. The lake obviously would go dry
without being replenished by the ground water. This is an
extravagant and wasteful use of water resource considering the
restraints and restrictions placed on everybody else due to the
last 6 years of drought. Page 3-140, the last half of page 3-140
and the top third of page 3-141 in an attempt to describe the
damage control efforts to keep the lake clean wind up making what
is an accurate description of a settlement pond of toxic waste.
Nobody seriously believes that plants would filter out contaminants
any more efficiently than the fish decimate the mosquito population
from plan in lieu of a modern water plant facility and mosquito
abatement district. Page 3-146, Section 3 . 7-15. The weak proposal
regarding street sweeping again appears to be an attempt to push
on to the already overburdened shoulders of the Homeowners
Association responsibility for a traditionally governmental
' function. Kleinfelder's analysis of a 6. 75 earthquake doesn't
include the information from the U. S. Geodetic(?) survey in Menlo
Park that a quake of that size or greater has a high probability
of occurring in the next 30 years in this area. Traditionally he
GG-5 goes on to say "seismic activity has never caused a levee failure
in this area. " I would like to point out that neither has a
volcanic eruption, direct hit by a meteor or nuclear accident for
the same reason. From analysis by other independent soils
engineers this entire soils report seems to be flawed and seriously
tilted towards describing major hazards as seemingly minor
inconveniences. It says the Cypress Lakes Project would be
expected to have 918 students from kindergarten through high school
requiring 1 new elementary school, 30% of a new middle school and
a 20% of a new high school. At the end of Section 3 . 1-2 states,
"the project more convenient would be oriented towards seniors and
retired people to reduce commute traffic from the project. " What
a novel idea to build new schools for seniors and the elderly
simply to reduce traffic flow from the project. That's a nice
touch. Addressing the lack of a natural gas distribution system
by substituting an electric system in its place is not mitigation
of a substantial defect rather it is one of the most expensive ways
' to heat water in space known with the possible exception of the
burning of paper money in a fireplace. Ask anybody who has an
electric water heater and/or furnace to describe their PG&E bill
to you. A small section of EMF, electrical magnetic force,
demonstrates once again that the preparers of this documents are
dangerously ignorant, witness the following statement. "Only seven
states have adopted regulations to regulate intensity of electric
I:\viil2\clicnl\I`1(I IK\I{('IZI'C.112I
4-318
fields and transmission line right-of-way. The State of California
does not have standards. " It sounds like we're gonna rate last
(??) nationally once again. This is a very important aspect of
health related issues. .. If they had read our privately commissioned
study by the State's leading expert in this field they couldn't
possibly have come to the same conclusions. Finally, we wish the
Planning Commission to take note of the following assertions. 1.
The vast majority of the area residents don't want the project.
GG-5 They don't need the recreational opportunities because they're too
busy trying to survive and they certainly wouldn't trade what they
have for a "housing opportunity in the PUD, " which by the way is '
a government euphemism for uniform mediocrity. And 2 . because of
the County's potential liability for a failed project, we feel it
only prudent for the Planning Commission to reserve their decision '
until all present litigation and government investigations have run
their course. The applicant so far has struck out in every court
decision. One can only expect similar results in the future.
Thank you.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you Mr. Davis. (Clapping)
We're going to take a real short break and then we' ll be right
back.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Get back in session, please. What
we're going to do, we're going to hear one more speaker tonight. '
We will be holding the EIR hearing open. In all probability we
will meet again on March 1 and we will continue. Those who have
not had a chance to speak, I will be hanging on to these and we
pick up and go from there on March 1. So now I need Barbara La
Fargo, is it?
Barbara La Fargo: Close.
Lynn Jochim: Can we come back on February 8 at the
special meeting? ,
Chairperson S. Planchon: Yes, the date is indefinite at this point.
We're not sure.
L. Jochim: Okay.
Chairperson S. Planchon: We can talk about that later.
L. Jochim: That will be great.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Sure. ,
Female from audience: How will we know?
Chairperson S. . Planchon: We' ll find out.
L\%-o12\c1ient\19018\1'.(:ItIv.031
4-319 '
Female from audience: Yeah, like we did this time?
Female from audience: Somebody, somebody will you call me
please?
Female from audience: Yeah. We' ll call each other.
Chairperson S. Planchon: We' ll make that decision before you go
home.
Female from audience: Okay.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Barbara, go ahead.
' B. La Fargo: I 'm here again. And I 'm here to tell you that
there's tanks on this property. I have proof. Please, one of you
take a look at this. Uh, it's your responsibility to prove to me
that they are not there and the EIR says they're not there. And
I want to know. Cause I have proof that they were put in in 1970.
Commissioner E. Wetzel: Excuse me. What are you talking about?
I, clarify it for me please.
1 B. La Fargo: Well, I was here last time and I told you there were
3 , 500 gallon fuel tanks on Del Porto's property and no one did
anything.
GG-6 Commissioner J. Hanson: No, you said they were underground.
B. La Fargo: That's right.
iCommissioner J. Hanson: Oh, alright.
B. La Fargo: And here's the piece of paper that tells you that
they're there and I 'd like for somebody to do something about it
this time and I 'd like to have a bond posted to cover our potential
loss due to the construction activities and uh, I 'm not getting
paid to be an editor. So please, get it right . this time Scott.
And our EIR animals seem to hide at the time the EIR is written.
We do have seasonal known species that come and go. Please take
a look at it. If you need a copy of this, I have it. (Hands to
secretary attached document from water Resources Control Board) .
Commissioner D. Maybee: I 'd like a copy of it.
Female (Unidentifiable) : We should add it to the ??
' Chairperson Planchon: We have time for one more speaker.
A. Buller.
Laughter and comments from Chair and audience.
L\vo12\clicn1\1'X)18\P.CKPC.02 I
4-320
Alex Buller: Before I start, I 'd like to point out that uh, at
our BIA meeting there was major complaints about notification and
the BIAA is writing Community Development about this improper
notification and I'm asking for a second meeting. I understand
that we will now have a second meeting, uh, or continuance of this
EIR evaluation. Uh, basically, uh, I'm recommending total
rejection of this EIR. It does not comply with Section 15130 of
the California Environmental Quality Act. It doesn't conform in
the following: The planned use does not include subdivision 6610,
page 3-3 . Impacts on other planned uses and surrounding areas does
not include subdivision 6610. Pages 320 and 321. Housing
discussion and Table 3 . 1-1 does not include subdivision 6610, Pages
320, 321. Traffic impact study does not include cumulative impacts
because of subdivision 6610, pages 328 through 363 . We got 35
pages of erroneous traffic studies. All calculations, studies and
conclusions are incorrect without subdivision 6610 input. Air
quality evaluations do not consider the cumulative effects from
subdivision 6610 including possible concurrent grading operations.
Pages 364 through 375. Subdivision 6610 together with roadway
improvements are not considered in visual quality. Pages 3-99
through 3-10A. The cumulative effects of subdivision 6610 on
noises are not addressed. Pages 3-109 through 3-117 . Fire
protection evaluations do not include effects of subdivision 6610
both on funding and services. Page 3-163 through 3-170. Police
protection impacts excluding cumulative effects of 6610. Pages 3-
172 through 3-174 . Cumulative school impacts because of
subdivision 6610 are not discussed. Pages 3-177 through 3-179.
GG-7 Adverse impacts do not consider cumulative effects from subdivision
6610 on air quality, visual quality, job-housing balance, noise and
construction dust. Page 5-1 . Cumulative impacts are incorrect for
subdivision 6610 in land use. Subdivision 6610 is already
approved. Traffic circulation, air quality data base is in error;
subdivision 6610 not subject to County TPM current requirements.
The subdivision does not have to meet current noise standards or
comply with current County growth management requirements, utility
demands or human health as it is already approved. None of this
is considered in this EIR. No discussion regarding the effects of
the winter tulle fog on services, traffic except where noted and
on these basis I recommend rejection of this EIR. The following
are other questions -and errors I've noted in the EIR and concerns
which I feel have not been answered or discussed. Traffic exit
from the entire area is limited on Cypress Road between Knightson
Avenue and Jersey Island Road to two lanes. How is this going to
effect the population should a flood or disaster occur? One
accident can block access and/or escape from this area. Can this
road handle 11, 000 people at once, or in the fog? Even if
additional two lanes are added? Another concern I have is in
regard to hydrology and drainage. The consultant Kleinfelder,
Inc. , the geotechnical engineer on the project, is currently in
litigation in Discovery Bay, a major subdivision in Patterson,
California, and a, local residence in this immediate area of the
L\vo12\c1icnt\19019\1 iCR VC.021
4-321
' project with re. . . , over soil movements and settlements. Based on
this track record, I as a! geotechnical engineer question their
capability and conclusions for Cypress Lake and recommend an
overview of their work by another geotechnical engineer for some
kind of assurance. Lives are at stake here and to rely just on
Kleinfelder's recommendations, uh, without having and on-staff
County geologist to review the data I think is dangerous. A call
for short term storm water retention in the golf courses, how much
is my question. Page 3-127. What storm intensities run-off
factors and calculations were used to calculate the storm drainage
network which would accommodate the increase in run-off and reduce
the amount of run-off offsite? Page 129 . The proposed levee crest
elevation of 10 + 10. 2 is not . 2 higher than what FEMA requires.
FEMA requires 3 . 5 feet free board upstream which would make it 10. 5
tapering to +10 at the downstream side and +11 for roadways and 100
feet of either side of roadways. Their evaluation of the levee
' crest requirements for FEMA, pages 3-130 through pages 3-132 are
incorrect. What calculations are there to verify the statement
that initial levee construction would not have any adverse. . .would
not any effect on adjacent structures given the distance that the
existing structures are from the proposed location of the new
levees. Page 3-133 . What calculations are there to verify the
statement that "the location dewatering. . . .the localized dewatering
activities would also not effect adjacent structures because the
dewatering would occur far enough from existing residences and any
drawdown would only occur on the project site immediately under or
GG-7 adjacent to the dewatering area. " Page 3-133 . What distance to
they mean by adjacent? Page 3-135. Public services. A
construction of a fire house requires equipment and men power. Who
pays for this additional cost? What mitigating measures are being
considered if the fire protection vote that will probably come up
fails? It is my understanding that the sheriff substation is under
consideration for closure. How is adding floor space to this
station going to provide adequate protection? Subdivision 6610
together with this project will overwhelm an already understaffed
sheriff's substation and marine patrol . What steps are being
mitigated to mitigate this problem? What mitigation measures are
planned if the sheriff substation is closed? The environment
assessment states that there are no underground storage tanks on
the property. You were just submitted and I got copies and believe
me the Community Planning will have the copies of the State Permits
indicating that 3 , 500 gallon underground fuel storage tanks were
installed in 1970 on this project. There were no permits issued
for their removal. What is going to be done with them and how is
our ground water going to be cleared up from their leaking because
believe me, they have been leaking for years. What portion of the
project is to be marketed to retired persons? Page 3-20. What
provisions are being provided if damage should occur to utilities
in San Mound Boulevard and/or improvements on private property
during de-water and construction? Will bonds be posted? Some
sections show the new levee exterior slope at 3 horizontal to 1
1:\%,-o12\cNcnc\NO►s��x:urc
4-322
vertical. Others at 4 horizontal to 1 vertical. Which is it?. Uh,
my reference is in the uh, Bonley, Manly Associate Report (?) .
They show both slope inclinations. Hydrology drainage. Page 3-
118 states that the Kleinfelder, Inc. Report entitled Evaluation '
of Proposed Levees Bordering Cypress Lake Project is located in the
Appendix E. The $30 EIR book I bought from the County does not
contain this report. I obtained the only thing the County had to '
this morning which was an unsigned copy of this report with blanks
in it and test data and tables missing. The County indicated
that's all they had. Is Kleinfelder trying to hide something? Are
they scared to sign this report? Page 6 of this unsigned report
states that the internal levees will never be exposed to wave
action unless failure of San Mound or Dutch Slough Levees occur.
And then that the new levee will only retain 3 to 7 feet of water
with velocities of 3 to 4 feet per second. Additionally, they go
on to state, (unintelligible) vegetation will cover these dry land
levees and publish research states that vegetated slopes can
accommodate these velocities? What reports are they referring to?
How thick is the vegetation going to be established and who's going
to maintain it? Bonley, Manly Associates (?) reports when a break
occurs there will be substantial velocities. How is this sand
slope going to stand substantial velocities? How is the steeper
internal slope to be protected from erosion? It doesn't take a
doctorate in soils engineering. dune sand will not stand at a 2
horizontal to 1 vertical slope some 17 feet high. What
calculations are there that there is no rock required? According
to the Corps of Engineers, riprap is required, uh, let me see.
GG-7 According to the Corps of Engineers, riprap is required. They make
a comment and it says, "Where does FEMA say that it is not
required?" Page 3-130. There's no reference on this statement in
the EIR. How will the construction proceed if water levels drop
3 to 4 feet and a trench is required to be filled in? What
alternate to levee construction is there if this happens? Will it
be safe? The August, 1992 unsigned report with missing test date,
charts covering levees for Cypress Lakes, has a discussion of water
levels and title information from the California Department of
Water Resources regarding Reclamation District 2042 . What
relevance does a Reclamation District in Stockton have to Cypress
Lakes? What calculations are there to support a levee settlement
statement that will be 4 inches? What calculations are there to
support that levee settlements will not effect adjacent structures?
What distance is meant by adjacent? Page 3-133 . What studies have
been done regarding settlement that may effect San Mound sewer
line? If it occurs, what if any mitigation measures are being
considered to correct sever slope and flow as a result of adverse
settlement on the sewer line? If the project levee would divert
waters in the event of a flood, page 3-136, should not the
prot. .pro. . .project levee be protected with riprap? If riprap is
required, what is the visual impact? Where �s the 300 feet for
immediate escape on San Mound Boulevard? What escape mitigation
measures have been considered if San Mound Boulevard is flooded?
I:\volt\client\19018\I:('It1'('.02I
4-323
' What studies have been made that show the. lake's slopes to be
stable to 17 foot. depth and inclinations of 3 horizontal to 1
vertical. Kleinfelder indicates the lake will have slope
inclinations of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical for 20 feet. Page 3-
154 states Kleinfelder's report evaluation of the proposed levees
is available for review at the County office. Such is not the
case. When can we get the so-called detailed information regarding
the soil profile the report claims to have? No test data, plot
plan, boring logs as well the levee slopes stabilities are not
available at the County offices. This report, as I stated is not
even signed. Why does the EIR Bonley, Manly and Associates and
Kleinfelder incorrectly quote FEMA height requirements?
Chairperson S. Planchon: Mr. Buller, I 'm going to interrupt
you for just a moment. How many more pages do you have?
A. Buller: Uh, two.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Alright.
A. Buller: If they can't even determine height requirements
from reading the literature, are they qualified to design the FEMA
approved levee? During de-watering, what mitigation measures are
GG-7 being considered to prevent piping with a hydraulic gradient in
excess of 25 feet to existing improvements including sewer lines.
What calculations are there that indicate the existing levees are
safe under this hydraulic gradient? Flow can the EIR be prepared
covering levees based on data not yet available. Did they dream
this up out of the clear blue sky or what? Levee standards require
riprap, this is Corp of Engineer requirement, on 3 horizontal to
1 vertical slopes where velocities are greater than 3 feet.
According to the EIR consultants, velocities would be greater than
3 feet per second. My next question is why do we have to keep
paying $30 for an incomplete, inaccurate EIR that doesn't address
our questions? When will they get it right? It appears that
Kleinfelder's report on the levee is not in conformance with the
Corps of Engineer's guidelines, but I really can't tell that yet
because the report's incomplete. I really would like to review,
uh, the report when it is completed and my question is, is the
report going to be modified to conform to the conclusions that the
EIR says, uh, states it says? Or is it going to be independent of
the EIR? I request, lastly, I request that we have another meeting
to address all these problems and so that everybody concerned can
be properly addressed. Thank you.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you Mr. Buller. Uh, can I have a
motion to return this to the Commission?
Male: So move.
1:\vo12\client\I'X)I8\I.CRPU.021
4-324
Chairperson S. Planchon: Now we need a motion to continue and we '
need to set a date. Uh, there has been a request for March 8.
Commissioner J. Hanson: March 8 is separate?
Chairperson S. Planchon: March 8 . There's been a request. . .we will
meet normally on March 1. '
Multitude of unintelligible voices in background.
Commissioner D. Maybee: No, February 8 meeting.
Chairperson S. Planchon: I'm sorry?
Multitude of unintelligible voices in background.
L. Jochim: I need to request that we come back on February 8 '
because its been a long process for everybody and. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: So the request is for February 8 .
Multitude of unintelligible voices in background.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: That's the meeting that's. . . . .the Albers
meeting. . .
Commissioner D. Maybee: The Albers and Byron 78 . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: That's correct.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: We can't conflict with that I thought.
L. Jochim: Tonight we were supposed to be first on the agenda.
Chairperson S. Planchon: I need some guidance from staff on that.
We uh, scheduled a meeting for February 8 to be paid for by Alber.
How does that effect if we have this other meeting.
M. Fleming: Well, the Albers Project needs to be heard on that
evening. You need to complete the hearing on that, if you can.
I mean if you end up having to continue it, then that, you know,
you'd have to continue it to the next regular meeting. . . . If there
were time after that meeting were completed. . .The thing is, they're
paying for the time for everyone to be here for the room to be
available and all that and I 'm not sure it's reasonable to expect ,
them to pay for something that would be a hearing for somebody
else. That was the reason that we were suggesting that the meeting
be just for that purpose. '
L. Jochim: We'll pitch in.
1:\%,ol2\clicnt\17018\1 i(:Itl'(:.021
4-325 '
' A. J. Salomon: We were supposed to be first tonight too.
Chairperson S. Planchon: That's correct. Uh,. what's. . . . . . . . . . . . .
' Female from audience: Well, I didn't get a chance to talk and
I wasn't noticed and I think that. . . .
' Chairperson S. Planchon: You're out of line young, young, lady.
Let's set a date right now. Uh, staff indicated that if the
applicant wishes to pay their portion to have that meeting, the
cost of it, we could in fact have it.
Male: Unintelligible.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Uh, it would just be continuance of this
meeting right now. And the request is for February 8 . So what is
your pleasure.
Unintelligible conversation in background.
' Female from audience: How come, how come you can talk from here
and I can't talk from here?
Another female voice enters conversation - unintelligible.
Chairperson S. Planchon: I 'm trying to, we're trying to make a
decision. Just a moment please.
aCommissioner D. Maybee: If we agreed to hear Albers and Byron 78,
they would have to be first on the agenda. They would have to
third if Albers and Byron 78 agreement afterwards that we can have
them then they would have to pay their fair share. But as County
staff there is nothing going to be different other than public
testimony next week.
M. Fleming: Uh, Mr. Chair. . . .Byron is not going to be on for the
8th.
Commissioner E. Wetzel: Byron 78 is not on for the 8th.
Commissioner D. Maybee: Mr. Gold requested it right here.
M. Fleming: He requested it but it hasn't been noticed. There's
no way we can put it on for the 8th.
Commissioner D. Maybee: Okay.
M. Fleming: It's not a continued item.
Commissioner D. Maybee: Okay.
' 4-326
M. Fleming: So the only thing you will have before you on the
8th is the Albers Project because that has been noticed.
Chairperson S. Planchon: That's correct. That's what I understand. ,
It's the Albers' 74 acres.
Staff: Right. '
Commissioner E. Andrieu: They went out of here thinking they were
going. . . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Going to be on the 8th.
Staff: Yeah.
Chairperson S. Planchon: That's right.
Male: We' ll call them.
Female: Unintelligible.
Chairperson S. Planchon: So now what is being asked is. . .
Unintelligible background remarks.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Uh, these gentlemen will be here. . ..
A. Buller from audience: Mr. Chairman. . . . . ,
Chairperson S. Planchon: Just a moment please.
Female: I . . . . I . . . . '
Chairperson S. Planchon: We're trying to make a decision up here.
A. Buller from audience: Well, I have some information. . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: I ' ll give you an opportunity to speak, ,
just wait a minute.
Commissioner J. Hanson: I feel we should ask the Albers how they
feel, since they're the ones that initially were going to pay the
full amount to have the special meeting. We should ask them how
they feel about. . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, we're trying to do here tonight,
Mrs. Hansen, we're trying to give all these folks a date that they
can count on. . . . . '
Commissioner J. Hanson: I understand that. . . .
1:\vu12\c1icnt\19018\1 iCRPC.021
4-327
iChairperson S. Planchon: If we have to postpone it and get in touch
with the Albers and then there's no way these people. . . .
Commissioner J. Hanson: Yeah. . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: . . . .are going to know what kind of a date
' we're going to set.
Commissioner J. Hanson: Yeah. . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: So we need to come to some kind of
agreement on a date tonight.
M. Fleming: Mr. Chair. I think the main concern you need to
have is whether you can complete the Albers Project on the 8th.
If you start that hearing and you aren't able to complete it before
your ending time then you' ll have people down here ready to. . . .to
go on to the other project and it won't be available.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Well , I 'm going to make a suggestion and
it may not make everyone happy. I say we just move it up to the
first of March which is a regular ordinary meeting.
Positive response from audience.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Is that in agreement with you folks?
' Female voice from audience: Will other people be able to talk
then?
Chairperson S. Planchon: We' ll set the date for March 1 back on the
calendar to finish this meeting.
' M. Fleming: Okay. You're in agreement then that March 1 will
be the date for the continued EIR. . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Which is the regular meeting. . . .
M. Fleming: Okay.
Commissioner D. Maybee: And the people that are already signed
will be the first ones to speak and then anybody else that comes
to the meeting will speak at the public hearing. we will not close
this hearing.
Audience: Thank you.
Chairperson S. Planchon: The hearing is not closed. The hearing
is open and will be continued March 1.
L\vo12\clicn1\1IX)I8\1:CRVC.021
' 4-328
L. Jochim: Can .I just make a comment please? I don't mean to
interrupt and I don't mean to question your authority but our
public comment is 45 days and it ends February 16. Uh,. this is our
second EIR. This is our second round on this thing. Actually it ,
is longer because of the Specific Plan and its EIR and for everyone
involved. If you could just give, I mean we were supposed to be
first tonight and I understood that A. .Albers and uh, Byron 78
needed to go first to heard so we could have a lot of opportunity
tonight to have our chance. And I just. . . I've been so fair with
the community. . . I 've tried with everyone to make this thing work
and I just think it's really unfair to postpone this to March 1 ,
after our hearing period has ended on February 16 and the continue
this comment period another 2 weeks. I . . .there's gotta sometimes
be a closure to things and if you want to deny the project then you '
guys can deny it. But there need to be a closure. It's very
difficult on the part of. . .on our side. So, could I just ask you
to reconsider to have us come back on February 8 and I ' ll work it
out with the Albers? .
Chairperson S. Planchon: What's the. . .what are the academics of
a. . . on the closure date? What is going to be the effect on the uh, ,
project if it's not closed until, I mean, unless we meet again on
March 1?
M. Fleming: Well, on the overall project I 'm not sure but right
now we've agreed to take comments until the 16th. What this will
do is continue the comment period through the 1st. You won't want
to extend it beyond that because by then everyone will have had '
plenty of opportunity to get their written comments in. So the 1st
would be the final date for taking comments and then the consultant
would get back to work on finishing uh, response to those comments.
So it would delay it by a couple of weeks.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Elsworth?
Commissioner E. Andrieu: Yeah. It seems like we're in a situation ,
here where there is enough concern about this project on both the
applicants side and uh, the general public that possibly setting
a deadline at this point in time is uh, not in the best interest
of the situation.
Female from audience: Yes sir.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: I just want to be assured myself now that
we talking about a deadline. She says she has to have a deadline
by the 16th. What is the uh, uh, handicap . to that. . .to . the
applicant if we go over that time?
M. Fleming: Well, as I understand it, she, her concern is just ,
the delay to the project. There is a 45 day review period for the
draft EIR and that review period is up by the 16th.
4-329 '
' Commissioner E. Andrieu: Yeah. So. .
M. Fleming: So what this does is just extend that, that time
period which puts the whole project, you know, two weeks further
down the road. . . .
' L. Jochim: And the fact that you guys meet only once a month
is difficult also. So it would bring us, we would be coming back
again in April or May further out.
Commissioner E. Andrieu. We've okayed another meeting. We're
meeting on the 8th for a special meeting, uh, and this obviously,
this project has more concern, I think, from the public than that
one has expressed so far. Uh, I would be willing myself to come
to another meeting. I don't know how the rest. . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Another meeting when?
Commissioner E. Andrieu: As soon as we can put it together.
various voices: March 1, March 1 . . . .
A. J. Salomon: Why don't you make it on February 16. We' ll pay for
the next meeting.
' Female from audience: Where's all this money coming from?
A. J. Salomon: I don't know. We're broke. . . .
A. Buller: BIAA's . . . .
A. Buller: . . . .protest over this thing for inadequate
notification and we still haven't got the data from Kleinfelder.
So how in the hell can we comment on something we haven't even
gotten yet?
Chairperson S. Planchon: Uh, compromise on the 16th?
M. Fleming: The 16th is a holiday.
Chairperson S. Planchon: 16th is a holiday.
various voices discussing different dates.
' Chairperson S. Planchon: Earl. . .
Commissioner E. Wetzel: Go back to the 8th. Let's hear it next
week.
' various voices: No, No.
L\vo12\cIicnt\1901 8\1'CRIV-021
' 4-330
r
1
A. Buller: You get us all copies of the Kleinfelder Report, '
complete.
L. Jochim: I'll do it. '
A. J. Salomon: Yeah, you'll. . . . '
L. Jochim: I promise you. I'll do it.
A. Buller: Why don't we have it now? ,
L. Jochim: I promise you I will do it.
Commissioner D. Maybee: Hey, mine isn't signed either. Don't feel '
so bad.
A. Buller: All the test data is missing.
Female from audience: Yeah, but why do they get what they want
and we've got. . . ,
Commissioner D. Maybee: Nobody's getting what they want cause
we're sitting up here as volunteers trying to do the very best we
can for you people.
Female from audience: I realize that. But they want it
immediately which isn't giving us enough time. . . . . ,
Commissioner E. Wetzel: I do not. . . .
M. Fleming: Mr. Chair. . . .
Commissioner E. Wetzel: I do not want to waste anymore of my time
either. And I feel like I 've wasted a lot of time here. We've
heard this thing about 4 times already. . . .
Male from audience: And they never correct the information. . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Because of the 45 day deadline, I will
agree with the young lady out here that we should go with the 8th.
A. J. Salomon: Okay.
Chairperson S. Planchon: The continuance of what we've done ,
tonight. . . . continued on the 8th.
L. Jochim: I appreciate that.
Female from audience: Excuse me. Can we hear what the decision
was?
L\vo12\clicn1\17018\1:CIZPC.021 ,
4-331 '
r
' Female from audience: It's back to the 8th. So I mean whatever
we say it doesn't make any difference.
' Chairperson S. Planchon: Is that in agreement with the Commission?
' Commissioner D. Maybee: With the understanding that Albers is
first.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Albers is first. That is correct.
Male: We intend to spend a lot of time here that
night. . . .correct. . . . 2 o'clock in the morning. . . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: We will come back and we will meet here
on the 8th of February.
A. Buller: When are we getting the Kleinfelder report so that
we can. . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: I don't have that answer. You' ll have to
ask the staff over here.
Female from audience: Will you guarantee the. . . .
A. Buller: Are we going to have adequate time to review the
' Kleinfelder report before the 8th.
M. Fleming: The EIR, the hearing. . . .
A. J. Salomon: You' ll have it in your hands tomorrow Mr. Buller.
Will that satisfy you?
A. Buller: Yeah, it would.
Unintelligible remarks from audience.
' A. J. Salomon: You all want what. . . . .Put your name up here and your
address and it will be delivered to you. okay?
' Female from audience: Tomorrow. . . .
various comments from audience (unintelligible) .
' Chairperson S. Planchon: We will continue this meeting on the 8th.
Female from audience: Can I just ask. . . . .
Commissioner E. Wetzel: I make a motion we adjourn the meeting.
M. Fleming: Wait. We have more items. . . .
I:\c(,13\clic II\IIX)IR\1.CRPC.I)'1
4-332
Chairperson S. Planchon: We have a couple of things we've got to '
take care of.
M. Fleming: We still have some items. . . '
Chairperson S. Planchon: A couple of other items. . .
Voice from audience: This is a railroad. . . .
Other unintelligible remarks from audience.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Uh. . . '
Male: Okay. . . .
M. Fleming: Uh, the hearing that you've just been having was on
the EIR. You still have 2 items, number 5 and 6 and 7 which are '
the rezoning. . . . .
Voices from the audience (unintelligible) .
Chairperson S. Planchon: We still have some business we have to ,
take care of so we would appreciate a little quiet if you possibly
can do it. '
M. Fleming: Okay. Other items were the rezoning, the final
development plan and the subdivision. You need to take an action
to continue those to March 1 . ,
Chairperson S. Planchon: Yes. I would say that should be to
March 1. What were we talking about here on the EIR.
M. Fleming: Okay. So you just need to take that action.
Various voices in background arguing.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Anything else before we move to adopt the
findings. . . . '
Female: Can't hear a damn thing. . . .
M. Fleming: No. That's it. '
Commissioner D. Maybee: What about the Holland Tract Abandonment.
M. Fleming: You, you already did that as a consent item. ,
Chairperson S. Planchon: That was a consent item. Okay
uh, . . . .public comments?
Male: We've had enough. ,
L\vo12\cIicnl\19019\1:cItl'('.021
4-333
t
Chairperson S. Planchon: We've had enough. Staff report.
M. Fleming: Oh, I just wanted to hand out these. . .they're the
' market studies that you asked for on the computer project. Als o
on March 1 we have been trying to set up a study session with FEMA.
So far we haven't been able to get a response from anyone from
' FEMA. We're still trying to make contact with them and arrange to
have somebody here for that date. . .but I would just ask that you,
you know, what the agenda carefully because there may be an early
starting time. . . 6: 30. . . if we are able to get that set up for you.
And that's all I have for staff reports.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Commissioner comments.
Commissioner J. Hanson: I wanted to ask. . .did everyone get a copy
of this uh, CEQA
' Commissioner E. Wetzel: Yes. . .
Commissioner J. Hanson: Is anyone going? I 'm not able to go.
' Male: I 'm going.
Male: It's during the week. . . .
Various comments.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Communications.
Various comments and background voices.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: We're trying to schedule a FEMA meeting,
study session with FEMA to relate to this project?
' Male: Yeah, well. . .yeah. . .
Commissioner E. Andrieu: And you're not going to have that meeting
' until possibly after the decision has been made on the project?
M. Fleming: It would be on the same day as you've got the
' project scheduled right now. You would hear them just before you
heard the project.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: So they give us some information. How are
' we going to have time to digest that and make a decision the same
night? Again, I think we're moving faster here. . . .
' Female: I think you're right. . .
Commissioner E. Andrieu: . . .than we can handle the situation.
' 4-334
Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, I don't know. . . I don't know what to
say about that.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: We've been requesting information from
FEMA for 3 months.
M. Fleming: Well, the date that we've trying to get them for has
been March 1 all along. That's the date we've been trying for.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: Yeah. Well, then. . 6now, now we're being
pressured to wind this thing up?
M. Fleming: Well you're only going to being hearing the project
on that date. So far it's just the EIR and you won't be making any
decisions on the project then because you won't have the EIR back
yet. So all you're doing right now is taking information and sort
of getting a chance of putting it together so that you can later
make a decision.
Commissioner D. Maybee: FEMA will have to tell you what they can
and cannot do. They are going to have to get approval from FEMA
for this new levee.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: This is opened to the public and the
public is going to get the same information we are. . . . I just. . . .
M. Fleming: Well, it's a study session so it will be. . .people
can sit in on it. No testimony. They can't get involved in it.
Commissioner D. Maybee: Study session is us. It's not open to the
public unless we make it.
Male: Unintelligible comment.
Commissioner D. Maybee: Well, that's fine. But you wouldn't want
them to ask questions. . .not the public.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: Okay.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Alright then we are scheduled to go then
on the 8th and the Albers project will be heard first and the
completion, hopefully, of the EIR will be second. And that's the
two items only we will be hearing.
M. Fleming: That's right.
Commissioner D. Maybee: Mr. Chairman. . . .
Commissioner E. Sobalvarro: That actually the Albers and the
other project. . .
1:\%,o12\chcnt\19019\1'.(T 1'C,021
4-335
' Chairperson S. Planchon: That's what I just said. I believe I.
Commissioner D. Maybee: Mr. Chairman. . . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: I'm getting a little groggy myself. . .
' Male: Yeah,
Commissioner D. Maybee: Mr. Chairman as a matter of
clarification. . .When Mr. Gold sat out there, I was under the
' impression that he said that he could go and he wanted them heard
together. And when he left here I thought he was under the
impression that we would work with both of them together on the
8th. I could be wrong, but that's the interpretation that I got.
Chairperson S. Planchon: There was a request by him on that.
' M. Fleming: And we informed him that we didn't have everything
together for the 8th.
' Commissioner D. Maybee: And there has to be a proper notification
so it will not make that meeting. . . .
M. Fleming: There's absolutely no way we could get them on for
that date.
Commissioner D. Maybee: So in case we get phone calls, he. . .they
' have to be properly notified. . .
M. Fleming: That's right.
Commissioner D. Maybee: . . . and they cannot do that.
M. Fleming: And it's only seven days between now and the 8th and
' it's. . .you know. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: No way.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Move to adjourn.
Male: So moved.
Female: Second.
Male: Second, third, fourth, fifth. . .whatever.
Staff: Okay.
Various background discussions. Unintelligible.
END OF TAPE
1:\vnl?\clicnl\1'x)IR\I:('lil'('.f)31
4-336
Response to Letter GG: East County Regional Planning Commission Hearing, February '
1, 1993
Response GG-1:
All of these comments are contained in Letter D from Diane Shipway, January 20, 1993.
Refer to Response to Letter D for responses to these comments.
Response GG-2: ,
All of these comments are contained in Letter Y from Darrell B. Edwards, February 12,
1993. Refer to Response to Letter Y for responses to these comments. ,
Response GG-3:
All of these comments are contained in Letter H from C. Elaine DannelleY February, Februa 10, '
1993. Refer to Response to Letter H for responses to these comments.
Response GG-4• ,
Refer to the Response to Letter P from Montague & Cochrane, February 11, 1993 '
regarding the deeded legal easement.
Mitigation measures which include removing or redrawing four lots will not be enforced ,
until after the project is approved by the County. Upon project approval the applicant would be
required to revise the development plans according to the mitigation requirements. '
Response GG-5:
All of these comments are contained in Letter O from Fred Davis, February 9, 1993. ,
Refer to Response to Letter O for responses to these comments.
Response GG-6: '
Refer to Response X-10. '
Response GG-7:
All of these comments are contained in Letter X from Alexander Buller, February 1, 1993.
Refer to Response to Letter X for responses to these comments.
4-337
Letter HH (Public testimony)
EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 8, 1993
Hearing on Item No. 4
1
Present: S. Planchon, E. Andrieu, J. Hanson, D. Maybee,
E. Sobalvarro and E. Wetzel
Absent: H. Hern
' Staff: M. Fleming, A. Beresford and M. Avalon,
D. Foley
' Chairperson S. Planchon: Staff, would you like to speak on the next
item.
M. Fleming: Okay, agenda item #4 is a Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report for Application # 2918-RZ, final
development plan 3032-90 and SUB 7562 . A. J. Salomon Chartered
' Land & Cattle Company is the applicant, Three Sisters Trust are
the owners. This is a revised EIR to develop 685 . 9 acres of land
from General Agricultural A-2 and heavy Ag A-3 to Planned District
' P-1. They're proposing development of 1, 330 single family lots.
This is located in the Sandmound area near Bethel Island. At your
last meeting on March 1 (Note: last meeting was February 1) you
began taking testimony on this EIR and we did stop at that time and
' continue it to this date and what we would recommend you do today
is continue to take testimony from people that have asked to speak
on this item. We are here just to hear the EIR and comments should
be directed towards the EIR and the adequacy of the EIR. The
project itself and the pros and cons of the project will be heard
at a later hearing.
' Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you. We are reopened again for the
Public Hearing's continuance on the EIR for the Cypress project.
We had a lot of intense testimony a week ago and some of the items
that we covered I 'm just going to mention briefly because we wish
to limit speaking about the same items over and over. Some of the
things that we have talked about are power lines, compaction,
roads, water, sanitation, plant and animal life, determination of
wells, parks, lakes, cultural resources, visual impacts, levee
systems, interior or exterior, sound walls, economic viability, we
talked about schools, erosion, subsidence, dewatering, fire and
' evacuation. There were seven or eight speakers that did not get
a chance to speak last Monday night. We're going to give them an
opportunity tonight and I also understand that the people, Mr.
' Buller it might be, wishes to speak and give a report on the
geology status at this point in time. Where you the gentleman that
wished to speak on that?
1:\vo12\clicnt\19018\1 tCItPC20S.m110,
4-338
A. Buller: Yes, on the new information. . . '
Chairperson S. Planchon: Yes, on the new. . .
A. Buller: . . .that was not available until this last Friday. '
Chairperson S. Planchon: Okay, very good. If you'd like to come '
down forward to the microphone we' ll let you start it off and from
there we' ll move right into the other speakers.
M. Fleming: Mr. Chair, the applicant wanted to have an ,
opportunity just to sort of bring you up to date as to what had
happened in the last week.
Chairperson S. Planchon: I 'm sorry, one of the applicants wishes '
to bring us up to date.
Lynn Jochim: What I 've passed out to the Commissioners is a copy '
of my comments along with the soils report that was Federal
HH-1 Expressed to the community of the addresses that I received at last
Monday's hearing. (attached) Good evening, Chairman, fellow '
Commissioners. I am Lynn Jochim, the owner/developer of Cypress
Lakes Golf and Country Club. Tonight I am here to support the
adequacy of the recirculated Draft EIR prepared for Cypress Lakes. '
I began working on this project in April of 187 with the community.
It was shortly thereafter the Bethel Island Area Specific Planning
Committee was formed. However, Bob Del Porto, the original land
owner had been working on the lake development concept for years
prior. You have before you a Draft Environmental Impact Report
which is the result of many years of public input and the
information from three prior Draft Environmental Impact Reports '
prepared for this project and the Bethel Island Area Specific Plan.
I've included a hand out for you to assist you. This Draft
Environmental Impact Report was prepared by an independent
consultant firm hired by Contra Costa County to study the ,
environmental impacts of this project and to identify measures
which reduce impacts to lessen a significant level. The consultant
received reports and information from other specialized consultants '
on the project. The County and the Environmental Impact Report
consultant made their own independent review of these reports prior
to the preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact Report. The
technical consultants involved in this preparation of this Draft
Environmental Impact Report have extensive expertise in their
fields with experience on projects similar to Cypress Lakes. The
soils engineer has over 40 years of expertise and work in the ,
Delta. They have done 80% of all the levee works submitted for
approval to FEMA in Washington, D. C. The FEMA work has included
interior dry levees inside existing Delta levees. The civil
engineering firm has been involved in Bay Delta projects for over
20 years. They've had extensive work in areas with high water
table locations in flood plains and with similar soil conditions.
I:\%-X13\clicnI\IIXII9\FU1ZP('_'l 8.mI '
4-339
' The wetlands consultant prepared the delineation report which was
verified by the Corps of Engineers. - Moreover, he worked for the
Corps for 16 years delineating wetlands in agricultural areas and
' assisted the Corps of Engineers in writing their technical manuals.
The plant and endangered species consultant is world renown and has
done several studies for state and federal agencies. She's spent
numerous days evaluating and inspecting the site and came up with
mitigation measures to avoid the impacts. The water quality
consultant proposes proven techniques which have been approved by
' the EPA under the Clean Water Act and conforms with the NPDES, the
newest storm water discharging permit. The list of professionals
who have prepared detailed reports on the site goes on to include
noise, air quality, archeology and traffic. The Draft
' Environmental Impact Report addresses impact and it proposes
mitigation measures to be implemented. The EIR consultant has
prepared a mitigation monitoring program to assure the
implementation of these mitigations which will be ultimately
adopted by the Board of Supervisors along with the conditions of
the project. In August of 1992 the first Draft EIR on the project
was released for a 45 day review period. In the Fall you heard
' many hours of public testimony on this Draft Environmental Impact
Report. The 45 days ended September 28 , 1992 . The comments from
the community and the environmentalists spoke to us on 6 main
' issues. Reports and further documentations were prepared and have
been included in this recirculated Draft EIR to make a more
conclusive and complete environmental review. These areas of
concern include wetlands; a monitoring program was drafted to
assure implementation under levees; an evaluation of interior
levees vs. other alternatives were evaluated on cost and
feasibility; landscape, a detailed landscape plan was developed to
' lessen visual impacts; flood plain, a. flood plain evaluation was
prepared with statistical data to address the effects of a double
levee in case of a levee break on the existing levee; soils,
' numerous borings up to 50, 60 borings on the site have been drilled
and evaluated to address methods for construction; water quality,
a detailed program was prepared to be consistent with the EPA
standards and this new NPDES. This Environmental Impact Report is
' the result of input from the local constituency, concerned
environmentalists, the County Supervisors and planning staff. A
re-circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared to
further incorporate the comments and concerns' by these groups along
with new studies and more detailed information. Moreover, the
County staff has made their independent review during the
administrative draft stage and thereby approved the release of this
draft to the public. The environmental groups that are the most
active in this County and their attorneys have reviewed this re-
circulated draft EIR and find it adequately addresses their
concerns for this area. They feel it gives them honest analysis
of the impacts of this project and recommends realistic mitigation
measures. In summary, the process behind the preparation of this
environmental document has been long but an elaborate one. The
1:\vo12\c1icnt\I'>n I R\I iClil'C311R.mIg
4-340
document incorporates extensive technical and legal review along ,
with input of staff and environmentalists. Cumulatively this
represents a well-educated group of professionals with experience
and concerns for development of urban communities. That is why I '
am able to stand here and support the adequacy of this re-
circulated Draft EIR with a conviction. Thank you. Are there any
questions? '
Chairperson S. Planchon: Any questions from the Commission?
Lynn Jochim: Thank you very much.
Chairperson S. Planchon: We're going to call on Mr. Buller at this
point in time to give his added report, he's had a good opportunity t
to speak a week ago but you have some more material you wish to
talk on so step forward.
A. Buller: Before I start I have a major complaint. Uh, the t
EIR is indicated that we can call Community Development and talk
to talk to Art Beresford with questions and so forth. Five
different individuals called last Thursday, including myself. I '
was told he was on the phone and would return my call . Today it's
Monday night and I 'm still waiting for him to return a call.
Darryl has he returned your call? '
D. Shipway (from the audience) : He called me.
A. Buller: He returned yours. Fred, he didn't return yours.
Voice in background: I need to talk to. . .
A. Buller: Yeah, he's ducking us, he won't return our calls and
who's he working for? The people out here or the developer? I
went down there and I still couldn't get him to respond to a simple ,
phone call.
Commissioner E. Wetzel: Mr. Chairman, I thought we were, he was
going to address. . . '
Chairperson S. Planchon: Yeah, we . . . .
A. Buller: Yeah, I am. And part of the EIR it says to call the '
gentleman and the gentleman will not return phone calls.
Commissioner E. Wetzel: This isn't, this isn't the time and place ,
for that.
A. Buller: Well, it's got to be documented somewhere 'cause a
lotta more people are going to hear about this, including some
other stuff. I heard Lynn Jochim come up here and discuss what a
brilliant group has worked on this stuff. They can't even read the '
L\%-o13\c1icnI\19015\I i(.RI'( g
4-341 ,
English language. They haven't complied as I reported last time
with Section 15130 of the California Environmental Quality Act but
I don't want to re-hash old stuff. I didn't receive the
geotechnical report on the levees until Friday night. That was
promised to me by Mr. Salomon and Lynn Jochim on Tuesday. She
called me on Tuesday, got my address and said it would be Federal
Expressed to my place on Wednesday. I didn't get it 'til Friday
night after I came home from work so I really haven't had an
opportunity to go through it entirely except to find out there's
no back-up test data in the thing, the slopes stability results are
missing, it's an incomplete report but this one is signed. The odd
thing about this report is it's dated February 2 , 1993 . I got a
real serious question. How in the hell can a report and EIR that
was prepared in December of 192 be based on a report that's
incomplete and dated for February 2 , in 193 . Isn't that putting
the cart in front of the horse? This February 2nd report states
that it's in compliance with the Corps of Engineer Manual,
EM1110-2-1913 . Let me show it definitely is not in compliance.
It doesn't comply with Table 2-1, it doesn't comply with Table
2-2-3B(4) . It doesn't comply with Section II-8 . It doesn't comply
with Section II-9-B to the point that it wasn't even done. It
/ wasn't even done, the requirements of Section 2-14 . Entire Chapter
3 was omitted. If it was it wasn't included in the report that I
received on Friday dated the 2nd of February and when we get that
data I would like to be able to address the Committee on that
material , if it ever does become available. It doesn't meet the
HH-2 intent of Chapter 6, it has no impervious blanket on the water side
' or under drain when slopes exceed one vertical to five horizontal .
It does not have riprap on slopes of one vertical to three
horizontal where velocities are at 3 feet per second. Both the
Kleinfelder report and the civil engineer's report indicate
velocities of 3-4 ' per second, so where's the riprap. You're
telling me that they know what they're doing? Section II has no
' results of the stability analysis. There is no test data to back
it up and they just fly by with a comment that says it meets the
Corps of Engineers requirements. Well , what are those results.
I 'd like to see them. They indicated their computer analysis was
on the Bishop method so I ran my simplified Bishop method on my
computer and I 've got a failed levee. Is their computer better
than my computer? Somebody needs to overview their work. They've
got failures in the Delta here, I can point several of them out to
you and we're talking about lives out here that are at stake and
we need somebody to look over their work. Right now we haven't got
a County geologist on board and I 'm requesting an independent
review by another geotechnical engineer of all their work. Chapter
7 wasn't even included.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Mr. Buller, can you condense this down
just a little bit further.
1:\ve12\client\19018\I:.C1tl'(''08.mtg
4-342
A. Buller: Well, I 'm giving you the sections and I 'm not even
talking about where they fail to. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Well, you see the sections don't mean an
awful lot.
A. Buller: Well, then let me take the time to go over the
particular sections.
Chairperson S. Planchon: I encourage you to get this stuff in
writing with all the sections, that's where it really counts.
A. Buller: Well, it's going to be in writing, too.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Get it in writing, that's correct. Just
telling us all those numbers doesn't mean a darn thing to us. We
need to see it in writing. . .
A. Buller: Well , you will , believe me.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Okay. 1
A. Buller: Well , for example Table 2-2-3B (4) requires filled
pumping tests. They haven't done that. They haven't, the Corps
Manual says you have to investigate the borrow area. They haven't
done that. There are samples, uh, or are not the correct, or
sufficient size as required by the Corps of Engineers. They
haven't done, like I said, the lab testing is not presented. The ,
slope designs aren't there and all the way through and to speed
things up I 'm just giving you the section numbers. Now you made
me lose my place, excuse me. What I said, I don't know whose
computer is better, I know mine's pretty old but it showed that
slope to fail and draw down. Chapter 7, Section 2 was not even
covered and that's an exploratory trench, uh, that the Corps of ,
HH-2 Engineers requires. Table 7-2 was totally disregarded. Section
7-6 not covered and that concerns riverside protection. Section
7-6-C-2 (d) was totally ignored and that I'm going to read to you.
It says, "where slopes consists of erodible brand new soils,
abetting layer of sand and gravel or spoils or plastic filter cloth
to be used under riprap. " We have a sand dune levee out there and
they didn't even bother looking at this requirement with the Corps
of Engineers. These are supposedly brilliant people as Lynn just
mentioned. Uh, I spent two nights looking through this Manual and
just picked this stuff out. If I 'd some more time I could really
go through or if they had a complete report I could probably go
through it. At this time I would like to hand out to everybody the
HH-3 permit from the State. It's available on record of 3 500 gallon
underground diesel tanks that were put in the property in 1970.
Chairperson S. Planchon:
p We have a copy of this from last. . . .
1:\%-o12\c1icnl\I1)018\1:('IZI'('_'osnug
4-343
A. Buller: Oh, yeah, well. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: . . .and this has already been covered.
A. Buller: Well, every State agency and federal agency we can
think is going to get it. We have sent it out to various people
in the county and they claim they don't have it. I've got
witnesses here showing you all have it and I don't' know how to put
it other than bluntly but you got a chance to show everybody what
a rubber stamp committee you really are. Thank you.
Commissioner J. Hanson: Excuse me. Can I ask you a question?
A. Buller: Yes.
Commissioner J. Hanson: Where on this report does it say that they
are underground?
A. Buller: That's a State agency that registers underground
tanks. That record is available at the State and these brilliant
HH-3 EIR people couldn't find it. Even when I mentioned it, uh, back
last year.
Commissioner. E. Andrieu: Do you know where they are?
Dave Dal Porto (from the audience) : Can I address that?
Chairperson S. Planchon: one moment please. We got one man at the
mike right now.
A. Buller: What's the question?
Commissioner E. Andrieu: Do you know where they are in the
property?
A. Buller: No. I've had people tell me about 'em, about how
bad they've been leaking, that they had to abandon them but I have
no idea where they are other than somewhere in the center of the
property. I have only been on the property once and that was a
. long time ago.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Any further questions? Thank you, sir.
A. Buller: Thank you.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Rhonda Hanson.
Rhonda Hanson: My name is Rhonda Hanson. My address is 4800
Sandmound Boulevard. I live directly across the street from a
portion of the subject project that we're discussing. I' ll try
very hard not to go over the same things that we've gone over
4-344
1
before but it's very hard to remember from meeting to meeting
what's been discussed and I' ll just kinda go down my notes as fast
as I can. The first thing has to do with page 1-6, and that is
that it was my understanding that we were not supposed to have an
access through this project from Sandmound Boulevard until the very
HH-4 last EIR report, that's the first notice that I had that there
would be access from Sandmound and I strongly object to that and
it's my understanding that the County had no intention of having
an access from Sandmound. Next is page 2-5 and that has to do with
traffic and also 2-9 , the road improvements regarding the Delta
Expressway. The EIR report specifically says that this is going
to be an unavoidable problem with traffic if the Delta Expressway -
HH-5 is not put in and from what I can see of the County finances and
the State finances and the finances in general, it's my opinion
that the project should not be built unless and until the Delta
Expressway and other road improvements are built first. Regarding
air quality, page 2-11 , the project would result again an
unavoidable impact on regional emissions and that again is an air
HH-6 quality problem and I think that that's an unacceptable thing that
the Commissioners should find unacceptable in this report. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: It has been addressed. . .
Rhonda Hanson: . . . okay. Um, on page 2-13 there's an unavoidable
HH-7lchange in the visual quality of the area that I think should be
louked at. Under noise, on page 2-15, it was my understanding all
along from the County that in this area we did not have to have
sound walls and all of a sudden, bingo in this EIR there are sound
walls and I 'd like to know why that was put in all of a sudden and
HH-8 as a person who served on the Specific Plan Advisory Committee for
three years I know that was not intended for our area. We did not '
want sound walls in our area . I would like that removed from the
EIR.
Chairperson S. Planchon: You don't remove things from the EIR. The
EIR you put as much into it as you possibly can.
Rhonda Hanson: Well, not sound walls. I 'd like to take the sound
walls out.
Chairperson S. Planchon: You put it in and you have to address
them. �.
Rhonda Hanson: Okay, well then let's. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: At a later date. . .
Rhonda Hanson: . . . let's address the sound walls and try to get them
out. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Alright.
I:\%-o12\c1icw\191119\IiCIt1 C20N.nvg
4-345
Rhonda Hanson: . . .please. They were also talking about in the same
page in the noise level about the existing residents being exposed
to "short term impact from construction noise" and as a resident
HH-9 that's directly down wind and from this project, I 'd like to know
who considers 10 years of noise levels short term. I think that's
unacceptable. Um, dewatering is on page 218 and dewatering has
been covered. I would just like to reiterate that I think it's
HH-10 very important that a bond be placed to protect the residents from
the dewatering consequences. On page 220 the dynamic compaction,
I don't believe that won't affect our residences. It says in there
that it will not affect people that are over 150 feet away. I'd
like to know where the 150 feet figure came from. I don't believe
HH-11 that I am 150 feet away from the project . site anyway so what
happens to me, the people that are under 150 feet away from the
project. This I would also like to be bonded and guaranteed, some
guarantee to me that what they say is true in this report. On page
HH-12 2-22 , dust conditions, um, again I find dust in my face and in my
( house unacceptable for 10 years. They define extreme winds, they
HH-131don't define extreme winds but they say that. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: You're covering almost everything that you
said we've been through two and three times. If you can condense
it a little more it would sure be appreciated.
Rhonda Hanson: Well, you know, I spent a lot of time going through
the EIR to find points that I think are important and I understand
that you don't want to hear the same things over and over but it
seems to me as Commissioners representing the community that if you
hear the same problems from 20 people or 50 people or 1 , 000 people
who live on Sandmound that maybe you would listen and take it into
consideration just a little more than if you hear it from only one.
It's very hard for me to go down my list and say, well, this one's
been covered and this one hasn't. I took the time to go through
this report as voluminous as it is bit by bit and I 'm sorry that
you have to sit here and listen to this. It's not been pleasurable
for me either. May I continue.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Go ahead.
Rhonda Hanson: Alright, the next one is beyond the dust conditions.
The Fire Department problem most of you know that we're having
problems with our fire control, with our paying for our fire
HH-14 district as it is. I 'd like to know whether this is going to be
a manned fire house and who's going to pay for that and if that
needs, doesn't that need to be addressed in the EIR since it's part
of the EIR. There's also a problem with sheriffs, I think that
HH-151there, we don't have enough sheriffs as it is. A big major thing
for me is schools. I don't think that this site is an appropriate
HH-16I spot for schools since it's in such close proximity to lakes an the
river. I think it's wonderful that they're going to give us these
I:\vol?\clicni\I')O I R\l i('li l'('_'11ti.nu�
4-346
long-awaited parks but I don'tuite understand why the have to
q Y Y
HH-17 right under the power lines and I 'd suggest or ask that the EIR
would consider moving the parks in another area away from the power
lines. Um, on page 2-29 they said that the facilities will provide
breeding habitat for mosquitoes if not properly maintained. Again,
HH-18 I'd like to see guarantees that the, who is going to monitor what's
properly maintained and whether we have a mosquito problem. On
page 3-135 there's an impact on existing levee residents and I 'm
concerned again about the pounding or the deep dynamic compaction
that they're going to use. I 'd like to find out through an EIR
HH-19 Process whether this pounding is equivalent to an earthquake and
as everyone knows everyone's very concerned about levees breaking
due to earthquakes. On page 3-137 it says a break is likely to,
is unlikely to become bigger than 50 feet. Now I think that's a t.�.
down and out lie and I watched tall and track break and I know for
sure that it was at least 400 feet wide when it was done and I'd
HH-20 like to know what's going to stop our levee at 50 feet. Um, on
page 2-29 , the cultural resources I will skip because I think
that's been covered.
Chairperson S. Planchon: I think everything's been covered that
you've discussed tonight by about at least a dozen times.
Rhonda Hanson: Is it helping?
Chairperson S. Planchon: Everything. (Claps and laughter) .
Rhonda Hanson: On page 3-17 it says that the project residents
HH-21I should be notified of the health hazards from the power lines. I 'd
like to see the EIR changed to read "must be notified. " On 3-20
they talk about jobless housing and I 'd like to see if you're going
HH-22 to approve a project for this area that you approve a project that
has a jobless housing balance and this one does not. On page 3-45
again they talk about traffic problems that are created by this
project. I just 'ask you to please to look at the traffic, all the
traffic pages, and I ' ll skip the traffic pages for the moment if
HH-23 I can be assured that all of you will please look at them all with
an eye towards what traffic will be really like out there when this
is done. Um, on page 3-62 , they say they could restrict the hours
of construction operation for heavy equipment on State route for
adjoining commute hours and I 'd ask that that again be changed to
HH-24 "must restrict the hours of operations so that we don't have to put
up with the heavy trucks during commute hours. I am a commuter and
I know what it's like. On page 3-63 the project will contribute
to long-term cumulative traffic. The County at this point already
HH-25 Ihas a $500 million shortfall and it doesn't sound promising to me.
Um, page 3-69 , again I want to remind you all of the unavoidable
impact, significant unavoidable impact from dust. Please consider
HH-26 us. Come out and take a drive, come to my house, I ' ll have you all _.
to my house on a windy day and you can get a picture of what this
is going to be like. Dust control measures should be a condition
if I
I:\vol?\clicnl\I')OIR\I iCRI'(:�Ilf;.nug
4-347
of approval by Contra Costa County. I'd like the word "should be
HH-26 a condition of approval "must must be a 'cbndition of approval. " The
project would result in a significant adverse impact on regional
emissions. That's a quote from the EIR report. Um, I feel more
studies need to be done on existing wildlife. I have seen a lot
HH-27 more wildlife across the street from me than is listed in the
report. On page 3-133 in the ground watering section I just like
to note that I have a garden which once the plants are established
in my garden it's not watered again for the rest of the summer and
I get things out of my garden all summer. That tells me that
there's a water level very high under my property. I have a
CHH-28 problem visualizing how they can do dewatering across the street
from my house and not affect the water level at my house enough to
change the level of my ground and that bothers me and I would like
to have somebody else do a report because I think the people who
study this don't know what they're talking about. Um, on page
13-139 under water quality, I 'm concerned very much that the water's
HH-29 going to be pumped out of that lake, out of those lakes into
Sandmound Slough. I would like that looked into. Um, as far as
the electrical transmission lines, I won't cover that and I will
let the rest of the people speak who have a chance to speak. I 'm
sorry for being redundant. I would like to say in closing that I
know it's very hard for you Commissioners to sit up there and
listen to us but this is our life, this is the safety of me and my
family and all my neighbors. We've lived there for a long time and
last week whenever Mr. Wetzel made a comment that I was wasting his
time, that we were wasting his time, I felt very insulted and I
feel that this Commission is here for us not for the developer.
Please renew my faith in that concept. Thank you.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Linda Wadsworth.
Linda Wadsworth: I think it should be known that you guys are
all volunteers, aren't you?
Chairperson S. Planchon: Well , we get paid big money for sitting
up here.
„�. voice from audience - not understandable.
Linda Wadsworth: But you guys are County employees, is this
correct. Are you paid employees of the County, right, well, I 'm
not hostile I must start off. This is not our intent, or my intent
at any rate. In this last week I 've gotten a kind of an eye-
opener as to what an ERI is or an ERA. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: EIR.
Linda Wadsworth: Okay, and I think maybe, Stan you should
explain to everybody here what you job about this ERI is like I 've
been told this week.
:\%o13\c1icnl\190 Is\1{CRf1('20S.lilt,
4-348
i
Chairperson S. Planchon: Basically the EIR is an environmental
impact report. When you have a project like we have at Cypress,
State law now in projects of that size require that an
environmental impact report be made getting all the input you could
possibly get into it showing both the good aspects of the project,
the bad, how they should be mitigated. You gather all this
information and after that's gathered then it's accepted. After
it's. accepted then the project itself gets started and that's where
the nitty gritty is. Not in the EIR. The EIR is to get all the
information we possibly can and then we go from there.
i
Linda Wadsworth: Okay, well this is where I think that I wasn't
understanding. I was figuring that once this EIR was passed that
nothing more could be done or changed or in that we would be rubber
stamped. Obviously the employees that are here from the County
have given this group the impression that they really don't care
about what's existing there on Sandmound. And like I said, I'm not
hostile but I might be just a little bit paranoid because what this
project looks to us like is that they're going to build 16 foot
safe levees around a brand new project. This only came to my
attention about 6 months ago. Up until then I live in Oakley. I
have property on Sandmound and I was saying what is the matter with
everybody. Why don't they want beautiful homes built out there.
This is nonsense and all of a sudden I discovered that they don't
want to infiltrate into the area whatsoever. They want to put up
16 foot levees and separate themselves. Sixteen foot levees is a
lot different than 6 foot fences, wrought iron fences, gate works
such as that and I think that everybody could accept a beautiful
new subdivision without the separation and I 've written a letter
to the County on this and it states some of our concerns. I 'll,
I' ll read it to you, it's short and I'm not going to go any !�
further. (Reading letter) The environmental impact report for
this project does not reveal the impact of this levee on the
property owners on Sandmound and the area in general. What will
the affect of noise be between these levees. What about our
entrapment between these levees? What about air quality between
these levees? I feel it is totally wrong for this subdivision to
be considered for rezoning in its present form. Almost everyone
in the area would like to see a new development such as this come
into our area. The key word is into our area and not to be allowed
to become a community on to itself. Their levee within a levee
would tear our neighborhood into separated spaces, safe and unsafe
HH-30 zones. This would be extremely unfair to the people living on
Sandmound, Cypress and all of the areas nearby. This subdivision
would not be an improvement to the area and instead would be a
total injustice to our entire community. It is obvious to anyone
that a levee surrounding the new subdivision would immediately
speak a thousand words and the huge statement would imply that the
rest of the immediate area should be considered less than desirable
and unsafe. If in fact a rezoning were to be considered the entire
I:\�•ol?\client\17018\I (:121'C?Uf;.nuc
4-349
area rightfully should be included in. this safe zone. This new
subdivision should be part of this expensive recreational area and
not be barricaded within a dry levee and become an interruptive
community within our community. The only reason one would even
consider such a disturbing venture would have to be the added tax
revenue the County would gain. I certainly hope this rezoning
issue is resolved to benefit the entire existing area instead of
just this particular developer. I sincerely hope our Board of
HH-30 Supervisors will consider the devastating effect this will have on
our property and insists that this new development come into our
community in a more friendly fashion. It is appalling to me that
only recently has it become clear that they intend to surround this
new subdivision with this huge dry levee. Please stop this project
with its levees now and make sure we all become safe. Somewhere,
sometime, somehow this County government has got to get in touch
with the people that are living in this County. Somewhere
government's got to get smart. I'm done.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you, Linda.
(Clapping)
Chairperson S. Planchon: Mark Carter. Is he gone?
Voice from audience: Ah, he's at home taking care of his
family, I 'm sure.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Lorraine Henderson, Sherry Johnson.
D. Shipway: I'm sure she's not here either. . She wanted to know
if she could come to the March 1. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Paul Allen.
Paul Allen: Hello, (unintelligible) . I live at 4776 Sandmound
Boulevard and I just have a very short one so I hope you'll stay
awake for it. On page 1, section 9 , this plan promises to pay
$3 , 333 per unit to the County for the affordable housing fund.
This would total over $4 million but the builder may, instead of
paying, provide affordable housing on site. I believe plans for
HH-31 any affordable housing units should be included in the EIR. if
not, then the decision to build these units should not rest with
the builder. I 'm not against low-cost housing but if I 'm to live
beside it I 'd like to know (a) what it would look like, (b) who
will live there and (c) who will maintain the property. I don't
want a $4 million surprise. Thank you.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Craig Ogren.
Voice from audience: Craig Ogren is out of town.
I:\VoI2\CIiC n I\19018\1 i('It I I('208.1111,
4-350
Chairperson S. Planchon: He's gone.
D. Shipway: He'd like to come March 1 also.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Seth Cockrill .
Seth Cockrill: My name is Seth Cockrill . I live at 100 Fireplace
in Knightsen. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I 'm here
representing the Knightsen Community Council. We wrote a letter
on the last EIR. We asked that Knightsen be included in the
traffic study. At least this time they didn't recognize the
HH-32 Knightsen and had a couple of roads but they don't know where they
go. We would like to see this addressed not only on this project
but all projects as we heard earlier tonight. Knightsen feels it's
being left out. Knightsen has very narrow roads ' and every project
that. . . . (new tape begins here) . . .and in Brentwood cannot travel
on Highway 4 as well as all areas in the East County be considered
before projects that are done to consider major traffic. Thank
you.
Clapping from audience.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Katie All.
Katie All: My name is Katie All and I live at 384 Sandmound
Boulevard and the first thing I 'd like to address was the EIR
report was not available as stated in the letter from
Mr. Beresford. The local library does still not have a copy of it
and I was not able to attend last week so I 'm not sure of all the
things that have been covered. I 've listened this evening and I ' ll
try not to cover some of those things as well. One of the things
that was specifically mentioned in the new EIR is that levels of
six decibels or more are considered a significant change to the
noise levels in the area. Uh, there's a reading that was taken at
Cypress and Bethel Island Road that would change from 48 decibels
to 65 decibels. That's an increase of 17 decibels and they're
suggesting as part of the mitigation that again this sound wall be
built. I hope the County notices that they're in for 40% of the
cost of this new sound wall. Um, again the EIR addresses the
visual quality of the area but it still states that often the homes
in the area which I 'm assuming is Sandmound are three and four
HH-33 stories tall. Um, I took a quick count, 96% of the homes in the
area are one and two stories tall . That's not very accurate
counting. Um, most of the one story homes would directly be up
against this new proposed levee and part of the approval of this
new project is with its recreational appeal. We already have two
existing golf courses in the area, two more are proposed for the
immediate East County area . Do we really need a fifth golf course?
What percent of our population actually golfs? With the Delta area
so close what recreational benefit does the lake offer, there's no
swimming in the lake, there's no boating in the lake and the
I: c<il� client I')Olh 1{C1:1'('_'llti.ntl �'
4-351
�. revised EIR, um, just a brief comment on traffic, still shows that
Melroy Road is a main thoroughfare and an alternative route to
Highway 4 at the junction of 160. This is a dirt road across
private property. And, a final comment on the levees and I know
you've heard before, I find the safety both during and after the
HH-33 construction, um, a real issue for the existing residents. If this
particular levee is approved will it pave the way for future levee
systems around future projects and ultimately the demise of our
current 799 system. Why have all, why not have all future projects
support the current 799 levee system and make all of the area FEMA
approved.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you. Larry P. Gardner.
Larry Gardner: Good evening Council. My name is Larry Gardner.
I live at 5383 Sandmound. I 've been here for most all these
meetings. I don't have a prepared statement. I just like to say
that I 'm in favor that will bring prosperity to our area. I
encourage jobs. I 'm in favor of all forms of monetary gain. I
don't have a qualm with it. Has the County considered maintaining
current building practices? If they're going to allow these people
HH-34 to build ring levees as this draft EIR presents why are they not
requiring current residents to build their homes to that same
requirement. If the requirement we're building our homes to now
is not adequate then they should not be allowed to be built to
begin with. Thank you.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Thank you.
Clapping from audience.
Chairperson S. Planchon: I finally got to the bottom of them.
(I Carol Coleman.
Carol Coleman: My name is Carol Coleman and I live at 3150 East
Cypress Road which is the extension. I have a lot of questions to
ask but most of it has been covered. My main concern right now is
that each time I come here to this Commission there's a piece of
property pointed out as if it means nothing to anybody and it's
referred to as. this little triangular portion of land maybe less
than a half acre is what it said and that's all that's said. That
happens to be my property and it's . 58 of an acre. I 've lived
there 30 years. I have animals that are a part of agricultural
land. Occasionally they say the road is going to go through that
property and they're going to take part of it. I can't afford to
have that property taken if I 'm going to stay agricultural. We
HH-35 have tried to work with Three Sisters Trust, Lynn Jochim and A.J.
Salomon about relocating. They don't seem to be concerned about
relocating us at this point. My concerns are what is going to
happen with my property if they put the road through. At one point
they told us the road was going to go behind my property and I was
1:\�•ol3\client\1')UIR\1 iCRPC?(lt;.nug
4-352
going to abut near a golf course, I. would be no problem to anybody.
Now they want to put houses all around me and at one point three
homesites were going to take a part of my property. I was going
HH-35 to be part of three home sites and the road was going to go through
it. The last report I heard there's been no decision. Why hasn't
there been a decision in the EIR as to what my property is intended
for.
Chairperson S. Planchon: The EIR does not make decisions. The EIR
is a document showing the concerns of. . .
Carol Coleman: This h is a concern. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: . . . of the people, yes. . . \
Carol Coleman: . . . it is a concern but there's nothing in the EIR. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: . . .we don't answer those concerns at this
plate. You have to get them down, get them out and get them in
writing and those concerns will be addressed. . .
Carol Coleman: I have done that.
Chairperson S. Planchon: . . .when the project starts to. . .
Carol Coleman: . . .but- why is not in the EIR?
Chairperson S. Planchon: Well , put them in right now.
Carol Coleman: I 've mentioned it twice and it's not in there now.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Put it in writing. Put it in writing.
Carol Coleman: I 've written a letter. Why is it not in the EIR
what the intent is. . .
Chairperson S. Planchon: Well , it's up to you to put it in writing
and make sure it's in there.
Carol Coleman: I did. I have put it in writing and mailed it, it's
still not in there. This is what I 'm saying. Why are these not
put in the EIR.
voice in audience: They don't know how to read.
Female from audience: Stan, isn't it clear that this will become
a part of the EIR. If you put it in writing, get it in there, it
will become a part.
Chairperson S. Planchon: That is correct.
I:\vo13\c1icnt\17011\I URI'U_'Ilti.mig
4-353
Same female: And it' ll be up to the Supervisors to decide that
and address it.
Commissioner J. Hanson: It will become a part of the responses to
the EIR which is done later.
Carol Coleman: Yeah, but don't those responsible, responses have
to be in print with the EIR.
Commissioner J. Hanson: No, the responses come after the EIR is
final.
Carol Coleman: Well, I've just seen no changes as to what the
intent is and I think that's a concern. Thank you.
Chairperson S. Planchon: The closing date on this is, will probably
be the 16th by 5: 00 p.m. and I would encourage all of you to have
everything that have been discussed all in writing and in by the
16th. After that point in time there's what we call a response
period. The applicant will have a chance to respond to all of the
questions that have been raised with the EIR then a new document
is created and from there it eventually finds its way up to the
Board of Supervisors. At that point you folks will have another
opportunity to speak out for or against the EIR before it's finally
�- certified. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak tonight that
we didn't cover? One more gentleman here.
Fred Davis: My name is Fred Davis. I live in #19 Cactus Lane.
These aren't m comments but the are comments that I requested
Y Y q
along with a group of citizens that live out on Sandmound and there
from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Our requests,
they reviewed this Draft Environmental Impact Report and addressed
this letter to the Community. Development Department, their Mr.
Beresford, and it goes on to say, "we have reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Cypress Lakes and Country Club
project proposed for northeastern Contra Costa County. The Draft
Environmental Impact Report assesses the potential impact to the
environment of rezoning 685. 9 acres from general and heavy
agricultural district to planned unit district and for the
construction of approximately of 1, 330 single family residential
units, golf course, school site, fire . station and so on. As
discussed in section 3 . 3 of the EIR the project would result in a
significant adverse impact on regional omissions specifically
reactive organic gases and oxides and nitrogen which are precursors
of ozone. The implementation of mitigation measures discussed in
3 . 3 has a potential to reduce project impacts on regional air
HH-36 quality by approximately 10% However, the omissions impact would
remain significant and effect both the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
and the Bay Area Air Basin. . We are also concerned that this
project may not be consistent with the land use goals of the Contra
HH-37 Costa County General Plan, goal 3-25 of the land use element of the
1:\�o12\clicn�\19018\I[CRI'C3Uti.mtg
4-354
plan states that new residential development shall be accommodated
only in areas it will avoid creating severe adverse impacts on the
environment and upon the existing community. It is unclear how
this project is consistent with that land use goal. The project
HH-37 also seems to be inconsistent with land use goals 3-A and 3-2 , goal
3-A calls for the protection of agriculture and open space, goal
3-2 states that jobs in-fill shall be supported and stimulated
where jobs housing ratio chose an over abundance of housing to
jobs. The Final Environmental Impact Report should address
consistencies of the proposed project with the plan including the
specific goals cited above and especially the air quality impacts
of any inconsistencies that may result. And then it goes on to say
it's talking about bicycle trails and pedestrian trails. It didn't
say anything about rick-shas but it might not be a bad idea. They
have an additional example of mitigation measures for this project,
might include substantial public transportation service between the
HH-38 development area and significant destinations, employee shuttles
to major work sites, the requirement for use of clean fuel transit
buses, CNG methanol and electric where possible, and establishing
car pool and van pool programs. We appreciate the opportunity to
comment on this project. If you have any questions or comment,
please contact Mr. John Walsher, Environmental Planner. This was
written by Mr. Milton Felstein, Air Pollution Control Officer and
he's also an expert.
Clapping from audience.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Anyone else. I want to give everyone an
opportunity.
Patricia Curtin: I would like to make a rebuttal on behalf of
the applicant.
P. Curtin: Thank you, Mr. Chair and all fellow Commissioners.
My name is Patricia Curtin, legal representative for Chartered
Land & Cattle Company on the Cypress Lakes project. I 'd like to
start off by thanking everyone for their comments on the Draft EIR.
Please rest assured that all comments heard tonight on the Draft
EIR will be responded to in writing by the EIR consultant. Written
comments will be permitted until the 16th of February and all those
comments will also be responded tonin writing. CEQA acknowledges
the need for the community involvement that is why CEQA requires
that a Draft Environmental Impact Report be prepared. Through
public comments and responses to those comments we have another
document as explained by the Chair called the Final Environmental
Impact Report. Those two documents together make up the EIR. Only
then can the decision-makers such as yourself make a decision on
this project. Tonight we've heard a lot of conflicting testimony
on the various points of this Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Again, CEQA recognizes that experts' opinions may vary on
particular issues. This disagreement amongst experts does not make
I:\%o12\cl ient\19018\1 i(AZV(•2()S.nug
4-355 D
an EIR or Draft EIR invalid. It only shows that people have a
difference of opinion. These opinions if made by way of comment
like they were here tonight are considered and responded to and
they may if legitimate be accepted or followed through. A valid
EIR must follow through all the procedural requirements of CEQA and
include technical data to allow the decision-makers again such as
yourself to make an informed decision. This is an informational
document. By making a decision on this document or recommendation
for certification to the Board of Supervisors does not mean that
you are approving the project. That is the next phase of the
planning process. I 'd like to just make some quick comments about
the new soils report that was distributed to you this evening.
HH-39 That soils report is near identical to the one that the
environmental consultant included as an appendix in the EIR. As
a result this Draft EIR adequately analyzes all the conclusions and
recommendations made in that report. The conclusions and
recommendations contained in the newest soil report are near
identical to the ones contained in the staff report and the County
does have their own independent geotechnical consultant that does
review all soils reports and that section of the EIR and that, that
�I individual did in fact review that one for the Cypress Lakes EIR.
I urge that the Commission close the public oral comment period on
the EIR tonight and make a decision on whether or not they would
like to certify it. Again, we have until the 16th of February to
accept a written comment and then when we come back to you you can
make your recommendation on the EIR. Are there any questions?
Commission S. Planchon: For the point of clarification we do not
certify.
P. Curtin: No, you make a recommendation, I apologize if I
caused any confusion. Thank you.
Commissioner S. Planchon: Any questions? Mary, do you have an
address that the good people out there could mail in all of their
written comments, get them in writing.
M. Fleming: Absolutely, any written comments can be addressed
to the Community Development Department, it's 651 Pine Street,
Martinez, California 94553 and direct those to the attention of Art
Beresford. You get them there as directly as possible. He' ll be
collecting all of the conditions, all of the comments that come in
there' ll be passed on to the environmental consultant after the
16th.
Commissioner S. Planchon: After the 16th.
M. Fleming: And then we' ll begin work on the response documents.
Commissioner S. Planchon: And, what's the time frame before
it' ll get back? Roughly.
I:\veil2\client\19018\1`ClZl,C'nti.III
4-356
M. Fleming: I would say probably a month.
Commissioner S. Planchon: A month, okay. �•,
Female voice in audience: I don't mean to sound paranoid.
Would you suggest that maybe we send these return receipt?
(Laughter in room)
Female voice again: I mean would that be a recommendation or do you .
think that they might acknowledge that they received all, each and
every one of these.
M. Fleming: Anything that's received on this project clearly
state on the written comments that this is a response for the EIR,
identify the project so we know which project. . .
Female voice in audience: I recognize that, Mary, but through
the few meetings that I 've been here, it appears pretty apparent
that there's great many people here who have found that the County
has lost, misplaced or never received documentation. You think a
return receipt might be in order here.
M. Fleming: If it makes you more comfortable that's fine.
Female voice in audience: They will sign for them, I mean
there's no. . .
M. Fleming: Of course.
Female voice in audience: . . . I mean, there's no County
Ordinance that says they can't.
M. Fleming: No.
Female voice in audience: Okay.
Chairperson S. Planchon: Can I have a motion to close the
public hearing?
Commissioner E. Sobalverro: I move that we close the public
hearing.
Commissioner E. Andrieu: I ' ll second it.
Chairperson S. Planchon: All those in favor.
(Vote cast) All say aye.
1:\vo12\cIicnt\19018\1•:C1ZN7208.mlg
4-357 ',
Chairperson s. Planchon: Now, I need a motion with whatever
you folks warit to do with the EIR, You wish to call it adequate
and send it to response, not response, written comments which will
be deadline at the 16th at 5: 00 p.m. , 16th of February .
M. Flemings Mr. Chair, you wouldn't want to Call it adequate at
this point. All you want to do is close testimony.
1 Chairperson S. Planohons Close comments, close the public
hearing and as)c for written comments.
1` M. Fleming: Right.
Chairperson S. Planchon: That's the motion that's needed . We have
a motion?
Commissioner E. Andrieu: I ' ll make that notion.
Chairperson S. Planchon: We have a second?
Commissioner R. sobalvarro: I made a motion on that, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairperson S. Planohons Pardon.
Commissioner E. Sabalverro: I had already made that motion.
Chairperson R. Planchon: Okay. Roll call .
D. Foley: Commissioner Soba.lvarro.
Commissioner sobalvarro: Aye.
D. Foley: Commissioner Andrieu.
Commissioner Andrieu: Aye.
D. Foley: Commissioner Hanson.
Commissioner ,T. Hanson: Aye.
D. Foley: Commissioner Maybee.
Commissioner Maybee: Aye.
D. Foley: Commissioner Wetzel .
Commissioner wetael: Aye.
D. Foley: Chair Planchon.
4-353
Commissioner S. Planchon: Aye.
D. Foley: Comments closed. Public hearing closed.
Chairperson S. Planchon: okay. Roll call.
D. Foley: commissioner Sobalvarro.
Commissioner Sobalvarro: Aye.
D. Foley: Commissioner Andrieu.
Commissioner Andrieu: Aye.
D. Foley: Commissioner Hanson.
Commissioner J. Hanson: Aye.
D. Foley: commissioner Maybee.
Commissioner Maybee: Aye.
D. Foley: commissioner Wetzel .
Commissioner Wetzel: Aye.
D. Foley: Chair Planchon.
Commissioner S. Planchon: Aye.
END OF HEARING ON ITEM NO. 4
L\vo12\c1icn(\190 19\1;CR PC208-111tg
4-359
CYPRESS LAKES AND COUNTRY CLUB
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS
FEBRUARY 8, 1993 - PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
INTRODUCTION
Good evening Chairman and Fellow Commissioners I am T-ynn Jorhint
the owner / Developer of Cypress Lakes Golf and Country Club.
To night, I am hear to support the ndpquAny of the Recircul-ited
Draft E. I . R. prepared for Cypress Lakes.
I began working on this project in April of 1987 with the
community. Tt was shortly thereafter the BIASP committee was
formed. However, Bob Dal Porto, the original land owner had been
working on the lake development concept for years prior.
You have before you a DZIR which is tho rocult of many years of
public input and the information from 3 prior Draft EIR prepared
for this projQct and the BILSP.
This DEIR was proparod by an independent consultant firm hired
by Contra Costa County to study the Environmental impacts of this
project and to identify mitigation measures which reduce lii1pdUL6
to a less - than - significant level . The consultant received
reports and information from other speciali4ed vonsulLdIL'U3 on
the project. The County and the EIR consultant made their own
independent raview v1 Lhei3ij reports prior to the preparation of
this draft EIR.
The technical consultants have extensive expertise in their
fields with experience on projects similar to Cypress Lakes.
Soils Engineer has 40 years of expertise in work in the Delta.
They have done 80% of all levee work submitted for approval
to EMA. This EMA work has included interior dry levees inside
existing Delta levees .
4-360
Civil Engineers have been involved in Bay/Delta projects for over
20 years. They've had extensive work in areas high water table,
in flood plains and with similar soil conditions .
Wetland Consultant prepared the delineation report which was
verified by the Corp of Engineers. Moreover, he worked for the
Corp for 16 years delineating wetlands in agriculture areas, and
assisted the Corp in writing their technical manuals.
Plant and 9ndanaered Species consultant is world renowned and has
done several studies for State and Federal Agencies . She spent
numerous days evaluating and inspecting the site and came up
mitigations measures to avoid any impact.
Water _Quality consultant proposed proven techniques which have
beenapprovedby the EPA under their clean water act and confirm
with NPDES the newest discharging permit.
The list of professionals who have- prpparprl cipt.Ailpri -r(*pnrt-.s nnthe site goes on to include Noise, Air Quality, Archeology and
Traffic. Thp nRTR addrpsges impacts and proposes mitigation
measures to be implemented. The EIR consultant has prepared a
Miticlation monitoring Program to assure the implementation of
these mitigations which will be ultimately adopted by the Board
of Supervisors along with the conditions of Approval.
IZ
In August of 1992 the 1st Draft EIR on the project was released
for 45 days of public =eview. In the Fall You he'drd Ittally 11UU.L16
of public testimony on the DEIR. The 45 days ended September 28,
1992 . The comments from the collullurilLy dill the enviruiutientalietts
focused on 6 main issues. Reports and further documentation were
prepared and have been lnvlud"d in tile Recirculated Draft to make
a more conclusive and complete environmental review. These areas
1. wetlands - A monitoring program was drafted to assure
implementation
2. Levee - An evaluation of the interior levee vs other
alternatives were evaluated on cost and feasibility
3 . Landscape - A detailed landscape plan was developed to
lessen visual impacts
4 . Flood plain - A flood plain evaluation was prepared
with statistical data to address the effects of a
double levee in case of a levee break on the existing
levee.
4-361
5 . Soils - A total of 62 borings on site have been drilled
and evaluated to address methods of construction, etc,
6 . water Quality - A detailed program was prepared to
be consistent with EPA standards and address the new
NFDEs, storm water discharge permit.
This EIR is the result of input from the local constituency,
concerned environmentalist, the County Supervisors and staff .
A Recirculated DEIR was prepared to further incorporate the
comments and concerns by these groups along with the new studies
and more detailed information. Moreover, the County staff has
made their independent review during the Administrative Draft
stage and thereby approved the release of this draft tn the
public .
The environmental groups that are most active in this County and
their attorneys have reviPwAd this recirculated draft EIR and
find it adequately addresses their concerns for this area. They
feel it gives a honAst AnRlysig of the impacts of this project
and recommend, realistic raitigation measures.
SlimmAry
In summary, the procass behind tho preparation of this
Environmental doclament has been a long but an elaborate one. The
documant incorporator cxtanaive technical and legal review alolly
with input of staff and environmentalist. Cumulatively, this
represonts a woll educated group of professionals wLuL wxpwrieric
and concerns for the development of urban communities. That is
why I am able to support the adequavy ul this recirculated Draft
of EIR with conviction.
Thank you,
Q and A
Z
4-362
CYPRESS LAKES AND GOLF COURSE TIMELINE
April 1987 (Bethel Island Area specific Plan) BIASP
committee formed -- 10-11 Bethel Island
residents mat 1-2 times a month for 1 1/2
years . Proposal 2,000 units on-island/2,000
off-island.
June 1988 1st DEIR released on BIASP for development on
and off island.
Lots of public and political concern. Plan
rejected.
October 1989 2nd DEIR released on BIASP development mostly
off island development.
Lots of public comment and political comments .
.Adopted by Planning Commission
June 1990 DEIR adopted by Board of Supervisors
July 1990 Lawsuits filed -Sierra Club, Audobon, Greenbelt
Alliance, Statp? .ands Commi Ftsion
January 1991 Mew County Wide General Plan adopted. DIASP
area designated for residential 1-3 units per
acre.
,'raniiary 1992 New DEIR on Cypress Lakes began boing drafted.
August 1992 Distribution of DEIR to community 45 day
review.
September 1992 *2 Public Hearings on DEIR over 6 hours of
testimony.
Octobor. 1992 *1 Ilearing on project wiLit 4 tiuurs of testimony.
Nov . & Dec. 1992 SettlemenL uct lawouit. Part of settlement
agreement to recirculate DEIR.
January 1993 Recirculated DEIR released.
February 1, 1993 *Public comment 2 hours on DEIR.
February 8, 1993 Public comment on DEIR.
February 16 , 1993 End of Written comment period on DEIR. �!
* At all the hearings there has been 10-12 speakers . At every ■
meeting 8-10 have been the same people with the same complaints. r
4-363
Response to Letter HH: East County Regional Planning Commission Continuation
Hearing, February 8, 1993
Response HH-1:
The soils report presented as part of this comment is included as an attachment to Letter
S from Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, February 16, 1993.
Response HH-Z:
All of these comments are contained in Letter X from Alexander Buller, February 1, 1993.
Refer to Response to Letter X for responses to these comments.
Response HH-3:
Refer to Response X-10.
1 Response HH-4:
As described on page 3-39 of the DEIR, the project would have three access points, one
at the intersection of Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road, one at Cypress Road and Sandmound
Boulevard and another onto Sandmound Boulevard on the north side of the project. However,
the Cypress Road intersection would be the principal point of access and would be used by about
85 percent of the total trips from the project.
Response HH-5:
Refer to Response 0-3.
Response HH-6:
Comment noted. This comment reflects the opinion of the commentor who agrees with
the findings of the DEIR that the project would result in an unavoidable impact on regional air
quality (NOx and ROG). No additional response is necessary.
Response HH-7:
1 Comment noted. Visual quality is discussed on pages 3-99 to 3-108 of the revised DEIR.
Response HH-8:
Comment noted. The comment reflects the opinion of the commentor. Soundwalls are
proposed as one form of noise mitigation. If desirable the County may require other mitigation
4-364
1
techniques such as architectural treatment as referenced in mitigation measure 3.6-1, p. 3-16 of
the DEIR.
Response HH-9:
The DEIR identified construction noise as an unavoidable short-term impact. "Short-term"
is used to describe this impact because upon completion of project construction these impacts
would cease. On the other hand, long-term impacts are defined as those which continue
indefinitely.
Response HH-10:
Refer to Response V-20. '
Response HH-11:
Refer to Response X-7, section (d).
Response
HH-12:
Mitigation measures 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 are proposed to reduce construction period dust
emissions. However, as described in the DEIR on page 3-74, the potential for dust nuisance
would still remain along Sandmound Boulevard. Therefore, dust emissions during construction
would be considered a significant unavoidable adverse localized impact.
Response HH-13:
See Response Y-3.
Response HH-14:
See Response V-21.
Response HH-15:
See Response V-22.
Response HH-16:
See Response V-23.
4-365
1
Response HH-17:
Mitigation Measure 3.9-10, page 3-187 specifically calls for active recreational use areas
to be located outside the power line easement, including baseball diamonds, soccer fields, and
playground areas.
Response HH-18:
As described on page 3-188 of the DEIR, the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District
(CCMAD) would be required to approve any design plans for wetland and pond areas on the
project site.
Response HH-19:
Refer to Response X-7, section (d).
Response HH-20:
Refer to Response Y-28.
�. Response HH-21:
Mitigation measures in the DEIR are only proposed at this time (hence the language
"should"). Upon the County's approval of the project, all mitigation measures would become
requirements of the project and would be implemented through a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. Changing the language of mitigation measures, therefore, is not appropriate
at this time.
Response HH-22:
Refer to Response 0-2.
Response HH-23:
Comment noted. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR or an impact
on the environment. No response is necessary.
Response HH-24:
Refer to Response HH-21.
4-366
1
Response HH-25:
Mitigation Measure 3.2-16 of the DEIR acknowledges the long-term cumulative traffic
impact of the proposed project. This mitigation measure would require the project to pay its fair
share toward the subregional road fee.
Response HH-26:
Refer to Response HH-21.
Response HH-27:
Comment noted. See responses to Letter E California Department of Fish and Game.
P p
Response HH-28:
Refer to Response X-7, section (e).
n
Re spo se HH-29:
The commentor is correct that excess water would be pumped into Sandmound slough.
However, the quality of that water would be monitored and required to meet NPDES
requirements.
Response HH-30:
All of these comments are contained in Letter N from Linda Wadsworth, February 2,
1993. Refer to Response to Letter N for responses to these comments.
Response HH-31:
Affordable housing is not proposed on the site at this time. If it is proposed, the County
may require additional review of the project.
Response HH-32:
The Transportation/Circulation chapter of the DEIR (Chapter 3.2) studied a number of
intersections in the project area, including the Knightsen Avenue/Cypress Road intersection.
According to the traffic study, approximately 110 vehicles currently travel toward Knightsen on
Knightsen Road, between Delta Road and Cypress Road during the P.M. peak hour. The
proposed project would add approximately 40 vehicles to Knightsen Road in the P.M. peak hour.
This increase, due to the project, was not considered significant. However, the DEIR includes
mitigation to improve the Knightsen Avenue/Cypress Road intersection.
4-367
Response HH-33:
All of these comments are contained in Letter T from Guy and Katie All, February 10,
1993. Refer to Response to Letter T for responses to these comments.
Response HH-34:
Comment noted. This comment reflects the opinion of the commentor. If the proposed
levee is constructed, the project site would be removed from the flood hazard zone. Homes
within the flood hazard zone are required to be built above the flood level. This requirement
would not apply to the project site if removed from the flood hazard zone.
Response HH-35:
All of these comments are contained in Letter DD from Carol Coleman, February 11,
1993. Refer to Response to Letter DD for responses to these comments.
Response HH-36:
Comments noted. The commentor restates the findings of the EIR that the project would
result in an unavoidable impact on regional air quality. No additional response is necessary.
Response HH-37:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan does not contain a goal numbered 3-25. In
addition, none of the goals listed in the Land Use Element refer to development only in areas
where it will avoid creating severe adverse impacts on the environment. Policy 3-25 addresses
the rehabilitation of existing dwelling units.
Goal 3-A states the following:
"To coordinate land use with circulation, development of other infrastructure facilities,
and protection of agricultural and open space, and to allow growth and the maintenance
of the County's quality of life, In such an environment all residential, commercial,
industrial, recreational and agricultural activities may take place in safety, harmony, and
to mutual advantage."
The project appears to be consistent with this goal in that adequate infrastructure facilities
are either currently available, or have been identified as specific mitigation measures to be
implemented as part of the project in order to serve new residents on the project site. The project
also provides for the protection of agricultural and open space areas in that the project site is
located within the County's Urban Limit Line. Areas within the Urban Limit Line are identified
4-368
1
as those areas of the County upon which development could take place. Areas outside the Urban
Limit Line are identified as those areas which should be protected for agricultural and open space
purposes.
Policy 3-2 pertains to encouraging jobs development in areas where the jobs/housing ratio
shows an overabundance of housing to jobs. The Bethel Island Area does show an
overabundance of housing to jobs. However, the existing General Plan designations for the
project site and surrounding areas (Off-Island Bonus Area) do not provide for significant job
development in this area. The proposed project is consistent with the policies and requirements
of the Off-Island Bonus Area.
Response HH-38:
The DEIR on p. 3-185 discusses the proposed project's consistency with the bicycle and
pedestrian trails plans of the Contra Costa County General Plan. See Response L-4 regarding
public transit.
Response HH-39:
The soils report referenced in this comment is included as an attachment to Letter S from
Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, February 16, 1993.
�I
4-369
i5. ERRATA AND CLARIFICATIONS
The following errata and clarifications refer to additional corrections not referenced in the
previous sections made on the Draft EIR. If the correction requires revision to the text of the
Draft EIR, the subject text from the Draft EIR is shown with deleted text struck through and new
text highlighted in bold.
Corrections
1) Mitigation Measure 3.2-4, page 3-60 of the DEIR is modified as follows:
3.2-4 Sandmound Boulevard Improvement- This project would reconstruct Sandmound
Boulevard from Bethel Island Road along the north border of the project and
along the project's easterly frontage on Sandmound Boulevard. This projec�
The remaining improvements would be done in conjunction with other
developments along Sandmound Boulevard. (Responsibility: Contra Costa
County as a condition of future development).
2 Table 3.2-4 page 3-40 of the DEIR has been revised to include AM peak hour tri counts
�P g P P
as follows:
Table 3.2-4
CYPRESS LAKES TRIP DISTRIBUTION
:;: irretio>#:n ;.;: `' :':.Pei cent;.;::::: co'ecit.:;.>:: :In:::;:;....;A ::;::: ,;:.::: ,lV[:; 1v1:xxl::`::....:.. M::.:;..........................
..................... ..................::::.::::::::::::.:::...::..:::::::::::::::: ::::..:,:::::::::
T....::::;ri >:»::<: . vt':`>> << Tota ut ..
.;1..:.::::: i................:.:::................:::::::C�.::::..:::::.:::::::.: ::::::::::::::::::.::::.:,.::::.:::::
P ..
North to Bethel 4% 480 11 23 34 30 18 48
Island
Highway 4 to 42% 5,050 113 244 356 311 189 500
Antioch-Pittsburg
Local Trips into 23% 2,760 62 133 195 170 104 274
Oakley
Local Trips into 14% 1,680 38 81 119 104 63 167
Brentwood
Highway 4 toward 8% 960 21 46 68 59 36 95
Stockton
Highway 160 4% 480 11 23 34 30 18 48
toward Rio Vista
Vasco Road 5% 600 13 29 42 37 23 60
toward 1-580
1
5-1
3) Table 3.2-6(c), page 3-55 of the DEIR, references the Delta Expressway as a "two-lane
facility". This is corrected to reflect the Delta Expressway is proposed to be a four lane
facility.
4) Chapter 5.2 - Cumulative Impacts, page 5-2 of the DEIR, the third bulleted item under
Projects within the Bethel Island Area Planning Area is revised as follows:
• Lesher Landing: proposed 571 unit project located west of the proposed project
along the north side of Cypress Road.
5) Several corrections are necessary to the Sewage Disposal discussions in the DEIR
beginning on page 3-200.
• p. 3-200, 2nd paragraph under Sewage Disposal, last sentence incorrectly
references that the Oakley/Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority was
transferred to the Ironhouse Sanitary District. This should have referenced that
the Oakley/Bethel Island Wastewater Management Authority was dissolved.
• The DEIR referenced "Jack Elder" Ironhouse Sanitary District. This is revised to
reference "James Elder".
• P. 3-202 3rd fullara a h 5th line is revised as follows:
P Zn' P
"a 100-acre parcel, owned by a nearby dairy, that can be is used for...." �.
• p. 3-203, 1st paragraph, 4th and 5th sentences are deleted.
• p. 3-204, 1st paragraph under impacts 2nd sentence incorrectly references the
Oakley Sanitary District, it should read the Ironhouse Sanitary District. `
5-2
APPENDIX A
CALINE-4 INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
APPENDIX A
CALINE-4 INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES
The CALINE-4 input and model result files are identified by a file
name. The following table provides the file name associated with
each alternative set of assumptions.
Intersection Alternative File Name
Bethel Island/ Sandmound Existing 1CYPEX
Project 1CYPPR
Cumulative 1CYPCU
Bethel Island/ Cypress Project 2CYPPR
Cumulative 2CYPCU
Bethel Island/ Gateway Existing 3CYPEX
Project 3CYPPR
Cumulative 3CYPCU
Cypress/ SR 4 Existing 4CYPEX
Project 4CYPPR
Cumulative 4CYPCU
nr-r Ufxi run r1LC ; 1Lvuo-,A
1. cite Variables
U= 1.0 M/S 70= 100.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/5
MIXH= 1000.0 M ME= 0.0 MPn
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Descriotiorf �.
LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H V
DESCRIPTION * XI Yi z2 Y2 t TYPE VNO iviili .4)
A. SANDMOUND EB -250 -2 I N 26.
B. SANDMOUND WB 250 c -250 2 IN I% 26.] i U 10.0
C. BETHEL NB 2 -,:,u 2 2'a IN 4i�U '0.1 G.v li:. )
D. BETHEL SB -2 250 -Hmo IN ce0 =o.= 0.0 i0.+1
MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT %D EFi iDT? iLT_
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/Mini iSEM ( EC)
---t-- - ------- ------------------------
A. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 1 1 20 2.3 45•.0 ).()
B. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 1 1 10 5.3 4:.0 10.0
C. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 7 2 400 5.3 1=11.0 0.0
D. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 4 1 260 5.3 1-5.0 0.0
3 R r r
eceuto Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 1.5
RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5
RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.5
RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1.5
�I
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE C:ICYPE%
* PRED *WIND # COCN/LINK
* CONC * ERG
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A E C D
------t------+--*-----------------------
RECPT I * 1.7 * 151 * :1.i 0.0 '..= 0.4
RECPT 3 * 1.9 * 201 * 0.i ().1 1.4 0.3
RECPT 3 * 2.0 * NO * 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2-
RECPT 4 * 1.7 * 90 * 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.2
REPOFT FOR FILE : 1CYPDF
1. cite 'lrriaties
U= 1.0 M/5 c0= 100.0 CM
ERG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CV1/S
MIXH= 1000.0 M WE= 0.0 PPM
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Descriotitm
LINK } LINK COORDINATES tM) * EF h
DESCRIPTION * X1 Yi X2 Y? + TYPE VPH (G/Mi) ill) (IC
---------------------------------#-------------------------------
A. SANDMOUND EB -250 IN 5 20._ 1;.
B. SANDMOUND WB 250 2 -=S0 2 IN 50 co.5 6.0 10.0
C. BETHEL NB 2 -250 0 IN 500 26.5 0 10.f;
D. BETHEL SB -- ..=
;:Jo '_i IN sc:C �;.= 0.
+ MIXW
f L F STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFi iDTI IL:'::
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA WHO (G/MIN) (SEC) iSEC)
-�----- -------------
-----------------------
A. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 c 1 lou 4f.0
B. 0 0 240 15.012.0 30 1 1 10 5.3 45.0 0.
C. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 a ? 500 5.3 1 .0 +!
D. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 S 1 3 ) 5.3 1 . ; G.(�
3. Receotrjr Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR i -14 14 1.5.
RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5
RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.5
RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1.5
'r
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE 1CYPPR
* GRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BRG * (;f-.M)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D
RECPT 1 * 2.3 * 110 * 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.6
RECPT 2 * 2.8 * 194 * 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.3
RECPT 3 * 2.2 * 351 * 0.3 1.2 0.5 0.2
RECPT 4 * 2.2 * 63 * 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.3
REPORT FOR FILE : 1CYPCU
1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S :0= 100.0 CM
FRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 C'1/5
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link DesCriotion
LINK f LINT COORDINATES (M) H W
DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y:_ +r TYPE VPH (G/(iii) (K+) (M)
-------------------- --------*-----------------------------
A. SANDMOUND EB -250 -2 250 -E i N = ..._ ij i .U
B. SANDMOUND MB 250 -25U ? IN o
C. BETHEL NB 2 -250 2 250 IN iG67 1:._ i a 10.0
D. BETHEL SB -2 250 -2 , -250 IN 603 i1.2 0.0 10.0
f MIRY
f L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EF! IDT1 IDT2
LINK f (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
A. 0 0 2240 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 150 1.3 45.0 0.0
B. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 1 l 10 1.3 45.0 0.0
C. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 18 4 1067 1.3 1',.0 0.0
D. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 11 3 obi 1.3 1J.0 0.0
3. Receotor Coordinates ,\\
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 1.5
RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5 _
RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.5,
RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1.
�. MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE C:ICYPCU
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK,
* CONC f ERG * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A E C D -
RECPT 1 * 1.4 f 15i * 0.Z' 0, 0.5 0.4
RECPT 2 * 1.6 * 157 * 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.3
RECPT 3 * 1.4 * 327 * 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.5
RECPT 4 * 1.3 * 57 * 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3
1. Site Variables
11= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S
MIX& 1000.0 M AMD= 0.0 PPM
SIGT& 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C)
Link Descriotion
LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) # EF H W
DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
s -- - - -------------------
A. CYPRESS EB -250 -4 250 -4 IN 680 26.0 0.0 14.0
.B. CYPRESS WB 250 4 -250 4 IN 366 26.5 0.0 14.0
C. BETHEL NB 4 -250 4 250 IN 5 26.5 0.0 14.0
D. BETHEL SB -4 250 4 -250 IN 3c0 26.5 0.0 14.0
MIXW
f L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK a (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MRH) NCYC NDLA WHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
A. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 9 4 620
5.3 30.0 0.0
B. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 6 3 686 5.3 30.0 0.0
C. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 500 5.3 30.0 0.0
D. 0 0 236 15.012.0 30 3 1 5 5.3 3 0.0 0.0
3. Receotor Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 -22 22 1.5
RECEPTOR 2 22 22 1.5
RECEPTOR 3 22 -22 1.5
RECEPTOR 4 ,E2 -22 1.5 •.
� }!
r
a
;1.
MODEL RE,-ULT; F0� FIS:
* FRED *WIND * COCNiLIN'!
* CONC * ERG * :PC`ht?
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* . A E C L
----------i-------i-----*-------------------------
RECPT 1 * 3.5 * 11 * ;i.5 to. 0.-
RECPT + 4.0 * c4i) * i.'s ;. 0.i
RECPT . * 3.° * 328 * i i. . ._
RECPT 4 * 4.4 * 14 * _.%
i -
1
1
1
1 .
1
REPORT FOR FILE : cCVPCU
1. Site va-,.2oie=
U= i.Cl ri/: D= ii.:Mi 'C.n
bRG= 0.0 G GRECS dD= v.0 Ch,i
CLASS= F S TAB i L i T'( 0. ) C'i'_•
MIXH= I000.0 r 10.0
SiGTH= 10.0 CSG 4. . EEGEC
�. Link Descrioti.)n '
LINK LM COORDINATES (M) E= H W
DESCRIPTION * X1 Yl XS Y2 TYPE VPH iUmi) ;M) : i)
--------------+----------------------------t-----------------•------------
A. CYPRESS EE -�'o -4 -4 IN 1400 :1...
E. CYPRESS WE CJU 4 -SSC: 4 IN
C. BETHEL NB 4 -25" 4 IN C i i.
D. BETHEL Si. -4
} MiiiW
L R STPL LCLT ACCT _�'i1
_
.-. .. Y ...,.
LINK + i7r (9) ,h) t--C .�-L} h, nl \LrG hDLH V-"!rLi
---- --------------------------------------------------•---------------------
A. 0 U
C. 0 0 236 1 1 .': 3C: _
s. Receot;r Coordinates
X Y i
RECEPTOR 1 -22 c.'
RECEPTOR 2 22 cc 1.51
RECEPTOR 3
RECEPTOR 4
i
. i
i
YlUUtL ncSULib rUk HLt L:cLYPLu
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * ERG * 1PFM►
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A F C D
--- -----*-----*--------------------
RECPT I * 2.1 * 112 * 0.1 0.0' ij.6 0.7
RECPT 2 * 2.6 * 247 * 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.3
RECPT 3 * 2.5 * 328 * 0.2 0.7 i.2 0.5
RECPT 4 * 2.5 * 18 * 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.6
_...s�ZT•_...7.r��.J -V.C--�.7-v. ._. ... .... ..
REPORT FOR FILE : 3CYPEX
1. Site Variable=.
U= 1.0 M/S i0= 100.0 CM
ERG= 0.0 DFGRFES VG= o.0 Cm/1
CLASS= F ti'4 L,i Y V,)= "114
MIXH= 1000.0 iM AME= 0.0 ppm
SIG1H= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE 10)
_. Link Cescriotion
LINK +t LINK COORDINATES (m) E= h N
DESCRIPTION + X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH iGhm:) (M) (M)
--------t----------------------------------------------------
A. GATEWAY Eb -250 2:0 -2 IN 'o. 0.0 i .(!
B. GATEWAY WE 250 c -t=JO C. IN i10 2:6.5 0.0 10.0
C. BETHEL Nb 2 -250 2 250 IN � (! 'o. 0 10.0
D. BETHEL Sb -c E50 -250 IN 10 2e.5 0".G i0.0
* MiXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SND Er: iDTI IGT:
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) Ufo"H) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/i i-J) !SEC) (SEC)
-* --------------------------------------------
A. U 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 210 3.3 43.0 0.(!
B. .0 0 240 15.0 1E.0 6-0 cc 1 _ 5.3 45.0 0.0
C. U 0 240 1J.0 12:0 30 4 2 20 3 IJ.O 0.(
D. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 iii
s Receotor Coorbinates
X Y i
RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 1.°,
RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5
RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.5
RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1..5
1
_._......
- MOfE--r(ESULTS FOR FILE C:3C`IPEX
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LiNal
* CONC * BRG * (ZpM)
RECEPTOR (PPM) *(DEG)* A E C C
RECPT 1 * 1.1 * iic' * 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1
RECPT 2 * 1.4 * 193 * 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.1
RECPT 3 * 1.1 * 3 * 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.0
RECPT 4 * 1.3 * 64 * 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1
REPORT FOR FILE : 3CYPPR
1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 1Cd0.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES vD= 0.0 CM/.=
CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPPi
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Descriotiorn
LINK LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W
DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X(2 Yc' * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) iM)
--------+E ---------------#------------------------------
A. GATEWAY EB —250
B. 6ATEWAY WB 2250 —250 iN 120 226.5 i.' 1`?.0
C. BETHEL Nb250 lr.'
D. BETHEL SB -2 2150 -2 - 50 IN 30
f MIXW
} L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPG EF1 !DTI iDT
LINK f (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPRH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/M!N) (SEC) (3EC)
f -- - -------------------------
A. U 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 220 5,3 4f,.ii ;i,0
B. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 5 5.;. 4`.G 0.01
C. 0 0 240 15.0 iE.0 30 4 2 30 7J.3i5.
D. 0 0 240 15.0 lc.0 30 2 1 1::0 Z.
3. Receotor Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 1.5
RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5
RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.5
RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1.5
-------------------
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE C:3CYPPR
* FRED *WIND * CWVLINK
* CONC * DRG * (Ppm)
RECEPTOR * (PFM} *(DEG}* R
_ ----r----C_- U
__�r--*-----*-----*- ------
RECPT 1 * 1.5 * 1533 * 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.4
RECPT 2 * 1,1 * 197 * 0. 0.3 1,1 0.3
RECPT 3 * 1.5 * 265 * 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.2
RECPT 4 + 1.4 + 27 * i C? 1.')
.f
i
s
REPORT FOR FILE : 3CYPCU
1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD=. 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S
MIX& 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK f LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W
DESCRIPTION X1 Y1 X2 Y2 f TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
A. GATEWAY EB -2550 -2 250 -2 IN 5 11.2 �0.0 10.0
B. GATEWAY WB 250 2 -250 2 IN 461 11.2 0.0 10.0
C. BETHEL NB 2 -250 2 250 IN 921 11.2 0.0 10.0
D. BETHEL SB -2 250 -2 -250 IN 115 11.2 0.0 10.0
t MIXW
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK t (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) '(SEC)
A. 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 845 1.3 45.0 0.0
B. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 8 4 5 1.3 45.0 0.0
C. 0 0 240 15.0 12.0 30 15 8 115 1.3 15.0 0.0
D. 0 0 576 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 150 1.3 15.0 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 -14 14 1.5
RECEPTOR 2 14 14 1.5
RECEPTOR 3 14 -14 1.5
RECEPTOR 4 -14 -14 1.5
-
dS
Y y
.Y. ..
S,i-'
..............
:.
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE C.3CYPCU
* PRED *WIND * COCN/LINK
* CONC * BR6 * (PRM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D
RECPT 1 * 1.6 * 110 * 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.0
RECPT 2 * 2.1 * 193 * 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.0
RECPT 3 * 1.3 * 360 * 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0
RECPT 4 * 1.9 * 70 * 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.0
i
1 -
i
1 .
1
t
i
i
1
REPORT FOR FILE : 4CYPEX
1. Site Variables
U= 1.0 M/S Z0= 100.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description ,
LINK f LINK COORDINATES (M) + EF H W
DESCRIPTION t X1 Y1 X2 Y2 t TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M)- (M)
A. CYPRESS EB -250 -4 250 -4 IN 310 26.5 0.0 14.0
B. CYPRESS WB 250 4 -250 4 IN 60 26.5 0.0 14.0
C. SR 4 NB 4 -250 4 250 IN 510 26.5 0.0 14.0
D. SR 4SB -4 2`.A -4 -250 IN 630 26.5 0.0 14.0
f MIXW
f L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK f (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
A. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 3 1 60 5.3 40.0 0.0
B. 0. . 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 440 5.3 40.0 0.0
C. 0. 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 4 2 620 5.3 20.0 0.0
D. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0' 30 7 4 490 5.3 c0.0 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y Z •.
RECEPTOR 1 -22 22 1.5
RECEPTOR 2 22 22 1.5
RECEPTOR 3 22 -22 1.5 '
RECEPTOR 4 -a -22 1.5
• :SSS
zE
MODEL RESIX.TS FOR FILE CACYPEX
i .
f ARED MIND f COCK/LINK
f CONC f BR6 f (PPP)
RECEPTOR f (PAM) *(DEG)* A B C D
r � �
RECPT 1 + 4.6 f 104 f 0.0 0.4 0.6 3.5
RECPT 2 f 4.0 f 258 + 0.2 0.6 0.7 2.4
RECPT 3 f 4.4 f 330 0.1 0.8 1.2 2.4
RECPT 4 f 4.9 f 21 { 1.0 0.5 0.6 2.8
REPORT FOR FILE : 4CYPPR
1. Site Variables
1J= 1.0 M/S ZO= 100.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES b'D= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK + LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W
DESCRIPTION f X1 YI X2 Y2 TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M1
A. CYPRESS EB -250 -4 250 -4 IN 660 26.5 0.0 14.0
B. CYPRESS WB 250 4 -250 4 IN 180 26.5 0.0 14.0
C. SR 4 NB 4 -250 4 250 IN 590 26.5 0.0 14.0
D. SR 4SB -4 250 -4 -250 IN 1210 26.E 0.0 14.0
f MIXW
t V..=. R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK t (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
i
A. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 6 3 120 5.3 40.0 0.0
B. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 2 1 1020 5.3 40.0 0.0
C. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 5 3 841 5.3 20.0 0.0
D. 0 0 236 15.012.0 30 10 5 600 5.3 20.0 0.0 •
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 -22 22 1.5
RECEPTOR 2 22 22 1.5
RECEPTOR 3 22 -22 1.5
RECEPTOR 4 -2P -22 1.5
- y
i+
- h
M
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE C:4CYPPR
* PRED HIND * COCN/LINK
* CM t BRG f (PPM)
RECEPTOR t (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D
f t ;
RECPT 1 * 5.6 # 111 * 0.1 1.6 1.0 2.4
RECPT 2 f 6.1 { 240 t 1.8 2.2 1.3 0.9
RECPT 3 f 6.3 * 291 f 2.0 1.1 2.6 0.5
RECPT 4 f 7.74 18f 2.8 1.2 0.7 3.0
r2
REPORT FOR FILE : 4CYPCU
1. Site Variables
& 1.0 M/S Z0= 100.0 CM
BRG= 0.0 DEGREES VD= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= F STABILITY VS= 0.0 CM/S
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 0.0 PPM
SIGTH= 10.0 DEGREES TEMP= 4.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Descri0 tion
LINK f LINK COORDINATES (M) EF H W
DESCRIPTION t X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/Ml) (M) (M)
A. CYPRESS EB -250 -4 250 -4 IN 778 11.2 0.0 14.0
B. CYPRESS WB 250 4 -250 4 IN 216 11.c 0.0 14.0
C. SR 4 NB 4 -250 4 250 IN 650 11.2 0.0 14.0
D. SR 4SB -4 250. -4 -250 IN 1257 11.2 0.0 14.0
} MIXW
f L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDTI IDT2
LINK f (M) (M) (N) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
A. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 6 3 140 1.3 40.0 . 0.0
B. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 .30 2 1 1202 1.3 40.0 0.0 .
C. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 6 3 873 1.3 20.0 0.0
D. 0 0 236 15.0 12.0 30 10 5 700 1.3 20.0 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y 1
RECEPTOR 1 -22 22 1.5
RECEPTOR 2 22 22 1.5
RECEPTOR 3 22 -22 1.5
RECEPTOR 4 -22 -22 1.5
A,
s. :
f PRED (WIND f COCK/LINK -
f CDC f BR6 f (PPM)
RECEPTOR f (PPM) *(DEG)* A B C D
f �
RECPT 1 f 2.2 f 135 f 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.5
RECPT 2 f 2.6 f 238 f 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.4
RECPT 3 f 2.5 f 292 f 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.3
RECPT 4 f 2.8 f 18 f 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.9
a
1
s
r
1
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
•;.�a �.�rrlirr �srrtrr�r _
Kaldveer Associates R�ChardShOrl Pres,)
tie:.'.,.,1.;��\%if.,-[.rnci;�t,r..
eoscience Consultants Rona L oe,i neem ng a"a, Gi
G
® ® Patrick Stevens.PE..G.E.
-IVAsx,aatr'
David Hoexter.C.E.G.R.E.A
- Associate
Michael McRae.PE
Assoc ate
Dawn Rinaldi,P.E.
February 27, 1989 Barbara L.Potter.PE.
KE 109 7-1, 13211 Randy P.Rowlev,R.E.A
Polly L.Worrell.R.E.A.
RE: PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED BETHEL ISLAND AREA
PROJECT
CONTRACONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In this report we present the results our preliminary environmental
assessment performed at the above referenced site. The site is
located between Sand Mound Boulevard and Bethel Island Road just
south of Bethel Island, California, as shown on the Site Vicinity
Map, Figure 1 . The purpose of this investigation has been to
discover, if possible, any conditions .or activities on the site or
in the near vicinity which may result in or indicate the presence
of potentially hazardous materials at the ground surface or in the
subsurface soils or ground water. This investigation was performed
by Mr. Eric Schniewind, Staff Geologist, and Mr. Randy Rowley,
' Senior Engineering Geologist/Environmental Specialist, R.E.A.
SCOPE OF WORK
' Our scope of work included site reconnaissance conducted on
February 13, 1989; discussions with county and state government
agency personnel and property owners; research of available
documents and review of stereo-pair aerial photographs. The
research focused on present and past site and near vicinity
conditions and activities which may indicate the presence of
potentially hazardous materials in the subsurface soil or ground
water. Persons and agency representatives contacted, articles and
data used and a complete list of aerial photographs reviewed, are
presented at the end of the report under "References" .
1
425 Roland Way
Oakland,California 94621
(415)568-4001
FAX415-568-2205
A Ca�itorn!a Cotao•alion
February 27, 1989, 13211
Page 2
SITE DESCRIPTION/CONDITION
The site, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2, encompasses
approximately 681 acres. The site is bounded to the north and east
by Sand Mound Boulevard, to the west by Bethel Island Road, and the
southern boundary extends approximately 2, 800 feet south of Cypress
Road.
The site is essentially level with a maximum relief of
approximately 15 feet ranging from 7 feet above to 8 feet below
Mean Sea Level. The northern portion of the site, the Dal Porto
property, consists primarily of wetlands and sandy soils with a
drainage channel that runs across the site from east to west. Land
use primarily consists of horse and cattle grazing. The southern
portion of the site, the Leo Mantelli property, is also essentially
level with several shallow drainage canals. This portion of the
property is used for occasional cropping of alfalfa.
There are several residences on the site. Some heavy equipment is
stored at these locations. Residences and grazing areas are
separated by fences and several rough farm roads provide access to
the various houses. Towards the center of the site there is a
small refuse dumping pile which contains primarily metal and
household debris .
SITE HISTORY
The delta area was originally inhabited by the Saclan and Bay Miwok
Indians. Within the Hotchkiss Tract, a main village is believed
to have existed. At least one and possibly numerous other burial
grounds are known to exist on our subject site. During the first
decades of the American period in California history, efforts
focused on converting the Delta and adjacent flood plains into
farmland. Extensive efforts went into levee building. Once the
land was cleared, crops such as potatoes, beans, onions, celery,
asparagus and hay were successfully grown in the area. On our
site, the soil was too sandy for crop propagation, and therefore
was used primarily for livestock grazing. Family farming was the
focus of life on Bethel Island from approximately the 1880' s to the
1940 ' s. The Dal Porto family occupied their land beginning around
1940. More recently Bethel Island has become the center of resort
development with attention drawn towards its recreational
advantages, particularly boating and fishing. There has been some
interest in the potential oil field on the subject site. Several
years ago, ENX Oil Company drilled for oil on the site, but an
economically developable field was not discovered. Our site, to
the best of our knowledge, has remained as livestock and light
agricultural land. There has been no permitting through the Contra
Costa Department of Agriculture for pesticide use on the Dal Porto
Koldveer Associates
February 27, 1989, 13211
Page 3
or Mantelli properties in the last five years. Prior pesticide use
has consisted of only light pesticides, for example paraquat, which
generally decomposes rapidly.
AREA ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The property is surrounded by single-family dwellings and light
grazing land. Just north of the site is the small town of Bethel
Island. According to information available to us, there are no
hazardous waste disposal sites or landfills within a two-mile
radius of the subject site. The California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Central Valley Region, has prepared listings of
sites known to have had prior environmental problems. One such
list addresses sites considered by the state to be a toxic site,
and a second list presents sites with leaking underground fuel
tanks.
Of the two lists, only one site, found on the leaking underground
fuel tank list, was located within a two-mile radius of our subject
site. During excavation of a utility trench on Riverview Drive,
approximately one-half mile north from the subject site, gasoline
odors and an oil film on the water in the trench was observed.
Ground water was encountered at a depth of 1. 5 feet. Much of the
contaminated water was pumped out for a period of two days. The
source of the leak was determined to be a line leak from a 4,000
gallon underground fuel tank from Carter Marine, located on the
inside of the levee. There is no threat to ,surface waters and a
further investigation is in progress. Other known fuel storage
tanks in the vicinity of the site, although not reported as
leaking, include an underground fuel storage tank at Carol ' s Harbor
and two above-ground fuel storage tanks located on the Dal Porto
property. Carol ' s Harbor is located along Sand Mound Boulevard
just to the east of the subject site.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our understanding and knowledge of the site history and
past and present uses of the site, there is no evidence to suggest
any concern for any soil and/or ground water contamination existing
on the property. The only contaminated site located near the
subject site does not have significant contamination, in our
opinion, to warrant any concern. The light agricultural use on
the site poses a potential for the existence of low levels of
residual pesticides in the soil, however, according to a
representative of the Contra Costa County Department of
Agriculture, the site is, in their opinion, clear of any
significant pesticides. Therefore, based on all acquired
information regarding this site, there is, in our opinion, no
Koldveer Associates
February 27, 1989, 13211
Page 4
threat to public health and safety and thus no necessity of
environmental testing.
LIMITATIONS
Our services have been performed in accordance with generally
accepted soil and environmental principals and practices. No other
warranty, either expressed or implied is made. The analysis and
conclusions contained in this report are based on the site
conditions as they existed at the time of our reconnaissance,
discussions with site owners and governmental agents, review of
documents and aerial photographs. Changes in the information or
the data gained from these sources or in the proposed land use
could result in changes in our conclusions. If such changes do
occur, we should be advised so that we can review our report in
light of those changes.
It has been a pleasure to be of service to you. If you have any
further questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
KALDVEER ASSOCIATES, INC.
David F. Hoexter, C.E.G. , R.E.A.
Manager, Environmental/Geological
Services
Ronald L. Bajuniemi, P.E. /G.E.
Vice President Engineering
DFH/RLB:pv
Copies: Addressee (4)
Enclosures: Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - .Site Plan
Kaldveer Associates
February 27, 1989, 13211
Page 5
REFERENCES
Aerial Photographs
Pacific Aerial Surveys: Panchromatic Vertical Aerial
AV-3368-36-9, 10, 11, August 30, 1988, 1: 12, 000
AV-253-37-10, 11, 12, 13, May 21, 1957, 1: 12, 000
Contacts:
Bethel Island Fire Department, Bethel Island, California
Contact: Ted Alesna
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley
Region, Sacramento, California
Contact: Matt Lease
Carol ' s Harbor, Bethel Island, California
Contact: Jackie Carver
Chartered Group, Walnut Creek, California
Contact: Lyn Jochim
Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture, Brentwood,
California
Contact: Dick Mello
Contra Costa County Health Department, Martinez, California
Contact: Godfrey Becks
Diablo Petroleum, Brentwood, California
Contact: Jim Brown
Dick Miller
Publications and Retorts:
California Department of Health Services, "Expenditure Plan for
the Hazardous Substance Clean-up Bond Act of 1984" , Revision
Number Three, dated January, 1988.
Abandoned Sites Program Information System, dated February
9, 1989.
Koldveer Associates
February 27, 1989, 13211
Page 6
REFERENCES
(continued)
Publications and Reports.
(continued)
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valle
Region, "Ground Water Contamination Sites" , undated.
. . . . . . . . Underground Storage Tanks, Central Valley Region, dated
February 7, 1989.
California Waste Management Board, Solid Waste Information System,
"Closed and Inactive Landfills" , dated May 21, 1988.
Contra Costa County Community Development Department, Draft
Environmental Impact Report, Bethel Island Area Specific
Plan" , dated November, 1988.
Kleinfelder, "Phase I, Geotechnical Investigation" , dated December
22, 1988.
U.S. EPA Superfund Program, CERCLIS, "List 8: Site/Event Listing,
San Joaquin County, California" , dated January 7, 1988.
Koldveer Associates
..J �t
- _ w
moiRyCe =�
.
100
V �•T � Y
.�!
IY
t >•a k_ �at
..
W*.
inl+lt1f)�ayM/�j�Q�_\ '4. •sr"K: : .x/+- ;KC.��... � V—!f ^�'
Q a •.e.. ".,r�< ' / Emmaton ` .,.�.: .
Nicholsdn
I Acres ./ . Bethel Am
0
c4r Clyde ,{ PittWest f! 0 .i..f tv� yra]s18tt
cr..w hn
4
O
Z Pittsburg
39
°' s cOakley
pfhy[d dM � f� T �' � I i..l;7flw Y 'i
j Adobo
hdrrfJ NOWFar�and0 60YA �j „! Arporr � 6;;;4 ;ors M >
i e Pscn«Fi•* vola _
!,. t AooMr fr.r/d pn i l ftl Knighton c,
3 I , ITE a
7' few.N. • N
Claw r r
foV� a/llaa i
alnut GNk °"t s St Ilrr u.�4 �
+! ♦Af i � .�.
qr Z
u '
i
"µ 0 1 2 5 BYIM
idm MILES
KILOMETERS _
=Diablo O 1 Z 5 j 1
+Danville
8lackhawlc ., ."'•'V
ay '~•^u Y i'„
Base; Thomas Bros Guide page Mt 6th Edition 1988.
_ SITE VICINITY MAP
IIIIIIIIIKoldveer Associates PROPOSED BETHEL ISLAND AREA PROJECT
Geoscience Consultants Contra Costa County, California
-q . A Cofitornia Corporation
PROJECT NO DATE
Figure 1
KE1097-1 February 1989
Ell
am 2
a N ' _� - - - get N I ISI
—
Trail
o` PROJECT SITE
• Iraratrprr.rrr .,.�—
. ....._.. it am !� •
�• ...::3.ry�� ... ..�. ::(..�'::is
46
y %SLOUGH F i E l 0 � �•:.......:<.;..:.:::.:•. s
I
I
_ e •
x
I
1
r
s
i
I �I
w
y
a
t i
..» .. _ '.•u'��ir��•►44i!r.M'Ii.7kA:R..'••'aaylt,• »r.a.r•.• •1��� 'iii ■r J■a a r r�r�r..
1
r
JJ
`e! T
J
i
1 1
�i
1
Y
1
'! !
V. r •... Ir.�ail •♦1
• �!` I 1 L
7
SCALE
0 2000 4000 ft
Base: 'Vicinity Mag)' b Kleinfeider. undated
. V c
MAW AM SITE PLAN
PROMSED BETHEL ISLAND
Kakly**r Aswciatfs AREA PROJECT
G•oscl•nce Consultants Contra Costa County, California
-� A CQtrtl rnta Corporanon
PROJECT NO• DATE
Fi9utf 2
KE 1097- 1 ebruary 198
1
1
1
1
1
' APPENDIX C
' APPLICANT'S LETTER TO RECLAMATION DISTRICT 799
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CQ
' March 12, 1993
Board of Trustees
Reclamation District #799
P .O. Box 447
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Attn: Robert Gromm
' Re: Cypress Lakes and Country Club
Dear Boardmembers :
As the District is aware, Cypress Lakes and Country Club is
t currently being processed through County of Contra Costa. We
are seeking Rezoning, Final Development Plan and approval of the
subdivision.
The Reclamation District is the responsible agency for all
drainage and flood protection for the area and Cypress Lakes
is totally located within the district' s boundaries. The
' Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project determines
that ultimate jurisdiction of drainage and flood protection would
be with the Reclamation District or another public entity.
According to the Contra Costa County General Plan, development
occurring in the Hotchkiss Tract is required to be built out of
the flood plain. Our project is proposing to build an internal
levee around the perimeter inorder to take the property out
of the floodplain. We are also proposing an internal drainage
system which would keep most of the drainage on-site except in
' the case of a 100 year storm, then the excess runoff would be
pumped out into Sandmound Slough.
' Now that the Environmental Impact Report is close to
certification, I would like to formerly request that the
Reclamation District #799 be the responsible public agency for
flood protection (internal levee) and drainage system. I would
' QV }gnacio Valley Road, Suite 400 • Walnut Creek,CA 94596 • Fax (510)947-2091 • phos ke(Sa0)9a•t•�(�"4
guarantee that the develcpment would remain in the district and '
continue to pay the regular assessment charged by the district .
Plus, the new development would be responsible for all '
maintenance and operational costs directly related to the
drainage and flood protection (internal levee) of Cypress :Wakes .
A possible scenario would be to set up a subdistrict to assure
only Cypress Lakes would be assessed for these new costs to the '
district.
2t has been a concern to the district on how to raise money for '
the continual upgrading and maintenance of the existing levee.
By remaining in the district, Cypress Lakes would then be able to
make a fair share contribution towards the long-term funding of '
this work.
Please send me the necessary documents and permits that are
needed to move forward. 1 look forward to working with you on '
the details .
Sincerely, ,
Lyrth Jochi16
Vice President
cc: Contra Costa County, Community Development Department
Contra Costa County, Public Works
1