The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05041993 - H.4 H, <i . . Centra. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o; .. Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r N" J DATE: March 1, 1993 SUBJECT: ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open the public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed Albers General Plan Amendment. 2 . Close the public hearing. 3 . Express the Boards intent to Approve the General Plan Amendment as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare CEQA findings consistent with this Board action and to schedule these CEQA findings and final general plan approval for when they are completed. They can be scheduled as consent items. FISCAL IMPACT General Plan fees cover the cost of this amendment. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS . The East- County Regional Planning approved this general plan amendment by unanimous vote. The details of the amendment were covered in an EIR and discussed in a staff report. If the Board expresses its intent to approve this amendment, CEQA findings will need to be prepared and adopted consistent with Board direction. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE ec.'.' ee- 4'` Z�yC� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE''// APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON May---, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x See Addendum for Board Action VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 2 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Jim Cutler (646-2035) ATTESTED Ma)z 4 , 1993 cc: Community Development Dept. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works (-PHE ARD OX SUPERVISORS CAO D UNTY INISTRATOR County Counsel BY , DEPUTY 4/misc/kd:albers.gpa 4 The Board discussed issues they would like staff to address before coming back to the Board including jobs housing balance, Highway 4 widening, the Delta Expressway fee, affordable housing and a bike path. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing on the above matters is CLOSED; and the Board DECLARES ITS INTENT to approve the above matters on May 18, 1993, and Community Development staff is DIRECTED to prepare the appropriate findings and documentation for Board consideration. a' The Board discussed issues they would like staff to address before coming back to the Board including jobs housing balance, Highway 4 widening, the Delta Expressway fee, affordable housing and a bike path. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing on the above matters is CLOSED; and the Board DECLARES ITS INTENT to approve the above matters on May 18, 1993, and Community Development staff is DIRECTED to prepare the appropriate findings and documentation for Board consideration. H.4 4 N. 5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 4, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Bishop, McPeak, and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Smith ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Hearing on the Request of L. Albers to Amend the County General Plan The Board on April 6, 1993, continued to this date the hearing on the recommendation of theEastCounty Regional Planning Commission on the request of Lucia Albers to amend the County General Plan for a 74-acre site from Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Core to Commercial and Single Family Residential High Density (GPA 4-90-EC), Discovery Bay area. The Board agreed to hear concurrently the recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission on the request of Bellecci and Associates (applicant) and Monte and Lucia Albers (owners) for approval to rezone 73.48 acres of land from the Heavy Agriculture District (A-3) to Planned Unit Development (P-1)for 288 Single Family Residences, a 12.3 acre retail site with approximately 109,500 square feet of Retail Business Space and a 2.2 acre office site, a 3.2 acre lake and 1.7 acres of park area (2985-RZ); and for approval of a Final Development Plan for a 288 Single Family Residential Development, a 12.3 acre retain site with approximately 109, 500 square feet of Retail Business Space, a 3.2 acre lake and 1.7 acres of park land (County File#3005-92); and for approval of a Vesting Tentative map to subdivide the 73.48 +/- acre site into 288 Single Family residential lots along with other uses (Subdivision 7679), Discovery Bay/Byron area. Dennis Barry of the Community Development Department provided the Board with an overview of the project and responded to questions of Board Members. The Chair declared the hearings open. Lucia Albers and her legal counsel spoke on the merits of the project and requested the Board to approve it. All persons desiring to speak were heard. Board Members expressed concern that the project may not provide for a jobs-housing balance nor adequately address the issue of affordable housing. Concerns were expressed with respect to the increased traffic in the area, the feasibility of a Delta Expressway Fee, and additional road connections to make Discovery Bay more accessible to freeways to the west of that area. Board members were in agreement to approve the project subsequent to receiving a report from staff addressing their concerns. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is CLOSED, and that the Board DECLARES its intent to approve on May 18, 1993,the request of Lucia Albers to amend the County General Plan (GPA 4-90-EC), Discovery Bay area. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 4, 1993 PHIL BATCIIELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors mid County Administrator By: �. i Deputy cc: Community Development Director County Counsel 14 , epSoc)RM- ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT .COUNTY FILE #4-90-EC: A proposal to amend the County General Plan for approximately 74 acres from Agricultural-Residential and Agricultural Core to Single Family Residential-High Density, Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density, Commercial and Water. Site is located to the northwest of the intersection of State Route 4 and Bixler Road, in the Discovery Bay area. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APRIL 20, 1993 - 2:00 P.M. Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON CoU* DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: March 1, 1993 SUBJECT: ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open the public hearing and receive testimony on the proposed Albers General Plan Amendment. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Express the Boards intent to Approve the General Plan Amendment as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare CEQA findings consistent with this Board action and to schedule these CEQA findings and final general plan approval for when they are completed. They can be scheduled as consent items. FISCAL IMPACT General Plan fees cover the cost of this amendment. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The East- County Regional Planning approved this general plan amendment by unanimous vote. The details of the amendment were covered in an EIR and discussed in a staff report. If the Board expresses its intent to approve this amendment, CEQA findings will need to be prepared and adopted consistent with Board direction. 7ONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE � ��44 RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER IGNATURE(S) : CTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER OTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES:- ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF-THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. rig: Jim Cutler (646-2035) ATTESTED c: Community Development Dept. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAO AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel BY , DEPUTY Resolution #10 -1993 RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMNIISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ,,APPROVAL OF A COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ALBERS PROJECT IN THE DISCOVERY BAY AREA (County File #490-EC) WHEREAS, a request was received from Lucia Albers requesting a change in the County General Plan for a seventy-four acre site. The request is to change the land use designations from Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Core to Commercial and Single Family Residential High Density; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors authorizes a General Plan study for this area; and WHEREAS, and Environmental Impact Report was prepared on this application and that document together with the Responses to Comments document was circulated to interested agencies and individuals; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending changes in the General Plan for the area and circulated it to interested agencies, organization and individuals; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Monday February 1, 1993, and all that wished to testify were heard and the public hearing was closed; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission agrees with their Zoning Administrator that the Draft EIR together with the Response to Comments document to be the-Final EIR and to be adequate for County consideration of this matter; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Albers General Plan Amendment to the Board of Supervisors as recommended by staff. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and pertaining to these proceedings are made part of the record; and _BE 'IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chair of the "East County Regional Planning Commission respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provisions of State Planning Law. The instruction by the East County Regional Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the Commission on February 1, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Wetzel, Sobalvarro, Andrieu, Hanson, Maybee, Planchon NOES: None ABSENT: Hem ABSTAIN: None I, Stan Planchon, Vice-Chair of the East County Regional Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was fully called and held in accordance with the law on Monday, February 8, 1993 and this resolution was fully passed and adopted by the following votes: AYES: Wetzel , Hanson, Andrieu, Maybee, Sobalvarro, Planchon NOES; None ABSENT: Hern ABSTAIN: None Vice Chair - East County Regional Planning Commission February 9, 1993 ATTEST: - 4ey don, Director ommu ity D elopment Department JQkd 2/misr/kd 2byroa78.res Bellecci & Associates Monte & Lucii .Albers Anthony J. Ujdur 2290 Diamond Blvd. Suite 100 1400 Deer Valley Road 116 Birchbark Place Concord, CA 94520 Brentwood, CA 94513 Danville, CA 94506 Discovery Bay MAC Byron-Bethany Irrigati_o_n__Di_ s_t. Byron Union- School District Bill Slifer Fred Specht George Hoover 4660 Spinnaker Way ..P.O. Box 273 P.O. Box 118 Byron, CA 94514 Byron, CA 94514 Byron, CA 94514 Glyn P. Howell Kevin O'Davd Richard Taylor 1925 Fertao Lane 3090 Curlew Connex 3600 Valley Oak Brentwood, CA 94513 Knightsen, CA 94548 Byron, CA 94514 Seth Cockrell Jake Mass John Hoyt 100 Fire Place 4211 Delta Road P.O. Box 384 Knightsen, CA 94548 Knightsen, CA 94548 Byron, CA 94514 M. J. Underground Const. Co. Ed Gensler b:albers.gpa Michael Hawthorne 26755 Marsh Creek Road 1400 Deer Valley Road Byron, CA 94613 Brentwood, CA . 94513 • ed6•szagjE:q 011-190-001 & 030 CIC JOHN DEQUINE P.O. BOX 3342 FREMONT. CA 94539 011-200-038 011-200-039 WAYNE & ANITA FARNHOLTZ, TRE 954 COUNTRY LANE WALNUT CREEK, CA 94598 011-190-019 RONNIE & DEBRA REID RT. 1 BOX 615 BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 011-281-008 PAUL & LISA TAYLOR 3500 VALLEY OAK DR BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 011-190-029 MONTE & LUCIA ALBERS 1400 DEER VALLEY RD BRENTWOOD,CA 94513 4 011-210-011 ROBERT LAMB PATERSON EUGENE & E. MARIE THOMAS 3777 BIXLER RD - BYRON, CA. 94514 011-220-016 EUGENE & ELEANOR MARSH 5680 AUGUSTA CT BYRON, CA 94514 011-200-020 RAYMOND & DOROTHY AYERS RT 1 BX 81 BYRON, CA 94514 MUM RUn i n ..li.0 RTINEZ,CA 94553 ' 011-220-019 BYRON SEVENTY-EIGHT - C/O NIZAR Y JHARMAL 2590 GRANVILLE ST VANCOUVER BC, CANADA V6H3H a Y x 011-200-008 009 NORMA MYGRANT _ 1168 ALTA 94556 MORAGA• 011-281-006 011-281-007 & 005 RICHARD J TAYLOR 775 DISCOVERY BAY BLVD BYRON. CA 94514 fi-l'O:SAtK L W` t{ttr I`n•�CA SW 011-190-021 WILLIAM BOYLE EUGENE LEYBA RT. 1 BOX 614 BIXLER ROAD BRENTWOOD9 CA. 94513 � x Z,CA 94553 011=200-040 RONALD J MOTTA 4160 BAY ST FREMONT, CA 94538 Contra Costa County Planning Department EAST..COU.NTY REGIONAL.PLANNINGXOMMI.SSION.... . _ ..._.. . _.._ ._. ,._. : Staff Report and Recommendations Agenda Item # ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE 4-90-EC) I. INTRODUCTION A request was received from Lucia Albers to amend the County General Plan from Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Core to Single Family Residential High Density and Commercial. The site covers approximately seventy-four acres and is located at the northwest corner of the intersections of State Route 4 and Bixler Road in the Discovery Bay Area. The requested General Plan Amendment is shown on Map 1 . IL CEQA AND RELATED PROJECTS An Environmental.Impact Report on this project was prepared and was determined to be adequate by the Zoning Administrator. This general plan amendment staff report draws on information found in the EIR and is related to its findings. Separate current planning applications have been applied for; specifically rezoning #2985 to P1 and subdivision #7679 and development 3005-92. Action on these applications are dependent on final decisions on this amendment. Separate staff reports are being prepared on these applications and they will be considered at future meetings. III. PROJECT SETTING As illustrated by Map 2, the project site is located in the unincorporated Byron- Discovery Bay area of eastern Contra Costa County. State Route 4 (Highway 4) provides regional access to the site. The site is approximately 30 driving miles northeast of Concord and 20 miles west of Stockton. Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood are located to the northwest on Highway 4. The Project sites is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 4 and Bixler Road. The site is approximately 1.5 miles west of the Discovery Bay planned community on Highway 4, approximately five driving miles southwest of the City of Brentwood, and approximately one-half mile east of the Byron Highway. The unincorporated community of Byron is approximately three driving miles to the south. -1- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�II'�I lose o■■ti■ iii■■oom■iiiIBM■■i ■■■ii �I1IuI1IiNN■s■Nt■■t■■■t■■■■■■Et■■■E■■■■t■■■■t■■■■t■■■■t■■s■t■■t■E■■aE■■■t■■■■tt■tt■■■EE■■Em0 ■E■■■■1 11I 1l1I■■■■E■■tt■l■EEtt■■tmeEm ■■■■■■mIl■■■■■tEa■■■t Single u■■m■ommomm■■■E■■■t■1INNER Boom on \\\ i■■■■■■t■■■■■■t■t■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■I11Is■o■■m■■■■■■m■t■E■ ffice nsonoion. 1 Is Commercial f ■■■■■■■■■tmtE■tr IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� ■E■■■■■tESE■■■ta _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� I trrw�r. LightiB■■E■o■■■■E■■Et■ '-------• I■■u■■■EEtE■tts■ IB■■■■■■1 VIII, IliiiiiiiGi■iEii■m /wi/rrwrr�n� IIIIIIIIIIII ' II■E■t■■■■E■sm■■Em 11 Agricultural Lands Agricultural Core Wtiiiiiiiiiiiiii� VIII �iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii rw�Iwv► IIIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I■E■■■■E■■tE■■■■m NEEMEMENNOMENE maker It■■■■■■■■EE■Emm E■■t mass ■11EE■■Bmnsrnos■■■■■■tEE■■■■a Buil n■of■E■m■■rI■■E■■■■■tnB■■E■■s■■■■■■Eta --- 11■EEEBB■■EI IEE■B■■■■a'I IEB■■■■■■_■_■■_■_■■■a i •-'-mac=cx�c�:i-�--�---�lliZai■"iZi'"5--= ��->: _ I nnu n■o.u.out ■.■ 11tttt1Utf1I�t■■E1■1B■/OM�01 ■�■■tl�■■■■■■G-:a-lt■—■■�■■"■'-■■ Basin ■11■II■If■11■■I I■t■IsV]1■■ 2; ::MR ■■■-'t■-■■•Z■==■=■■�1- n` ��lE ■■ ■EB ■■ .■..■t111mown' � - IH■■■■m■■■■■■■■■11■■ "■■■■■■■■■■■tll■■gall ■■NEED■mm■-momm... Nrm■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ W wows 4 Z■■■■■E■■■■■■■m■E■■ Goo ;;:•:. Basin■■■■■■■Nls■tttE■ ■m'ex ■■■■■■■■■■■nl■■■s■■■ ■■ice //�� Itm■alY1r3�LT,lJI27 -!r-lei' ■■ate , �® - - ■■oma ��. r1iAr ■ VW ------------ ■■s■ .. M ------------- ■■■ice ■ C . w ■ mosso ■ ■ H■G ■ r-130 ■ n.■o.ouo.■■uo'.�artrr.r.r�rnr��•..ti�:-:{ti':"::� {• tl..f.. ■ iiiGiiiliiiiiiii■BB■im■B■■n■E■E■■■E■■t■ �� I ■■■■EEE■■■■■■■■t■■.;Ia■■E■■■■■■■■aE■■EE■■■■E■a■E■■■tt C■E■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■■I:mE■■■■■■■EE■■■■EmE■tE■■E■■E■■■Em ■E■■■E■e■■■■■■E■■■Ila■■■■■■■■■■■■■Em■■■■■■■■■E■■E■EN NONE MEN■■EEE■E■■mmmtl■■■■■tet■mEE■■E■■■E■■■■■a■■■■■sa ■E■■■■■■■■■E■■■■■■tela■■Est■■■■■■■■E■■■■■■E■■E■■■■EEa ■■■■^■■E■■■■■■■aE^■II■■tttE■■Ea:a■■■■■■■■E■■hi■■EEE■am ■a ■■■■■■■■■■■■■m■■■■■11■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■N■■■■■EE■m■■■■■■I ■■NEE■■■■■■■■■■■■■II:-�■■■■■■E■■■■E■■■■E■■■■■■■■■■■a isanEEEE■■■■EEmEp■mailI II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mm■■■■tm■■■Ea If io■■■■■■■■E■tloom[Iawl 1■■■■mmm■■m■■■s■■■■■■■E■E■tt■■ -----------"---'1■■■■EEEE■■N■■als■'t■m■■■m■■E■■Em■a II ■■■t■■t■t■■■IIs■■■E11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■t■■E■■■■■■■■■■■t mammon■■■■■II■■■■■II■■E■■■■E■■■■■■■Et■E■■■s■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■m■■E■■IIEE■■E11■■EB■E■E■■■E■■tna■■■■■■■■■E■■■E■ Bosom■■■■■1I■■■■■I1■E■t■■tEo■■■moon I■■■■■E■■E■■■■■t ■■■■m■■■■■II■E■■■ItiEB■■mmE■■ImE■■■ EMANNESEENS ■t■■■■■■�■■■■■■■I NORTHIII ■■■tE■■■II■■■■■II■■sE■■■■B■BB■■■■mm■■■■■■E■■■■■sm ■■t■■■EEII■EE■E11■■■BEER■■■E■■E■■m■■■■■■■■■E■■■EI 1111L��111 �Bm■B� IB �u■■RBBB■■■B■■■■■■I■■�-u ■-■�■�■ . tt I. tp.. AMBERS GENERAL .PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT SETTING AND EXISTING LAND USE « : • ••`• •;ti•: :t1• +.+::• :Wit!4»:••:L'.: "••:••`i�•�• •�•�.••.••••":•. •:4:,`Mi�•�:•::•••• •M•.•• �: 00, '�' ':s•i:.,�� :t. .g'�. •:t.: •:i t»; ;:Y::�•• •%• :4': is 1ij•':I•:':a• �•' .r:»:Lt• �� ••••:�•I;�:'• :i.:»'•,•�':1�••`.:�s.:;:r:'«�-: ter,•::'' •�c:'- t�• ,:�.� ;�;�;�:;:; •�Vit:' �,�i .:'::'�• �;a,��r•:: :;�:;::`, �•`::;:� :.tt�: ti��•. •; ;..: ;.:;. ,,tip« „• • .•.,:� •;.::;.��» ':..•.. ,�,... . 1'••�.•'�':,::;:' •'ti:�:' : :N• ':si s•`• • ':•tib!:`} •�'..,r�`;!.j!:`. •"• " \ J `i•'••'�•,i.a:Net'%.•.:':�` .• «'s::'`''.:�•`•' �::: %Li: �:: :Vii; / �/ :::d;:::�:. ;;'•`a»s:ii::r F�. :s r• :t:�f•• :::: • •:t• • •!:r•Y:�.``r: w.• •N:••„•::'��4�.•�•�:,,,' :'t;+4;iii•,:�••;J� •�' � \ "\ 7.:.�r. •�:'.•�. ” i:.«:•,.,, ;fir/ .�/� \.. a.••��'�:�,.:•ti..:.::.•!•»'t• u • tri !��,� RD' •;,:•Y:• •»•�.:iA• ••f:• :•`•'•::,,•V, _ __�_••x�'�_./ ! . \ -tom ••sem.••• mow' •::+'r•. /\../;:: \ � i•�•• ~':',`:'S:S•ti:%�•:t•:•'••t,`'"'•�' i «.; • '"' ;:•• \ :�` •'`' it 6YRQN 7$ t?: z ,:•:. • ,Kr .•j:,: :� :A• �•;•.•:, /fir/ /" \,r/ ':�:::"%•�::'�"�r•- •4+:: •• ''' ..� :1;;-fir�.7• •a r:::,• •::•' •; :: •::y:�::�:.. y Wit`. ,ti':��.,.;:::.;S.Y,.• ' ' ••••.'' `fir': :•''±` •�4t{•.•'•,Si:::r•• t«:h: .7,•:r.ti«`!+':�•:e':.:i1•.:.r "��l t�ti�'•'••':1:, j�;ti:'►::. • 7:»: •.L•:,:Lt•• ::ti�:ti:y:t:':N:'!;•t `�,"•••,L•�N.;�..,`��: :.: '•�• : r,ti, ••`' �:• � �:•ti�:'.'' !Vit';:r •` •.•:;•:: Iv :•4•.:t� .•".:�::: •=-+•Y':+. •.•• JAWERS ti 4:•`•»:i'::•:�!'.�.� Ott.•.•'::�•��.:�;�•:�'':::::.. .:ti: ,�, ::••ter`:;,•.Y.•.:5:•i" �. t .. � ;i" �::' •` :i.: �il.ti�stt • ...• .•ttl�:::�t:.. :. w:'�"+.7`":'«•:"t.« .. ::+�!: i��:r'.�:"':!: :::�' .:.::ti�:!::�"`•r' •'�•.:�•:: 1. '•:` ��:•�.t • N�.:'••w;.�. :!:`• '•::';1� �.� ::'l p.::t :��»;::•�:`"`•'•: i:�Vie•:!••• •Y' •l• �••� r•:.•� 1�:: "''•' • .•N;tt•'.•:•N•+: .:•.•.•.�"'!`t LEGEND • •: •: : �� := .:,,,,, ..•.••:.--::::• J AGRICULTURE(NO RESJ • '.::• r+::' ": 'c: ..•••• /\//�// SINGLE FAMILY RESWENTIAL •::• ��:�r; •:;..�«:.; =^ '•:::;. ..:: .• •t �;•,•••••• MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS w.y• •:• .. �:::��:••:��.�,..:! ��• y�• K ALL VACANT PROPERTIES '•' »`..::• :r�i:' RURAL RESIDENTIAL '.tib. .. .•,. /;:�: Viz: ;i :��. !..•�:��. .,:��:N ::. •::;: URBAN ACREAGE NORTH y• ' :•:_:•:'' '" SCALE 1" = 600" MAP 2 The site vicinity includes a flat landscape of traditional east-county rural uses, including agricultural activities (forage crops, grazing, etc.), and rural residential uses, as well as water-related suburban residential and commercial uses (Discovery Bay). Immediately north of the site of the Bixler Road are a small number of new "ranchettes" consisting of single .family residences on large lots (approximately five- -- or ive- --or more acres), plus a few older, established single-residences on smaller lots, some of which contain accessory agriculture uses. Immediately west of the site are active agricultural (crop) Lands. Further to the west are additional rural residential uses. As shown in Map 3, a 15,400 - square-foot (0.35-acre) parcel creates a notch at the southwest corner of the site. This adjacent parcel contains a single-family home and associated out buildings.' Directly south of the site on the opposite side of Highway 4 are similar active agricultural uses (crop lands). A boat and engine repair shop is located opposite the site on the southwest corner of Bixler Road and Highway 4. As shown on Map 3, another small lot containing a single-family home and accessory structures is located on this. side of Highway 4 directly opposite the southeast corner of the site. Adjacent to the east project boundary is the site of the pending Byron 78 General Plan Amendment and development proposal. A general plan amendment, rezoning, and service area change is proposed for this adjacent 78-acre site in order to accommodate a development plan consisting of commercial, office, and industrial uses. This project has an EIR completed on it and shall be considered in a similar time frame to the request. Immediately east of the Byron 78 site is the Discovery Bay planned community, a self-contained, water-oriented suburban residential development with associated commercial and institutional uses. Northeast of the project site on Bixler Road and adjacent to the existing Discovery Bay development is the site of the pending Hoffman general plan amendment and development (a.k.a. Discovery Bay West), a proposed 1,400-unit single-family residential subdivision with 6,000-to -10,000-square-foot lots and recreation facilities. This proposal in embryonic in terms of process, has recently been revised substantially by the applicant and is about to begin the CEQA process. The location of these other proposals is shown on Map 3. IV. EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS The 73.5-acre site is currently used primarily to grow hay, but also contains a single- family residence and associated outbuildings, and a mobile home, all of which are located in the northwest corner of the property. The topography of the site is almost entirely level, with the exception of irrigation- drainage ditches along the eastern, western, and southern boundaries of the property. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has identified the soil on the property as Marcuse clay, a non-prime agricultural soil. This soil type is described by the SCS as poorly drained with a comparatively low strength rating, high-shrink potential, and moderate- to slow permeability. The Soils and Geology section of the EIR (Section IV.E) describes these soil and other geotechnical characteristics in more detail. -2- . ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT LOCATION OF ADJACENT PROPOSALS l it PS DRh '.s}0-.a, ,,,�}•'�2.: n R Y n n TAC r.. �' I • ,r +'.�'.;•.;+'µ'ms-�,'�-'�:;'> s-- -+• 03 DISCOVERY SAY WEST Z► l 29 1 2. ? YUA. - — CF1 cR t PS 61 _ PR sm « -AC r ` MR P PR 1 - T MIK AT - • AUERS tl 1 YRON ?$ 1j. ps OR co sit LEGEND «•« _ —__ . . t ; SV Sing Family Residential.Ve . le ry.t- .- '` SM Single FamilY Residential-Medium r• �-� Ps SH Single Family Residential-High ML Multiple Family Residential-Low !! MM Multiple Family Residential-Medium % CO Commercial =.. ; :"..• '�,�_..' _ V tight Industrial AL CR Commercial Recreation • . PS Public/Semi-Pubic PR Parks and Recreation OS Open Space NORTH � ,� AL Agricultural Lands • AC Agricultural Core SCALE: 1" = 4000' DR Delta Recreation & Resources The Byron-Bethany Irrigation District holds a 33-foot-wide easement along the western property line form a point approximately 1,200 feet north of Highway 4, within the portion of the project site which protrudes north from the northwest corner of the property to Marsh Creek Road. The applicant states on the development plan that this easement will_ be abandoned or relocated. This easement contains a drainage -and irrigation water distribution pipeline serving parcels to the north of Marsh Creek Road.' V. EXISTING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN The project site is within the general plan designated Urban Limit Line. The purpose of the Urban Limit Line is to identify and insure protection of agricultural lands and open space areas by establishing a line beyond which no large-scale development may be considered within the duration of the general plan (i.e., until 2005). A property's location within the Urban Limit Line does not necessarily guarantee that it may be developed during the general plan's time period. Properties located inside the Urban Limit Line are still governed by the other land use designations and provisions contained in the general plan, and are also subject to all the goals, policies, and implementation measures included in each general plan element. The application of these policies may preclude the development or reduce the allowable intensity of development of certain properties. The Urban Limits Line which affects this area is shown on Map 4. The project site covered by two Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map designations,Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Core. Approximately 31 acres in the eastern portion of the site are designated Agricultural Lands. Approximately 43 acres in the western portion of the site are designated Agricultural Core. The Agricultural Lands designation is generally assigned to privately owned rural lands in the county, and generally excludes lands with prime agricultural soils or lands located in or near the Delta. The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to "preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber, and plan materials" on non-prime soils. In the Flat, eastern portion of the county where the project site is located, this category is primarily given to non-prime agricultural lands which are planted in orchards. The current use of portions of the site to grow hay is consistent with this land use designation. The Agricultural Core designation is generally given to agricultural lands which are composed of prime soils, or soils considered the very best for wide variety of crops. Much of this designation in the east county area is under active cultivation of intensive row crops such as tomatoes and other vegetables. The land in the western portion of the site that is-subject to this designation-does not include intensive row crops at this time. The poor soils and hay fields on the site are not consistent with this land use designation. It is very important to note that there is a difference between the boundaries of the Agricultural Core that was adopted by the voters as measure C (1990) which excluded all lands outside the Urban Limits Line and which mandated 40 acre minimum lot sizes and the Agricultural Core designation for lands inside the Urban -3- ' i ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP OR AC P .v i. r os AL os WA PS a UL 14 - - - . E I C WA , I � AI M WA Irl O CR CR f . I Ps M Ps PR — I SM AC I PR „\ PR T YQt A r. .r ... •... Ps - I e : p Urban Limit Line .. OR .. ,;a-- �� 4 ..•�°- -i--- � LEGEND ii sM P.rc� M -� SV Single Family Residential-Very Low T. a...- . SM _._. . ....,., ,• :.....::., �• M Single Family Residential-Medium C� SH SH Single Family Residential-High �•�: �- Ps ML Multiple Family Residential-Low �.1cou MM Multiple Family Residential-Medium p o CO Commercial L1 Light Industrial �- CR Commercial Recreation AL PS Public/Semi-Public i - PR Parks and Recreation \ OS Open Space AL Agricultural Lands NORTH - Ps AC Agricultural Core - nR nal*, 0.--+;- Q. no.•... MAP 4 Limits Line because these areas are allowed to pursue general plan amendments to higher land use designations. Since this site is within the Urban Limits Line, there are no restrictions adopted by the voters which would limit consideration of this request. The Draft EIR went into great depth on the relationship of.the proposed General Plan - --- - Amendment and related development applications to the policies of the County General Plan. For the readers convenience this is added as Attachment A to this report. Map 4 shows the land use plan map for the area. The Circulation Element Map lists both State Route 4 and Bixler Road as Existing Arterials; State Route 4 is designated as a Scenic Route. VI. AREA ZONING The existing zoning for the site is shown on map 5. The site is currently zoned A-3: Heavy Agriculture. VII. URBAN SERVICES The Draft EIR in Chapter IV section G discusses public services in great detail and that section can be referred to for further insight on this issue. Since the site is currently planned for agricultural purposes most public service providers have not planned for suburban growth on this land and will need to adjust their plans in consideration of these applications. The identified service providers in the DEIR are Schools - Byron Union School District and the Liberty Union High School District Water - Contra Costa Sanitary District 19 Sewer - Contra Costa Sanitary District 19 Police - Sheriff's Dept. Fire - East Diablo Fire Protection District Parks and Recreation - County Landscaping and Lighting District For the services of-schools, police, fire and parks, the issue-is insuring that the fees are adequate to offset the costs of providing adequate facilities and levels of service. This can best be addressed as part of the conditions of approval, should the General Plan amendment be approved. The issues of provision of sewer and water services have clear policy ramifications which need to be considered as part of a General Plan process, as well as, meeting growth management standards as part of the rezoning and subdivision applications. -4- ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZONING + A-20 ' • 1 A•3 .......... .�_..» A:2 A•3 OUR" p.1 A.2 :fir;:.;: >r•f}•:d}.` +f'�ir2:Y::i3rr�'f`<x'.'•4ia3�a,.'r.;:;,::::2.'�fi-:.;.::r?�.:�'•Y.':?.w•.-::.'::i,'?: LBERS � '''}'�r: �k�k:''k•,'•£rf' :.^{tri}o'?o.S�iy-:::tgi:�`F:.::y••,+.::rvl s:M1:;,G::?.}{:.;Y>r:J `,�` :k'':::�:? }';`::,+.:}}c:v::{;::}:::'�:. !:r•4'\>c&}n"ef{.i:,:d:;.J::'i:N'�f'•'+vrw::>� 1 - '+'l?i-::�:i':' ,v?il?ir5iyi:i:- "}�r`-�i''•.ii?'.isr :i•},'ii rt:}.,X,;;F.nf$i"i•Sv;:.M.; ;ivY,:i?:tiviii::??h •.l..}:!.v.:is"::?.i::.ii:'nr�'�j:;-v,:.:_ �f:.:}kvir SSf<Few.;••k<•,.,JXtiRr':;:`li;}}r,`y'fiti'r:k>=."-t{r:�.{�dSMa.:}sir{!�,`•'� :..<C?-.r, .' ''+ `rr{"v,`•-•r"?"` ;' •`.?F,`4.,M1;,,+$$",yy s..c,.i?r:e,•:`-,`.:•:=i ' :'�r�;y`�'151 rhi•. .:it t;::. 'v r.v'.Y:i i ...`a,).$::`A:'4�i•. ti-\'�$� ''%✓i-Y.r:i:`�` \vi"': ;'•.,"tijvpi, '.. .. .. N:••'.ri Y'}"v}Yr'}:".':.i}ii'$:£.v.:lf..:': ?G:-:,}k}l ,(:i•rs:.�..Y.e'ri. ..}k::;'-:vt?}i'r'r-%:%�xh±r�i.:.. rv"':'?:... .'v:,i 4• .l v?'.i1 . rr,.':�::r::.:::',•;•. � .;r,...:.:.:e�. ?-:xr•3:?� r a'''k�+�.fYNi is{:.,`.: T � .v��,.{.•JS+JY'?:?vK`:.ri?:•T:'-`...'�i' i.::,!:v?-:Y{:'-.'.:.%-.�.l-... .. :.;:: F::•�v:v:O:'i-: v:Vii:?}�'�? LEGEND A-2 General Agriculture A-3 Heavy Agriculture 4 • A-20 Exclusive Agricultural P-1 Planned Unit Development NORTH MAP 5 SCALE 1" = 600" The main policy issue which effects both this application and the Byron 78 request deals with development history of Discovery Bay. Discovery Bay was approved as self contained community and Sanitation District 19 was expressly created to provide water and sewer services to Discovery Bay. This request for service by that agency would require sphere of influence. amendments and annexations.by. LAFCO. . In weighing the merits of these applications, this shift in policy needs to be clearly recognized. Sanitation District 19 has indicated that they are undertaking a service facility study on the feasibility of servicing the pending general plan amendment areas. (see Attachment B). Given that Districts willingness to study service to the area, water and sewer service should not be considered a limitation for considering this general plan amendment. Verification of capacity to serve this site needs to be finalized in review of rezoning and subdivision application on the site. VIII.. AGRICULTURAL AND WETLAND IMPACTS The project vicinity has historically been generally used as orchard, hayfield, or grazing land. Virtually all of the natural topographic and/or other features of the project vicinity have been converted to agricultural fields or pasture. Many of these fields now contain introduced networks of ditches and culverts that discharge in larger irrigation ditches and drainage channels. The project itself contains hay fields and has historically contained cultivated crops. The site is also generally surrounded by lands currently or historically used for agriculture. crops. Most fields in the vicinity have been recently graded and cultivated. However, several adjacent and- nearby parcels to the north have been converted to low density "ranchettes," and one parcel across Highway 4 to the south from the project site contains a boat storage and repair establishment. The Byron 78 project site to the east (across Bixler Road) has not been used intensively for some time and supports a remnant community of valley grassland and an associated component of alkaline sink and/or meadow vegetation. The amendment area is situated on Marcuse clay, a very poorly drained soil, often .affected by alkaline conditions, and generally of limited value for agriculture. Despite these conditions, the property contains agricultural fields that have been and continue to be used for cultivated crops and hay production. The site appears to undergo annual disking and like most properties in the area, contains a series of peripheral drainage ditches to facilitate irrigation and runoff. The site has no remaining natural habitats or true plant communities, but consists of a disturbed, non-native environment with crops and weeds--as the predominant vegetation. There are no native trees or other significant woody vegetation on site (with the exception of a very few individuals of a woody saltbush in the extreme northeast corner shown on Figure 23). Virtually all of the existing vegetation is either part of the hay production operation or is common agricultural weeds. There is potential Corp of Engineers jurisdiction over approximately 15,600 square feet of land along drainage and irrigation districts. -5- Consequently,wetlands factors have little impact on the lands development potential. The shift from a grazing type agricultural use to suburban development is , however, a major policy issue which needs to be resolved. IX. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE There may be infrequent use of parts of the site for foraging by common raptors, and there may be occasional visits by herons, egrets, or other waterbirds seeking local irrigation and drainage ditches, but none of these or any other sensitive species would find significant resources on this site. The site provides minimal habitat value as open foraging country for a limited number of raptors (possible marsh hawks, red-tail hawks, kestrels, etc.). However, the ditching and draining, disking and grading have limited the value of the site as a resource for wildlife. The San Joaquin kit fox, a California Threatened and Federally Endangered species, has been spotted on two occasions in the project vicinity. While the site does not offer prime habitat for the kit fox--e.g., there is no evidence of den sites or suitable denning habitat, and the site does not provide a predatory base for the fox-- representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have preliminarily determined that the site may provide suitable habitat for the fox. As part of the Final EIR a kit fox survey was completed and it's findings state "No evidence of kit foxes was detected on the Alber's property during this survey. Suitable habitat exists for the San Joaquin kit fox on at least part of the project site. Known prey species were observed and potential dens are present. The nearest known record of kit fox in the site vicinity is 2.5 miles south. -The northern edge of the USFWS mapped distribution of San Joaquin kit fox is roughly defined as Highway 4, which forms the southern border of the Alber's property. The project site, while possible kit fox habitat, is peripheral in terms of the actual distribution.of the species. The conclusion of this study is that there is a low potential for the San Joaquin kit fox to occur on the project site in terms or regular use." From a County staff perspective, the San Joaquin kit fox is not a factor in this decision; should Federal and State agencies come to a different conclusion they will need to negotiate that directly with the developer. X. ANALYSIS OF THIS REQUEST There are numerous issues of varying ranges of complexity associated with this project; several are described below. O Conversion of Agricultural Lands The major issue associated with this project is the appropriateness of this area developing. This area was placed within the voter approved Urban Limit Line. Such inclusion allows the site to be considered for urbanization, but does not assure such a conclusion. When originally planned, Discovery Bay was to be developed as a self contained community. As a practical matter Discovery Bay is now built out. The approval of the Udjur and Albers requests would expand the development area of Discovery Bay but not the Discovery Bay Community itself. The difference between -6- this proposal from the Byron 78 amendment, is that Byron 78 provides for non- residential services to Discovery Bay. This proposal would expand the residential area of development. Such conversion will add to the cumulative loss of agricultural lands in East County; on the contrary note it will provide added residential opportunities. Each individual will need to determine their individual-view on the appropriateness-of .this change. o Additional Lot In the extreme southwest corner of this amendment area is a small 15,400 square foot (.35 acre) parcel which creates a notch in the site. It currently contains a single family home and associated outbuildings. Staff has added this into the General Plan Amendment area and has encouraged that this site be integrated in planning for the Albers project. o Commercial Area This site includes a proposal for a small commercial center and related professional office complex immediately across Bixler form the Byron 78 proposal. It is not clear if the Discovery Bay area can absorb the commercial space of both these centers in the short term, though statistically it is possible given the lack of facilities in Discovery Bay. Designation of this use on the General Plan won't guarantee development of a center, but will allow the applicant to attempt to have one financed. O Density of Homes The request is to redesignate this site to Single Family Residential High Density. This is one of the two single family designations utilized within Discovery Bay. Single Family Residential Medium Density is the other designation found there. The applicants goal is to provide for "reasonable priced homes" to serve the area. Obviously, one option the Commission would have is to consider lower density designations such as single family residential very low, low, or medium density. These densities would lower cumulative impacts on public facilities and services e.g. traffic or water supply. Lower densities might also be more compatible with adjacent agricultural uses. On the other hand any level of suburban development would impact adjacent agricultural areas about equally. o Buffer Lands A quick review of Map 2 on existing land use leads to several conclusions. To the east the Byron 78 parcel is attempting to develop. State Route 4 effectively provides a barrier to lands to the south.- The Byron-Bethany Irrigation Channel on the west - adds a increment of buffering to that side of the development. Lands on the north side of the project are all subdivided for ranchette use. The project, as designed, makes no attempt to buffer the impacts of this project from these ranchettes. Buffering can be provided by reduced density along.this interface or by provision of additional setbacks, etc. Since most of this area is outside the Urban Limits Line, the ability of the area to convert to more intense uses is doubtful. If buffering is felt desirable either the concept could be handled directly in the plan amendment or -7- resolved during review of the development applications. It would appear desirable to add wording requiring buffering to the plan amendment text and to determine the best way of insuring it during review of the preliminary development plan. o Adequacy of. Public Facilities . There is concern in the Discovery Bay Community on the adequacy of water supply to serve this project. Sanitary District 19 has initiated a study to work of water and sever supply opportunities and constraints. There is a reasonable expectation that services can be provided and therefore the amendment is appropriate. Final assurances need to be made as part of the development review process. o Relationship to Byron 78 Amendment Request It is important to note that the northern extent of development is consistent with the staff proposed modification of the Byron 78 proposal. Both projects require services from Sanitary District 19 for sewer and water. For these reasons, both general plan applications should be considered concurrently. XI. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval to the Board of Supervisor of the Albers General Plan Amendment as shown on the attached map and text. JC:kd 1-15-92 2/misc/kd:ecrpcsrp.rpt Albers General Plan Amendment Proposed changes to the County General Plan To intergrate the Albers General Plan Amendment into the County General Plan, the General Plan Land Use Element (foldout) map will be changed to redesignate land use for approximate 74 acres of land. The plan designations and boundaries are shown on Map A attached. On page 3-59 after Policies for Southeast County area a new section on Discovery Bay should be added and the Discovery Bay Area should be added to Figure 3-2 which shows unincorporated communities with Adopted General Plan Policies. The new text to be added to page 3-59 should read: DISCOVERY BAY AREA "Policy 3-9x, Development applications on the Albers project located on the northeast corner of Bixler Road and State Route 4 will be allowed upon assurances of needed public facilities. Development applications will need to consider mechanisms for buffering the subject property from ranchettes to the north of the site. JC:kd 1-19-93 pcalber.gpa 2/mist/kd IIIIIIII��IIIII�IIIII��-• �w��w !11■...■■■■■t■■■■.■■■■tumtm ■11■f■■■■/tf■ Single Family Ilmuff.■■■■■.■mu.■■■■■f■11lf■■1 11ff■1■■...111■. II■ffmuf■■■■■■.■■..■■.■I 11■■■■....■■■■■■...■■■11■■■■1111.■ Single Family Residential-High It■■f■■.■■.■■■../.■■mull■...111..1 If■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■■.I 0■1■■■/a Illllllllllllilllllf �■---f::■f..f:: ,,,; Off ice Commercial Ught Industry ■■■■■O■■.■■.f..1 dWWrr IIIIIIIIIIIIII 1--------------anParks and Recreation ^�,^,,,► M 111--1■■ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil IN iii ■■■■■■■■ II■■■■11■1n■■■■■■t .111.1.■ `II.■■■■■■■■■11■■■r Crir. iiiiiiiiiiiiilf.f..f.....f. �w►- IINII{IIIII� Agricultural 1 L. . .. .�,..�.�,,. �iiiIlll Illllllllllllll wammmmmm::::!; IBM Water out long 1..■.mu■.f.f.ff■/I ■.I It■■ff■■■t'11ff■.f■■.■..■..■t ■ erinl■■■1■..11�■1.■YrrYrr..iiiiiri - - - - r...■..■.f11f.-/...■111......■.■..■..■1 4i H■■a/■■■■f1!.fff�O■■-Ji■■.■00.00■■■ill ISHII "----■■■■f1:0 .ff----:�!■■■mumu■mu■■■.f/■.1 ; �....■■.f.1 i.■■f..��;i7.■■■■t/■■■■■/■■1 — 11ei111■■i.e■hl■■■■■■..■ Al .■■■■11 {I f 1.11f11.11�IJfi1-mull■11.',1-:I1.■f.■■■ff■■■ti.1 11.11■11■11ft1■11.■Ilfnfll■-7110..■■■..f.■.fawr� II I1f11e1ie•1■Y■11■■11■11.11■�I1.■■■■.■■.■■.■■fl N orb►• nuunn.n■n■un ■.......11111111111111 r11■........■1rS■■■1.1�:___�=_'.':�==sem: ��Ib�i/►� r1■■..■■f..t.■■■..�..111■■■...ff■.■■■■■r ---- 1 7.t 1100 1101■■.tl If■111..■..■■.■i■■■■■1 �:J■1■■f■1110■■.■1It■111■..■■.■■.■■■...1 I x•7.1...■■.f1■...11.■111■mumu..■■■..■■■■.1 � asyrlrla� y■.!.■■.■■■..■mu.■■■ 111■■■■■■■■-■■-■■■L W rr �m 1111 I;�■.1■mus.��f��;n.■.■■■.■■■■■■■■1 � N II ■Irrrrr,nn .r.Y=T-----T1-r,tTr-..• n■..■■.■■f■■■■■■1 rrr:-}G:]•'d■■n-■.■Ul/■.■■■■ 111--f--f■■■t■■■■■■■1 ff�1■■f■■ / .f■■ff■■ '-mui20 .ff■11 41■■f■■■■■■.■■■■.\ IbIbV1Wrr�AwKlt \ »m tiraa jf..■■.■f.■ONIi■■.■■.1'1■■.■.■■■■■■■f■■I tr2 ee0 �/r��c�e ....��.r•r.��.v�.r��.n..r 11..■.■mu■11111■1■1I ■■\ 111■■■■■■■aCf.■■■■1 ■.f a � Vb1s • 1.1■■■ ■mumu■ ■■ tirr c1 ■ ■1 t w _ :'� 11■.■muff■■.■■■■■■1.■■\ w ■■ 1110■ ■1/■ 1 �.r 11■■■■■■f■ 1111 ■1■■ ■ ar 46 l.■■■f■■■■■■■■■/■Lf■■1■ '� haw 1.f.f■ffff..■f■f.I mu■f.mu sommoommo 1101 r.................... ...- - --- 1■■■■■.omommmoommi ...... ■...■■..■...■■■■■...t1■■..f■.■■■f.■.■..■■.■.t...■■■■1 afmuffffmuO■.f.fffmuf■11■■mumu/mu■f/ffmu.f.f■.■.muff■....fff1 ■.■■■■■■■■.■■■■■■f■II■.■.!■t■■■■ff■■f■.■..mumu/..f..■■I C--■■■f--■-■■■-f---11■■■■.■■■.■■■.■■■/.■■■■f/..■■■■■1 ..................II■.................■........■--f• ■-- •-■■---■■f■:■II■■■■...■■��..■■■■■■.■.aa...■■.■1 ■...■emu■.■ ■■■■■mu.l 1■■■mu■■t■■.ff.f■t■.f■■■■f..fmu.■■1 ^- .■ ■.■■■■■t■■.■■■■....Il.....f.■■.mumu■M■/■■t■■■t■■■.■■■■t � f` 0.1mu■.a■mut■.■.■.t.■.■.■.■.■■mu■.i■.■■.■mu.■lI�llI.�.lmu.f■....■f■.f.f..fff..f.f...■f■■■.■.■.■.■.f.mu■■f■.f■■ff■■f■ff.■t-.mu■-ff■11■ • mufUM11111. .II:■1. 1.1.1■ ■■-■■ ■■f .■ff■. 1f1 1 .rrr_r._......r....rr.l...■■mumu..■■■.■■■'t■■■■■■.■f.f■■■1 . II ■ .■..1.■■.■I1��.■■I1.■■...f■■.■■■■f.1■■■.■■.f■■■■ff1 ■taf■....■fl Ifmu■f.11.fwf.fffmu....fmu.lff..mu.■■ffff.mul 1111■1■.■■.II■■■■.I111111m .■■.■■.f■■If■■■mu..■■■um ■.f.1 1101■I1..■■■11..■.■t■■■tmu■...■1f■..■..■■■f..■1 ....1 1100■11....■Ili■■.■mu■f..mu■ff■.1■■f.■■�■■■.■ff1 Yf■..■spool l..fu■11__==��yrry.��1■f■.f■a■.■f/..\ ■■.■f.■.I I■mu.■■Ilf.■■t■■.mu.■■■■■■lfff■■f...■■t■■1 • ' mumu....■■I1...■■11■■■..■■/f.■.....1.■■■■.f..■..■■1 Albers General Plan Amendment . ATTA fIR A Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 223 Those general plan policies relevant to. the project, and corresponding_project relationships,_ are summarized below: a. Land Use Element Policies Protect RelationshiQ Encourage aesthetically and functionally The project as proposed would not be compatible development which reinforces aesthetically and functionally compatible the physical character and desired images with existing rural residential development of the County. (Goal 3-C, p. 3-43.) to the west and north of the project. Project residents may also be disturbed by agricultural activity on surrounding lands. Section IV.A of this EIR, Land Use, recommends measures to partially resolve these conflicts. Permit urban development only in To comply with the Growth Management locations of the County where public Element of the general plan, the needed service delivery systems that meet public service delivery systems must be in applicable performance standards are place before approval of the preliminary provided or committed. (Goal 3-F, p. 3- development plan. While project water 43.) and sewer system provisions are not . finalized at this writing, feasible alternatives for these services appear to be available. The necessary water and sewer improvements would be installed by the applicant and would bring the project site Into compliance with county standards. Development of all urban uses shall be The applicant has proposed to undertake coordinated with provision of essential all costs associated with improvements to community services and facilities including, water and sanitary facilities. While the but not limited to, roads, law enforcement applicant has not proposed specific and fire protection services; schools, improvements to schools, offsite roads parks, sanitary facilities, water, and flood (other than limited widening of Highway 4 control. (Policy 3-6, p. 3-44.) and Bixler Road), law enforcement, fire protection services, and parks (other than the 1.3 acre parcel in the project design proposed to be used as a park), Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, Includes 514U)EIMV.s1e Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7. 1992 Page 224 .specific recommendations to-ensure ) consistency with this policy. Areas not suitable for urban development Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, because of the lack of availability of public recommends feasible methods of providing facilities shall remain In their present use for all needed public infrastructure. until the needed infrastructure is provided. (Policy 3-9, p. 3-45.) The extension of urban services into Although the project site Is located within agricultural areas, especially growth- the general plan Urban Urnft Une, no inducing infrastructure, shall be request for change in general plan land discouraged unless the area has been use designation to allow for urban designated for urban development, and development is guaranteed. The assuming that all appropriate criteria have measures necessary to achieve project been applied to allow the designation consistency with general plan criteria for change. (Policy 3-10, p. 3-45.) development within the Urban Umit Une are Identified In the Land Use section of this EIR (IV.A.3). Urban uses shall be expanded only in Although currently designated for areas where conflicts with the agricultural agricultural uses, the soils on the property economy will be minimal. (Policy 3-11, p. are not suitable for intensive crop farming. 3-45.) This EIR concludes that project direct Impacts on the county's agricultural productivity would be minimal. The predominantly single family character- The project contains single family homes. of substantially developed portions of the However, the proposed density is high county shall be retained. Multiple4amily enough to require a multiple-family general housing shall be dispersed throughout the plan designation. The project is_proximate county and not concentrated in single to a major road (Highway 4) and contains locations. Multiple-family housing shall Its own neighborhood shopping center. generally be located in proximity to The closest existing fixed-route transit facilities such as arterial roads, transit service Is In the city of Brentwood. corridors, and shopping centers. (Policy 3-20, p..3-46.) Housing opportunities for all income levels The project would provide housing for shall be created. (Policy 3-21, p. 3-46.) moderate income residents of the county. Well-defined commercial areas oriented to The proposed project, along with the community shopping shall be provided in Byron 78 project, if approved, would the County. (Policy 3-32, p. 3-47.) define a new-commercial area in the east 514IDEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 225 county. The proposed project shopping and office,components would be oriented toward serving the retail and service needs of the project, Discovery Bay, and surrounding rural residential development. Businesses and professional office The project contains office development development shall be encouraged in areas within its proposed commercial area. designated for commercial land use within However, the location of the proposed shopping areas and where a transition or office would not provide a buffer effect buffer use Is appropriate between between the shopping center and most of commercial and residential areas. (Policy the residential portions of the project. 3-37, p. 3-47.) New local convenience shopping shall No specific commercial uses have been generally be located at the Intersections of designated on the project development major streets and highways. Such uses plan. It Is unlikely that convenience shall be discouraged on more than two stores would be proposed at the Bixler/ corners of an intersection. (Policy 3-36, Highway 4 intersection comer due to p. 3-47.) access limitations at this location. The density and development of single The project as proposed assumes that family homes in the East County area, in public sewer and water service consistent lands designated for residential or other with the criteria required by this policy will urban uses, shall be related to service be provided (i.e., that both public water availability criteria, as defined below: and sewer connections will be available.) Service Availability (Minimum Allowable Parcel Size) No public water or sewer connection available. (5 acres) One public service (sewer or water) connection available. (1 acre) Both public water and sewer connections available. (Minimum parcel size consistent with the specified General Plan densities, as well as drainage, health, and other applicable standards) 5141DEIRIV.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Pape 226 (Policy 3-48 specific to East county area, p. 3-52.) Restrict access onto State Highway 4 The proposed project design Includes two within those areas designated for access points to and from State Highway residential development. (Policy 3-49 4, one to the residential portion and the specific to East county area, p. 3-52.) other to the commercial portion. No Individual residential driveways onto Highway 4 are proposed. Section IV.D.3 of this EIR, Transportation, recommends that only one combined access from the highway be allowed to serve both the residential and commercial portion of the project. Maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation The project would be within the total Standard. (Implementation Measure 3-p, acreage amount available within the ULL p. 3-49.) for conversion to urban use. The project would represent approximately three tenths of one percent of this total available acreage. The project plus cumulative proposed development would represent approximately 32 percent of the acreage available for conversion to urban use under the 65/35 Preservation Standard. b. Growth Management Element Policies Project Relationshiv New development shall not be approved The project, with incorporation of the In unincorporated areas unless the proposed mitigation measures in this EIR, applicant.can provide the infrastructure could meet Policy 4-3 growth-management which meets the performance standards performance standards relating to traffic, outlined in Policy 4-3, or unless a funding schools, water, sewer, parks and mechanism has been established which recreation, flood control and drainage, and will provide the infrastructure to.meet the fire and police protection services. . _ __ .- standards at the time the development However, while meeting these relevant occurs. (Policy 4-1, p. 4-6) standards isspo sable• the applicant has not yet assured the availability of several of these services, most notably sewer and water. 514IDEIRIV.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Pratt EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 227 -- c. Transpgrtation Element Policies - - Protect Relationship Development shall be allowed only when Section IV.D.3 of this EIR, Transportation transportation performance criteria are met Mitigation, recommends offsite and necessary facilities and/or programs improvements to the road system are in place or committed to be developed necessary to achieve compliance with within a specified period of time. (Policy relevant County transportation 5-4. p. 5-24.) performance criteria. Through-traffic along arterials shall be The proposed project would include two Improved by minimizing the number of access driveways from and onto State new intersecting streets and driveways; Highway 4. The EIR recommends that . and, when feasible, by consolidating only one project access driveway onto existing street and driveway intersections. Highway 4 be allowed. (Policy 5-6, p. 5-24.) New subdivisions should be designed to Sidewalks are proposed throughout the permit convenient pedestrian access to intemal residential portion of the project bus transit and efficient bus circulation which could provide safe, convenient patterns. (Policy 5-19, p. 5-25.) access to future transit service along Highway 4, should such service be provided. Similar pedestrian provisions should be incorporated in the commercial and office components of the project. Appropriate buffers, such as soundwalls, The project applicant proposes a noise bermed embankments, depressed wall along Highway 4 to protect project alignments, and open space areas along residents from noise Impacts. However, major transportation facilities, shall be no specific plans for this improvement provided adjacent to noise sensitive land have been submitted. This EIR uses. (Policy 5-31, p. 5-26.) recommends altemative site design approaches (e.g., Increased setbacks, bermed embankments, etc.) to reduce noise Impacts from Highway 4. To identify, preserve, and enhance-scenic - -The-proposed-project would result in routes in the county. (Goal 5-5. p. 5-32.) significant adverse visual impacts along Highway 4, a General Plan-designated Scenic Highway. Section IV.C.3 of this EIR, Visual Impact Mitigation, recommends measures to reduce these visual impacts. 5141DE/RIV.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7. 1992 Page 228 d. Housing Element Policies Protect Relationship The County shall encourage the See discussion on page V-3 herein of development of communities that are project relationship to Goal 3-F. served by adequate and appropriate facilities and services. (Policy 6-7. p. 6- 107.) Use flexible techniques such as Planned The proposed project would contain a Unit Developments and mixed residential mixture of residential and commercial and commercial developments to obtain a uses. However, the housing types, balance of housing types, tenures, density, and price ranges would appear to densities, and price ranges. be uniform throughout the site. (Implementation Measure 6-c, p. 6-108.) e. Public Facilities/Services Element Policies Project Relationship To permit urban development in See discussion of project relationship to unincorporated areas only when financing Policy 4-1. mechanisms are in place or committed which assure that adopted service standards in the growth management program will be met. (Goal 7-13, p. 7-5.) New development shall be required to pay See discussion of project relationship to its fair share of the cost of all existing Policy 4-1. public facilities it utilizes, based upon the demand for these facilities which can be attributed to new development. (Policy 7- 1, p. 7-5.) New development, not existing residents, See discussion of project relationship to shall be required to pay all costs of . _Policy 4-1.- upgrading existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are exclusively needed to serve new development. (Policy 7-2, p. 7-5.) 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7. 1992 Page 229 To ensure that new development pays the See discussion of project relationship to costs related to the need for Increased Policy 41. water s - - -- - --- ---- -- - - system capacity. (Goal 7-J, p. 7- Expansion of urban development into new Section IV.G of this EIR. Public Services, areas beyond the existing water Spheres recommends mitigations which would of Influence should be restricted to those achieve compliance with general plan areas where urban development can meet standards related to water service. all service standards included In the General Plan. (Policy 7-19, p. 7-15.) Prior to approval of development While no formal verification that Sanitation entitlements, new development shall be District 19 can provide water service to required to obtain verification from a water the project has been obtained, preliminary service agency that an adequate water discussions between the EIR authors and supply can be provided to serve the water district management indicate that development If the development Is built such service Is feasible. within a period of time specific by the water agency. (Policy 7-22, p. 7-15.) i The need for water system Improvements To date, the applicant has not proposed shall be reduced by encouraging new the incorporation of water conservation development to incorporate water measures. conservation measures to decrease peak water use. (Policy 7-27, p. 7-16.) To assure that new development pays the Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, costs related to the need for increased recommends mitigations relating to sewer sewer system capacity. (Goal 7-N, p. 7- system capacity Improvements which 27.) l would require funding by the applicant. The need for sewer system improvements To date, the applicant has not proposed shall be reduced by requiring new the Incorporation of'rater conservation development to incorporate water measures to reduce flows into the sanitary conservation measures which reduce flows sewer system. Into the sanitary sewer system. (Policy 7- 37. p. 7-27.) New development shall be required to No additional downstream improvements finance Its legal share of the full costs of relating to channel capacity are identified drainage improvements necessary to In this EIR. However, this EIR does t accommodate projected peak flows due to recommend mitigations relating to 5141DEIRIV.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 230 the project. Reimbursement from downstream erosion which would require ' subsequent developments which benefit funding by the applicant from the added capacity may be provided: - (Policy 7-45, p. 7-35.) On-site water control shall be required of No specific improvement needs related to major new developments so that no downstream drainage system capacity are Increase in peak flows occurs compared identified In this EIR. Downstream to the site's pre-development condition, drainage facilities are adequate to handle unless the Planning Agency determines the runoff generated by the project. that off-site measures can be-employed which are equally effective In preventing adverse downstream impacts, or that the project is implementing an adopted drainage plan. (Policy 7-45, p. 7-35.) As appropriate, and to the extent allowed Section IVY of this EIR. Drainage and by law, assess all new development Water Quality, acknowledges that the projects at least $0.35 per square foot of project Is subject to this fee for required Impervious surface created. This drainage Improvements and maintenance of the fee Is to be collected through existing Kellogg Creek and Old River watershed County Flood Control drainage area fee drainage systems. ordinances, newly adopted drainage are fee ordinances, existing and new assessment districts, or other financial entities. The fee may be applied to the cost of any developer-sponsored regional flood control improvements on-or-off-site which mitigate the project's flooding Impacts. Regional facilities are defined as system sized to handle at least 15 cubic feet per second and suitable for public agency maintenance, i.e.. 24-inch diameter and larger system drains. (Policy 7-55. p. 7-36.) All residential and non-residential uses The mitigation recommended in this EIR proposed In areas of special flood hazards ensures project compliance with the as shown on FEMA maps, shall conform County Floodplain Management to the requirements of the County Ordinance. Floodplain Management Ordinance (County Ordinance #87-45). (Policy 7-56, p. 7-36.) 5141oFiaws1e Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 231 A sheriff facility standard of 155 square As discussed in Section IV.G of this EIR, feet of station per 1,000 residents shall be Public Services, this countywide. per-capita maintained within the-unincorporated-area- - -sheriff facility"standard-for-uniricorporated- of the County. (Policy 7-57, p. 7-40.) areas Is currently being met. The county shall strive to reach a Although the project is within 1.5 miles maximum running time of three minutes from the "first-due' fire station, the area is and/or 1.5 miles from the first due station, currently served by a station which utilizes and a minimum of three firefighters to be volunteer fire fighters. Section N.G of maintained in all central business district, this EIR, Public Services, describes urban, and suburban areas. (Policy 7-62, necessary measures to provide adequate p. 7-46.) fire protection service to the project. The county shall strive to achieve a total The response time specified in this policy response time (dispatch, plus running, cannot currently be met for the project plus set-up time) of five minutes shall be site. Section IV.G of this EIR, Public maintained In CBD, urban, and'suburban Services, describes those measures areas for 90 percent of all emergency necessary to improve response times to responses. (Policy 7-63, p. 7-46.) the site. New development shall pay its fair share Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, of costs for new fire protection facilities describes the project's funding and services. (Policy 7-64, p. 7-46.) responsibilities for new fire protection facilities and services. Needed upgrades to fire facilities and Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, equipment shall be identified as part of recommends mitigation measures to project environmental review and area reduce project fire risks and improve _ planning activities, In order to reduce fire emergency response to the project site. risk and Improve emergency. response In the County. (Policy 7-65, p. 7-46.) When considering General Plan Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, Amendment requests which increase evaluates project impacts on schools and density, the capacity of area schools and recommends mitigation measures to offset the district shall be given dose attention. those impacts. (Policy 7-142, p. 7-74.) Proposed development projects shall be The project as proposed does not include required to provide for child care and any provisions for child care. Section preschool facilities In accordance with the IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, General Plan and applicable ordinances, recommends mitigation measures 514IDEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 232 when significant demand for these necessary to achieve project compliance ) facilities is created by the projects. with this policy. (Policy 7-153, p. 7-78.)- Proposed -78.)Proposed commercial and residential The project as proposed would not directly projects which do not directly provide child provide child care or preschool facilities. care or preschool facilities shall be Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, required to comply with the provision of recommends mitigation measures for the adopted child care ordinance. (Policy provisions of adequate child care facilities 7-154, p. 7-78.) to serve the project. f. Conservation Element Policies Project Relationship Important wildlife habitats which would be The site may be considered 'fringe" disturbed by major development shall be foraging habitat for the San Joaquin kit preserved, and corridors for wildlife fox. Sectjon IV.H of this EIR, Vegetation migration between undeveloped lands and Wildlife, recommends measures to shall be retained. (Policy 8-7, p. 8-26.) ensure that any project impacts to the kit fox habitat are mitigated. Areas determined to contain significant The project site may contain two sensitive ecological resources, particularly those plant species, the Contra Costa goldfields, containing endangered species, shall be and the San Joaquin salt brush. Section maintained in their natural state and IV.H of this EIR, Vegetation and Wildlife, carefully regulated to the maximum legal contains recommendations to`ensure extent. Acquisition of the most protection of these species, should they _ ecologically sensitive properties within the be found on the site. county by appropriate public agencies shall be encouraged. (Policy 8-9, p.'8- 26.) The planting of native trees and shrubs The local landscape and project site shall be encouraged in order to preserve appears to be essentially devoid of native the visual Integrity of the landscape, trees and shrub. The project landscaping provide habitat conditions suitable for plan, which has not yet been submitted, native wildlife, and insure that a maximum should emphasize use of native and well- number and variety of well-adapted plants adapted plants. are sustained in urban areas. (Policy 8- 21, p. 8-30.) Urban developments shall be required to The project as proposed does not provide establish effective buffers between them buffers between Its residential uses and 514U)EIRI V.51< Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 233 and land planned for agricultural uses. the agricultural lands to the west and (Policy 8-34, p. 8-42.) north. Section IV.A of this EIR, Land Use, recommends measures to provide such a buffer. Residences in or near agricultural areas Section IVA of this EIR, Land Use, shall be informed and educated regarding recommends measures to ensure the the potential nuisances and hazards education of project residents about associated with nearby agricultural uses. potential nuisances and hazards (Policy 8-35, p. 8-42.) associated with nearby agricultural uses. The free flow of vehicular traffic shall be The mitigation measures recommended in facilitated on major arterials. (Policy 8-99, Section IV.D of this EIR, Transportation, P. 8-85.) would ensure flow of vehicular traffic in compliance with county standards. A safe, convenient pedestrian system shall The project would contain sidewalks to be created and maintained in order to provide safe and convenient Internal encourage walking as an alternative to pedestrian access between residences driving. (Policy 8-102, p. 8-85.) and the shopping center. Proposed projects shall be reviewed for The county Initial Study determined that their potential to impact air quality project air quality impacts did not require conditions. (Policy 8-103, p. 8-85.) consideration in this EIR. Land uses which are sensitive to air Proposed residences would be located pollution shall be separated from sources away from the intersection of Bixler Road of air pollution. (Policy 8-105, p. 8-85.) and Highway 4, the probable primary location of local carbon monoxide concentrations. a. Open Space Element Policies Protect Relationship Development plan reviews and project The project relationship to open space Environmental Impact Reports shall needs Is addressed in Section IV.A of this Include assessments of the open space EIR, Land Use. needs of the County, as well as those which relate specifically to a proposal. (Policy 9-8, p. 9-5.) The appearance of the County shall be Section IV.0 of this EIR, Visual Quality, improved by...encouraging aesthetically makes recommendations to improve the 5141DEIMV.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7. 1992 Page 234 designed facilities with adequate setbacks -aesthetics of project designated facilities, and landscaping. (Policy 9-24, p. 9-11.) including the provision of adequate setbacks and common landscaping. Require that new development meet the The project as proposed does not meet park standards and criteria included in the county standards related to acres of park growth management program and set forth per 1,000 population. Section IV.G of this In Table 7-3. Ensure that credit for the EIR, Public Services, recommends park dedication ordinance requirements be measures to achieve compliance with the given for private recreation facilities only county's standards. after a finding has been adopted that the facilities will be open to and serve the public. (Implementation Measure 9-r, p. 9-37.) h. Safety Element Policies Project Reiationshin Significant land use decisions (General Section IVY provides an evaluation of the Plan Amendments, rezonings, etc.) shall geologic-seismic and soils conditions on be based on a thorough evaluation of the site and associated project impacts. geologic-seismic and soil conditions and No unmitigable conditions have been risk. (Policy 10-2, p. 10-33.) identified in this EIR. Additional, more detailed site specific investigations will be required by the county during the review of the tentative map application. The General Plan shall discourage urban The project Is located in an area or suburban development In areas susceptible to liquefaction. Section IVY susceptible to high liquefaction dangers, of this EIR, Geology and Soils, while recognizing that there are low- recommends measures necessary to Intensity uses such as water-related adequately mitigate liquefaction related recreation and agricultural uses that are impacts. appropriate in such areas. (Policy 10-18, P. 10-35.) Any structures permitted in areas of high See discussion of the project's relationship liquefaction danger shall be site designed to Policy 10-18. and constructed to minimize the danger from damage due to earthquake-induced liquefaction. (Policy 10-20, p. 10-35.) 5141DEIRIV.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 235 Approvals to allow the construction of See discussion of the project's relationship public and private development projects in to policy 10-18. areas of high liquefaction-potential shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous geologic and/or soils conditions, recommend means of mitigating these adverse conditions; and on proper implementation of the mitigation measures. (Policy 10-21, p. 10-35.) The areas designated on Figure 10-8 shall The proposed project would be within the be considered inappropriate for 100-year flood plain. Section ME of this conventional urban development due to EIR, Drainage and Water Quality, outlines flood hazards as defined. by FEMA. measures necessary to reduce flood Applications for development at urban or hazards to less than significant levels. suburban densities in areas where there is a serious risk to life shall be denied. . (Policy 10-33, p. 10-50.) In mainland areas affected by creeks, The project complies with the I development within the 100-year floodplain management plan for this watershed shall be limited until a flood management prepared by the Contra Costa County plan can be adopted, which may include Flood Control District. regional and local facilities if needed. (Policy 10-34, p. 10-50.) Flood-proofing of structures shall be The applicant proposes fill on the project - required in any area subject to flooding; site to raise building elevations well above this shall occur both adjacent to water the flood level. No source of fill has been courses as well as in.the Delta or along identified at this time. the waterfront. (Policy 10-38, p. 10-50 Building and urban development near the Section ME of this EIR, Drainage and shoreline and In flood-prone areas shall Water Quality, evaluates flooding hazards be protected from flood dangers, including on the site, including consideration of the .consideration of rising sea levels caused potential for rising sea levels due to the by the greenhouse effect. (Policy 10-41, greenhouse effect. Mitigation measures p. 10-53.) have been recommended for all Identified significant impacts relating to flooding. Whenever studies indicate subsidence is Subsidence has occurred In the project or may become a flood-threatening vicinity. However, it has not yet been problem, the county should continue to documented for the site. Section IVY of 514IDEIRIV.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7. 1992 Page 236 monitor subsidence until flood protection Is the EIR, Geology and Soils, recommends j assured. (Policy 10-46, p. 10.53.) measures to offset the potential effects of subsidence, should It occur on the site. The General Plan shall not permit a The project would Involve substantial fill to substantial non-agricultural, residential raise building elevations well above the population to be subjected to Increased required flood freeboard. Section ME of flood hazards due to subsidence. .(Policy this EIR indicates that the potential effects 10-47, p. 10-53.) of subsidence on the site would not reduce the amount of freeboard to the extent that project homes would be subject to unacceptable flood hazards. New projects shall be required to meet Portions of the project residential areas acceptable exterior noise level standards would be subject to adverse noise as established,in the Noise and Land Use conditions (exceedances of general plan Compatibility Guidelines (contained In compatibility criteria). Section IV.I of this Figure 11-5 of the General Plan). These EIR, Noise, recommends measures to guidelines, along with the future noise reduce these land use and noise levels shown in the future noise contour compatibility impacts to acceptable levels. maps, should be used by the county as a guide for evaluating the compatibility of 'noise-sensitive' projects In potentially noisy areas. (Policy 11-1. p. 11-42.) The standard for outdoor noise levels In Section IV.I of this EIR, Noise, residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. recommends measures to ensure However, a DNL of 60 dB or less may not compliance with these general plan noise be achievable in all residential areas due standards. The recommendations In to economic or aesthetic constraints.* section IV.C.3 address potential noise wall (Policy 11-2,.p. 11-44.) aesthetic constraints. 14 a�oar�M . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RELATED ACTIONS COUNTY FILE #4-90-ec SCH #90030476 NOVEMBER 1992 514IFEIRICO-COV.514 ATTACHMENT: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR FINAL. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ALBERS GENERAL PLAN] AMENDMENT AND RELATED ACTIONS COUNTY FILE # 4-90-EC SCH # 90030476 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY November 1992 5141FE1RICOVER.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County Table of Contents November 3, 1992 Page Iii CONTENTS Paae I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. Index to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Written Comments and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 C. Public Hearing Testimony and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 III. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR (FINAL EIR ERRATA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5141 FEI RI CONTENTS.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County Table of Contents November 3, 1992 Page iv 5141 FEI RI CONTENTS.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County I. Introduction November 3, 1992 Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Albers project consists of two volumes: (1) the Draft EIR, which was distributed for public review and comment on August 17, 1992, and (2) this Final EIR attachment. In keeping with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines, 1986 (Section 15132), this attachment includes the following additional components which, together with the Draft EIR, comprise the Final EIR for the Albers project: (a) A list of persons, organizations, and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR during the public review period and an index of their comments; (b) Copies of written comments from public agencies and the public received on the Draft EIR within the public review period; (c) A summary of the public hearing testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR heard by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator at a public hearing on September 14, 1992; (d) The responses of the county (the Lead Agency) to all significant environmental points raised in these written and oral comments pertaining to the adequacy of the Draft EIR; and (e) An Errata section which includes EIR text revisions which modify or are additive to the Draft EIR. All such revisions to the Draft EIR are indicated with an r in the left margin adjacent to the revised line. Certification of this Final EIR by the county must occur prior to any final action by the county on the proposed project. If the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors were to approve the proposed project, selected mitigation measures suggested in this Final EIR could be required as conditions of project approval. 5141FEIRIF-1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County I. Introduction November 3, 1992 Page 2 5141FEIRIF--1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 4, 1992 Page 3 II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Under CEQA guidelines, the county (i.e., the Lead Agency) is required after completion of the Draft EIR to consult with and obtain comments from public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the general public and the applicant with opportunities to comment on the Draft EIR. The county is also required to respond in writing to substantive environmental points raised in this Draft EIR review and consultation process. The Draft EIR (DEIR) was posted for circulation and comment on August 17, 1992. The required 45-day public review period on the DEIR ended October 1, 1992. During the public review period, comments on the DEIR were received in the form of twelve (12) letters submitted to the county, and public hearing testimony by two (2) individuals. This Response to Comments chapter includes the following subsections: ■ An Index to comments (section II.A), which lists the persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; identifies the significant environmental points addressed in their comments; and indicates by code where the written responses of the Lead Agency (Contra Costa County) to these comments are provided in this chapter. ■ A responses to written comments section (section 11.6), which includes copies of all letters and memos received during the public review period pertaining to the adequacy of the DEIR, and the response of the Lead Agency to these comments. Each pertinent written comment is coded in the right margin of the letter or memo. Responses of the Lead Agency to the various coded comments follow each letter. ■ A responses to oral comments section (section II.C), which includes a transcript of the public hearing held on September 14, 1992, and the written response of the Lead Agency to each public hearing comment pertaining to the adequacy of the DEIR. Each pertinent oral comment is coded in the right margin of the transcript. Responses by the Lead Agency to each coded comment follow the transcript. A. INDEX TO COMMENTS The following index is provided to assist readers in identifying (1) what DEIR issues were commented upon by whom, and (2) where responses to these comments can be found in this document. 5141FEIRIF--11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 4 Name/Agency Date Code Issues and Concerns Letters Received During the 45-Day Public Review Period. 1. James D. Messersmith, 9-8-92 1.1 Impacts and mitigation, wildlife resources Regional Manager; Floristic surveys California Department of 1.2 Kit fox information Fish and Game 1.3 Kit fox study 1.4 Required mitigation plan 1.5 Mapping of kit fox occurrences 1.6 2. R. Clark Morrison; 9-14-92 2.1 Cursory nature of environmental review Morrison & Foerster 2.2 Air quality impacts 2.3 Lake-related impacts 2.4 Risk of upset 2.5 Wetlands determination 2.6 Vernal pools 2.7 Sensitive plant species 2.8 Sensitive wildlife species 2.9 Kit fox habitat 2.10 Other wildlife species of concern 2.11 Future species 3. Ed Cornell, Chairperson, 9-17-92 3.1 Expansion of Sanitation District 19 Citizen's Advisory Committee; Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 19 4. Randall Hatch, 9-21-92 4.1 Traffic generation on Marsh Creek Road Community 4.2 Cumulative traffic impacts on Marsh Development Director; Creek Road City of Clayton 4.3 Widening of Marsh Creek Road 5. John Knight, Associate 9-23-92 5.1 Intersections of Highway 4 with Sellers Planner; City of Avenue, Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Brentwood Road 5.2 Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road intersection 5.3 Impact on Walnut and Vasco Roads 5.4 Highway 4 through Brentwood 5.5 Delta Expressway 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 5 6. Fred K. Specht, 9-24-92 6.1 Adequacy of drainage ditch Manager; Byron-Bethany 6.2 Existing BBID pipelines and structures Irrigation District within emergency access easement 6.3 Loss of agricultural land 7. Annamaria Perrella, 9-25-92 7.1 Sanitation district Sphere of Influence Executive Officer; Local amendment Agency Formation 7.2 Growth inducement Commission of Contra 7.3 Limiting development in flood prone Costa County areas 7.4 Levees 7.5 School impact mitigation 7.6 Discovery Bay wells 7.7 Sanitation District 19 service approval 7.8 Expansion of Sanitation District 19 7.9 Discovery Bay West fire station 7.10 County Growth Management Plan facilities standards 8. Sandra K. Rogers, 1417 9-30-92 8.0 No environmental points Marlin Place, Byron, CA 9. Gary F. Adams, District 10-1-92 9.1 Cumulative traffic impacts on Highway 4 CEOA Coordinator; 9.2 Caltrans improvements California Department of 9.3 Access to Highway 4 Transportation 9.4 Drainage impacts 9.5 Driveway connection to Highway 4 10. Alan R. Hyden, Director 10-1-92 10.1 Project streetscape of Forward Planning; 10.2 Picture on page 102 Centex Homes 10.3 Persons per household Letters Received After the 45-Day Public Review Period. 11. Christine Kinne, Acting 10-1-92 11.0 No environmental points Deputy Director; Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Permit Assistance 12. Lowell Tunison, Senior 10-1-92 12.1 Delta Expressway Civil Engineer; Contra 12.2 Capacity of Marsh Creek Road and Bixler Costa County Public Road Works Department, 12.3 Transit 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 6 Major Projects Division 12,4 Construction period circulation 12.5 Cost of construction period circulation plan . 12.6 Bond for road damage 12.7 Highway 4 intersections with Marsh Creek Road, Byron Highway, and Discovery Bay Boulevard 12.8 Fair share mitigation fee 12.9 Driveways on Bixler Road 12.10 Offstreet parking 12.11 Highway 4 roadway width 12.12 Drainage mitigation 12.13 Traffic impacts of future development on Highway 4 12.14 Additional traffic information Public Hearing Comments from the September 14, 1992 Zoning Administrator's meeting 1. Steve Cross; Bellecci & 1.0 No environmental points Associates 2. Clark Morrison; 2.1 Wetlands on the project site Morrison S Foerster 2.2 Vernal pools 2.3 Wetlands delineation required 2.4 Evaluation of impacts on the Tiger Salamander, Ferry Shrimp, Diving Beatles, and other species 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 7 B. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Reproductions of letters received during and after the DEIR public review period are included in the following section.' Each letter is immediately followed by the Lead Agency's response to substantive comments therein pertaining to the adequacy of the DEIR. Comments and responses are correlated by code numbers added to the margins of each letter. 'The public review period ended on October 1, 1992. Letters 1 through 10 were received on or before October 1. Letters 11 and 12 were received after October 1. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 8 5141FEIRIF-11.514 STATE OF rALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME I REGION 2 i 1701 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 93670 r ! ' r• . (916) 355-7020 September 8, 1992 Mr. James Cutler Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing-Forth Floor Martinez, California 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Cutler: The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Albers General Plan Amendment and Related Actions. The project is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 4 and Bixler Road near Discovery Bay in eastern Contra Costa County and consists of a plan to develop 296 single-family residences, as well as, commercial and professional offices on a 73.5-acre parcel. Wildlife habitat conditions on the project consist primarily of agricultural fields. Surrounding habitats include Discovery Bay, a large residential subdivision, and relatively large areas of agricultural lands. Agricultural crops include alfalfa, and pasture. There are remnant stands of Alkali scrub in many of the pastures near the project site. California Natural Diversity Data files contain records for the (Atriplex patula spp spicata) and (Delphinium recurvatum) . The DFG is also aware of a recent sighting of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulnes macrotis muticia) near the project site. The Draft EIR fails to adequately identify the project's 1.1 impact to wildlife resources. The EIR also fails to provide adequate mitigation for project caused impacts. We recommend that the EIR be revised to include the following: Sensitive Plants The Draft EIR identifies the presence of remnant native plant communities associated with alkaline soil types within the 1,2 project vicinity. The Draft EIR further identifies the presence of San Joaquin Saltbush (Atriplex patula sp spicata) on an adjacent parcel (Byron 87 ) . However, the Draft EIR discounts the potential for sensitive plants on the proposed project despite the presence of remnant stands of native vegetation on surrounding agricultural parcels and the fact that the project's floristic surveys were performed during an inappropriate time of year. Mr. James Cutler September 8, 1992 Page Two We recommend -that the EIR be revised to contain the results of floristic surveys which are designed to disclose the presence of any species sensitive plants that are likely to be in the project vicinity. Surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist during the appropriate time of year and should follow DFG's "Guidelines for Assessing Effects of Proposed Development on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities" (attached) . If sensitive plants are located on the project site and it is determined that the plant may be adversely affected by the project, then mitigation should be provided to protect it. San Joaquin Kit Fox The Draft EIR fails to provide information about the 1.3 project's potential for impacts to the Federally-listed endangered San Joaquin kit fox. The project vicinity contains remnant native habitats, compatible agricultural habitats, and a suitable prey base primarily ground squirrels (Snermonhilus beechevi) . The Draft EIR should be revised to contain the results of surveys designed to disclose the presence of the kit fox in the project information regarding the project's impact on the kit fox. We recommend that: 1 . The project be surveyed for the presence of kit fox using DFG survey methods which are included as Appendix E. of the Draft EIR. In addition to the methods outlined in DFG methods, we recommend that an additional six survey nights of baited-camera photo station be conducted on the project site. The photo-station survey should consist of a minimum of six individual photo stations operated for a 1.4 minimum of six nights. 2. If the project site is providing habitat for the kit fox, 1.5 then the Draft EIR should provide a means of avoiding impacts to the species. It it is not possible to avoid impacts to the kit fox, the Draft EIR should contain the details of a mitigation plan that is designed to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Any activity resulting in the loss of habitat, decreased reproductive success, or other negative effects on population levels of State-listed threatened or endangered species may be construed as "take" by the DFG. Take of a threatened or endangered species may be allowed after consultation with DFG (Fish and Game Code Section 2081 ) . The process involves a management plan entered into by the project proponent and the DFG which requires formalized mitigation to reduce the significance of the impact . The Mr. James Cutler September 8, 1992 Page Three mitigation plan should address impacts on a regional level and identify habitat preserve areas. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be consulted regarding "take" under Federal Endangered Species Act Sections 9 and 10A. 3. The Draft EIR should contain a map showing the project site in relation to all known observations of kit fox 1 .6 within the general vicinity of the project site. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092 and 21092.2, the DFG requests written notification of proposed 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 Mapes, Associate Wildlife Biologist, or Mr. Jerry Mensch, Environmental Services Supervisor, telephone (916) 355-7030 . Sincerely, tR D. esseersm ovalManager Attachment cc: Ms. Laurie Simons, USFWS 2800 Cottage Way, Room 1803 Sacramento, California 95825 Mr. Bob Mapes Department of Fish and Game Rancho Cordova, California Mr. Jerry Mensch Department of Fish and Game Rancho Cordova, California Stat! of Wifeirnia - THE RESOURCES AGENCY Department of Fish and Game May 1. 1981 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ON RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT CI)MMUNITIES The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental documents determine when a botanical survey is needed. who should be considered qualified to conduct such surreys. haw field surveys STrould be conducted, and what information should be contained in the survey report. 1. Botanical surveys that are conducted to determine the eenvironemental effects of a proposed development should be directed to all rare and endangered plants and plant communities. Aire and endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been 'listed' by state and federal agencies but should include any species that. based on all available data. can be shown to be rare and/or endangered under the following definitions. A species. subspecies or variety of plant is 'endangered'when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat. over- exploitation, predation, competition or disease. A plant is 'rare'when. although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens. Mare plant communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These communities may or may not contain rare or endangered species. The most current version of the California Natural Diversity Data Base's Outline of Terrestrial Communities in California may be used as a guide to the names of communities. 2. It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey to determine if. or the extent that. rare plants will be affected by a proposed project when: a. Based on an initial biological assessment. it appears that the project my damage potential rare plant habitat; b. Rare plants have historically been identified on the project site.but adequate information for impact assessment is lacking; or c. No initial biological assessment has been conducted and it is unknown whether or not rare plants or their habitat exists on the site. 3. Botanical consultants should be selected on the basis of possession of the following qualifications (in order of importance): a. Experience as a botanical field investigator with experience in field sampling design and field methods; b. Taxonomic experience and a knowledge of plant ecology; c. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species; and d. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to rare plants and plant collecting. 1. Field surreys should be conducted'in a manner that will locate any rare or endangered species that may be present. Specifically. rare or endangered plant surveys should be: a. Conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both 'evident' and identifiable. Field surveys should be scheduled (1) to coincide with known flowering periods. and/or (2) during periods of.phenological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. b. Floristic in nature. 'Predictive surveys' (which predict the occurrence of rare species based on the occurrence of habitat or other physical features rather than actual field inspection) should be reserved for autoecological studies, not for impact assessment. Every species noted in the field should be identified to the extent necessary to determine whether it is rare or endangered. c. Conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics. Collections of rare or susw.ted rare species (voucher specimens) should be made only when such actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of the population and in accordance with applicable state and federal permit regulations. Voucher specimens should be deposited at recognized public herbaria for future reference. Photography should be used to document plant identification and habitat whenever possible, but especially when the population cannot withstand collection of voucher specimens. d. Conducted using systematic field techniques in ail habitats of the site to ensure a reasonably thorough coverage of potential impact areas. e. Well documented. When a rare or endangered plant (or rare plant community) is located, a California Native Species (or Community) Field Survey Form or equivalent written fon,should be completed and submitted to the Natural Diversity Data Base. S. Reports of botanical field surveys should be included in or with environmental assessments, negative declarations. EiR's and EIS's. and should contain the following information: a. Project description, including a detailed map of the project location and study area. b. A written description of biological setting referencing the community nomenclature used, and a vegetation map. c. Detsiled description of survey methodology. ` d. Dates of field surveys. e. Results of survey (including detailed maps). f. An assessment of potential impacts. g. Discussion of the importance of rare plant populations with consideration of nearby populations and total species distribution. h. Recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. i. Lis: of all species identified. J. Copies of all California Native Species Field Survey Forms or Natural Community Field Survey Forms. k. Name of field investigator(s). 1. References cited, persons contacted, herbaria visited. and disposition of voucher specimens. Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 13 1. James D. Messersmith, Realonal Manaaer; California Department of Fish and Game 1.1 In response to this and subsequent more detailed comments, additional analysis and discussion of project impacts on common wildlife species and on wildlife species of special concern has been added in the form of errata to EIR section IV.H (see the section IV.H errata in part III of this FOR Addendum). 1.2 In response to this comment, a subsequent floristic survey of the project site by Charles Patterson, EIR Botanist, was completed on September 21, 1992. A letter summarizing the results of Mr. Patterson's supplemental botanical survey of the project site has been included in the errata section of Appendix E of this FEIR Addendum. Section IV.H of the EIR has been revised to include the findings of this survey. During this survey, Mr. Patterson looked for any late season species of potential concern, with particular attention to the possible onsite occurrence of the San Joaquin salt brush (atriplex patula spp. spiratta), Hemizonia, Cordylanthus, and Delphinium recurvatum. Mr. Patterson concluded that there are no natural saline or alkaline sink or scrub habitats, meadows, or perennial grasslands, i.e., none of the habitat conditions necessary to support these particular species, present on the site. As a result of his earlier analysis and this follow-up survey, Mr. Patterson has concluded that the proposed development of the site would have no direct adverse impact on sensitive plant species and would not affect any suitable habitat for such species. 1.3 The Draft EIR includes information about potential project impacts on the San Joaquin Wit fox on pages 198 and 200. In response to this comment, a more detailed field study of the potential habitat value of the project site for the San Joaquin kit fox has been completed by LSA Associates, Inc., in compliance with the Approved Study Methodologies for San Joaquin Kit Fox established by Region 4 of CDFG in 1990. The field survey included scent stations, spotlighting surveys, ground transects, and camera stations. The study found no evidence of kit fox on the site. It concluded that there is a low potential for the species to occur regularly on the site due to the potential competition by coyotes, the high volume of traffic on Highway 4 separating the site from the previously identified kit fox distribution area, the flat topography of the site, the lack of more rural grassland characteristics.onsite, and the site's peripheral location with respect to known distribution of the species. The conclusions of this study have been incorporated into the EIR errata for Section IV.H in part III of this FEIR Addendum. In addition, the original LSA study, titled San Joaquin Kit Fox Assessment, Albers Property, Contra Costa County, California, is included in the errata to Appendix E in this FEIR Addendum. 1.4 Six individual photo stations were included in the analysis. See Response to Comment 1.3 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 14 1.5 As described in Response to Comment 1.3, the potential for regular use of the site by the San Joaquin kit fox is low. The results of the LSA survey indicate that the project will not result in a significant loss of habitat, significant decrease in reproductive success, or any other significant negative effects on population levels of this species. No positive evidence of current San Joaquin kit fox activity was detected onsite by Charles Patterson or LSA. No mitigation plan is required. 1.6 The kit fox survey conducted on the site by LSA includes a map showing the site relationship to the approximate kit fox range. This report, titled San Joaquin Kit Fox Assessment, Albers Property, Contra Costa County, California, is included in Appendix F of the errata section of this FEIR Addendum. Historical occurrences of the kit fox in the project vicinity are described on page 12 of the survey report. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 l lLl, I.Ll C�_I P MORRISON & FOERSTER SAN FRANCISCO ATTORNEYS AT LAW NEW YORK LOS ANGELES WASHINGTON, D.C. SACRAME1-M PLEASE RESPOND TO: DENVER ORANGE COUNTY P O.BOX 6190 LONDON PALO ALTO WALNUT CREEK,CA 945968130 BRUSSELS SEATTLE HONG KONG 101 YCNAQO VALLEY ROAD,SUITE 450 70KYO WALNUT CREEK CA 915964095 TELEPHONE (510)295.33W DIRECT DIAL NUMBER TEL Emau4 nE (510)9469912 September 14 , 1992 (510) 295-3317 BY HAND DELIVERY James W. Cutler Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Re: Draft Environmental Impact ' Report for the Albers General Plan Amendment and Related Actions (the "Albers EIR11) Dear Mr. Cutler: On behalf of Byron 78, the owner of 78 acres of real property .(the IfByron 78 Property") located adjacent to the property covered by the Albers EIR (the "Albers Property') , we submit these preliminary comments on the Albers EIR. We will submit additional comments on the Albers EIR before the end of this month. I. Introduction As you know, Byron 78 has pending with Contra Costa County (the 'County") an application for a general plan amendment (County File No. 5-90-EC) to permit development on the Byron 78 Property of a mixed-use project. This project (the "Byron 78 Project") would include a shopping center, office and professional center, light industrial area and an RV and boat storage area. The approval process for the Byron 78 Project has taken over five years to date , requiring one comprehensive project revision and two environmental impact reports (including last-minute requirements for additional review of vegetation and wildlife resources) . While this process has been protracted and often frustrating, Byron 78 always has cooperated with the County's objective of ensuring a full and complete environmental review. MORRISON &FOERSTER James W. Cutler September 14 , 1992 Page Two Given the comprehensive planning and environmental review required for the Byron 78 Project, we were quite surprised by the cursory nature of the environmental review 2.1 conducted for the project described in the Albers EIR (the "Albers Project") . While both- the Byron 78 Property and the Albers Property are appropriate for development, we have discovered that many environmental 1.ssues (particularly those relating to wetlands and sensitive plant and animal species) must be addressed before development can occur in this area of the County. The Albers EIR fails to deal with these issues even though the County is quite aware that- they exist. Before the Albers EIR may be certified as adequate under CEQA, additional environmental review is necessary. Set forth below are a few issues that were required to be addressed in the Byron 78 EIR, and should be addressed in the Albers EIR as well. A more comprehensive list will be contained in our next comment letter. II. Environmental Issues That Must be Addressed. A. Air Quality. The Bay Area, which already exceeds certain air quality standards, is experiencing growth in population and vehicle use that will affect the regional emissions of pollutants. At a minimum, the 240 residential units and mixed-use center proposed for the Albers Property would contribute to cumulative air quality impacts and have significant localized impacts as well. The Albers EIR should demonstrate that regional emissions thresholds would 2.2 not be exceeded by the Albers Project. While the. Byron 78 EIR found that significant air quality impacts would result from development in this area, the Albers EIR does not even address the subject. B. Groundwater. The Albers Project would include 16-afire lake area. 2.3 According to the project description in the Albers EIR, "many of the (proposed) residential units will have frontage on the lake , allowing the opportunity for a variety of water-oriented uses." Given this development setting, project impacts on groundwater cannot be discounted without MORRISON & FOERSTER James W. Cutler September 14 , 1992 Page Three further study. We note that the Discovery Bay Property Owners Association requested in its NOP response that the Albers EIR address the question of adequate circulation of water in the lake. C. Risk of Upset. Risk of upset should be evaluated in tl�e Albers EIR 2.4 because the Albers Project would locate a service station on the site. Such analysis is contained in the Byron 78 EIR as a part of its "Hazardous Materials" analysis. No such analysis is included in the Albers EIR. D. Wetlands. The Albers EIR states there are approximately 15,600 square feet of drainage ditches present on the property which are potentially subject to Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction. It also states that "[a]side from the man-made drainage ditches, there are no wetlands on the project site" (Page 196; Paragraph 4 ) . Based on the information presented in the Albers EIR and our knowledge of the Byron 78 Property, we do not believe this statement is supportable. The Albers EIR notes that the site is underlain by Marcuse Clay, which is classified by the Soil Conservation Service as hydric. The text of the Albers EIR states that several plant species classified as facultative wetland plants are present on the property. Figure 25 maps several portions of the property as alkali scrub or remnant alkali scrub, potentially wetland habitat. All of these are indicators that wetlands may be present on the property and their possible extent cannot be determined without conducting a wetland delineation using the criteria contained in the Federal Wetlands Delineation 2.5 Manual. Because of the importance of this information on site use and design, it should be included in the Albers EIR. The presence of vernal_ pools or other wetlands on the 2.6 Albers Property cannot be dismissed by the fact that the Albers Property is a foot or so higher in elevation than the Byron 78 Property. As a practical note, the statement on page 199 that "issuances of a Nationwide Permit involves a relatively simple procedure" is optimistic at best. MORRISON &FOERSTER James W. Cutler September 14 , 1992 Page Four E. Sensitive Species. The Albers EIR gives only a very cursory treatment of the potential presence of sensitive species on the Albers Property or in its vicinity. The list of sensitive plant 2.7 species potentially present in east Contra Costa County contained in Appendix E is thorough, but the text discussion does not provide the supporting information needed to arrive at the conclusions shown in the table. This is primarily necessary for those alkaline-adapted species which recently have been reported in the general area or which grow in similar alkaline areas. This includes brittlescale (Atriplex parishii) , San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex patula ssp. spicata) , palmate-bracted bird's beak (Cordylantbus palmatus) , and hispid bird's beak (Cordylantbus mollis, ssp. hospidus) . The Albers EIR contains almost no information on 2.8 the potential presence of sensitive wildlife species. A table for wildlife species of concern comparable "to the potentially present plant species of concern was not included. The only text discussion on wildlife species of concern is a single paragraph on kit fox. This paragraph appears to disagree with the U.S. Fish and .Wildlife Service 2.9 opinion regarding the site suitability for the kit fox. It is also incorrect in stating that the site does not provide a "predatory base". The site is on the margin of the Service's mapped kit fox range, kit fox have been seen in the general area, and physically suitable habitat and an adequate prey base are present on-site. Supporting information is needed in :the text of the EIR to document why such conclusions were reached. As noted above, no mention of other wildlife species of concern potentially present, in the project vicinity is included. This information is necessary for 2.10 this document to be considered adequate. Two federal candidate species, the vernal pool branchinecta (Branchinecta lynchi) and curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus curvipes) , have recently been collected from the project vicinity. These species, as well as other potentially present wildlife species of concern (such as tiger salamander) , need to be discussed in the Albers EIR. MORRISON &. FOERSTER James W. Cutler September 14 , 1992 Page Five F. Impacts and Mitigation for Vegetation and Wildlife. The Albers EIR's "Impacts and Mitigation" Section is entirely hypothetical, and appears to rely almost exclusively on the need for future studies. As a result of 2.11 this, and the general lack of information in the- Environmental Setting section, an analysis of project impacts on biotic resources is not possible, and the need for specific feasible mitigation measures cannot yet be determined. III. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, we do not see how the Albers EIR can be certified as adequate under CEQA. The Byron 78 EIR suggests that there would be many environmental impacts associated with the Albers Project that have been ignored by the Albers EIR. In the interests of CEQA and its underlying policies, and as a matter of procedural fairness to Byron 78, the County should not certify the Albers EIR until additional review is conducted. Very truly yours, R. Clark Morris n RCM:ks cc: County Clerk Tony Udjur Al Compaglia Karen Bowers David A. Gold, Esq. Y82271 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County 11. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 6, 1992 Page 20 2. R. Clark Morrison; Morrison & Foerster 2.1 The EIR was prepared in good faith by the County in compliance with CEQA. The accusation that the document is "cursory" is inaccurate. The Draft EIR has been prepared with a significant degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. The Albers.EIR represents an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure. Please see responses to more specific comments below with respect to wetlands and sensitive plant and animal species. 2.2 At the time the scope of the EIR was being prepared, the Administrative Draft of the Byron 78 was available to county staff. This air quality impact analysis in the Byron 78 ADEIR provided a cumulative impact analysis which included the Albers project. Identified impacts included construction period dust impacts (which could be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of several construction period dust control requirements), and generation of regional emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter (which could be reduced through the application of Transportation Demand Management or Transportation System Management programs but not to less than significant levels). It was ndt considered necessary by county staff to repeat this analysis in the Albers EIR when sufficient information to provide reasonable conditions on the project was readily available in an EIR for a related development project. Instead, the Scope of the Albers EIR was limited to effects which were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the Byron 78 EIR. In response to this comment, the Final EIR errata includes clear reference to the pertinent Byron 78 EIR findings (see errata in part III of this document for EIR sections). 2.3 The EIR identifies and addresses a project design variation that includes a lake. This variation is described as Alternative F in section VI of the DEIR (pages 255-259). If the lake aspect of this alternative is to be included in subsequent project plans, prevention of potential groundwater impacts would be a basic engineering design requirement to be properly determined prior to Final Map approval. The applicant would be required to prepare prior to Final Map approval a limnologist report which identifies the specific design parameters to be addressed in the final lake engineering specifications in order to reasonably ensure against adverse effects on groundwater (i.e., to prevent leaching). The limnology report, and ultimately, the Final Map engineering specifications for the lake, would also be required to include design parameters and engineering measures that adequately address, to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department and Public Works Department, issues of structural integrity, water quality, algae and vector control, and safety. 2.4 The proposed project commercial land uses are clearly described on page 54 of the DEIR. No service station is currently proposed on the project site. The Initial Study of the project by county staff determined that project impacts related to "Risk of 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 4, 1992 Page 21 existing local and state regulations for any potential hazardous uses on the site. 2.5 The surveys of the site by the EIR botanist in May, July, and September of 1992 were conducted using the criteria contained in the Federal Wetlands Delineation Manual. The surveys determined that there are no wetlands on the site (with the exception of the drainage ditches). No evidence of soil or hydrological indicators were found on the site. Some facultative wetland plant species were found onsite but were found to occur in limited concentrations and in non-viable communities. The California Department of Fish and Game has commented on the adequacy of the DER (see letter #1 in this addendum). The DFG letter did not question the adequacy of the wetland aspects of the analysis. 2.6 No vernal pools or other wetland areas other than the drainage ditches were identified on the site. The height of the project site relative to the Byron 78 property does not prove that the project site has no additional wetlands beyond the man-made drainage ditches. However, the survey of the project site by the EIR botanist, which found no evidence of soil or hydrological wetland indicators, and limited occurrences of vegetation facultative species, does support this conclusion. The height of the site relative to the Byron 78 property is relevant in that it describes one of the several differences in the two sites which account for variation in the quantity and quality of environmental resources present. In response to this comment, the DER reference to the Nationwide Permit requirements on page 199 has been revised. 2.7 In response to this and other related comments, the discussion of potential sensitive plant species on the site on DER page 196 and .198 has been expanded in the errata section of this FEIR Addendum to further support the EIR conclusions relating to project impacts on sensitive species. Brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, palmate-bracted bride beak, and hespid bird's beak were all specifically looked for during three visits to the site by the EIR botanist. None of these species were found onsite. 2.8 In response to this comment, the discussion of existing sensitive wildlife species on the site on DER page 198 has been expanded in the errata section of this FEIR Addendum. 2.9 Since the completion of the Draft EIR, an additional evaluation of the project site for value to the San Joaquin kit fox was completed in compliance with the approved study method for the San Joaquin kit fox. This report (which has been incorporated into section IV.H of the FEIR errata and included in its entirety in the errata section for Appendix E) concludes that the site is not presently used by kit fox and that there is low potential for regular use of the site by the kit fox. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 6, 1992 Page 22 2.10 In response to this comment, a discussion of potential project impacts on these two sensitive wildlife species has been incorporated into the FOR errata for section IVA of the EIR. 2.11 Since the preparation of the Draft EIR, the impact and mitigation analyses conclusions have been supplemented by a third visit to the site by the EIR botanist and the completion of a detailed assessment of the site with respect to the kit fox. The EIR has also been revised to include a requirement for a USFWS-approved mitigation program for the curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle prior to county approval of the project Final Map. 5141FEIRIF IL514 Delta Diablo Sanitation District 3 OFFICE AND TREATMENT PLANT:2500 PITTSBURG-ANTIOCH HIGHWAY.ANTIOCH,CA 94509 TELEPHONE: (510)778-4040 ADMIN. FAX: (510) 778-8513 ENGR. FAX: (510) 706-7156 MAINT.FAX: (510) 778-8565 September 17, 1992 y Mr. James W. Cutler Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RELATED ACTIONS Dear Mr. Cutler: The Citizen's Advisory Committee of Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 19 supports the expansion of the Sanitation District No. 19 service area to provide water and sewer service to the Albers development, provided the following conditions are included as a mitigation 3.1 measure to the EIR process, or made a part of the tentative map approval process: 1. The developer shall install water and sewer facilities so as to provide an adequate level of service while simultaneously enhancing the performance, reliability, and operational characteristics of the overall Discovery Bay system, as determined by Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 19. 2. The developer shall pay appropriate annexation and connection fees as determined by Sanitation District No. 19. 3. The developer shall participate with other developers in the funding of an engineering study, which will be developed and administered by Sanitation District No. 19, to determine the best overall plan for servicing new developments. Please be advised that Delta Diablo Sanitation District is already in the process of soliciting proposals for the engineering study mentioned in Item 3, above. It is anticipated that the scope of the study and the level of services will be negotiated by November, 1992. We will present our recommendations to the County following District negotiations with the consultant. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me. d Cornell Chairperson Citizen's Advisory Committee Contra Costa County Sanitation Dist. No. 19 TSG:ds A political subdivision of the State of California.Provides Wastewater Treatment services to the citizens of Antioch.Pittsburg,and West Pmsburg. Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 24 3. Ed Cornell, Chairperson, Citizen's Advisory Committee: Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 19 3.1 Comments acknowledged. These conditions are generally consistent with the recommended mitigations set forth on DER page 180 and 181 relating to water service, and on DER page 184 related to sewer service. The specific requirement of funding an engineering study has been added to the discussion on EIR pages 181 and 184 within the errata section of this FEIR Addendum. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 .4� ,• , f 4 Fo+rrrded IZI 7 ro�forbtFd Z94�^' ~T 7rJr�bewrr P.O.BOX 280 CLAYTON,CALIFORNIA 94517 Cir?Corwril CrTr HALL (310) 672.3622 TELEP14ONE510J 1 672-3622 CommuN(Tr GatwRY J.MANNING.Mayo- Dsrtto►wsreT (510) 672.6690 WrLUArt R.WALcvrr.Vire EN4NuuNc (510) 672.9700 ROBERT C.KENDALL Ptus A.Lokuu.NCE t JtAN.R.MUSTO =r September 21, 1992 r C-- James Cutler Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 SUBJECT: ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COUNTY FILE #4-90-EC Dear Jim, I am in receipt of your Notice of Completion for the draft Environmental Impact Report for the above noted project. This DEIR involves the development of 73.48 acres in the Byron area of east Contra Costa County. The proposed project includes the development of: 296 single family detached homes; 12 acres for retail and service commercial uses; and 2.7 acres for medical office uses. I offer the following comment regarding the traffic affects of this proposal. The project is estimated to generate at least 2,960 trip ends per day with 296 peak hours trips. A portion of these trips will undoubtedly go to central Contra Costa County. Some of these central County destined trips will use Marsh Creek Road. Marsh Creek Road/Clayton Road runs through the heart of Clayton and is our major arterial. In our recently adopted Growth Management Element to the General Plan, Marsh Creek Road is identified as an environmentally sensitive transportation route which should not be widened beyond the existing two lanes. I do not have a copy of the DEIR to review the traffic analysis and therefore some of my comments may already have been analyzed. The DEIR should estimate the number of trips destined to central 4.1 County and should assign these trips to various roadways. An analysis of these trips ' affects on the roadways should be preformed with mitigation measures identified, as appropriate. 4.2 Any analysis of Marsh Creek Road must include the cumulative impacts of many such developments in east County. Mitigation measures to address these cumulative impacts must be proposed. In Clayton's view, any mitigation measures proposed for Marsh Creek Road must not include widening the roadway beyond one through lane in each direction. Clayton is deeply concerned with 4.3 increasing traffic on Marsh Creek Road as a result of east County development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this- environmental document. If you have any questions or need further information, please call me at (510) 672-6690. Sincerely, Randall Batch Community Development Director RB/lc cc: Planning Commission Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 27 4. Randall Hatch, Community Development Director; City of Clayton 4.1 The comments in this letter pertaining to the adequacy of the EIR were made without reviewing the Draft EIR. The commentor states that he "did not have a copy of the DEIR to review the traffic analysis and therefore, some of my comments may have already been analyzed." This is largely the case. The DEIR does estimate the number of trips destined to central county, does assign these trips to various county roadways, and does described related impacts and mitigation needs. As shown on DEIR Figures 15 and 16, the project would result in ten additional peak hour trips on Marsh Creek Road west c€ Highway 4 in both the AM and PM peak hours. Project impacts closer to Clayton would be considerably less. This level of impact would not be considered significant and does not justify additional analysis of the project in the Clayton vicinity. 4.2 The analysis of project impacts on Marsh Creek Road does include the cumulative impacts of other development in the east county. Cumulative traffic impacts are addressed in section IV.D.2.g of the DEIR. Cumulative impacts are assessed based on 2005 baseline traffic volume projections, plus consideration of two additional individual east county developments. Because project impacts in the Clayton vicinity would not be significant, a more extensive assessment of cumulative traffic impacts in the area was not considered to be appropriate for inclusion in this EIR. 4.3 Due to minimal project impacts described above in Response to Comments 4.1 and . 4.2, no mitigation measures for Marsh Creek Road in the Clayton vicinity have been proposed in this EIR. 5141FE/RIF--11.514 Albers General Pian Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County U. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1892 Page 28 5141FE1RIF-11.514 5 tT OF "ee a- C-ERFILTIOU September 23, 1992 Jim Cutler • Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, Fourth Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Cutler: Thank for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Albers General Plan Amendment (County File #4-90-EC). The City of Brentwood's concerns mainly relate to traffic created from this project and the impacts on the City of Brentwood and regional routes used by Brentwood residents and businesses. The City has the-following comments. 1. Study intersections: The traffic section in the DEIR studies several regional intersections on Highway 4 including Marsh Creek/Hwy 4, Bixler/Hwy-4, Byron Hwy/Hwy 4 and Discovery Bay Blvd./Hwy 4. The DEIR does not adequately address impacts on Hwy 4 at Sellers Avenue. Although not within the City of Brentwood, 5.1 this intersection is important for regional traffic traveling east from Brentwood. Due to the increasing number of commuters traveling south to Livermore, Tracy and other southern locations, it also seems appropriate to analyze the intersection of 5.2 Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road. 2. Regional Routes: There are several regional routes that the future residents of the proposed project would use that have not been adequately addressed. These are discussed below. a. Walnut and Vasco: Impacts on this regional route should be identified and 5.3 mitigated. In addition, the regional fee proposal should specifically address this route. b. Highway 4 Through Brentwood: Hwy 4 through Brentwood is currently 5.4 operating at sub-optimal levels of service at various intersections. Given that the Discovery Bay area has limited services and jobs, it is likely that many of the residents from this project will travel to and through Brentwood on Highway 4. This impacts on this route should be studied and mitigation measures identified. If this is part of the regional fee proposal, then this City Mall - 708 Third Street. Brentwood, California 94513 Administration Offices - (510)6346900 • Planning - (510)634.6905 Public Works - (510)634.6920 Building - (510)6346906 Fax - (510)634.6930 Police Department - 500 Chestnut Street, Brentwood. CA 94513 - (510)634.6911 • Fax . (510)634-6919 should be specifically addressed in that proposal. c. Delta Expressway: Future residents from this project will certainly benefit 5.5 from the future Delta Expressway. .Unfortunately, the Delta Expressway currently has no definite source of.funding. The project impacts and mitigation (ie: funding) for the expressway are not addressed in the DEIR. There should be specific mitigation measures and/or a fee which funds the expressway construction. The City is very interested in working with the County in establishing mitigation measures and funding mechanisms for regional roadways and intersections. The City of Brentwood looks forward to continuing to work with the County,in developing solutions to ,traffic problems in Brentwood and unincorporated Contra Costa County. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on this project Please send a copy of the Final EIR for this project when it is completed. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (510) 634-6905. Sincerely, John Knight Associate Planner Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County H. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 31 5. John Knight, Associate Planner; City of Brentwood 5.1 The intersections analyzed in this EIR were determined in consultation with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works, and the EIR traffic consultant. The scope of the EIR was designed to evaluate project impacts on Highway 4 intersections as far west as Marsh Creek Road. Project peak hour traffic volume impacts on Highway 4 beyond (west of) Marsh Creek Road are shown in Table 14 and Figures 15 and 16 of the DEIR. These exhibits indicate that: (1) the project contribution to AM peak hour traffic volumes on the northbound approach to the Highway 4/Sellers Avenue intersection would represent about a 15 percent increase over existing AM peak hour volumes; and (2) the project contribution to PM peak hour volumes on the southbound approach to this intersection would represent about a five percent increase over existing PM peak hour volumes. The mitigation section calls for fair share project contribution to signalization and widening improvements that are now, or will in the future be needed, at the Highway 4 intersections with Byron Highway (east of the Highway 4/Sellers intersection) and Balfour Road (west of the Highway 4/ Sellers intersection). These measures would serve to reduce project peak period impacts on the Highway 4/Sellers Avenue intersection. The EIR on page 146 also calls for the widening of Highway 4 to a four-lane arterial north of Marsh Creek Road as a fair share responsibility of the county, Caltrans, and all new developments in the area including the project, as a means of mitigating significant cumulative impacts on this segment of Highway 4. Implementation of this measure would address project contributions to cumulative future traffic impacts on the.Highway 4/Sellers Avenue intersection. 5.2 As shown on DEIR Figures 15 and 16, the project would result in ten peak hour trips on Marsh Creek Road west of Highway 4. This level of impact on the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Vasco Road would not be significant and does not justify additional analysis in the EIR. 5.3 As shown on DEIR Figures 15 and 16, the project would result in ten additional AM peak hour trips in each direction on Marsh Creek Road west of Highway 4. Project impacts on Walnut and Vasco Roads would be less. These levels of impact do not justify additional evaluation of these roadways in the EIR. See Table 14. 5.4 As explained in response to similar comment 5.1, the EIR describes project impacts on AM and PM peak hour traffic on Highway 4 through Brentwood (i.e., north and south of Balfour Road), and identifies a number of related fair-share mitigation needs, including widening of Highway 4 and the addition of signalization at the Highway 4/ Balfour Road intersection. The EIR specifically calls for project fair-share contribution to these cumulative roadway improvement needs (see DEIR pages 142, 145, and 146). 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 32 5.5 As stated on page 145 of the DES, local project contributions by local development projects, including the Albers project, to construction of the Delta Expressway would be most appropriately funded through the existing county traffic mitigation fee program for the East County area of benefit. As of this writing, the Delta Expressway remains unfunded and has no specific time schedule. In addition, the location of the Expressway tie-in with the existing local roadway system was as yet undetermined. As a result, the EIR traffic analysis has been conducted assuming no Delta Expressway, a conservative, "worst-case" approach. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 BYRON-BETHANY IRRIGATION DISTRICT E 3944 MAIN STREET • P.O.BOX 273 • BYRON,CALIFORNIA 94514 OFFICERS PHONE(510)634-3534 FAX(510)516-1239 JOHN J.CARVALHO CHARLES M.UZNAY-PRESIDENT DIRECTOR DIVISION NO 1 BETTY COMPILLI GERALD E.TENNANT SECRETARY/COLLECTOR/TREASURER 4�'�ON Cf C, - DIRECTOR DIVISION NO.2 LORETTA BORGES-ASSESSOR — rill'ITH SANTOS FRED IL SPECHT-MANAGER DIRECTOR DIVISION NO.3 MINASIAN,MINASIAN,MINASIAN t CHARLES M.UZNAY SPRUANCE,BASER,WITH i SOARES - . DIRECTOR DIVISION NO 4 ATTORNEYS '!�' ■•••�• �c~ CNARLESSPATAFOREJR. CH2M HILL-ENGINEERS A6E� DIRECTOR DIVISION NO.5 REGULAR MEETINGS MELD ON SECOND TUESDAY OF EACH MONTH AT 1:30 P.M September 24, 1992 County Administration Bldg 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ATTN: James W. Cutler, Asst. Director of Comprehensive Planning RE: County File #4-90-EC Albers DEIR Dear Mr. Cutler, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District has the following comments and requirements regarding the "Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Albers General Plan Amendment and Related Actions" : 1 . Runoff from the project site flows through an open drainage ditch on the east side of the site (within the Byron 78 property) to Kellogg Creek. This drain is maintained for irrigation water drainage by Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (Carvalho Drain) and according to statements made on the EIR, Section IV. E. Z .A. (2 ) would adequately handle "project generated runoff" increases . This drainage course normally handles regulated and controlled tailwater runoff during irrigation water applications and is not adequate to handle increases surface runoff due to residential and commercial development . (See Page No. 158 Table No. 22 which shows a 541% increase in runoff) . Arrangements will have to be made with Byron-Bethany Irrigation District by the developers, to improve the Drain's capacity and construct the conveyance structures needed to handle this increased runoff . 2 . The District owns, operates, and maintains pipelines and structures in the North/West corner of this project which will have to be removed and relocated in order to serve irrigation water to downstream waterusers . James W. Cutler September 24, 1992 Page two The "K" pipeline is approximately 10 ft. inside and runs parallel to the West property line for a distance of 1, 600 ± ft. The emergency access mentioned on Page 51 2 .a. "Vehicular 6.2 Access and Circulation" would use the majority of the District' s 33 foot wide easement for ingress and egress from this subdivision. Reinforcement or relocation of this pipeline will be necessary if the easement is to be used for any type of vehicular traffic even on an occasional or emergency basis . 3 . This project will result in a loss of what this District 6.3 considers to be viable agricultural land, and that soil limitations comments are exaggerated by the proponents and will result in a loss of revenue (water sales ) to this District. Although 73 .5 acres of existing ag land may not represent a significant loss of county ag resources, the cumulative effect on our Irrigation District is significant and has third party impacts which should be mitigated. If you have any questions please call me at (510) 634-3534 . Very truly yours, Fred K. Specht Manager Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 35 6. Fred K. Specht, Manner; Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 6.1 The EIR civil engineers (Questa Engineering) disagree with the comment that the drainage ditch east of the site within the Byron 78 property is not adequate to handle project-related runoff increases. This ditch currently handles regulated and controlled irrigation runoff and tailwater. Using a representative cross-section of the ditch, the capacity of the channel was calculated to be 234 cubic feet per second (cfs). The channel overall capacity could varyfrom 190 to 250 cubic feet per second (cfs), depending on the reach and specific size of the channel at different locations. During the winter "rainy" season when runoff from the project would be directed into this ditch, irrigation on nearby agricultural areas would not be occurring. Therefore the ditch would be allowed to convey the project site and surrounding storm water runoff without competition for capacity by irrigation water. Conservatively assuming a 600- acre watershed emptying into the ditch, the post-project and peak 25-year storm was determined to be 102 cfs, well within the 190 to 250 cfs capacity of the channel. The project drainage system would have to be designed to convey runoff to this ditch, but the ditch itself has adequate capacity to handle the increased runoff from the project. 6.2 Comment acknowledged. The "K" pipeline and easement is described on page 48 in the Project Description chapter of the DEIR. The statement that the easement would be abandoned is no longer accurate and has been removed from the text. In addition, a description of the need to move or reinforce this pipeline has been added to section IV.D, Transportation (pages 139 and 149), in the errata section of this FEIR Addendum. 6.3 Project impacts on agricultural resources are described on DER page 72. The EIR characterization of the site's value for agriculture is based on information provided by the University of California, Cooperative Extension, and on the US Department of Soil Conservation Storie Index rating of the site's soil as Grade 5, which indicates poor suitability for intensive farming due to drainage problems and soil alkalinity. The .opinion of the project applicant was not considered in this evaluation. The impact of the project on revenue to the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District is not considered to be an environmental issue which would be appropriately addressed in this EIR. The county may consider the fiscal impacts of the project separate from the EIR, when considering the project's overall merits. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 36 514IFEIRIF-11.514 LAFCO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OFCONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANNAMARiA PERRELLA.EXECUTIVE OFFICER 651 Pine Street,Eighth Floor (510) 646.4090 Martinez,CA 94553 Fanden -:vty Supervisor ' nael Menesinl •:TJinez Cay Council =n McNulty Rainey September 25, 1992 .b:it Member -.Toriakson :v_1 Supervisor i s B.Vilkema ..":Yetteeir>Courcil To: Jim Cutler ::)hCanciamilla Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning tM2te.Pittsburg council From: Annamaria Perrellay \iiladinovich Executive Officer ::crrzte;Public Member (Schroder Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) CountySuperviror Albers General Plan Amendment ------------------------------------------------------ Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR on the subject project. While the document addresses many issues of concern to LAFCO, areas which require further elaboration still remain. Additionally, prior to, or concurrent with, annexation of the site to Sanitation District 19, a sphere of influence amendment 7.1 to that District is required. The project proposes a commercial and residential development which is far more dense than the surrounding rural land uses, including the Discovery Bay project to the east. The growth-inducing impacts of this development appear to be glossed over in that pertinent section of the report. Will this project 7.2 induce the conversion of agricultural ranchettes to the north or to the similarly-situated lands to the south? Further, the site is located within a one-hundred-year flood plain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . One of the purposes of this Federal program is to limit development in flood prone areas so as to limit future flood damage and reduce advance tax dollars for damage costs should flooding occur. The impact overview on pages 155 and 156 summarizes a large range of concerns . The mitigation measures on pages 160 and 161 deal with minimizing the risk, but do not really deal with the Federal goal of limiting development 7.,' in flood prone areas . What levees protect this area and what level of protection do they provide should this be 7.4- true? .4true? - -2- Page 174 clearly states that the current school impact fees will not be sufficient to offset the cost of facilities . The mitigation on page 178 implies that applicants should go beyond the fee to provide their fair share of the cost of mitigation of school facility costs . This mitigation measure is written to generally be easily applied; it should be made more specific. 7.5 Since the DEIR states that the facilities for Discovery Bay were specifically sized to serve that project, the philosophic and engineering issues of providing new water and sewer services to serve a larger area beyond that community is an important policy issue. There have been newspaper reports that the wells serving Discovery Bay are silting up; is this true? How would 7.6 that affect potential water service? Have will-serve letters been secured from SD19? The discussion on water impacts states 7.7 the assumption of Discovery Bay being self contained. Has the SD19 Board dealt with the policy issue of expansion of Discovery 7.8 Bay facilities? Presumably, that would occur prior to requests for LAFCO action. Discussion of fire services on page 188 indicates the current response time is seven minutes . The proposed mitigation measure on page 189 discusses the need for a new fire station on Discovery Bay West. That project status is by no way assured. A new mitigation measure should be proposed for a close by or on site fire station and it should be made more specific, so that it could be considered by the County. 7.9 The relationship of this project to the County's Growth Management Plan facility standards should be summarized in one 7.10 table so the reader can easily determine compliance to those standards . AP/jc:th cc: LAFC Commissioners albers . Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 39 7. Annamaria Perrella, Executive Officer; Local Aciency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County 7.1 This comment is consistent with the DEIR discussion on page 184 of mitigations to offset sewer service related impacts. 7.2 The EIR authors disagree with the comment that potential growth-inducing effects have been "glossed over" in the DEIR. The DEIR adequately analyses and describes these effects of the project on page 263 and 264. Land use impacts on specific properties surrounding the project site are also described in section W.A. Land Use, on DEIR pages 71 through 75. Nevertheless, in response to this comment, additional text on the potential growth-inducing impacts on properties to the north and south of the project site has been added to page 264 of the EIR. No significant additional impacts are described beyond those identified in the DEIR. 7.3 The project is proposed within the designated 100-year floodplain boundary. In response, the applicants propose to include fill measures in the project grading plan to raise the development above the design flood. This approach appears to be the most feasible action available to offset project flood-related impacts. No federal or local requirement prevents such a development approach. 7.4 Levees are located in the project vicinity along Kellogg Creek (within the Byron 78 property), around Discovery Bay, and around Indian Slough, all of which separate the project from areas which are susceptible to flooding. The extent to which these levees protect the site is unknown, but is considered by the EIR hydrologist to be minor. Therefore, in response to this comment, the reference in the EIR mitigation to improvement of perimeter levees has been removed from the EIR. The potential long-term flooding hazards to the project due to sea level rise and/or subsidence would remain a significant unmitigable impact, as stated on DEIR page 161. 7.5 As stated on DEIR page 17, the recommended mitigation measures for school impacts would require the applicant to contribute or arrange for funding beyond the established impact fee authorized by the state. The mechanism for implementing such a requirement could, as the high school district suggests, be in the form of a Mello-Roos district. This mechanism could also be in the form of cash payment, land donations, or some other arrangement to be determined through negotiation between the school districts, the applicant, and the county. Further specification of this mechanism in the EIR, before such negotiation occurs, would be premature. 7.6 Comment acknowledged. As stated on DEIR page 180, the expansion of Sanitation District 19 would require District and LAFCO approval, plus an amendment to the existing Domestic Water Supply Permit by the State Office of Drinking Water. An engineering study would also be required. In comment.letter #3 in this FEIR addendum, the Delta Diablo Sanitation District Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) for Sanitation District No. 19 (i.e., the "board" referred to in this comment) states that it 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County 11. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 40 supports the policy of expansion of the District to serve the project, provided that the developer (1) installs facilities which would improve the overall Discovery Bay System, (2) pays appropriate annexation and connection fees, and (3) participates with other developers in funding an engineering studies to determine the best overall plan for serving new developments in the area. Compliance with these CAC conditions would result in the resolution of specific engineering problems, such as silting, within the existing system water supply wells. 7.7 See Response to Comment 7.6. 7.8 See Response to Comment 7.6. 7.9 The mitigation measure on page 189 indicates that a new fire station in the area is warranted to reduce response time impacts to less than significant levels.. The proposed station within the Discovery Bay West project could serve this purpose, and if and when it is constructed. In response to this comment, the language of the mitigation measure has been amended in the errata section of this FEIR Addendum to clarify that if tie fire station in Discovery Bay West is not available, a fire station at another location in the area would be required. 7.10 The following table provides the information requested in this comment. PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Standard Project With Mitigations Traffic -- LOS C no yes Water Sufficient Capacity no yes Sewer Sufficient Capacity no yes Fire Protection Fire station within 1.5 miles; or no yes automatic fire sprinkler system no yes Public Protection 155 square feet of sheriff's station per 1,000 population yes yes Parks 3 acres/1,000 population no yes SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 B rjc. 1417 Marlin Place ` Byron, Calif. County Community Development Department Re: Lakeviev Estates Hvy 4&Biter Road Dear Sir and Madam I just became avare of the proposed 288 home development to be located at the northvest corner of Biter Road and Hvy 4. While it is impossible for me to knovledgeably comment on the impact of such a development on Discovery Bay's eater, sanitation and school systems, I can comment on one other aspect of the proposed development. It must be recognized that many of us purchased property in the East County, in large part, because of its rural nature. We vere seeking to escape the traffic, traffic lights, strip malls, congestion and urban spravl of the Bay Area. What is nov being proposed is to turn Discovery Bay and its surrounds into another suburban community, vhich before long vill meld into Brentvood and be indistinguishable from the rest of the Bay Area. We such development may benefit the county's tax rolls, it seems pointless to allov developers to destroy the rural agricultural nature of the East County vith development that has no relationship to the Delta and could be located virtually anywhere in the Bay Area or the San Joaquin valley. What is the justification, other than tax revenue, for alloving a community to be built around a lake vithin less than a mile of the Delta's thousands of miles of vatervays. To destroy the rural nature of Byron vith such a development is to fail to recognize that there is enormous benefit to be derived from preserving areas vhich are primarily agrarian and do not mimic the crovded urban areas so endemic to much of Northern and Southern California. Very tr gy yours, Sandra K. Rogers Albers General Plan Amendment . Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 40 S. Sandra K. Rogers, 1417 Marlin Place, Byron, CA 8.0 This letter contains no comments relating to the adequacy of the EIR. No further response is necessary. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 10%01%92 09:98 %T415 904 9607 CALTR.Ns PLNG a4 IZ002 l MATE OF GUrOWA—a1131NEW, TRAhWOKATION AND HOUSING AGENCY pert WMSON, manor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KW zoo OAKLAND, CA VA42" ao WOE W&A"A TCP (019) ="454 October 1, 1992 CC-004-R44.37 SCH#90030476 CCO04234 Mr. James W. Cutler Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, N. Wing-4th Floor Martinez,Calif. 94553-0095 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the ALBERS GENERALt _PLAN AMENDMENT. •Amend the land use designation of approximately 74 acres from agricultural-residential and agricultural core. to single family residential (58 acres with 296 homes),commercial (12 acres) and medical office use (27 acres). The site is located in eastern Contra Costa County, northwest of the intersection of State Route (SR) 4 and Bbder Road. Dear Nir. Cutler-.. . The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has reviewed the above referenced document and forwards the following comments: The traffic data and other technical data provided in the DEIR only address the relative impacts resulting from the AIbers.General Plan Amendment, Discovery Bay West and a 44 Unit Subdivision located in Discovery Bay. In addition to these referenced projects,there are at least six other proposed major developments in this area (Brentwood Hills Country Club, Hancock Specific Plan, Blackhawk-?Nunn Project, Cowell Ranch, Lesher Landing, and South River Development), all within two miles of State Route 4. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEt ) should address cumulative traffic impacts on SR 4 for all the projects mentioned above. In reference to Planned Local Roadway System Improvements discussed on Page 117, this section seems to indicate that planned Caltrans improvements to SR 4 are considered mitigation for the impacts of this project. Caltrans projects Cannot be used to mitigate traffic impacts of the 9.2 proposed project OCT-01-1992 09:1d", 415 904 9607 P.002 rte. _� � � �� .�� _ __ ...r � • _.. V r1 �iVVV Cutler/CC004234 Octobcr 1, 1992 Page 2 Please be aware that SR 4 (currently a two-lane conventional highway) will be widened to four lanes from SR 160 to Cypress Road. Any,added ' capacity will be quickly decimated if responsible andcompatl�le developments are rot encouraged by Contra Costa County. With regard to Project Access Impacts on page 135,we concur that the proposed 9.3 . project driveways onto SR 4 would.represent a "signi iicanf safety concern." Prudent traffic engineering judgment recommends eliminating the Erst'cortnection (driveway) from the shopping area for the safety of the customers. To minimize conflict between local and through traffic Caltrans also recommends limiting access from the project to SR 4 to one intersection . The use of Bbder Road for principal project access would allow the use of an already channelized intersection. Please be aware that channelization will be required for all new intersections on SR 4- In order to accurately evaluate drainage, a preliminary drainage plan 9.4 including design discharge and.the drainage hydrology report should be provided. Any project related work within Caltrans right of way (driveway connections tc 9.5 'SR 4) will require an Encroachment Permit Before an Encroachment Permit can be issued a completed application, final environmental documentation and five (5) sets of plans should be submitted to the following address: Pernut Engineer Caltrans-District 4 . P.O.Box 7310 San Francisco, CA 94120 (415)5571954 We'look forward to reviewing the FEIR prior to certification. To expedite the review process,please send two copies in advance to the undersigned contact person for this agency at the following address: CHARY F. ADAMS District CEQA Coordinator Caltrans Dist.4 P.O.Box 23660 Oakland,CA 94623-0660 OCT-01-1992 09:38 415 904 9607 L - P.003 10/01/92 09:51 0415 904 960T CALTWS PLNG #4 004 Cutler/CC004234 ' October 1, 1992 Page 3 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 VY F. A AMS District CEQA Coordinator cc Nike Chiriatti, State Clearinghouse Susan Fultz,MTC . Sally Germain, ABAG OCT-01-1992 09:38 415 904 9607 P.004 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 46 9. Gary F. Adams, District CECA Coordinator; California Department of Transoortation 9.1 As stated on DEIR page 131, cumulative traffic impacts were estimated using 2005 baseline traffic volume projections from the county, plus specific consideration of two additional, individual, pending east county developments known at the time of the analysis.. The baseline volumes utilized were provided from another county-accepted EIR traffic study, and represented the best available information for projected cumulative traffic increases on Highway 4 at the time of this EIR analysis. 9.2 The description of planned Caltrans improvements on DEIR page 117 provides information on planned local roadway improvements relevant to the project setting. These improvement descriptions are in the "Setting" section of the traffic analysis, and thus are not considered to be mitigations, but rather are considered as part of the setting into which the project is proposed. Necessary mitigations to offset project impacts are described on DEIR pages 142 through 151. 9.3 This comment is consistent with and supports the recommended access-related mitigation measures described on DEIR pages 147 and 148. 9.4 The drainage impacts of the project are evaluated to the extent necessary for EIR purposes in section ME of the DEIR and in the associated responses to comments on that EIR section provided in this addendum. Additional review of detailed drainage system design would occur during county-established, post-EIR review procedures, if the proposed subdivision and commercial development advances beyond the general plan amendment stage. 9.5 Comment acknowledged. A reference to the required Encroachment Permit has been added to the description of project access mitigation requirements on EIR page 148. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 10 Pang. - CENTEX REAL 19WE CORP NO. CAUFORNIA WON N A VANOWY m Crrr C Woman Yrp an Ilb IN.IOq 8Y0 Esnp.. October 1, 1992 Mr. James W. Cutler Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street North Wing - Fourth Floor Martinez, California 94533 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) : Albers ' General Plan Amendment and Related Actions (County File #4-90-E6) Dear Mr. Cutler: We have reviewed the above cited DEIR; in general we have found it to be accurate and thorough. However, we have the following comments on some specific issues : I . Page 101 ( 2 .b. 1 ) and the top picture on page 102 , paints a much more negative perception of 10.1 the "streetscape" than would be the case. The proposed architecture includes a number of one- story elements, and other roof variations which will lead to a more interesting "streetscape" than what is being described in the DEIR. In 10.2 addition the top picture on Page 102 shows a "duet" project on lots with half the frontage ( lot width) of those shown on the Albers plan. 2 . Page 9, section la. (third paragraph) , the DEIR author states that higher density housing has been built in East Contra Costa County and therefore household size has increased. Again, in footnote #1, on page 84 , it states that they 10.3 are using an assumption of 3 . 0 persons per household for the Albers property even though the County-wide average is 2 . 71. These assertions and assumptions are not borne out by the actual data. In table 3 on Page 82, the household size (population divided by households) shows a household size decrease between 1980 and 1990 in the East County urbanizing areas, which are Brentwood ( from 3 . 04 to 2 . 88) and Antioch ( from 2 . 84 to 2 . 74 ) . 1855 Gateway Blvd., Suite 650, Concord, CA 94520, (510)827-8100 9 Fax (510) 827-8110 Mr. James Cutler Page Two 3. Page 200, Section 3.b.2. ; calls for a Kit' Fox study at the site. The enclosed Kit Fox study has been completed according to current USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game protocol; as partially described in this section. Please contact me if you have any questions about what is presented above. Very truly yours, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION Northern Cal ' fornia Division Alan R. Hyden Director of Forward Planning ARH/kdh cc: Lucia Albers Frank Bellecci, Sr.. Stehpen Cross Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 49 10. Alan R. Hyden, Director of Forward Planning: Centex Homes 10.1 The disagreement by the project applicant with the EIR's assessment of the proposed project design "streetscape" is noted. 10.2 Comment acknowledged. The picture on page 102 does show a street of duet homes which are not proposed in the project. Nevertheless, the project does propose long linear streets with repetitious building heights and setbacks, similar to those shown in the picture. 10.3 The DER uses a 3.0 persons per household figure to estimate conservative, worst- cast project impacts. While the countrywide household population average is 2.71,. the countywide figure includes all housing types, not exclusively three- and four- bedroom homes as proposed for this project. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County 11. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 50 5141FEIRIF-11.514 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, G GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 Oct 01, 1992 ' JAMES W. CUTLER CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET, N. WING MARTINEZ, CA 94553-0095 Subject: ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SCH # 90030476 Dear JAMES W. CUTLER: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Michael Chiriatti at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, • Christine Kinne Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County It. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 52 11. Christine Klnne, Acting Deputy Director; Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Permit Assistance This letter contains no comments on the adequacy of the EIR. No further response is necessary. 5141FE1R4F-11.514 12 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT :.. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: October 1, 1992 TO: Jim Cutler, Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning FROM: Lowell Tunison, Senior Civil Engineer, Major Projects Division SUBJECT: Albers General Plan Amendment, Draft Environmental Impact Report We have reviewed the DEIR for the Albers General Plan Amendment, and have the following comments and concerns: 1. On page 120, the DEIR indicates that because the location of the Delta Expressway is remote from the project, the Delta Expressway is not addressed in the study. As determined by the DEIR, the larger part of project traffic will use State Route 4 for access to points north and west of the project. However, as part of the overall concept for the Delta Expressway, certain roadways are planned to be upgraded as east-west connectors between the Delta Expressway and State Route Route 4. Marsh Creek Road will be one of these.connectors. The provision of an upgraded Marsh Creek Road, as a direct connector to the Delta Expressway, will result in a more attractive route for project traffic than the somewhat circuitous State Route 4 with its existing and future traffic constraints. The DEIR should therefore include a specific analysis of the Delta Expressway and its east-west 12.1 connectors, and their effect on project traffic distribution. Based on the above, a revised project traffic distribution must certainly see an increase of distributed traffic on Marsh Creek Road east of State Route 4, and on Bixler Road south of Marsh Creek Road. 2. On page 121, the DEIR has indicated that the above two segments of roadways can accommodate both existing traffic volumes and the assigned project traffic 12.2 volumes. We do not agree. Both of the roadways have substandard pavement widths, and one has no side shoulders. The County cannot approve the use of substandard roads for future project traffic without the construction of improvements in conformance with County standards. We anticipate a revised project traffic distribution pattern will emphasize the need for appropriate improvements to these two segments of roadways. 3. The discussion of transit service to the area, specifically to the project site, should 12.3 be expanded to include the potential benefits to be derived by transit usage of the Delta Expressway and its improved east-west connectors. The benefits would be further enhanced with the completion of the proposed BART extension to Pittsburg. 4. The proposed project construction period circulation plan (page 150), should 12.4 include provisions to restrict heavy construction equipment traffic to State Route 4. Should it become necessary for construction traffic to use local roadways, special provisions must be included. These special provisions may require sufficient pavement widening to decrease the potential hazards that could arise from unexpected encounters with heavy construction equipment on narrow roadways. Where existing pavement sections are inadequate for construction related traffic, those vehicles must be routed elsewhere. If this is not possible, the inadequate pavement sections must be replaced with sections designed for construction traffic loadings prior to construction traffic usage. Any damage to the roadways during the construction phase of the project must be replaced to the satisfaction of the County. These are project related impacts and the project applicant should be solely 12.5 responsible for the mitigation cost. It would not be appropriate for the county to pay for road work necessitated by project related traffic. The EIR should recommend the posting of a bond to assure the repair of any damage to local roadways and state highways caused by project related 12.6 construction traffic. 5. DRAFT EIR SUMMARY, PAGES 17 TO 20: Unless the Highway 4/Marsh Creek 12.7 Road, Highway 4/Byron Highway and Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard intersection signalization is included on the Countywide Area of Benefit, East County area project list, development in the area should be obligated to mitigate the impacts as thresholds of acceptable levels of service are reached. The Countywide Area of Benefit for the East County Area only finances the construction of specific improvements included on the project list for the Area of Benefit. Other improvements would not be mitigated by payment of that fee. The County is presently looking at formation of an area of benefit for road improvements in this area. However, until it is actually formed and the ordinance adopted it would not provide for mitigation of any of this project's traffic impacts. A fair share mitigation fee may be an equitable method of distributing the cost of the traffic mitigation obligation. However, it must provide for construction of the specific improvements when they are needed in order to mitigate the impact. If 12.8 a fair share mitigation fee is to be applied, the Draft EIR must also analyze when the improvements will be needed based on the phasing plan and anticipated development in the area. When it appears that specific improvements will be needed prior to provision of adequate fair share funding, pending developments should be conditioned to provide construction of those improvements with some form of a reimbursement agreement. 6. DRAFT EIR SUMMARY, PAGES 21 TO 23: The Draft EIR should also consider the potential for realigning the Bixler Road driveway with the Byrcn 78 proposal to the 12.9 east. A jog in these two access points could result in significant traffic impacts according to Page 135 of the Draft EIR. If on-street parking will not be provided, the applicant should be required to provide at least 6 off street parking places per unit with some additional shared 12.10 guest parking for large parties. Three car garages with parking outside of the right of way in front of the garages would take care of most of this impact. 7. DRAFT EIR, PAGE 138: The proposed 48-foot roadway would not accommodate 4 travel lanes since Caltrans now requires a 14-foot wide inside lane for high 12.11 speed traffic. 8. DRAFT EIR SUMMARY, PAGE 26: Mitigation for the anticipated increase in stormwater runoff is proposed to be payment of a $.35 per square foot of added impervious surface impact fee to fund regional flood control improvements. This mitigation should instead, consist of collecting and conveying all stormwater arriving at and originating on this property to the nearest natural watercourse or 12.12 adequate manmade drainage facility without diversion. This area does not have an adopted drainage area ordinance which could provide for installation of the required drainage improvements required for this development. Even if it did, the improvements would need to be constructed in a timely manner with development of this property. 9. The Draft EIR should address the impact of traffic from development of adjacent property further impacting State Highway 4, since this property is not proposing access to property to the west. Development of the property to the west will result 12.13 in more vehicles turning left onto State Highway 4 and left again into the shopping center area on the Albers property. Consideration should also be given to providing access to the property to the north to provide for better inter neighborhood circulation. 10. The Draft EIR should include the following additional traffic information: raw traffic information and the date it was taken; level of service calculations, and signal 12.14 warrant analysis. This information could be placed in an appendix instead of in the Draft EIR itself. This information will need to be reviewed further by staff. LT:sjw A:AL.BERSEA 0 CC: M. Avalon M. Lysons Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 56 12. Lowell Tunison, Senior Civil Enalneer; Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Malor Prolects Division 12.1 At the time the EIR traffic analysis was completed, no definite location or design of the Delta Expressway tie-in to the local roadway system had been determined. In addition, the construction of the Delta Expressway was at that time (and remains) unfunded, and its ultimate construction date is uncertain. As a result, evaluation of alternative traffic distribution patterns during the EIR review of individual projects was considered to be premature. 12.2 As shown in Table 14 and on Figures 15 and 16, project peak hour impacts on Marsh Creek Road and Bixler Road north of the project would be 10 and 20 vehicles, respectively. While the DEIR acknowledges (on page 109) that both Marsh Creek Road and Bixler Road do not currently meet county standards in some areas, the project incremental impact is not considered significant enough to require upgrading of these roadways. 12.3 Comments related to the benefits of transit are acknowledged. However, as noted in Response to Comment 12.1, it was considered premature to evaluate the potential effects of evolving Delta Expressway plans on individual projects at the time of the DEIR traffic analysis. The West Pittsburg BART station would be 25 miles from the project site and would not significantly affect project transit ridership. 12.4 Comment acknowledged. These recommendations related to construction period impacts have been added to page 150 of the FEIR errata. 12.5 Comment acknowledged. These recommendations related to the cost of implementing the construction period circulation impact mitigation have been added to the FEIR errata on page 151. 12.6 Comment acknowledged. This requirement relating to potential damage to the highway system has been added to the FEIR errata on page 151. 12.7 If project impacts on these intersections cannot be mitigated through the payment of a fair share impact fee, then the project would contribute to a significant unmitigable impact of the project. The responsibility for establishing such a fee mechanism lies with the County or the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 12.8 The timing of identified roadway improvements necessary to offset project and cumulative traffic should be linked to monitored intersection operation. The operation 514IFEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 57 of each identified intersection requirement improvement should be monitored as part of the project mitigation monitoring program, as required by AB 3180. 12.9 As stated on DEIR pages 148 and 149, this DEIR recommends that Albers and Byron 78 project driveways should be aligned. 12.10 As shown on DEIR Figure 6, project subdivision streets would contain two 18-foot wide lanes which would allow room for onstreet parking on both sides of the street. The DEIR recommends parking bays only in subdivision cul-de-sacs, which (as proposed) would not be wide enough to allow onstreet parking. 12.11 Comment acknowledged. The DEIR has been revised on page 138 and 148 to acknowledge this change in Caltrans requirements. 12.12 The payment of the $0.35 per square foot impact fee mitigation for project impacts was incorrectly included in the project summary, but does not appear in the DEIR text in section IV.E, Drainage and Water Quality. Reference to this fee in the Summary has been removed from EIR page 26 in the errata section of this FOR Addendum. Onsite collection and conveyance of drainage to the drainage channel on the Byron 78 project site would be included in the project design, as shown on DEIR Figure 5 and described on DEIR page 58. No other mitigation with respect to increases in stormwater runoff is included in the DEIR. 12.13 The property west of the project site on Highway 4 is not within the County's adopted Urban Limit Line and cannot be considered for urban development without a change in this line. Such a change would require detailed review and a general plan amendment. Potential development of this property is highly speculative and does not justify analysis of potential future traffic generation. The comment related to access to neighborhoods to the north is consistent with DEIR recommendations on page 75. 12.14 The cited CTG work sheets are available for public review at the offices of the Contra Costa Count Community Development Department, 4th Floor, North Wing, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California (contact: Lowell Tunison, Senior Civil Engineer, Major Projects Division, Contra Costa County Public Works Department). 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 58 5141FEIRIF-IL514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 59 C. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES A transcript excerpt from the segment of the September 14, 1992 Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator's meeting that included public discussion on the Albers DER is included in the following section. Substantive comments on the adequacy of the EIR from each speaker are coded in the right margin and are immediately followed by the Lead Agency's written response. Comments and responses are correlated by code numbers added to the margins of the transcript. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIIR November 3, 1992 Page 60 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Excerat taken from the September 14, 1992 Zoning Administrator's meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. County File #4-90-EC: This is a proposal to amend the County General Plan for approximately 74 acres from Agricultural-Residential and Agricultural Core to Single Family Residential-High Density, Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density, Commercial and Water. The site is located to the northwest of the intersection of State Route 4 and Bixler Road. The proposed project also includes rezoning, annexations, spheres of influence amendments and other entitlements necessary to allow the land to develop. (CT 3040.00) Turner: Staff do you have any report for Item #8. Cutler: Mr. Chairman if I could. As indicated this is a Environmental Impact Report public hearing and what we are requesting be closure date for comments for October 1, 1992. We have not received many comments yet. We anticipate we will receive a batch near the deadline. We are asking that you close the verbal public hearing portion of the testimony today and leave the public hearing open until October 1, 1992 which is the notice date for receipt of written comments and that you schedule November 9, 1992 at your afternoon Zoning Administrator meeting for decision on the adequacy of the EIR. Turner: Is there any one who wants to speak on Item #8, Environmental Impact Report for Albers General Plan Amendment, County File #4-90-EC? Please come forward. Steve Cross: Would you like to take testimony from the applicant? Turner: Sure. Steve Cross: I am from Bellecci & Associates. I represent Lucia Albers and Sintex Homes. For the past four to six months we have been preparing an Environmental Impact Report that addresses the issues identified in the initial study. The report has gotten through many gyrations and as.well as the plan design to meet the concerns of the Environmental Impact Report. There is a point of clarification that I would like to bring up and noticed as Multiple Family-Low and Multiple Family-Medium. It is actually a proposal for Single Family-High and Single Family-Detached between 7.4 and 12 units per acre. The average parcel sizes is 59- 50, so it will be well below any medium requirement. We would like to prepare comments and those comments will be submitted before October 1, 1992 well within the three week review period and then it will be before you if all goes well November 9, 1992 for certification of the EIR. As you know this is a General Plan Amendment so will go to the Planning Commission as well as the Board of Supervisors. So there will be a lot of opportunity to take further testimony from us as well as the public. If you have any questions specific to the EIR, I will be glad to answer them. Turner: Thank you. Any one else? z. Clark Morrison, Morrison & Foster: Good afternoon. We represent Byron 78, the owner of a 78 acre parcel located just across from the Albers parcel right across from Bixler Road. I am submitting for the record a preliminary comment letter on the EIR. I have three copies here. These are preliminary comments we expect to submit more before the end of the month. We have not completed our review of the EIR just yet. The Byron 78 acre site as I mentioned is located just across Bixler Road. It has been in the planning process for some five year now. It is on it's second environmental impact report at this point. We are coming near to the final stage. We are wrapping up wildlife studies right now as a matter of fact and, in fact, these wildlife studies started last spring. We have done wetland studies, we are in the process of doing Kit Fox studies and we have look at a number of other species that may or may not occur on the site. The Byron 78 project would be a mix use project including a shopping center, office and professional development, light industrial area, and a boat and RV storage area. As currently planned, the project on the Albers site would have a small shopping center similar to the one that is currently being considered for the Byron 78 site. Our main comment on the Albers EIR at this point is the lack of work that appears to have been done in the environmental review process, primarily relating to wildlife issues and also wetland issues as well. In the Byron 78 project, we had to conduct quite extensive studies to date including the wetland delineation that showed that one-third of the site is actually the jurisdictional wetlands subject to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting process. Now we know that the Byron 78 site is quite similar to the Albers site, separated only by a road. We not that they both have hydric soils. We know that they both have wetland plans of some form or another and we also have some indication that there may be wetland hydrology on the site. According to maps that are six years old which we have looked at. To some extent there seems to be some indication of historically at least ponding or saturated soils on the site. Currently, the Albers EIR concludes that apart from a couple of drainage ditches there probably no wetlands on the site. This statement we do not find supportable given the amount of information we have to date. We have heard from the County that the Albers site 1 probably doesn't have any wetlands because it is a foot or two higher in elevation than the Byron 78 site. In my experience and the experience of our consultants that should not make any difference at all as to the existence of vernal pools. So at this point we think that 2 additional study needs to be done before that EIR can be certified. Certainly a wetlands 3 delineation needs to be conducted and certainly additional wildlife studies needs to be taken care of. You should look for the Tiger Salamander, Ferry Shrimp, Diving Beatles, and host of 4 other species which are not even covered in the EIR to date. But the only indication that we have on wildlife in that EIR is the San Joaquin Kit Fox. We understand that there is some work being done on that at this point but I am certainly not that other species are at the extent that we think it would be necessary for certification. So in conclusion let me say that we know there probably are impacts on wetlands, we know there is impacts on wildlife, and in rare or sensitive plant species. We think to go with the EIR at this point would be premature. We need more information and the cost of deferring to later studies at this time for the Albers EIR may violate the principal set forth in some instance. So we think more home work needs to be done. We have done our own home work and know that there are impacts out there. Certainly these areas are developable, but we dont's know to what extent until actually these studies have been done. We do have our wildlife consultant here, Melcolm Sproul from LSA who can answer any questions you may have on the likelihood of these species or wetlands in this area. Thank you. 3. Turner: Thank you. Does any one else want to speak on this item? Would staff repeat their recommendation on this matter. Cutler: Mr. Chairman, we request that you close the public hearing, verbal portion of the processing and allow written comments through close of business at the County Community Development Department 5:00 P.M. on October 1, 1992 and further that you continue this matter for decision on the adequacy of the EIR until November 9, 1992 at 1:30 P.M. Turner: I'll go ahead and close the hearing on this matter and allow to October 1, 1992 for written comments and continue the certification in this matter to November 9, 1992. Transcribed by Alice Aceves, Senior Clerk on September 17, 1992 at 8:05 A.M. LTRXIV/albers.eir Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 64 1. Steve Cross; Belleccl & Associates No environmental points were raised by this speaker and, therefore, no further response is necessary. 5141FE1RIF-11.514 Albers General plan Amendment Final EIR Attachment Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR November 3, 1992 Page 65 2. Clark Morrison; Morrison & Foerster 2.1 See Response to Comment 2.5 in Section B of this FEIR, Responses to Written Comments. 2.2 See Response to Comment 2.6 in Section B of this FEIR, Responses to Written Comments. 2.3 See Response to Comment 2.5 in Section B of this FEIR, Responses to Written Comments. 2.4 See Response to Comment 2.10 in Section B of this FEIR, Responses to Written Comments. 5141FEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Attachmerr•.t. Contra Costa County II. Responses to Comments on the Draft EBR November 3, 1992 Page S 514IFEIRIF-11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County III. Errata November 4, 1992 Page 67 III. ERRATA This section includes EIR text revisions which modify or are additive to the Draft EIR. All such revisions to the Draft EIR are indicated with a "r" in the left margin adjacent to the revised line. 514 IFEIR IERRA TA.TL Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County Table of Contents November 3, 1992 Page III CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. EIR Purpose and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. EIR Scope--Significant Issues and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 r C. Incorporation by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 r D. Significance of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-A r E. Report Organization and Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-A II. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS . . . . . . . . A. Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 B. Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 D. Summary of Project Relationships to Adopted Plans and Policies . . . . 38 E. Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 A. Existing Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B. Basic Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 C. Proposed Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 D. Required Jurisdictional Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 E. Intended Uses of the EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATIONS A. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 B. Population and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 C. Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 D. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 E. Drainage and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 F. Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 G. Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 H. Vegetation and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 I. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 V. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 A. Contra Costa County General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 221 B. Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 C. Regional Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 5141FEIRICON-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County I. Introduction November 4, 1992 Page 3 5. Drainage and Water Quality, including project impacts on onsite and downstream drainage conditions, project impacts on water quality, and the site's susceptibility to flooding; 6. Geology and Soils, including the potential implications of the site's soils and geologic conditions for the proposed residential and commercial development; 7. Public Services, including project effects on local water, sewer, police, fire, public schools, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and child care services; 8. Vegetation and Wildlife, including project effects on the site's existing vegetation and wildlife values, and on possible sensitive, rare, or endangered plant or animal species; and 9. Noise, including the impacts of existing and projected noise levels along Highway 4 on the proposed development, and the impacts of noise generated by project traffic on existing sensitive land uses. r C. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE r Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines provides for incorporation by reference of portions of r another public document, including a description from another EIR of air pollution problems r that apply to the project. The air quality impact analysis in the EIR for the Byron 78 r General Plan Amendment and Related Actions, County File #5-90-EC, State Clearinghouse r #90030515, includes an air quality impact analysis which adequately identifies the air quality r impacts to be anticipated with approval of the Albers project. The analysis identifies r significant short-term air quality impacts for the Byron 78 project that also would occur with r the Albers project; i.e., construction period dust impacts. The analysis also indicates that r these impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of r several construction period dust control requirements. These construction period mitigation r requirements, as described on pages 99 and 100 of the Byron 78 EIR, are incorporated into r this Albers project EIR by this reference. r The Byron 78 EIR also provides an analysis of cumulative impacts on local and regional air r emissions which includes consideration of the effects of the Albers project. The analysis r identifies no significant long-term local impacts, but does identify significant, long-term r cumulative impacts on regional emissions on reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and r particular matter. The analysis indicates that these impacts could be reduced through r application of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System r Management (TSM) programs, but not to less than significant levels. These impact findings r and associated TDM and TSM mitigation, to the extent that these apply to the Albers r project as described on page 100 of the Byron 78 EIR, are hereby incorporated by r reference into this Albers project EIR. 5141FEIRV-8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County I. Introduction November 3, 1992 Page 3-A r The Byron 78 EIR.is available for public inspection at the offices of the Contra Costa r County Department of Community Development, County Administration Building, 4th Floor, r North Wing, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. r D. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS This.EIR describes potentially significant adverse project impacts and identifies corresponding mitigation measures. Where it is determi.ied in this report that certain impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, the EIR identifies that impact as "unavoidable." Section VII.B of the EIR, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, includes a summary list of all project impacts identified in this EIR as unavoidable. Impacts that are identified as possibly significant, but that are not identified as "unavoidable" (i.e., not listed in section VII.B), have been determined to be capable of mitigation to a point of insignificance by implementation of the associated mitigation measure or measures identified in this EIR. r E. REPORT ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT The information in this EIR is generally organized under the headings of the various significant environmental issues listed under section B above (land use, transportation, visual factors, soils and geology, etc.). The report describes the following in Section IV for each impact category: 1. the existing environmental setting; 2. significant impacts anticipated with the proposed project; and 3. suggested measures to mitigate anticipated significant adverse impacts. 5141FE/RI1-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary November 4, 1992 Page 26 c c Rf cc O C R7 01 Ct,_ J J CO (L(n c� � c aUi aoi aoi rn c a a a o �o � � y .. 3 L •a 'eo c 0 CL c vOi c ti v o ca cc �a m cam : vcc 0 � •o cc % 4) 1- 2 n� .6 � cco0 —.90 a� ccct8 cn- E cco E = Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description November 3, 1992 Page 48 permeability. The Soils and Geology section of this EIR (Section IV.E) describes these soil and other geotechnical characteristics in more detail. The Byron-Bethany Irrigation District holds a 33-foot-wide easement along the western property line from a point approximately 1,200 feet north of Highway 4, within the portion of the project site which protrudes north from the northwest comer of the property to Marsh r Creek Road. This easement contains a drainage and irrigation water distribution pipeline serving parcels to the north of Marsh Creek Road.' B. BASIC PROJECT OBJECTIVES The project sponsors, Lucia Albers and Centex Homes, have stated that their primary objectives are "to create and build a residential subdivision of production homes along with a neighborhood commercial center," which respond to a perceived near-term market in eastern Contra Costa County for "reasonably priced and well designed homes," and for more convenient neighborhood commercial and needed medical services. The intent is to construct in phases a residential component of varying single-family home designs, and an adjacent commercial center with a grocery or drug-variety store anchor, some miscellaneous secondary neighborhood-serving retail and service commercial businesses, and a medical office component.2 To achieve these objectives the applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment from Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Core to Single Family Residential High Density and Commercial. C. PROPOSED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Overall Development Concept The proposed project development plan is shown on Figure 5 (a reduction of the proponent's Tentative Map submittal). The proposed subdivision layout includes a 57.5- acre, 296-lot, single-family residential component, a 12.0-acre neighborhood commercial center component, a 2.7-acre medical-office component, and a 1.3-acre central park site. The 296 residential lots would be served by an onsite road system totaling approximately 'Letter from Fred K. Specht, Manager, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, to James Cutler, June 21, 1990. 2Memo from Alan Hyden, Centex Homes, to Wagstaff and Associates, January 8, 1992. 5141FEIRIIII-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation November 3, 1992 Page 138 driveways would be located at a sufficient distance from Bixler Road to meet this standard, although the most westerly driveway would be approximately 950 feet away (measured center line to center line). As a result, significant operational concerns would be created if one or both of these intersections were signalized in their proposed locations. (5) Access Drive Safety Concerns. The design of the proposed project entry street (S Parkway) entrance from Highway 4 is too narrow to allow for all possible turning movements which could occur at this location, resulting in significant safety impacts. (6) Adequacy of Proposed Highway 4 Widening at Proiect Intersections--Signalized. The project development plan (Figure 5) shows an existing 126-foot wide Highway 4 right-of-way along the project site frontage. The applicant is proposing to construct a new northern half of the highway along the project frontage, providing 48 feet of pavement (24 feet of existing pavement plus 24 additional feet of new pavement), a six-foot sidewalk with curb and r gutter, and nine feet of landscaping. This widening measure should be increased as r necessary to provide sufficient pavement to accommodate up to four travel lanes along the r north side of the Highway 4 right-of-way (i.e., two through lanes as per Caltrans r requirements, a separate eastbound left turn lane, and either a second eastbound left turn lane or a westbound right turn deceleration lane). Separate left turn lanes have been assumed in this analysis at the project access driveway intersections along Highway 4, due to the need to separate vehicles slowing or stopping while waiting to turn left from high speed through traffic. If appropriately striped and assuming signalization, the proposed 48-foot wide roadway surface would be adequate here for the existing plus project scenario (LOS B, B/C, or C), but inadequate for the cumulative scenario (LOS F). Also, the project developer is assuming that the 63-foot wide south half of the ultimate Highway 4 roadway cross-section would eventually be improved by either Caltrans or by the property owners on the south side of the roadway. This is not the usual process of providing widening along a public roadway (usually property owners on either side of a road. are responsible for an equal amount of widening). Since the project applicant is assuming that the existing Highway 4 roadway surface would be fully credited to the project side of the new highway centerline, this improvement approach could produce a significant financial burden on Caltrans or on the property owner on the south side of Highway 4 if future improvements are to be provided along the opposite side of the roadway. (7) Safety Impacts on Bixler Road. The applicant-proposed improvements to Bixler Road adjacent to the project are also shown on the development plan and tentative map (see Figure 5). The applicants would construct a 32-foot paved roadway, a four-foot raised median, a four and one-half foot sidewalk with curb and gutter, and five and one-half feet of landscaping, all to the west of the existing 18-foot wide Bixler Road surface. The county or the property owner on the opposite side of the roadway to the east (the Byron 78 site) would be responsible for improving the eastern half of the roadway, and would have the benefit of the existing paved roadway. 5141FEIRIIV-D-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation November 3, 1992 Page 139 The proposed four-foot wide raised median in the center of Bixler Road would need to be removed on the approaches to the shopping center driveways in order to provide enough width for left turn lanes; and the potential would still exist that northbound vehicles on Bixler Road slowing or stopped waiting to turn into the project commercial area could be rear- ended by high speed through traffic. Lack of left turn lanes in this location would produce significant safety concerns. North of the project commercial center, Bixler Road is proposed to have an 84-foot right-of- way. The project would construct 32 feet of pavement adjacent to and just west of the existing 18-foot wide roadway surface. Curb, gutter and sidewalk would also be provided. If appropriately striped, this section of Bixler Road north of the commercial center would have sufficient room for right and left turn lanes on the approaches to the project driveways. (8) Proposed Emergency Access. An emergency vehicle access connection would be provided between the project site (at the northwestern cul-de-sac) and Marsh Creek Road. Because this connection would add no regular traffic flow to Marsh Creek Road, it would result in no significant circulation impacts, but would be available for emergency use in the r event that the other access routes were blocked or closed. However, this propsed access r easement could result in significant damage to the existing Byron-Bethany Irrigation District r (BBID) pipeline (which is located within the route of the proposed access drive) due to the r weight of vehicles driving over the pipe. This potential for damage to the pipeline would r represent a significant impact. i. Prolect Residential Subdivision Internal Circulation and Parking The proposed project design (as shown on Figure 5) would have several internal circulation system impacts related to street widths, street layout, sight lines, distance between intersections, and other safety concerns. (1) Street Widths/Onstreet Parking. All residential subdivision streets and courts are proposed to have two through travel lanes with curbs, gutters and four and one-half foot wide sidewalks, plus five and one-half feet of area for landscaping on both sides of the roadway. The subdivision streets would have 10-foot wide travel lanes with eight-foot parking lanes on both sides of the roadway. The subdivision courts ending in cul-de-sacs would have eight-foot wide travel lanes and 8-foot parking lanes on each side, with 45-foot radius cul-de-sacs. Four to six homes would front on each cul-de-sac. All of these proposed internal subdivision street dimensions would meet county width requirements. However, a common problem with residential cul-de-sacs is that residents may have insufficient room for on-street parking between driveways. While this is not a significant impact of the project, onstreet parking could be improved if additional parking bays were provided in cul-de-sacs or project homes on cul-de-sacs included three-car garages. 5141FEIRIIV-D-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation November 3, 1992 Page 139-A (2) Street Layout. The project tentative map shows two relatively long stretches of straight or gently curving subdivision streets that would promote higher than desirable speeds for a 5141FEIRIIV-0-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation November 3, 1992 Page 148 Assumed Highway 4 Access Design Approach: This project access road, as proposed by the applicant, would have two inbound and three outbound travel lanes near Highway 4, and would narrow to a two-lane facility to the north of the first shopping center driveway. Turn Movement Delays/Distance Between Intersections. The following measures would be required to mitigate identified safety impacts related to turn movement delays and inadequate distances between intersections. ■ For safety, signal coordination/synchronization, and other operational purposes, restrict the project to one major intersection along Highway 4 (at S Parkway), located a minimum of 1000 feet from the signalized Highway 4/Bixler Road intersection (per Caltrans' standard) where all turn movements would be allowed. This would minimize the number of new full intersections along Highway 4, and would allow for optimal functioning of both intersections when signalized (e.g., synchronization). ■ Signalize this main intersection when warranted. These improvements would provide acceptable intersection operation (AM peak hour LOS B and PM peak hour LOS B/C. ■ Construct a raised median along Highway 4 from Bixler Road to the relocated S Parkway intersection to prevent left turns in and out of the project shopping center driveway. ■ The S Parkway connection to Highway 4 should be signed to indicate access to both the residential and shopping areas. ■ Provide deceleration lanes on each Highway 4 project driveway approach. Adequacy of Proposed Access Widths. Provide sufficient right-of-way along the Highway 4 site frontage to allow eventual provision of six through lanes, one right turn deceleration lane on each westbound approach to project accesses, dual left turn lanes on the eastbound approaches to Bixler Road and S Parkway, landscaping, and sidewalks. The project applicant, now and in the future, should be fully responsible for half of all additional paving along Highway 4 adjacent to the project site, regardless of which side of r the roadway centerline it is located. All project work within the Caltarns right-of-way would r require a Caltrans Encroachment Permit. (2) Access Drive Safety Concerns. The proposed design of the project entrance from Highway 4 (S Parkway) should be widened to allow for a left-turn lane, a through lane (for potential development across the street), and a right-turn lane. r (3) Proposed roadway widths should be amended as necessary to provide 14-foot wide r inside lanes on Highway 4 for high speed traffic. 5141FEIRIIV-D-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation November 3, 1992 Page 148-A r (4) Safety Impacts on Bixler Road. To reduce safety impacts on Bixler Road to less than significant levels, provide left turn deceleration lanes on the northbound approaches to all project driveways on Bixler Road as well as right-turn deceleration lanes on the southbound . approach to all project driveways. In addition, coordinate the site plans and driveway 5141FEIRIIV-D-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation November 3, 1992 Page 149 designs to optimize safe traffic flow between the Albers and Byron 78 developments proposed on either side of Bixler Road. Major driveways should be aligned to allow for eventual signalization coordination/synchronization, if warranted by future traffic volumes. r (5) Emergency Access. The existing BBID pipeline should be moved out from under the r proposed emergency access road, or reinforced as necessary to protect it from damage r from vehicles passing over the emergency access route, or the emergency access road r should be relocated such that it does not impact the existing pipeline. e. Prolect Residential Subdivision Internal Circulation and Parking Mitigations The following measures would reduce identified impacts of the internal circulation and parking aspects of the residential portion of the project to less than significant levels: (1) Street Widths/Parking. Proposed project street widths are adequate. However, consideration should be given to providing parking bays in the design of subdivision cul-de- sacs or the provision of three-car garages in cul-de-sac homes. This would relieve the problem of too little on-street parking within the subdivision cul-de-sacs. (2) Street Layout. Landscaped chokers, landscaped islands, use of more curvilinear roadways or other measures should be provided to reduce speeds on internal streets with long stretches of straight streets. Alternately, a finer web of streets with appropriate stop signage could be provided. (3) Sight Lines. On-street parking on the inside of the 90-degree curve on C Street should be prohibited. Parking along the south side of C Street on its eastbound approach to S Parkway should also be prohibited, and vegetation should be restricted in the northeast corner of the proposed park to preserve sight distances at this intersection. Alternatively, the intersection should be redesigned so that better sight distance is available. The design of "l_" Court should be modified to a minor street curve with adequate sight distance, or to a barbell "Tee" intersection. (4) Distance Between Intersections. The distance between the intersections of S .Parkway/C Street and the nearest C Street/Cul-de-sac intersection to the east should be increased to comply with county standards.. This could be accomplished by reversing the cul-de-sac and surrounding lot component (turning the component upside down on the site plan) so that it intersects D Street instead of C Street. (6) Other Safety Impacts. Adequate signing and striping at the S Parkway/B Street intersection should be provided to properly channelize drivers on the northbound S Parkway intersection approach. 5141FEIRIIV-D-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation November 3, 1992 Page 151. r Repairs to Vicinity Roadways. Repair any damage to the structural integrity of Bixler Road or Highway 4 resulting from construction traffic. Construction Worker Parking. Provide on-site parking for all construction workers. Fill Importation. The source(s) of fill for the site should have easy access to Highway 4 and/or to other roads where the additional truck traffic would not create significant noise, safety, or road maintenance problems. r Heavy Equipment. The transport and other use of heavy construction equipment should be r limited to Highway 4 if possible. If use of local roadways is deemed necessary, special r provisions (e.g., pavement widenings) may be required. Any damage to local public r roadways during the construction phase of the project shall be repaired to the satisfaction of r the County. All costs of any necessary project-related repairs shall be the sole r responsibility of the developer. 5141FEIRIIV-D-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County ME. Drainage and Water Quality November 3, 1992 Page 161 County Floodplain Management Ordinance provisions (87-65). The project meets the basic requirements for flood-proofing of the structures by establishing the building pad elevations at three to seven feet above the estimated 100-year flood elevation. Following project construction, the applicant should be required to apply to FEMA, through the Flood Control District, to have the project site taken out of the flood hazard area. In addition, any new sanitary sewer sewage systems should be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. r (2) Sea Level Rise/Subsidence. The potential long-term flooding hazards to the project r due to sea level rise and/or subsidence would be a significant unmitigable impact. As a condition of project approval, a procedure should be established by the project proponent for full disclosure to potential buyers of the potential for subsidence of the property over the long term. (3) Increase in Baseflood Heights. No mitigation required. c. Water Quality The following measures would reduce project related water quality impacts to less than significant levels. ■ The project site drainage system should incorporate grass-lined ditches and swales wherever practicable. These types of ditches have been known to reduce potential pollutants by the filtering action of the grass and filtration into the subsoil.' ■ The drainage system design shall incorporate measures for the control of street litter to minimize potential aesthetic impacts to downstream receiving waters. ■ The project shall apply for the necessary NPDES stormwater discharge permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. issuance of such a permit would be conditioned upon satisfactory treatment of short- and long-term erosion and sediment controls, and standard mitigation of typical offsite, non-point pollution (e.g., use of grease traps, wet detention, etc.). 'Grass Swales Prove Cost-Effective for Water Pollution Control. Kercher, W.C., J.C. Landon and R. Massarelli, 1983. 5141FEIRIIV-E-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services November 4, 1992 Page 181 to serve new development." In order to reduce project-related water service impacts to less than significant levels, project approval should be conditioned upon applicant design and construction of an expansion to the District. 19 water supply, treatment, and distribution system as necessary to meet project water service needs. The expansion design shall be subject to the review and approval of the District, LAFCO, and the State Office of Drinking r Water. This expansion design should be included in an engineering study, funded by the r project applicant and other developers in the area and administered by Sanitation District r 19. The study should determine the best overall plan for serving new development in the r project vicinity. To secure service from District 19, the project site would have to be annexed to the District's Sphere of Influence and to the District itself. It is most likely that some financial contribution to the district would be required, in addition to the cost of pipeline installation, to cover a share of start-up costs. No annexation fee has been established to date because District 19 was created expressly to provide service to Discovery Bay, which was approved as a self-contained project. No expansion of either the District or the Discovery Bay project was anticipated at the time that project was approved. In addition, the proposed water system must meet the fire flow requirements of the National Fire Protection Association and the East Diablo Fire District. The water supply system should be adequate to meet fire flow requirements with the largest pump out of service. Any new wells should be equipped with emergency power. The growth-inducing impacts of such an expansion of water service should be mitigated at the time of each subsequent project review. The total amount of water demands of the project should be reduced through incorporation of water conservation measures in the landscaping plan, and use of water saving fixtures. 3. SEWER SERVICE a. Setting (1) Project Site. As shown on Figure 22, the project site is located west of the service area boundary and sphere of influence of the Contra Costa Sanitation District 19. No sewer service is provided to the project site at this time. Currently, residents on and near the site along Bixler Road and Marsh Creek Road use individual septic systems for sewage disposal. (2) Existing and Potential Service Alternatives in Proiect Vicinity. As discussed above in the water service section, the Sanitation District 19 service area boundary and sphere of influence run contiguously with the Discovery Bay development, the western boundary of which is located approximately one-half mile to the east of the project. Expansion of this 5141FEIRIIV-G-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services November 4, 1992 Page 181-A sewer service area to include the project is the most feasible sewage disposal system available to the project. 5141FEIRIIV-G-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.G. Public Services November 4, 1992 Page 184 generate another 9,320 gallons per day, based on the population and employment estimates in section IV.B of this EIR (Population, Employment, and Housing). The project applicants propose to expand the boundaries of the existing Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19 as the most feasible. means to serve the project. County Health Services Department staff have also identified this proposal as the only option for sewage disposal service on the site.' To accommodate the added wastewater flows from the project and Byron 78 developments, the District 19 sewage collection system and treatment plant would require extension and expansion. Sewer lines would have to be constructed across (under) Kellogg Creek, and a pumping station would probably be required. The ability to expand the existing district to the west may be contingent upon the county's decision whether to allow the requested expansion to the adjacent Byron 78 proposal. This expansion is feasible; however, the project would have to secure the required land or necessary easements for construction of any necessary offsite sewer improvements (i.e., sewer lines, pumping stations, etc.). c. Mitigation In order to reduce project wastewater impacts to less than significant levels, the applicant should be required to design and construct an expansion of the District 19 sewer collection and treatment system adequate to meet the needs of the project. The proposed district expansion must be reviewed and approved by LAFCO. Before annexation into the District could occur, the District's Sphere of Influence would also have to be expanded to encompass the site. Some type of annexation fee to buy into the District would probably have to be arranged. Such a fee could be set to reflect the cost of expanding the sewage treatment plan to accommodate wastewater flows from the proposed project. It could also include a payment to cover the cost of some of the existing facilities. (Because expansion of the District beyond the boundaries of Discovery Bay has never before been considered, no fee policy has been established to date.) Expansion of the Discovery Bay wastewater treatment plant and any associated increase in effluent discharge from the existing facility must also be approved by the Central Valley Section of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Before expansion of the facilities may be approved, plans must be developed by the applicant which address collection, treatment, and conveyance to the treatment facility; disposal of project-generated sludge; potential expansion of operation and maintenance needs and facilities; and the mitigation of odors at any necessary sewage pump stations. 'Memo from Craig Smith, R.E.H.S., Sr. Environmental Health Inspector, Contra Costa County Health Services Department, dated June 20, 1990 to Jim Cutler, Chief of Comprehensive Planning. 5141FEIRII V-G-8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services November 4, 1992 Page 184-A r These plans should be included in an engineering study, funded by the project applicant r and other developers in the area and administered by Sanitation District 19. This study r should determine the best overall plan for serving new development. 5141FEIRIIV-G-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.G. Public Services November 4, 1992 Page 189 time impacts. These other methods of capital improvement financing may require use of voter approved mechanisms and/or other legislative authorizations.' c. Mitigation (1) Response Time Impacts. According to the EDFPD, the creation of a new fire station in the area is warranted to reduce project and cumulative response time impacts to less than significant levels. A new station site is included in current Discovery Bay West GPA r plans which could address this need. As a condition of approval, the project should be required to provide, to the satisfaction of the fire district, its fair share of those local fire and emergency medical service facilities, equipment, and apparatus costs which will not be covered by Fire Facilities Element Fees from the project. This contribution could be applied towards the potential future new fire facility in Discovery Bay West, if that project is r approved, or to another fire station in the project vicinity. In addition, the East Diablo Fire Protection District states that all project commercial buildings shall be protected by fire sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard #13. Given the response time deficiencies associated with this project, the project should be required to also protect all project residential buildings by fire sprinkler systems, unless project-related responsibilities in meeting the local fire facilities, equipment, and personnel upgrade needs identified in this EIR are addressed to the satisfaction of the fire district. (2) Personnel and Equipment Impacts. As a condition of approval, the project should be required to provide, to the satisfaction of the EDFPD, its fair share of those local fire capital improvement and personnel needs which will not be adequately covered by Fire Facilities Element Fees or Benefit Assessment Fees from the project. The fire district has also specified the following additional specific provisions to ensure adequate fire suppression, fire protection, and emergency medical service: ■ The project will be required to provide water storage and delivery facilities capable of a fire flow of 4,000 gallons per mirute, with a duration of not less than four hours for all commercial structures, assuming they are sprinklered throughout; a fire flow of 3,000 gpm, with a duration of not less than three hours for all office structures, assuming they are sprinklered throughout; and a fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute with a duration of not less than two hours for all residential development. The size and design of the water system, and the location of associated fire hydrants, must be established in accordance with Insurance Services Offices (ISO) requirements and would be subject to EDFPD approval. 'McCarthy; February 25, 1992. 5141FEIRIIV-G-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife November 3, 1992 Page 196 r (1) Plant Species. The site has no remaining natural habitats or true plant communities, but consists rather of a disturbed, non-native environment with crops and weeds as the predominant vegetation. There are no native trees or other significant woody vegetation onsite (with the exception of a very few individuals of a woody saltbush in the extreme northeast corner as shown on Figure 23). Virtually all of the existing vegetation is either part of the hay production operation or is common agricultural weeds. The site currently supports a typical mixture of common pasture grasses (Avena, Bromus, Hordeum, Lolium), broad-leaved he,bs (Phacelia, Erodium, Hypochoeris, Rumex), and weeds (Centaurea, Polygonum, Cirsium, and others). There is also a moderate representation of salt-tolerant weeds, herbs, and grasses (Atriplex, Beta, Hordeum, Heliotropium, Distichlis, Frankenia, Bassia), plus a few individuals of a woody "saltbush" (Sarcobatus) along the banks of the man-made ditch in the extreme northeast corner of the project site. The presence of these species indicates a somewhat saline or alkaline soil, and may represent weedy remnants of a once natural saline meadow or sink community on r the site. Remaining salt-tolerant species are shown on Figure 23. However, there is very little left of such a community and there are no indications that such a natural feature has been present here for some time. In summary, the historic and/or recent use of this property has completely altered whatever natural terrain and vegetation was historically present. A complete plant list identifying those species currently identified on the site is included in Appendix E of this EIR. r (2) Wildlife Species. There may be infrequent use of parts of the site for foraging by r common raptors, and there may be occasional visits by waterbirds seeking local irrigation r and drainage ditches, but none of these species would find significant resources on this r site. Past ditching and draining, disking and grading activities have generally limited the r value of the site as a resource for wildlife. ' Nevertheless, the site continues to be utilized r by more common species of reptiles, birds, and small mammals. Species identified on the r site include Western Fence Lizard, Gopher Snake, Pied-billed Grebe, Great Egret, Green- r backed Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron, Turkey vulture, Black-shouldered Kite, Northern r Harrier, Red-tailed Hawk, American Kestrel, Killdeer, Mourning Dove, Barn-Owl, Burrowing r Owl, Anna's Hummingbird, Barn Swallow, Cliff Swallow, Scrub Jay, American Crow, r Northern Mockingbird, Loggerhead Shrike, Western Meadowlark, Virginia Opossum, Desert . r Cottontail, Black-tailed Jackrabbit, California ground squirrel, Mouse sp., Dusky-footed r Woodrat, Muskrat, Red Fox, Coyote, Striped Skunk, and housecats.' r 'San Joaquin Kit Fox Assessment, Albers Property, Contra Costa County, California, LSA r Associates, Inc., 1992. 5WFEIRUV-H-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife November 3, 1992 Page 196-A c. Sensitive Features (1) Vegetation. As described above, the broader local area probably contained some mixture of alkaline meadow, valley grassland, and possibly even some saline/alkaline vernal pools at one time, but no conclusive evidence of such features were found on the site. Recent surveys of the Byron 78 site opposite Bixler Road from the site have identified the San Joaquin salt bush, and have documented the possibility of extensive jurisdictional wetland.' Soils on the project site are virtually unmottled and without hydric indicators. Although there are some indications on the project site of possible historic seasonal wetland conditions (Atriplex, Distichlis, Frankenia), there is no evidence of prolonged surface inundation or soil saturation. Aside from the man-made drainage ditches, there are no wetlands on the project site. 'Letter report from David J. Hartesveldt, H.T. Harvey and Associates, to Suzanne Lampert, Mundie and Associates, January 31, 1992. 5141FEIRIIV-H-8.514 t �. pit.6Al s4.. wr i ►w ' � tj.. �i N Q� tee•r•+s.: ,�•• y;`,... ... d U=1 X(d .._ .. � _.■. eo MIll tt fj Q ru :r ..:�: • � r401's? �, .�:to»�!• f } ~ . i i�: •. r ,• W E 1' :i l • ► C an Im •,fi'�?�rr��'�•� 'i:�i#Kf; � i��` 4t'7�. ,�; fi�rrt5ls�rrs ! . .mss-::.+.-..:+4w:w�•Y� .....:... �..... �� ..* s � � ..:i.•p■._::�P►..�s� .._'.. . �.�� tea ...w.•+.r•r = -. �. � ; :. SAW wool ` ...cam.-rr.:�_.��.-+�wRt.W"�'fr....�.-�,+++� .. • t.�� LLJ 1 ' 1 f Q. L` 4•i �' .. T Q d cis Cl) O cl Co 7@8 T2 Cl) to 31 W m w� ��is�� ' N LL „ a a (1) oo CM CO) Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife November 3, 1992 Page 198 While there are a number of sensitive plant species known from this region,' it is highly unlikely that any of these species find suitable habitat on the project site. Plant species known from regional vernal pools, meadows, and clay soils are not expected on this site based on the lack of suitable habitat, plus the annual disking and hay harvesting that has occurred. No unusual plants or habitat conditions were found during the field survey of the site. All plants encountered were identified to genera that are only represented in the region by common species: r (2) Wildlife. The project vicinity is known to include a number of sensitive wildlife species, r including the California tiger salamander (Ambrystoma Califomiese), the California red- r legged frog (Rana aurora draytonil), the northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata r marmorata), the southwestern pond turtle (C.m. pallida), ionghom fairly shrimp (Branchinecta r longiantenna), vernal pool branchinecta (Branchinecta lynchl), California linderiella r (Linderiella occidentalis), red-headed sphecied wasp (Eucerceris ruficeps), the curve-foot r hygrotus diving beetle (Hygrotus curvipes), Moestan blister beetle (Lytta moesta), Molestan r blister beetle (Lytta molesta), Giant garter snake, Swainson's Hawk, San Joaquin pocket r mouse, tri-colored blackbird, western spadefoot toad, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike: r California horned lark, and San Joaquin kit fox.2 However, few of these species have been r found in the project vicinity or would find suitable habitat on the project site. The tiger r salamander and the three species of fairy shrimp would not be located on the site due to r the lack of vernal pools. The burrowing owl is unlikely to find suitable habitat on the site r due to the annual :disking and hay harvesting on the site. In addition, no burrowing owls r (which are not known as a secretive species) were spotted on the site during the various r surveys for vegetation and wildlife species. The two species of pond turtles may be found r in nearby Kellogg Creek, but would not find suitable habitat on the project site. Likewise, r no suitable habitat is present on the project site for the California red-legged frog. In r addition, two of its predators are abundant in the vicinity, further limiting its likelihood on the r site. No sandy soil or dune habitat would be available for the red-headed sphecied wasp, r and no barren or heavily grazed areas are available for the California horned lark. No r western spade-foot toads are likely to be found on the project site due to their preference r for locations closer to the Inner Coast Range, and the Giant garter snake is unlikely to be r found as far west as the project site. The San Joaquin kit fox, a California Threatened and Federally Endangered species, has r been spotted on two occasions in the project vicinity; the closest spotting was two miles r south of the project site.3 A survey of the project site for occurrences of San Joaquin kit r fox conducted according to the Approved Study Methodologies for San Joaquin Kit Fox 'A list of sensitive plan species in the region is available as Table 1 in Appendix E. r 2Responses to Comments, Final Environmental Impact Report, Byron 78 General Plan r Amendment and Related Actions, September 1992. 3Hartesveldt, 1992. 5141FEIRIIV-H-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife November 3, 1992 Page 198-A r established by Region 4 of the California Department of Fish and Game, concluded that the r project site contains low potential for occurrence of the kit fox in terms of regular use. No r evidence of kit foxes was detected on the site, although there is a potential for species to r be found on the site. Prey is available and one potential den is present; however, the r potential competition by coyotes, the high volume of traffic on Highway 4 separating the site r from the previously identified local kit fox distribution area, the flat topography and lack of r rural grassland hillside characteristics, and the site's peripheral location with respect to r known distribution of the species, all reduce the likelihood of the kit fox using the site. d. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdiction As shown on Figure 4 of this EIR, the site contains approximately 1.2 miles of irrigation and drainage ditches which are approximately 2.5 feet wide in most locations, and thus represent approximately 15,600 square feet (0.36 acres) of the channel area. Potential governmental jurisdiction over these ditches is addressed below. (1) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) administers a program to regulate discharges of fill into "waters of the United States," which includes not only recognizable waterbodies, such as rivers and lakes, but also "wetlands." The determination of what is a "wetland" and thus what areas are subject to COE controls has long been a source of controversy, and to some degree has been left to the discretion of individual regulators using set COE criteria. Even though drainage ditches in the project area are virtually all man-made and are 5141FEIRIIV-H-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife November 3, 1992 Page 199 surrounded by disturbed land, some can be presumed to be within the jurisdiction of the COE, based on current criteria and practice. The criteria used by the COE to determine whether wetlands are present are the existence of hydric soils, wetland plants, and water. Given the type and quality of the onsite ditches, the fact that the ditches appear to function purely as agricultural drainage ditches, are less than half an acre in area, and do not appear to replace former wetlands on the site, any alterations of the ditches (fill, etc.) would probably be covered by the Corps general Nationwide Permit No. 26 and would not require a specific Section 404 Corps permit. For non-tidal wetlands involving less than ten acres of fill, there are a number of "Nationwide"permit types which provide for many kinds of r activities involving small amounts of fill. Issuance of a "Nationwide"permit involves a less r complex procedure relative to the Section 404 Corps permit, provided that 14 specific environmental conditions are met that demonstrate a less than significant impact. (2) State Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has jurisdiction over any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream, under the Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1603. Grading that would alter an "ephemeral stream" such as the onsite drainage ditches cannot be initiated until a Standard Streambed Alteration Agreement is executed between the CDFG and the applicant. 2. IMPACTS a. General Habitat and Vegetation Impacts Project impacts on vegetation would generally include the loss of common pasture grasses, salt-tolerant weeds, herbs, and grasses, and a small amount of native plants which are scattered across the site. Loss of these plants would not result in a significant adverse impact. A small amount of low quality wildlife habitat would be lost, but no wildlife species would be significantly affected. These impacts may minimally contribute toward regional declines in overall habitat available to wildlife, but would not constitute significant adverse biological impacts. b. Sensitive Features (1) Vegetation. Because the EIR site surveys were undertaken in the months of January and May, there is a small possibility that sensitive plant species associated with alkaline meadow, valley grassland, or saline/alkaline vernal pools have survived the agricultural uses and practices on the site, but were not identified during the site survey. The potential location of these remnant communities is shown on Figure 23. If these plants do exist on the site, construction of the project as proposed would result in significant adverse impacts to these sensitive plants. 5141FEIRIIV-H•R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County W.H. Vegetation and Wildlife November 6, 1992 Page 200 r L2 Wildlife. Of all of the sensitive wildlife species identified in the setting section as r potentially occurring in the project vicinity, the curved foot hygrotus diving beetle, the r Swainson's Hawk, the San Joaquin pocket mouse, the tri-colored blackbird, the two species r of blister beetle, and the loggerhead shrikes are the seven species which are likely to be r found on the site. Construction of the project as proposed would remove potential habitat r for these species from the site. r Impacts to the tri-colored blackbird and the loggerhead shrikes would not be considered r significant because the site lacks potential nesting habitat for these species, and suitable r habitat for this species is abundant elsewhere in the region. Impacts to Swainson's Hawk r would not be considered significant due to the lack of good foraging habitat on the site and r the lack of sitings of this species in the east county area. Likewise, potential impacts to r San Joaquin pocket mouse and the blister beetle would not be considered significant due to r the abundance of suitable and better habitat elsewhere in the vicinity. r One species, the curved foot hygrotus diving beetle could have suitable habitat on the site; r i.e., in the project drainage ditches. The removal of such habitat as a result of project r construction could result in a significant adverse impact on this species. c. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictions The project development plan would appear to require filling or alteration of some segments of the existing drainage ditch system surrounding the site periphery for construction of roads, sewer, and other common infrastructure. Subsequent development of the individual project residential lots, the commercial area, and the office component may require additional fill or alteration of some drainage ditch segments. Potential jurisdictional implications of these drainage ditch modifications are described below: (1) USACE. The proposed project drainage ditch modifications may require issuance of a USACE "Nationwide" permit, a relatively simple procedure, provided that 14 specific environmental conditions are met that demonstrate a less than significant impact. (2) CDFG. The drainage ditch modification aspects of the project grading plan may involve alteration of an "ephemeral stream," and thus may be subject to CDFG jurisdiction. The CDFG may determine that the project grading plan cannot be initiated until a Standard Streambed Alteration Agreement is executed between the CDFG and the applicant. 5141FE/RIIV-H-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife November 6, 1992 Page 200-A 3. MITIGATION a. General Habitat and Vegetation No significant biological impact has been identified. No mitigation is required. b. Sensitive Features r (1) Vegetation. No significant biological impact has been identified. No mitigation is r required. r (2) Wildlife. Given the finding that the drainage ditches on the project site could provide r suitable habitat for the curved foot hygrotus diving beetle, a candidate for Federal listing as r threatened or endangered (Federal Category 2), the applicant should be required to submit r a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved Albers project mitigation plan for the beetle prior r to county approval of the project Final Map. This measure would reduce project impacts, if r any, on this species to less than significant levels. 5141FE/RUV-H-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions November 3, 1992 Page 264 (3) Precedent Setting Effects. Expansion of the Discovery Bay sewer and water system (Sanitation District 19) to serve the project would probably facilitate approval of the other two proposals or vice versa. In addition to this project, Byron 78, and Discovery Bay West, another approximately 134 acres of developable land are available within the urban limit line within the project vicinity. This acreage is located on the east side of Bixler Road between Discovery Bay West and the Byron 78 project. The County Community Development Department staff has indicated that this acreage will be idicluded in the Discovery Bay West general plan amendment application, should that application go forward. Approval of the Albers project and related infrastructure extensions and improvements could ultimately facilitate development of the Byron 78 and/or Discovery Bay West project, as well as the additional 134 acres included in r the Discovery Bay West general plan amendment application. Properties directly to the r north of the project site, just west of Bixler Road, which are also located within the Urban r Limit Line, are less likely to be developed due to existing parcelization, multiple property r owners, and the existence of several rural residences on these properties. Nevertheless, approval of the proposed Albers project and related service district expansions would contribute to the trend toward urbanization of the Highway 4 corridor in east Contra Costa County, would make it more difficult for county decision-makers to deny similar future general plan amendment proposals north of the project within the Urban Limit Line. r Property west and south of the project site could not be developed without a revision to the r County's Urban Limit Line. While this general plan change is possible, it is unlikely to occur r unless it was considered as part of a comprehensive revision of the general plan. The r lands to the west have significant value as agricultural lands and the lands to the south are r across a major physical divider (i.e., Highway 4) from any other land within the Urban Limit r Line in the project vicinity. B. UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE ADVERSE IMPACTS If the proposed project were subject to effective implementation of all mitigation measures recommended in this EIR, certain significant adverse impacts of project buildout would remain unavoidable, and in some cases irreversible. The conclusions of this EIR with respect to unavoidable or irreversible impacts are listed below: 1. Land Use. No significant unavoidable impacts identified. 2. Visual Factors. The project visual change would result in a significant, unavoidable, incremental impact on the rural and open space character of the Highway 4 corridor in East Contra Costa County. 5141FEIRI VII-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conciusions November 3, 1992 Page 264-A 3. Transportation. No significant unavoidable impacts identified. 4. Drainage and Water Quality. The potential for flooding of the project due to subsidence of the project vicinity over the long term would be a significant unavoidable impact. 5. Geology and Soils. The potential for flooding of the project due to subsidence of the project vicinity over the long term would be a significant unavoidable impact. 5141FE/RI Vll-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions November 3, 1992 Page 265 6. Public Services. Until a funding program is implemented to make up the difference between existing school impact fees and the true cost of school expansion necessitated by development, the project could directly result in an unmitigated, significant adverse impact on Byron Middle School, and would contribute to an unmitigated significant cumulative adverse impact on local elementary, middle school, and high school capacity. 7. Vegetation and Wildlife. No significant unavoidable impacts identified. 8. Noise. Temporary construction period noise impacts on adjacent properties could be reduced substantially by the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR, but could not be reduced to less than significant levels; i.e., would be significant and unavoidable. The impact of projected cumulative offsite traffic noise levels on existing residences along highway and arterial road segments in the project vicinity, with or without the project, would also be significant and unavoidable (i.e., no feasible mitigation program has been identified in this EIR). r 9. Air Quality. As indicated in the Byron 78 EIR sections incorporated into this EIR by r reference (see section I.0 on page 3 of the Albers project Draft EIR), the project would r contribute to significant cumulative adverse impacts on regional air quality (i.e., emissions of r reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter which exceed the r established thresholds of significance). This EIR also incorporates mitigation (TSM and r TDM) measures from the Byron 78 EIR which would serve to substantially reduce these r impacts, but not to less than significant levels. C. SHORT-TERM VERSUS LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY In keeping with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for EIR content, those plan impacts which narrow the range of long-term beneficial uses of the environment due to short-term interests must be identified. Long-term impacts of the Albers project would include the replacement of agricultural land and open space with urban development. Although the crop-growing potential of the site's clay soils is limited due to poor drainage qualities and strong alkaline characteristics, the site has a demonstrated potential for forage crop production. Development of the proposed project would eliminate any feasibility of restoring earlier agricultural uses of the property, or for any other utilization of unrealized agricultural potential. The proposed development would also limit the potential of the site for other future beneficial uses, such as parkland or affordable housing. 5141FEIRI VII-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions November 3, 1992 Page 265-A D. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Contra Costa County, in its Initial Study of the project, determined that a number of possible environmental effects would be insignificant or could be adequately addressed by county staff in the development review process without further environmental assessment in this report. These Initial Study determinations (Environmental Checklist Form) and associated explanations by county staff are included in Appendix A of this EIR. These insignificant effects include: 5141FE/R1 Vll-R.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Final EIR Contra Costa County Appendix E November 3, 1992 APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE INFORMATION 5141 FEI R1 X-APP-R.514 Charles A. Patterson FQ Plant Ecologist 1806 Ivanhoe,Lafayette,CA 94549 (1CT I (510) 938-5263 j 61992 September 30, 1992 Mr. Brian Dolan Wagstaff and Associates 2550 Ninth Street, Suite 205 Berkeley, CA 94710 Re: Supplemental botanical survey of the'Albers'study area Dear Brian: I have completed a supplemental botanical survey of the Albers site in Brentwood,looking specifically for any late season species of potential concern. In particular, I looked for San Joaquin saltbush (Atriplex patula spp.spicata-also referred to as A.joaquiniana),an annual plant associated with saline habitats in and around the greater San Joaquin Valley.This plant is currently on List 3 ('Plants About Which We Need More Information')of the California Native Plant Society's inventory of rare plants in California(Smith and Berg 1988),but has no official status with either state or federal agencies. It is a Category 2 candidate for possible federal listing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,and couldbe considered a possibility for state listing if current trends continue. My overall investigation of the subject property has included site visits on January 31,June 10, and September 21, 1992. Because of the site's almost complete conversion to agriculture(graded, disked hayfield,pasture,and/or cropland),the potential for rare plants occurring here was originally assessed to be very low.The site has been substantially altered from its natural state and has been both graded for cultivation and drained by typical agricultural (linear,man-made) ditches.The current vegetation is largely annual grassland, forage grasses, and common weeds (with scattered beets). A thorough examination of the site in January was sufficient to determine the overall vegetation character and to identify most of the species present. Supplemental surveys have been conducted, however, to check for seasonally relevent species (i.e., in early June for late spring and wetland species, and again in September for saltbushes and other late season plants such as Hemizonia and Cordylanthus). There are no natural habitats left and there is minimal native vegetation in the study area. However, because of the site's low elevation and close proximity to the Delta,the local soil is at least semi-saline and still supports a dispersed representation of native salt-tolerant species such as saltgrass(Distichlis), alkali heath (Frankenia),fat-hen(Atriplex patula ssp.hastata),and occasional iodine bush(Allenrnlfea) along the northeastern ditch, in addition to common weeds (Salsola, Hordeum, Heliotropium, Sida, Polygonum m4culare, Beta, and Atriplex semibaccata). While there may have been some saline habitats of interest on the site prior to modern conversion to agriculture(including possible habitat for any of several species now regarded as rare or endangered), such conditions (if they did in fact exist here) have been completely eliminated through historic use of the property.There are no natural saline or alkaline sink or scrub habitats,no meadows,nor any perennial grassland.The current terrain of the site is almost level and drainage from the site has been facilitated by the construction of peripheral ditches. There is no particularly suitable habitat for such species as Delphinium recurvatum or any other saline habitat endemics,and there are no "remnant native plant communities"as referred to in the Fish and Game letter of September 8.The only native plant material present occurs as scattered native species within the agricultural mix,and all of the site's natural habitat conditions have been completely eliminated Based on the series of site visits, the study area has been determined to contain no plant species of concern.While the survey dates were spread across the spring and summer period,they were adequate to identify virtually all plant species encountered. In fact,based on the initial site visit in late January, approximately 90 percent of the species present were identified at that time based on dried stalks and 1 Supplemental botanical survey, 'Albers' EIR -9/30/92 new vegetative growth. The supplemental surveys conducted in June and September confirmed the general conditions on the site,added a few weedy species to the site's inventory,and failed to find any additional occurrences of any native species of interest. Any sensitive alkaline or saline habitat species would have been in relatively good (identifiable) condition during one of these visits,but none were found. Dr. Dean W. Taylor of Biosystems Analysis was enlisted to make a determination of several specimens of Atriplex found on the site,and all were identified as the common A.patula ssp. hastata (to be renamed A. triangularis in the upcoming Jepson Flora).The Fish and Game letter also states that San Joaquin saltbush was reported(in the Albers EIR) as occurring on the adjacent Byron 78 site. As far as I can report, this has not necessarily been confirmed, but was based on a statement made last winter by one of the Byron 78 project's consultants to the effect that this species may be present and would need to be re-investigated to be sure. While the site may have historically contained some form of seasonally moist saline meadow or perennial grassland,the current graded terrain and ditching,plus long term land use have effectively eliminated any natural habitat conditions that might have occurred here.There are no vernal pools or other natural wetlands,nor is there any significant native grassland or scrub.Rather,the current native plants that are present are recent volunteers and/or persistent descendents which have recolonized the site or have persisted in spite of the agriculturally oriented management.They are still present largely because of their salt tolerance,but not because of any true remnant natural habitats. Further,because the vast majority of the field is regularly disked, these species tend to be found primarily along the site's fencelines and ditches. Even the current presence of a few Allenrolfea plants along the main north edge ditch are not true 'remnants' persisting in uncultivated habitat, but are simply new individuals that have reinvaded the berms along the ditch. In summary, the Albers site has very low potential to support any of the regionally known plant species of concern and no such plants were encountered during detailed site examinations. Based on the complete historic conversion of this site to agriculture, there is no longer any natural habitat left (although there is still the natural soil salinity as a vegetation factor), and only the more disturbance-tolerant and saline adapted species are to be expected.The proposed development of this site would have no direct adverse impact on sensitive plant species,would affect no suitable habitat for same,and vegetation resources in general represent minimal constraints. I hope this letter provides you with the information you need for this project. Please feel free to call, however,if you have any questions or wish to discuss this project further. Sincerely, P'LA(c PJZ�� Charles A. Patterson 2 Supplemental botanical survey, 'Albers' EIR-9/30192 E SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX ASSESSMENT ALBER'S PROPERTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA September 29, 1992 Prepared for: Centex Homes 1855 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 650 Concord, CA 94520 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Pt. Richmond, California 94801 (510) 236-6810 LSA Project #CH0203 I LSA AuodWes,Int TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 f INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 } PURPOSE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 REGULATORY CONTEXT 2 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 California Department of Fish and Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4E STUDY METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 PRE-FIELD INVESTIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 FIELD SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Scent Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Spotlighting Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Ground Transects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Camera Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PLANT COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 iRESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX BIOLOGY AND REQUIREMENTS . . . . . 10 Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Pups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Den Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE IN PROJECT VICINITY . . . . . . . . . 12 FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Scent Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Spotlighting Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Ground Transects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Camera Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 REPORT CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 APPENDIX. VERTEBRATE SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE ALBER'S PROPERTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 09/29/92(BACH0203\S1KF.R'T ii LSA Associates.Inc- LIST ncLIST OF FIGURES PAGE i 1 - Project Location and Kit Fox Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 - Scent and Photo Station Locations and Potential Dens . . . 6 3 - Spotlighting Route Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 LIST OF TABLES PAGE A - Results of Scent Station Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B - Results of Spotlighting Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C - Results of Photo Station Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1 0929/92(B:\CH0203\SSJKF.RP7') ill LSA Assodates,Inc i1 SUMMARY No evidence of kit foxes was detected on the Alber's property during this survey. Suitable habitat exists for the San Joaquin kit fox on at least part of the project site. Known prey species were observed and potential dens are present. The nearest known record of kit fox in the site vicinity is 2.5 miles south. The northern edge of the USFWS mapped distribution of San Joaquin kit fox is roughly defined as Highway 4, which forms the southern border of the Alber's property. The project site, while possible kit fox habitat, is peripheral in terms of the actual distribution of the species. The conclusion of this study is that there is a low potential for the Can Joaquin kit fox to occur on the project site in terms of regular use. l I 09/29/92(B:\CH0203\sJKF.RPT) 1 1 INTRODUCTION J PURPOSE OF STUDY J This survey assessed whether the Alber's property is used by the San Joaquin j kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) conducted this biological assessment. PROJECT LOCATION The project site comprises approximately 73.5 acres located in eastern Contra j Costa County and lies 1.5 miles northeast of Byron, California (Figure 1). It is on the USGS Woodward Island and Brentwood quadrangles (7.5 minute series), located in T. 1 N., R. 3 E, Sections 34 and 35. The site is bounded by Highway 4 to the south and Bixler Road to the east. REGULATORY CONTEXT As illustrated in Figure 1, the project site is located on the northern edge of the kit fox's range as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1990). The San Joaquin subspecies of the kit fox is listed by the USFWS as endangered and by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as threatened. 1 U. S Fisb and Wildlife Service The USFWS has jurisdiction over formally listed threatened and endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act. The act protects listed I species from harm or "take," which is broadly defined as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." An activity is defined as "take" even if it is unintentional or accidental. Violation of the Endangered Species Act places the individual or company in jeopardy for both civil and criminal penalties, which may include fines and imprisonment. An "incidental take" permit may be issued by the USFWS allowing take under certain circumstances. For projects with a federal lead agency, an incidental take can occur under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. For projects without a federal lead agency or on land that is not administered by the federal government,an incidental take permit may be issued under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act upon approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). An HCP examines in detail the biology and distribution of federally listed and candidate species and methods to conserve the species while allowing development. 09/29/92(BACH0203\SJKF.RP`) 2 t: r I� t ! it \ \�''k • i • M !•i � •�\\l�'k •yam\ \\*>��\ `. ,ti�•{+�.� pc'.a ;:::j:i�u.::\:`A'u\cu';\:+\ti�u`Vlil{��•+.+ } t+1'\ `ih�`;-.�>K'v-Y.\`}.'�u'��`T'vii• _ Mv . i LSA AssadzUeA/nc An "incidental take" permit is not required of projects that avoid take of endangered or threatened species. To qualify, the project must include measures to avoid, reduce, or offset adverse effects to target species during construction and subsequent operation. In order to ensure that this will be the case, the project sponsor may submit a request for a technical review of I the project to the USFWS prior to initiation of construction as part of an informal consultation process. California Department of Fish and Game T=ie CDFG has jurisdiction over state-listed threatened and endangered species. The state and federal lists are generally similar, although a few species present on one list may be absent on the other and vice versa. CDFG's jurisdictional requirements are essentially similar to those of the USFWS. i f 0929/92(B:\CHO203\SJKF.RPT) 4 1 ISA Associates,Inc STUDY METHODS PRE-FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Prior to conducting the field survey of the project site, we consulted with 1 biologists at the CDFG, USFWS, and Jones and Stokes Associates. Additional kit fox occurrences in the vicinity of the project site were identified through a search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 1991) and previous kit fox reports (Swick 1973,Jones and Stokes 1990). FIELD SURVEY The field survey was conducted in accordance with the Approved Study Methodologies for San Joaquin kit fox established by Region 4 of CDFG (.1990). These methodologies have also been adopted by the USFWS (L. Simons pers. comm.). They require the use of a combination of survey techniques: scent stations, spotlighting.surveys, and ground transects. In addition, camera stations were set out in accordance with the 1992 CDFG and USFWS recommendations. Field work was conducted by two wildlife biologists between August 18 and August 26, 1992, for a total of 16 person days. Scent Stations The Region 4 guidelines call for the establishment of scent stations at a minimum density of five stations .per 640 acres (one per 128 acres). We established three scent stations for a density of one per 24 acres (Figure 2). As required by the guidelines for a survey conducted in August, the scent stations were monitored for a period of six nights. Scent stations were set-up August 18 and monitored for six nights. Each scent station consisted of sheet-metal plate cut into a 1 yard by 1 yard square. Each metal plate was smoked with kerosene to produce a fine layer of soot on its surface for recording tracks. Stations were baited with chicken- or beef-based canned cat food placed at the center of each plate. Stations were re-baited and smoked each afternoon and checked the following morning for tracks. Track identification was verified by reference to standard field guides (Mune 1974, Halfpenny 1986). Spotlighting Surveys Spotlighting surveys were conducted along all accessible roads on the project site and within a 2 mile radius of the property boundaries (Figure 3). The spotlighting surveys were carried out on the nights of August 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, and 26. Surveys took place after sunset, usually between 21:00 and 24:00 PSTN Surveys were conducted by vehicle, driving 5-10 miles per hour, with 09/29/92(B ACH0203\Sf KF.RI'T) 5 I :=h.2 cz cz rn 01 m rA �1 t I M L Mary BOY". f2 uMpm¢• _ -- -- 7t — � jd=Qh 21 CA :vlN '• NAt Ulan —SldMpt K �• , ON )d POINT Of TJMB R 4 1,t. OF ! A ROaO" • 1� ti z on Unon $M. OA P. 3 27 23 — —2� U 1. • K g Y R 0 t: NJ' ew as 's'w` P"I r,.. 33 34 • `��Q TIN " ii I1Yllllr(I/ ]7 `� v K.?fr.i �.}i: '• rrli.� .r .. TI .. ..— :i �.l"y d• �5 e'"# ..rca rA s� 3 3 �`t. t. 2 4 ^ ;.) •• f • • — , .$swM /I , .___-. '"-7T►"...>n.KrK:s<Ktn.¢— t-- wM..,.tiM _2 4 3 014-04-92(CH0203) Figure 3 Project Site N �••� Spotlighting Spotlighting Survey Scale in Feet Survey Route LSA Route Locations 0 :3000 I - Isn Associate;!nc ti observers illuminating the areas to the front and sides of the vehicle with two 400,000 candle power spotlights. The vehicle was stopped when eyeshine or I movement was observed, and animals were identified using 7X35 binoculars. The activity, location, and time of each observation were recorded. f (mound Transects I Daytime ground surveys were conducted on foot to locate kit fox dens and other signs of kit fox presence. The entire project site was systematically transected by a pair of biologists walking approximately 100 feet apart. All 1 potential dens were measured, examined for tracks, scat, and prey remains, and mapped. Particular attention was given to burrow aggregates of California ground squirrels (Spermopbilus beecbeyi). Camera Stations Camera stations consisted of Trail Master infra-red transmitters and receiving units placed opposite each other at a distance of 25 to 40 feet. An automatic camera was mounted above the receiving unit with a relay connecting the two. A station was baited with chicken-or beef-based cat food. The bait was placed between the transmitter and the receiver in line with the infra-red beam. Photographic recordings were made of any animal that approached the bait and broke the beam. The USFWS recommends a minimum of 5 cameras per section (640 acres) or a density of one camera per 128 acres. We set-up two camera stations on the �. 73.5-acre property for a density of one camera per 37 acres (Figure 2). Camera stations were monitored the same dates as the scent stations. 09/29/92(BACH0201�,SJKF UTA 8 f _ LSA Assoda[eA Inc- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING f The project site is situated on the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley floor 2.5 miles northeast of the eastern foothills of the Mt. Diablo Range. The site is currently used for the production of hay and has historically contained cultivated crops. land use in the vicinity is predominantly agricultural to the ! south and west with suburban developments to the north and the east. Agricultural crops of the surrounding area include corn, alfalfa, and fruit orchards. TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS The study area consists of relatively level terrain characteristic of the San Joaquin/Sacramento River delta region. Slopes are generally less than 5 percent. The property slopes gradually from west to east. Elevations range from a low of approximately 9.9 feet (NGVD) at the site's northeast corner to a high of 16.8 feet in the northwest corner of the property. Drainage channels have been constructed along the northern border of the site and through the center of the property. The site occurs on two soil phases, Capay clay and Marcuse clay. Capay clay is a moderately drained soil formed over fine grained alluvium on the lower edges of flood plains. Marcuse clay is a very poorly drained soil that is commonly found over alluvium. The Marcuse clay phase is classified as a hydric soil and is subject to ponding (USSCS 1991). PLANT COMMUNITIES The Alber's site may have previously supported a native assemblage of species belonging to the valley sink scrub and alkali grassland plant communities (Holland 1986). These communities are generally dominated by iodine bush (Allenrollfea occidentalis), salt grass (Distichlis spicata ssp.stolonifera), and other saline/alkaline-tolerant perennial forbs and grasses, several of which are found on site. The site currently supports a typical mixture of common pasnrre grasses (Avena, Bromus, Hordeum, Lolium), broad-leaved herbs (Phacelia, Erodium, Hypochoeris, Rumex), and weeds (Centaurea, Polygonum, Cirsium, and others). There is also a moderate representation of salt-tolerant weeds, herbs, and grasses. Freshwater marsh vegetation is found along the drainage channel that has been constructed along the northern border of the site. Freshwater marsh on- site is characterized by cattails (Typha spp.) and rushes (Scirpus spp.). 09/29/92(BACH0203\SI KF.RPT) 9 i ISA Associate.:,Inc. RESULTS SAN,jOAQUIN KTl FOX BIOLOGY AND REQUIREMENTS Information on kit fox biology is abstracted from reviews by O'Farrell (1983) and Orloff'(1990), unless otherwise noted. More detailed information can be obtained by referring to these reviews. i ? Distribution The distribution of San Joaquin kit foxes in California includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno,Kern, Kings, Merced,Monterey,San Benito,San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties (USFWS 1990) and is illustrated in Figure 1. The known distribution reaches its northernmost limit in Contra Costa County. Kit foxes were not reported from Contra Costa County until the early 1970s. It is not known whether kit foxes have always been present in the county or have extended their range recently. I Morrell (1975) estimated the size of the San Joaquin kit fox population to be between 5,066 and 14,800 individuals, with an average of 10,000. In 1975, O'Farrell (1983) later revised this estimate to around 7,000. Habitat San Joaquin kit foxes generally inhabit areas where slopes are less than 40 percent. They prefer valley and foothill areas supporting saltbush scrub and non-native grassland. The project site is located at the edge of the known range of the kit fox and suitable grassland habitat is present on site. Food I Kit foxes primarily prey on black-tailed jackrabbits,desert cottontails,kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.), and, especially in the northern part of their range, California ground squirrels'. Excluding kangaroo rats, which are unlikely to be present, all the aforementioned species were detected within the site boundaries. Kit foxes are opportunistic and will also prey on birds, reptiles, and arthropods and will scavenge for carrion, particularly road kills. 'Unless otherwise noted in the text, see Appendix for scientific names of animals. 0929/92(BACH0203\SJKF.RPT) 10 i LSA AssodatA Me- PUPS Litters ranging from 3 to 5 pups are born in late February to March. In the i northern part of their range, pups appear to be born during the middle of March. One litter of pups is born each year. The pups emerge from the den at about one month old, and both parents help raise the young. Pups generally disperse by October, when family groups begin to split up. Den Cbaracteristics Kit foxes construct dens in loose textured soils on well-drained sites and generally do not construct dens in wetland soils. Kit fox dens are most often found on gentle slopes (less than 28 percent), with natal and pupping dens on more level ground. This criterion is easily met on the project site which has a slope of less than 5 percent. Dens typically have one to several entrances. The entrances range from 5 to i 8 inches in diameter and are usually taller than wide. Dens used for escape or daily shelter are more common and generally smaller than natal dens. Dens may show signs of activity, such as recent digging, tracks, fresh scat, fleas and flies, or prey remains. Such signs are frequently absent at active dens in the northern portion of the range. Potential dens may serve as escape cover from predators, even if not used for other activities. We considered any burrow in suitable habitat with the appropriate size and shape to be a potential den. Family groups and individuals will use many dens throughout the year, and i families may change pupping dens once or twice per month. Individual foxes may use up to two dozen dens, and any particular den is therefore likely to be vacant. Pupping dens may be used in successive years by the same mated pair or family group, and den sites may be used by successive generations of foxes. According to the USFWS (1989), dens are classified as: • Knoum Den is any burrow or artificial structure for which conclusive evidence or strong circumstantial evidence can be shown that the den +, is used or has been used by a kit fox. i • Pupping Den is a known den that has been used for rearing pups. • Potential Den. Kit foxes may use dens without leaving evidence of their activity (Orloff et at 1986). Any natural den or burrow of the appropriate dimensions are considered. Accordingly, a den originally excavated by another species,such as a badger (Taxidea taxus), could still be considered potential escape cover for kit fox. • Atypical Den is an artificial structure, such as a discarded oil field pipe, culvert, erosion gully,etc.,which provides potential escape cover. 0929/92(BACH0203\,SJKFR'7) 11 l _ sn Associates,Inc. Atypical dens are not made by kit foxes or other animals, nor are any ` obvious signs of kit foxes present. I HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE IN PROJECT VICINITY Swick (1973) reported several sightings and active dens 2.5 to 4.0 miles southwest of the border of the project site (Sections 7, 8, 15 and 16) and a dead kit fox near Byron Hot Springs (Section 15). Four 1989 occurrences approximately four miles southwest of the project site included three kit fox sightings and a natal den, occupied by two adults and three juveniles (S. Meyers pers. comm.). No evidence of kit fox activity was encountered when this location was rechecked in 1990 (S. Meyers pens. comm.). In addition, S. Meyers (pers. comm.) observed a potential denning complex 2.3 miles southwest of the project site near Byron Hot Springs in 1989. FINDINGS No positive evidence of current San Joaquin kit fox activity was detected by ISA biologists during our August 1992 survey of the project site. A number of other animal species were encountered during the survey, including other canids (Appendix). ' Scent Stations No kit fox tracks were detected at the scent stations. Tracks of several other animal species were identified. A complete list of animal tracks found at scent stations is given in Table A. Spotlighting Survey No kit foxes were observed during the spotlighting survey. Coyotes were seen on two of six nights, and red foxes were seen on three of six nights. Other i carnivores observed included striped skunk, house cat, barn owls, and burrowing owls. Lagomorph species observed included desert cottontails and black-tailed jackrabbits. A complete record of animals sighted during the spotlighting survey is given in Table B. Ground Transects No known kit fox dens, defined as dens which have evidence of present or past use by kit foxes, were located on the project site during the ground survey. One potential kit fox den was located (Figure 2). This potential den was 4 inches wide by 6 inches high and extended 3 feet into=the ground, as determined visually or by using steel tape measure. The potential den located 09rz9,'92(B:\CH02031,s,1 KERPT) 12 t ' V w I r 1 y .. U u v5 o G t O u 1 .r u y � G G i vs Vw CS '� to G D u •r. r C) Q O V G � N l+ v LSA Associates./nc• Table B - Results of Spotlighting Survey Albers Property, Contra Costa County, California Ii I Date Species 8/18 8/19 820 821 825 826 Coyote 2 0 0 0 4 0 Red.Fox 2 0 0 4 2 0 Domestic Cat 5 7 10 10 5 9 Striped Skunk 0 0 0 2 0 2 Virginia 2 3 0 2 2 0 Opossum Muskrat 0 0 0 1 0 1 Black-tailed 24 24 39 33 36 40 Rabbit Desert 12 18 4 12 15 8 Cottontail Mouse sp. 1 1 0 0 1 1 Common Barn 3 5 5 6 5 3 Owl Burrowing Owl 0 0 0 1 0 0 Black-crowned 4 1 1 0 0 0 Night Heron Killdeer 0 3 1 0 0 1 I 09/17/92(B:\cho2O3\S POTLIGH.TABI LSAAssoaates�Inc on the project site showed evidence of present or past activities of California ground squirrels. Ground squirrels were Fairly abundant throughout the project site. ! ! Camera Stations No photographic records of kit fox were yielded by the camera stations on any of the six operative nights. The only carnivore recorded was a domestic rat. A complete record of animals recorded during the camera station survey is given in Table C. i I i 09/29/92(BACH0203\5IKF.RPT) 15 ISA Associates Inc Table C - Results of Photo Station Survev Albers Property, Contra Costa County California Station Date No. 8/18 8/19 8/20 8/21 8/25 8/26 1 - - - - California Ground Squirrel 2 Domestic - - - - Cat I 1 i 09/18/92(B:\C 1i O203\P HOTO.S U R) LSA Associates,Inc- DISCUSSION ncDISCUSSION No evidence was detected of kit foxes on the Alber's property during the ISA survey. There is a potential for the species to be found on the site. Prey is available, including ground squirrels, cottontails, and black-tailed jackrabbits. One potential den is present. The USFWS defines a potential den as a natural burrow, such as one created by a ground squirrel, with no evidence of actual kit fox use but that could be used for escape cover. The nearest known record of kit fox in the project vicinity is 2.5 miles away, which is within the usual !. nightly wandering distance of the species. The project site is on the border of the USFWS mapped distribution of San Joaquin kit fox distribution. The presence of larger canids may contribute to the absence of kit foxes on- site. Coyotes are known predators of kit fox. The effects of these predators may have local impacts on the status and distribution of kit foxes. For example, predation by coyotes on kit foxes has been identified as a major mortality factor on the Naval Petroleum Reserve in Kern County (Berry et al. 1987). This evidence suggests that coyotes have a population control effect on the smaller canid. The absence of clear kit fox sign during ISA's surveys may in part be attributable to competitive exclusion by coyotes, although the evidence of such a relationship has not been scientifically demonstrated. Highway 4 maintains a high volume of traffic even in the later evening hours and possibly stands as a partial barrier for the kit foxes to cross. The presence of the highway may even affect the local kit fox mortality rate, especially for juvenile animals. I The known records for kit foxes in the general project vicinity are all from the I south and west. This off-site area of known kit fox occurrence is more rural with larger tracts of undeveloped grazed grassland than is found on the project site and the immediate vicinity. The area of known kit fox occurrence is also more typified by rolling hills, than the flatter area immediately on and around the project site. These factors all suggest that the project site, while possible kit fox habitat, is peripheral in terms of the actual distribution of the species. The conclusion is there is a low potential for the San Joaquin kit fox to occur on the project site in terms of regular use. 09/29/92(BACH0203`SIKF.RPT) 17 LSA Auodate;Inc- REFERENCES ncREFERENCES LITERATURE CITED California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1990. Approved survey methodologies for sensitive species. San Joaquin Kit Fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica. Distributed by CDFG, Region 4, Fresno, CA. 3 pp. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 1991. Special status species occurrence report for the Byron Hot Springs quad. CDFG, Natural I Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. f Berry, W.H., J.H. Scrivner, T.P. O'Farrell, C.E. Harris, T.T. Kato, and P.M. McCue. 1987. Sources and rates of mortality of the San Joaquin kit I fox, Naval Petroleum Reserve #1, Kern County, California, 1980-1986. EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA. 34 pp. l Halfpenny, J. 1986. A field guide to mammal tracking in western America. Johnson Books, Boulder, CO. 163 pp. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. 156 pp. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1990. Draft environmental impact report: Vasco Road and Utility Relocation Project. (SCH #89032123.) (JSA 87- 031.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: Contra Costa Water District, Concord, CA. Morrell, S. H. 1975. San Joaquin fox distribution and abundance in 1975. Administrative Report 75-3, California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch, Sacramento, California. Murie, O. J. 1974. A field guide to animal tracks. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Mass. 375 pp. O'Farrell, T. P. 1983. San Joaquin kit fox recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 83 pp. Orloff, S. G. 1990. Survey techniques for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Endangered Wildlife Technical Workshop, The Wildlife Society, San Joaquin Valley Chapter, Clovis, CA. Swick, C. D. 1973. Determination of San Joaquin kit fox range in Contra Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin, and Tulare counties. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. 15 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS). 1989. San Joaquin Kit Fox Den Definitions. USFWS, Sacramento, CA. 2 pp. 09/29/92(B AcH0203\S1 KF.RPT-) 18 LSA Associates,Inc. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. San Joaquin kit fox range map. Distributed by the USFWS, Sacramento, CA. U. S. Soil Conservation Service (USSCS). 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (USSCS). 1991. Hydric Soils List. Contra Costa County, California. USDA. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED Meyers, Stephanie. Wildlife Biologist, Jones and Stokes Associates, Sacramento, CA. Palmisano, Terry.Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, Yountville, CA. 1 Rempel, Ronald. Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game, Fresno, CA. Simons, Lauri Stuart, Ph.D. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. REPORT CONTRIBUTORS Malcolm J. Sproul, Principal-in-Charge BA., Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley M.LA., Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, University of i California, Berkeley Roger D. Harris, Project Manager B.A. Biology, University of California, Berkeley M.S., Wildlands Resource Science, University of California, Berkeley. Clifford J. Palmer, Wildlife Biologist B.S., Environmental and Systematic Biology, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Mark Baumgartner, Wildlife Biologist BA., Wildlife Biology, California State University, Humboldt 09/29/92(B:\CH0203\SIKF.RPT) 19 LSA Associates,Ina APPENDIX- VERTEBRATE SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE ALBEWS PROPERTY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REPTILES 1 Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Gopher Snake Pituophus melanoleucus BIRDS Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Great Egret Casmerodius albus i Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus Black-crowned Night Heron Nicticorax nycticorax Turkey Vulture Catbartes aura Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis j American Kestrel Falco sparverius ' Killdeer Cbaradrius vocijerus Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Barn-Owl Tyto alba Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna Barn Swallow Hirundo rustics Cliff Swallow Hirundo pyrrbonota Scrub Jay Apbelocoma coerulescens American Crow Corvus bracbyrhyncbos Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta MAMMALS Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii i Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus calijornicus California ground squirrel Spermopbilus beecbeyi Mouse sp. Peromyscus sp. Dusky-footed Woodrat Neotoma fucipes Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Coyote Canis latrans Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis House Cat Felis domestica 09/29/92(BACH0203WKF.PJM 20 Sao ,rn . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY •i. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ALRERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RELATED ACTIONS COUNTY FILE #4-90-EC SCH #90030476 JULY 1992 5141 CO-COV.514 E. Community Contra Harvey of ommun Director of Community Development Development Costa Department County bounty Administration Building ti51 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945530095 Phone: 646-2035 0. I;a lA C;OIi"T � TO: INTERESTED AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COUNTY FILE #4-90-EC DATE: AUGUST 17, 1992 The enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Report is being distributed for review and comment in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and State and County Guidelines. Substantive comments or information will be included, and, if necessary, responded to in the Final EIR. • For accuracy of record, written comments are desirable and encouraged, and should be supported by factual information whenever possible. Comments may be mailed to the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, North Wing- Fourth Floor, Martinez, California 94553-0095, no later than Thursday, October 1, 1992, 5:00 p.m. If written comments cannot be made, an oral presentation may.be made at the public hearing which will be held on this matter. The Hearing will be before the County Zoning Administrator on Monday, 6eotember 14. 1992 at 1:30 o.m., in the McBrien Administration Building, Board of Supervisors' Chambers, 651 Pine Street, 1 st Floor, Room 107, Martinez, California. For additional information on the Environmental Impact Report, please feel free to contact me at (415) 646-2035. Sincerely yours, �'�t•�_� � \tom' �C .� �.. LC i 2 / j James W. Cutler Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning Enclosure cc: File CP/ml/Wbem.noc DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED ALBERS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RELATED ACTIONS COUNTY FILE #,4-90-EC SCH # 90030476 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY July 1992 5141 DEIRI COVER.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Table 1 July 7, 1992 Page Ii Table 1 PROJECT DATA PROJECT NAME: Albers General Plan Amendment SITE LOCATION: Northwest comer of the intersection of Highway 4 and Bixler Road (see Figures 1 & 2) in the Byron area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. PROJECT SPONSOR: Lucia Albers, Centex Homes PROPERTY OWNER: Monte and Lucia Albers SITE AREA AND Parcel Number (APN) Acreage PARCELIZATION: 011-190-029 73.48 REQUIRED APPROVALS: General Plan Amendment (to change site land use designation); Rezoning; subdivision approval (Tentative and Final Maps); annexation to County Sanitation District 19 (for water and sewer service). EXISTING LAND USE: Hay field, one single-family residence, and one mobile home. PROPOSED LAND USE: The site would be developed with residential and commercial (retail and office) land uses and a small internal parcel would be set aside for park use. Residential uses (i.e., 296 residential lots with single-family detached homes) are proposed for 57.5 acres (78 percent) of the site. Retail and service commercial uses (112,420 square feet of floor space) are proposed for 12.0 acres (.16 percent) of site, and medical office development is proposed for 2.7 acres (approximately 4 percent) of the site. The remaining 1.3 acres (approximately 2 percent) of the site would be reserved for a neighborhood park. CURRENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Core PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential High Density, and Commercial. CURRENT ZONING: Heavy Agricufture (A-3) PROPOSED ZONING: Planned Development (P-1) PROPOSED DENSITY Residential Density: 4.0 d.u./acre; Retail FAR: .45; Medical Office FAR: AND FAR: to be determined. PROPOSED VEHICULAR Primary access would be via connections to both Highway 4 and Bixler ACCESS: Road. Emergency-only access would be provided to Jacintho Drive at the northwest comer of site. SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates, March 1992 5141DEIRI TABLE 1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Table of Contents July 7, 1992 Page III CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. EIR Purpose and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. EIR Scope--Significant Issues and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 C. Significance of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D. Report Organization and Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 B. Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 D. Summary of Project Relationships to Adopted Plans and Policies . . . 38 E. Summary of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 A. Existing Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B. Basic Project Objectives . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 C. Proposed Physical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 D. Required Jurisdictional Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 E. Intended Uses of the EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATIONS A. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 B. Population and Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 .C. Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 D. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 E. Drainage and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 F.- Geology and Soils . . 163 G. Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 H. Vegetation and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 I. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 V. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 A. Contra Costa County General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 B. Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 C. Regional Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 5141 DEI RI CONTENTS.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Table of Contents July 7, 1992 Page Iv Pace VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 A. No Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 B. General Plan Buildout Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 C. Mitigated Project Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 D. Density Transfer Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 E. All Residential Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 F. Applicant Proposed Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 G. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 VII. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 A. Growth-Inducing Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 B. Unavoidable and Irreversible Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 C. Short-Term Versus Long-Term Environmental Productivity . . . . . . . . 265 D. Effects Found Not to Be Significant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 B. Monitoring Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 IX. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 X. APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 A. Initial Study/Notice of Preparation B. Additional Project Description/Land Use Information C. Housing Affordability Sheet. D. Additional Transportation Information E. Additional Vegetation and Wildlife Information F. CEQA Standards for EIR Adequacy G. CEQA Definition of Mitigation H. EIR Authors List of Figures 1. Regional and Local Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2. Project Vicinity . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3. Existing Site Features--Aerial Photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4. Existing Site Features--Topographic Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 5. Project Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 6. Proposed Road Improvement Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 S 5141DEIRI CONTENTS.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Table of Contents July 7, 1992 Page v Paqe 7. Project Home Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8. Preliminary Landscape Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9. Vicinity Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10. Selected Viewpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 11. Before and After View from Highway 4: Viewpoint 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 12. Before and After View from Highway 4: Viewpoint 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 13. Before and After View from Highway 4: Viewpoint 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 14. Local Roadway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 15. Existing + Project Traffic Volumes--AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 16. ERisting + Project Traffic Volumes--PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 17. Project + Cumulative Traffic Volumes (2005)--AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . 132 18. Project + Cumulative Traffic Volumes (2005)--PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . 133 19. Regional Drainage System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 20. Regional Faults Adjacent to the Albers Project Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 21. Soils Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 22. Service District Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 23. Site Vegetation Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 24. Existing Noise Contours--Noise Measurement Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 25. Applicant-Proposed Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 List of Tables 1. Project Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii 2. Anticipated Project Home Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3. Local Population and Housing Trends--Recent and Projected . . . . . . . . . 82 4. Recent Employment Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 5. Projected Employment Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 6. Two-Way Peak Hour Traffic Volumes--Existing (Vehicles Per Hour) . . . . . 111 7. Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8. Levels of Service for Unsignalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 9. Intersection Peak Hours Level of Service--Existing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 10. Annual Accident Information, Highway 4 Between Marsh Creek Road and San Joaquin County Line--1988, 1989, and 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 11. Accident Information--Intersections in Project Vicinity--1990 and 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 12. Project Trip Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 13. Project Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 14. Two-Way Peak Hour Volumes--Existing Plus Project (Vehicles Per Hour) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 15. Intersection Levels of Service--AM Peak Hour, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (Unmitigated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5141 DEI RI CONTENTS.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Table of Contents July 7, 1992 Page vi Paae 16. Intersection Levels of Service--PM Peak Hour, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (Mitigated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 17. Anticipated Additional Cumulative Trip Generation--Year 2005 . . . . . . . . 131 18. Intersection Levels of Service, if Signalized--Existing + Project + Cumulative, AM Peak Hour (Unmitigated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 19. Intersection Levels of Service, if Signalized--Existing + Project + Cumulative, PM Peak Hour (Unmitigated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 20. Signalized Level of Service--Existing + Project + Cumulative, AM Peak Hour (Mitigated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 21. Signalized Level of Service--Existing + Project + Cumulative, PM Peak Hour (Mitigated) 144 22. Pre- and Post Runoff Estimates for the Albers Project Site . . . . . . . . . . 158 23. School Enrollment Capacity--Existing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 24. School Enrollment Capacity--Project Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 25. Existing Child Care Need and Supply--Brentwood Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 26. Project Residential Component Child Care Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 27. Definitions of Acoustical Terms . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 28. Typical Sound Levels Measured in the Environment and Industry . . . . . . 205 29. Land Use/Noise Level Compatibility Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 30. 15-Minute Noise Measurements on the Project Site, December 4, 1991 . . 210 31. Noise Leven Changes and Future Noise Contour Distances . . . . . . . . . . 212 32. Construction Equipment Noise Level Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 33. Typical Ranges of Average Noise Levels (L.J in dBA During Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 34. Existing and Projected Housing Needs--Contra Costa County, Unincorporated Areas, and Selected Cities, 1988-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 35. Projected Housing Needs by Income Category--Contra Costa County, Unincorporated Areas, and Selected Cities, 1988-1995 . . . . . . 239 36. Alternatives: Traffic Generation Comparision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 37. Mitigation Monitoring Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 5141 DEIRICONTENTS.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County I. Introduction July 7, 1992 I. INTRODUCTION 5141DEIRI TITLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County I. Introduction July 7, 1992 Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. EIR PURPOSE AND INTENT This environmental impact report (EIR) describes the environmental implications of the Albers project, a proposed mixed-use development plan containing 296 detached single- family residences, 112,420 square feet of commercial floor space, and approximately 52,000 square feet of medical office space. The project is proposed for a 73.5-acre site on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bixler Road and Highway 4, west of Discovery Bay, in eastern Contra Costa County. As used in this EIR, the terms "Albers project" and "project" refer to the proposed general plan amendment, rezoning, associated Preliminary Development Plan, and all related local, state and federal approvals, entitlements, and permits that may be required for the development of the proposed mixed-use project. This EIR has been prepared for Contra Costa County (the Lead Agency)' in keeping with state requirements set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has been prepared as a "Project EIR" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15161. The report is intended to inform county decision-makers, other responsible agencies, and the general public of the proposed project and of the environmental consequences of its approval. CEQA Guidelines stipulate that an EIR is intended to serve as a public disclosure document identifying those environmental impacts associated with the proposed project that are expected to be significant, and describing mitigation measures which could minimize or eliminate significant adverse impacts.2 Such impacts and mitigation needs are discussed in this report at the level of detail necessary to allow reasoned decisions about the project and warranted conditions of project approval. As stipulated by CEQA Guidelines, this report also describes and evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The discussions in this EIR of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives are intended to address all environmental issues to be resolved and all areas of controversy identified by the county in its preliminary environmental review of the project, and by other agencies,. 'CEQA Guidelines define the "Lead Agency" as the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. 2CEQA Section 15149(b). 5141DEIRII.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County I. Introduction July 7, 1992 Page 2 organizations, and individuals in response to the county's Notice of Preparation (April 3, 1991). This EIR is also intended to serve as the required environmental documentation for county use in consideration of the proposed general plan amendment and related actions. As a result of the information in this EIR, the county may act to approve or deny these various project-related actions and approvals, and to establish any requirements or conditions on project design, construction, and operation that it deems warranted in order to mitigate effects of the project on the environment. As the Lead Agency, the county also intends that this EIR shall serve as the CEQA- required environmental documentation for consideration of this project by other Responsible Agencies' including, but not limited to, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Department of Transportation, and the California Department of Health. B. EIR SCOPE—SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND CONCERNS As provided for in the state CEQA Guidelines, the scope of this EIR includes all environmental issues to be resolved and all areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency (the county), including those issues and concerns confirmed as possibly significant by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department in the preparation of the Initial Study, and by other interested agencies and individuals in response to the county's Notice of Preparation. The areas of controversy and issues to be resolved include: 1. Land Use, including project compatibility with existing agricultural uses and existing low density rural residential uses in the vicinity; 2. Population and Housing, including project impacts on the area's population and housing profile and related trends. 3. Visual Quality, including the impacts of the proposed change in land use on the rural character of the project vicinity and the scenic nature of Highway 4; 4. Transportation, including the effects of the added traffic generated by the project on Highway 4 and other segments of the local road system (e.g., operational characteristics, safety, etc.); 'Under CEQA Guidelines, the term "Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies, other than the Lead Agency, which have discretionary approval power over aspects of the project for which the Lead Agency has prepared an EIR. 5141DEIRI1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County I. Introduction July 7, 1992 Page 3 5. Drainage and Water Quality, including project impacts on onsite and downstream drainage conditions, project impacts on water quality, and the site's susceptibility to flooding; 6. Geology and Soils, including the potential implications of the site's soils and geologic conditions for the proposed residential and commercial development; 7. Public Services, including project effects on local water, sewer, police, fire, public schools, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and child care services; 8. Vegetation and Wildlife, including project effects on the site's existing vegetation and wildlife values, and on possible sensitive, rare, or endangered plant or animal species; and 9. Noise, including the impacts of existing and projected noise levels along Highway 4 on the proposed development, and the impacts of noise generated by project traffic on existing sensitive land uses. C. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS This EIR describes potentially significant adverse project impacts and identifies corresponding mitigation measures. Where it is determined in this report that certain impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, the EIR identifies that impact as "unavoidable." Section VII.B of the EIR, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, includes a summary list of all project impacts identified in this EIR as unavoidable. Impacts that are identified as possibly significant, but that are not identified as "unavoidable" (i.e., not listed in section VII.B), have been determined to be capable of mitigation to a point of insignificance by implementation of the associated mitigation measure or measures identified in this EIR. D. REPORT ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT The information in this EIR is generally organized under the headings of the various significant environmental issues listed under section B above (land use, transportation, visual factors, soils and geology, etc.). The report describes the following in Section IV for each impact category: 1. the existing environmental setting; 2. significant impacts anticipated with the proposed project; and 3. suggested measures to mitigate anticipated significant adverse impacts. 5140ElR11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County I. Introduction July 7, 1992 Page 4 In addition, the report includes a chapter describing and evaluating project consistency with adopted local and regional plans; a chapter describing and evaluating various alternatives to the proposed action; a chapter summarizing the EIR information in terms of various CEQA-required assessment considerations, including project growth-inducing effects, unavoidable adverse effects, irreversible environmental changes, short-term versus long-term environmental productivity considerations, and "effects found not to be significant"; and a chapter outlining a mitigation monitoring program. 5141DEIRII.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 II. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS 5141DEIR1 TITLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 7 . II. SUMMARY This EIR chapter provides a summary of the proposed project and its environmental consequences. The chapter includes a summary description of the proposed actions, a summary list of areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, a summary identification of each significant impact and associated mitigation measures, and a summary evaluation of project alternatives. This summary should not be relied upon for a thorough understanding of the details of individual impacts and mitigation measures. Please refer to Chapter IV for a complete description of project impacts and associated mitigation measures. A. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant proposes to construct a mixed-use project consisting of 296 single-family detached residential units, 112,420 square feet of community shopping center floor space, and a 12-acre area designated for future medical office development. The Albers project site is located in the unincorporated Byron-Discovery Bay area of eastern Contra Costa County, on the northwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 4 and Bixler Road. The Albers project is across Bixler Road from the proposed Byron 78 project. The entrance to the Discovery Bay planned community is approximately one-half mile to the east along Highway 4. The approximately 74-acre project site is almost entirely level and is currently used to grow hay. The site also contains a single-family residence and associated outbuildings, and a mobile home. The Preliminary Development Plan, as shown in Figure 5 herein, indicates development of the entire 74-acre site. The residential portion of the site (approximately 58 acres) would include the 296 single-family detached homes, plus a 1.3-acre park site. The gross density of the residential portion of the project would be approximately 5.2 units per acre. The shopping center portion would include 112,420 square feet of commercial floor space on 12 acres. The remaining 2.7 acres would be allocated to future medical office use, and is assumed in this EIR to eventually contain.approximately 52,000 square feet of office space.' 'Based on construction of a two-story office building over 25 percent of a 2.4-acre site. 5141DEIR111.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary ,July 7, 1992 Page 8 The project would be served by two access points from Highway 4 and at least three access points from Bixler Road.' An emergency roadway connection from Marsh Creek Road to the northwest corner of the site the site would also be provided. The Land Use Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan designates the site as "AR: Agricultural Residential" and "AC: Agricultural Core." The AR designation calls for a maximum density of one unit per five acres (or 0.2 units per acre). The AC designation calls for a maximum designation of one unit per forty acres (or 0.025 units per acre). The applicant proposes a change in these general plan designations to Single Family Residential High Density and Commercial. The site is currently zoned Heavy Agricultural (A-3). The applicant has requested that the zoning be changed to "Planned Unit District (P-1)." The rezoning to P-1 would allow residential uses at higher densities, provided that the county finds the proposed development plan consistent with the objectives, .regulations, and standards for the P-1 district outlined in the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. Other actions and approvals necessary to implement the project would include county subdivision approval (tentative and final maps), Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19 approval for annexation of the site to Sanitation District 19, and other discretionary permits which may be required by the county and other responsible state and federal agencies. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES As provided for in the CEQA statutes and guidelines, the environmental focus of this project EIR is limited to those areas of controversy known to the county (the Lead Agency), including those issues and concerns identified as potentially significant by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department in its preliminary review (Initial Study) of the proposed project, and by other interested agencies and individuals in .response to the County's Notice of Preparation? As described earlier in the introduction of this EIR, these areas of concern include: 1. Land Use, 2. Population, Housing, and Employment, 3. Visual Factors, 'The medical office area access particulars have not been described by the applicant. 2A copy of the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the Albers General Plan Amendment is included as Appendix A of this EIR. 5MIDEIR111.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 9 4. Transportation, 5. Drainage and Water Quality, 6. Soils and Geology, 7. Public Services, 8. Vegetation and Wildlife, and 9. Noise. C. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS Each significant impact and associated mitigation measure or measures identified in this EIR are summarized in the SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS chart that follows. The summary chart has been organized to correspond with the more detailed impact and mitigation discussions in Chapter IV of this EIR. The chart is arranged in five . columns: (1) significant adverse environmental impacts, (2) level of impact significance prior to implementation of recommended mitigation measures, (3) recommended impact mitigation measures, (4) entity responsible for implementing the mitigation measures, and (5) level of impact significance after implementation of these mitigation measures. In those instances where more than one measure may be required to mitigate an impact to Y 4 9 P 0 a less-than-significant level, a series of mitigation measures is listed. For a complete description of the environmental setting, impacts, and recommended mitigation measures associated with each particular impact, please refer to Chapter IV. 5141DEIRIII.514 Albers General ma Amendment . Draft en Cora Costa County I Summary July R 1992 Page 10 _ k c @ § .0 � CL iccn §� c 2 2 � 2 a: C , c k 0 / # & % _/ . . . 7 u § o § � , ■ 2 7 J cu k mE E q / 20 / £ k \ $ U) k c k Uj g 2 CL > » § � £ ■ 3 2 z c c O x § 22 �k = CU . n , q a k c \ / - @ 2 � 2 2 c 2 d ■ _ m 5 n m D R _� § % m ® m o f ° o o — M f k4) a_ EgE ® 222 § 20 2t 2 x 0 0 CL Q \ K -E = 2 R E a Q. S a G 0 2 S k 2 'L § k a 4) E ° k § 0 � ` g ` 2 § § (D2 CL ■ M aEc � 2 _ d _ c E c £ £ tS c N j § — . � cc 3 f § £ �� 2 § c _� 2 20 CL CU— § E o a ® ' 2 L ? U. _ ? a — @ _ � 6 a £ ■ _ @ — �= 2 � g k 2 2 a @ k S § f E 2 o k 2 § f k r 4) q k § k k � � / £ 2 2 a � 2 2 k 2 n 2 � � -V a m @ -0 - o c ' � ' $ m E 2 f * ■ 0 c § - g @ 2 cn '2 a 0) r o — > o � - a — ■ _ » m m Q a � k 5 o E n. % — § q c > i E 7 k 2 t £ 2 f c - k 2 § § 0 � E § U _ � O w ■ ■ Z-) -0 0 E n i A ■ u v _ � ■ _ 0 @ Albers General Plan Amendment Draft E:IR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 11 0 U • C C ca U O U-C L ,M J J J J a-C/) Y O N t4 r 0 O` 0 0 �¢ U a a U N d � EUY c � oNia�i Q c _ Cy t aUi O E vi Cc c E E c of a c o "-' o c OC M '0 0 a U) o > > c a � c Y d _� E io c W a c $ c c MM .—G) vo�i omc�oa � c °' �' oL rn N o R• a c a :. m v N ami N �� o E . me o >. a ca o O • __tc4i > oc ca w y' o._. w cco c0 cm`a c 'QU CL ai o N 2 c cO a vo o 'o a o a 0 N rr 'E a c cT c4) .0 � o E dal2 *Edo O" c c N Ecri e CD M 0 C D O c D d c oMO a `ocoiZ Qd o w a ° 0 U — C C ca cu a) C L_,9 J U) U) V1 EL U) N cco vac a, a> O cn aUi o V) c 3 J y an aai o m N o > o, a o > o M c m m o � QY ti L r ca « t 0 c Y E cco ca c o o . o 0 0 o � $ c o, caL � � N a c�O ca c y N V 0 N c o N v •C c N E n, cit � o «- > >, r 0 - c`a U E c 1; L -- C O ea O N O ca N 3 vin J d > 'vii y e- d U) is 00 cn c� 0Op V •� d t r N L y O t p�_ cc C > C a C ns Q C N � U O 9� C € V C Q carZ g nca a> > 2 0 > > p cc' c Y O O C r U m «O. to Rt ca C O C d U 3 N U to C .0 L V V C N O O _ U d eQa C O Y aci C O ` Cc tea a c O y QQ_! N OO Q cu c 0 a) 0 y O d y C O O N 2 E >. 0 g o a U) n! U) Q.0 O C ` E a ) U U •� a 0 N O a II U B E t x 0 2 o o t �' c t �$ t con aicc N o F- d N fA N U Fc a o H co E . N H o c m .r v U cn _! V) Albers General Plan Amendment . Draft EIA Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 12 a� iC V O >:= r O�I 8� C 4) 2 ¢I a- U d U r- � a> c N >. y c ami E ` o 2 o _ ` .a o co ca o c ,r 0 M >, r? a`� c vi rn� N m > a) C v �_ m a '" cc a) O _r o 3 0 E c, M O a� o > O J 0 E a cn N E N C O U 0 L cp 0 a) C N D C C vT o cc 0 5 c E 3 a m o 0 W 0 $ a L IMO cu -S E C N E r y tc U O � O O r CL U '0 E >,= o w .0 r m c � c NN cc •c a> > n> 0 3 'CO m -, c c w a M = `� 3N CO o y vC CCO0 s -cW O 8. U N 3 � 0 cN c M U c Nc ? N N 3 o o CZ 2 `0 •o E o a is `° a a 0 E cUc >. c m E a L i - O rn c E C �C Z' 0 3 0 C cc cc «->1 0 cc U V Q c E • is 0 'c ci o ci � ami is (n aN' c �6 0 aEi Fi '00 Q) o c o o 0 0 •• a, a o a� - o N co a : 3 a L ? CC M o A E a a� cc cc .. o c;Eocis D a) c L .g{ cA (A U) (A a�� o cn (D o ° a doE ,� a w - 2 CD 3: m C C cc � c . 3� maa) > � oa E 'E. - E �, Qc c 0 $ a) >N 4, %- � oc 2 m > U0 ,c cc V5 E >o 0 0ma a ct5ai — cN . 0 oao CL N cc a �� CL o N M Q) o > N .5 � m 52 � v, c co- � c � E c8 ' cc 00 � L o cc CL 0 > .�. N 15 O O CL 0 MM.2 Z' C j C .y C co °c � U_ a) cc E � � o > N .� vtcoi oa) � 0o 2npc a, Ca � o � � 85 � = �, = ca 4)L o o > c o 5 Et5 t5 t5 2 a) 0 c c`c o > ccc U u E 2 2 0 0 0 o w .9)L L U ap 8 N aat3 o Q 3 L V � 0 N o F- ec r� $ o cn Albers General Plan Amendment Draft E.IR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 13 ar c c cC U O d C= .2 ain3� c� o U2 _ c ca rnN 2 cc ' ev �o cNv � d v ° o g • o rn 0 m ca E E z z z m U C C a*= 0 M J J w C L_.D i ays�� L 1� 0 0 W N m Lcu >. N O U O 5 0 y c d 0 3 ° C W t Q C a S 4 J 3 c o c L ao air cu cM`u d o .L� r � r Nv d ° cc °D2a xx 600 cc r ca r- co _� m Q rn x c rn M cc r- o c cQ 6 > d r � E �o cn c = g o b 0 CL t " cc � L L G w a F ° �L3 ° CL E t d > E t d d 22 M X OOi d c0 cc Q E M s x U N c v o Q, mo o $ O c o :9MCL 0 — mvpm Myr a a v C «. Q.-O N y y C N ° E C C 2 3cu cu M —.0 ago cc c w %- (n �' c°i � � � O cc o tu m .� cu cr �' E a O_, o co ace cu arca oo o am c o cc m t-nj i�n ° ny N Da, - '6c d � ai C u u ui ° o E0 °t CD 42 oE Q = c CO n cu2 N a'o ca co Q cc 69 CL a cy Albers General Ra Amendment Draft DB Conlan Costa County m Summa July 7 1992 Page 1a S c § o 2. I U) a) c =__ . (L Ch & � 2 � � . c : a Vas £_ f ¢ 2 � f k2 � � � k o � f 2 o 0 2 V t mm 0 / 0 CL 2 0 cu M f_ 3: $ o 5 0 E 0 � U) 2 ) 0 k £ § k k� k cuo .2 � M c ■ o � c § k E � 8 4) k 0 . @ E E k m k c E em2 § t E7 2 £ @ a 2 Z g2 r $ . . . § 7v- § _ & — g �� . 2w0 @ ■ e£ _ � � . Z c @ f o 2 § 4) 2 . 0 "r U ` -0 5 E 5 c / 0 k c k % 2 £ 2 E 0 � 2 2 2 a § t 0) c E = S o m 2 0) (ii o � : — CL $ 2 7 ■ z f :3 # t 2 E Go a 2 o £ U) C E 2 A § co 0 -W ° _ 2 £ k k S S_ E % 2 � K � CD 0 2 � 2 > k c� 'r—T" � � � 7 � k 2 2.1 -0 2 k 7 . k CD 2 0 — i 0 a S o k 2 § 2 c Z o c c E R 2 o . i k c o ■ c c ■ ■ Cc c 2 0 � - _o § 6 0 § M 2 £ 2 2 0 t « k 2 k c @ k p 2 mMm— ■ 0 c ° Lc ° 2 ' 2 % o cm 2 . 2 2 k o ° A k q 2 ■ K . f E / c § $ -1 co m £ c — n m S CL= w _ _ o / i E 2 (D (D ■ = m o 0 2 2 2 W 8 r & � k 2 £ » 2 2 £ § r m Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summar, July 7, 1992 Page 15 n� c c ca cu U 0 C cu U) d C t_•- J LM av339:M oN - c 15 is y �cc d 2 c ca vi rn ca �c _ N U C 0 C t C � � d C p � D a � 0 p� ca 0 «. C a) - 0 N N S ~U > «�• C C w N C C C >`t N ,- c d 0 C � D U � ._ ,0 ca 0 d C e d N n rn E E 3 c o 0 N E E r v a as = o c m i a� v ca c a) E 3mcw � a� � � � � � Dca � owE1iw a� ccac � caL oE3In a� > mvi —aoi —a�iaxi o c c a a c`a a� ui o m 3 m E o cc 3 = • �cmmca cQa � cca sa `° �C v�ai �m 0coccca' E �c cc �00'0rna �mN0•' ~Eemrna cu In ?o0o 0 00i — L �'' mc� E E %' mQ a c E 'CcaC0 0 C U 0 o (D cm c accmQo E T as f 2o CL 0 c c 0 'w as vii W U C C d C L_c (L U) m cm d C H C H W C C ai C .. 0 to 0 L p) Ca �- o C E U d S C 0 0 -E m C O. torr 4 � H � N E o � � H vi .a •E ca as > a� M o c .N o o c o E, o CD aso � 0 v mm � rQ � 0 .0 ce>a o `" � E K to o o 'D v) � o N � 3t � � � eNo vi o ccac � o c :? c c o c 10 X t ��-- M � o cc 'D `° 3 °' a 4 � ch � c_ E0 �av°'i0 � CL in .� in c 0 E � E aR cc rn N E n u u E H 2 cg vi oa vi r 0 4) cn CO to Albers General Plan Amendment Draft Elf Contra Costa County II. Summar July 7, 1992 Page 16 m U c c Ta M o U Y M D J J U) U) a.U) c� oN c � ai ani C7)N ¢ a` a` C N - U 0 7 �U a3i a0 4) >. 'C L N Q a U O N C C C .O- 3 C M>1 m d10 0 0 a) p O 0 cC c�O N C m 0 U 0 0 M QQ m rn L N rn 3 v = " N cUL � E ao. 0 ti Mo o at �'op c ° m $ ca �o > $ N v 0 o a aa) M 0 ' $ N c c-co r. d .Nc ca '� L N 10 — U ID > 9) o E E •o •ate' c .0 o � c`a 3 CO N E N ca ca o cu o •c 3 ca a c ) v E M in $ x �, a — O N N a O c p .0 7 N 0 a� a� °' '2 3 a, E a a ` 0 0 C1 j a) y cQ � ' m r (n ai C C ON L 0 N E ; a C Q N p • Q U N N o 0 E 0 E cN N t y M a M N $ n ' u � >cc )-a2 nE o0c $ ° a) In o d a a E E cE > U c c t4O _ O C = Orn U) U) CO B -- in 3 N N 0) m p N O r cC ` N 'p U O N O LU C X po N p> d �cr d 0N O tU`s oa �MA 0 Co o0o 0 a Y M aa a N.p O .as U) ° > U 0 C EZ. Q N 0 O cc i - xvUoM0 cQ t C ca cX N v cLa p '° oo"' co a e`a a Q v c M M O 2 2 `CL rn �' a c 2 $ e--Z %c a cam° o C N ` O d � N +C. 8 E r Q L p> .� o C C c_cn C O c0 3 'r p r C b C 4) Z E8 N � (C O O 'p O d O c0 O y O N Q ,G 0 y 2 c $ D o cc L 3 o rn c N M � - a o ccx C) ca m o mNm 2a' _rn � E m > �, 2 aoaa, 00 c> mo� o `� a a 2 3 c 2 i -6 N o in -1 v) N E rn o �a a 2 m a� a c v a� AN o c$ axi 3 0 cLn 3 0 y L = o o L pam F- U o a H m 3 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page '17 N c c c0 U O NCL_ J J C p O N H _ C C 1 C d GNi O is ct 0 U a. O �- 'a � N C O N N O O N N $ EC C cnE V > t5c y a o t = _o E c � ami >. ai W CLTca rr a .. o0 u� N O M c 5 c M O N tC 0 O c = N E. N N N U O L d fn cII Z 1— to c4 O N U C C cC •. O u U O' d'C L_._ !/�75 J N a..co T O �c 3 N o m rn � N .(n � E cn `° o !n tin C O NO O j J M > C C cm J m `° '' 3 Q O = x E ) p � � o= .� 3 cc CO« o E 3 a �' IT C1 NC;) O N N N C N 0 .0 N �- . .0 OZ C Nc A NO 0ON ACC p � ; Lm 3 � M -c E 9 � oYeE No a) ao , � cc c cc M Z' t5 a c N N Z C O N V 5 N N FM to V C N y 1 j Cja N J` fn Q N e�id N O N t d O N $ m Q 2 x t o L J` N c x v N �, �� ¢ a H > eo W W ca N W U m � U _J N Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 18 m U C C U O C w cu p>.__ = B cm I oN cs C ai o Q U L O O 0 0 M 0 0 U L O c0 m N 3 rn tL U wN m C d 0 -0 m_ 0 o E c rn > cC H o ca, oD Eo c a) ca> L vcu a) �co v o aca ° 3 � a00a oi oa , o E cn a'o iv E c s d OC o cCc ts aco m o Yo g o� c i cc a .0 vi o d 5 C � cLn c >% cc 'D 4) C 7 N p c ami = cu 3 c cu cc c c m v v a U) c U N c `� t a o M $ E � c o N cn o y O •� ° `r w 0 vOi N L L C> d d d > 0 0 sO jornNMM M ocMrca c .0Eom a) ` in o o a) rn .�— o o M E E as m o N > o L _ : U � cn22rr U o 3 d cc � 2 p v = :c w t CU 00 • ■ ■ L Q cl) • 2 I— O 3 ca F— > d .N O U C C ca RS O v a� c t•_cy V) •— CL in c Co 4Z.) > U') W ; o N C� c N 7 V C a ro oof - E a) � U 3 x o N c0 O ro p 0 M cu cc E >^ C O p = > m E � m � � 9) c U Fj d fA O L . N Z O � � y CU 0C C C Q C « U r U -O Cen «� �S ca O M p fn J cn Q .-: 075 3 d 0) N O y U E axiom U) Aber General ma Amendment ' D2# DR Conlan Costa County m Summary July % 1992 Page 19 0 Bcu 0 � . U) a- c §� �� 72 2� a3 c 0 D 2 0 k 2 c 2 § m £ a ■ o 2 f 2 K § t � ° ® � u a 0 ° o£ § t ® , § -0 — CD k« 2 ■ m § >1 E 0 2 2 a 2 K t § k % t K K a $ _o £ § k 2r k �CL o 'D _ § 0 ® o / / = � > 0 ■ 2 / o § E \ E . � — § E o co G o . 2 2T CL k - M 2 2 ° £ t § « 7 2 u a o E 0 � 2 f t - CL t t 2 § 2 0 o c ■ c E $ � . 2 & % £ _ - _ o . ) 0 £ o ® �•2 o ■ 5 . ■ " = .E m I £ m o — @ c __ w £ � 2 — $ o > £ fe _ £ M2 — c � no 2 n 0 _ U 2 _ o — c a— g © ' M 0 to 2 ® M 0 o � � ^ � § � M �2 c � k E k � CM 0 t5 a �� c = _ 2 � � o � — M e c a� o c _ m _ t § ■ 9 a ■ ' 3 \ 2 m 2 § f § Q CD k 2 2 ) f a CL£ w § £ c k 3 # _ £ ■ = a s m a a a m r- . . . . . . J % U) . � mak _ $ @mon a0_ 5 U a E 2 £ u 22 . . . . c at � / U q 05 \ 0 ■ , , ■ E @ � 2 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 20 a) U C C c6 U O p•C L,f6 J J J E E CL rn a) (D m c v� r > r > 0 r cc v � a` (L 0 a_ 00 m a) O d C c—CO aYi O O) 0 c C 0 3 N a) E N U 0 x a) v 0 L 0 E E - in ca aUi o N c ani a3i c v o ; a, .N Q c c �`� a v c w a _ m o _ 0 o cM C M U) ca �U O a) v7 = Y y M � c ro 3 a> > E ca 3 0 2 v) W,V) L " O rn cca g) N C t p p O O z � 'to- G) h -a 0 p N c d cm a) 0 � Low, oiLw 0 EocD0 > Eoiv _ «s ctf d Y p) w d p) ca � r Si CL c r c`C X ca OC N o a °' n• o cc) Crn v) vii U c < a) o a E0 3 .N ami 12 H .- coo >: M 0- 15 3 �,« --3 C � � c �c c° c C � E M U) `v ? � 3 o `° _ � c cam . Q T ,� 2 g $ a a_ a) o a_ o m p a r E rn a c vi ti _� c 0 ¢ OC Q M cc cu c ami w v > ca m > d d '� p d .8 v a C. O $ v 0 '0 � � [t 0 � 0 � U in o a H m ME E H cc c�a (D U C C cC p O C ' EO.cu O C L_._ (n (n (n Q..cn3M E �= v', ami mo cz 0 c co ;v c CL 0 rn3 0 _ 2 � d � c' 8 Z Y = 0 a c p c c cts N o) p 0 E `° 5 p) N co U a N a caN4) M4) cca -- 3ac° Q � � cp E a) g, > c in cn w r cn Q r c c c > " E t0 3 > rn � c rn � pc �- � > � Y cma) cM = at O C c = N g' m cd0r .52 12 c cv 3 E o cO o c �� 0) d Y N V 3 �� •' g m p V L l0 C 7 N L C N N ►- p C Q L N " w p 8 0 1J •p V 7 p P p cpj y C H C C N p > a r � Y C p) Q 01 0 c� d p cm co " p N 0 !n 3 a"i � a� o �° a�iOpwc0 Alt C p V p J p 0 N O C H EU o > Yt ac � cty Q 3 0 to Albers General Plan Amendment Draft E:IF: Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 21 a) v c c cC V O O'C L_•� J J J B.U) M cn - C a) c o t; P- � c a) a) m a'y > of of o 2cc am a` m a cO >, p c rn — a) p� cc — o c C X L C N >.c = o m ; :o m cc (Ma>Cc i ani 3 m V Y C cc 0 a cc E o a �; c c ; c= c (D H a) 0co — cc a) � a) v g L o °'N , c o N C c et Cp � 0 >'•— d c mNC .@. c3 mO t�i, �O0 s pN L cc LcO Q ° (n c c � cc v ps o — U w a. Nw m N � 2 a3 accO G V; p CF30 morrcnccO Cc (D C Vi N Q t4 C to N O L C CO d 0 in _ to U Z o x cn M cuti o o cc o X C �, rn m a) r. E U � 3 Uao cc o� 2v °? v0v o a) U C C RScc ., O :E= p c0 OC L_•— co to to �•— a°io3tM V to Y d tc cc p O C 0 O C M d 3 .. ; o �, m t1 u_vi N N v -0 d `>, r pi con O L a O cc CU Q O C d M LL .i 0 H C (C ` d O d ►_ .2 C t M a � oaC 0 w �, � cnoC > 4M Q - 4) o, aCL.p 3 x m2 5 E 9 m � E a c _x a) w 0 3 m «`p, 0 -1 c 'c C cDa o m c a~p) y c >. H cn M a) .Q cgo 3 a) isc ani ° `a a nx(D 75i :' t Ss) c 4 cn > c m 3 a) cc .. �o M p C M C y CO d d O C 0 0 to O .. 7 ; w E L O O � tc p 0 M E cc V V Y 7 t4 C co C P y c) C Q .o 0 p o) (A CD M t4 m ts p RS cc L lC O • O .. L CU O Ta N Co .J to • L° cc >, °it °) oE °) � — c aL � LL ca CLu u u E � zpccc occ = L vov, o p .. a a)cca u) D a dcCmv a 3U u_ n � m a ink off = cc co ..Jco Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 22 a> U C C cC U O J J J J J 0in� � c N � `° c t5 rnN o f N a> L Q = No o M t z o O> O c cE O - - 'd N f 6 ;? C cn OC ' NUa � C d Q v > 0OOao - oa° iEo = 'Do U U Q a ca op CD mW � CL c coo cca v> a ? E c -o (D ' cm N �r t 8 > o o r m s fU0aC> L3 Lc >Q C .0cchF L O YaCi mm o •N Oo Mm — w � 15v cc 6 o o5 . 20— — 9D M a a> = 0 o oiU v) 3 -ruO rn Lp C L O c p (n — Cc c a L O C NpQ C M C O ODU0 C MN3 nN 0 L N p NcL°0 O O N O y O 2 eUC cOCv cY—O C O .8 O ca M2 ate; CL E �, CL p 3 � N � L rn o '0 o:c a`> r M c v a E x '0 v, ci a c cn 3 ns L F- 3 6 d E G F- 3 v v M m �' c a c c> U C C cC cu Cw 0R> O c = ._ to U) U) U) >. _o R �y L (6 O a> p ca y L Y Q U 7 co C r D' O �p C 4> >. V y O p C 'a C ;v E rn 3 3 iv E C m cca a 7oQ 5 3 32 o a o a E >, v0 E ce cc E — p ca vi m v_> > a> �' 3 x a3iw > � � E o o, cc'v0c° Em N O N O C 8 N O UmU cc U U 'O = y C N E ` p Nap 0 m t C C L 0 O N O Z V:E 0 N > U U a> 0 t5 w E La pcC .aOM U Ow v = >% L RO •Ocn O cC O U J` 10 ca O. - d CL O REn . AO o p� r OO O ' tU O COop3 n °O M o d cN fn Albers General ma Amendment . Draft EIF, Conlan Costa County ` m Summary July % 1992 . Page 23 . c , cl) a�Lm kk §� . . . E 2 2 V AM . . . 2ƒ ; a 0- tL ■ a 0 c £ § a ° E / � £ c � � 5 £ � cc 0 CL M k ■ .0 % 2 . CC Eco 2 k n § w cc k 2 A 0 2 § � 2 R 2 k 0 0 0 / 3 o m � � , © � m ® 2 _ c � o Q m o k § ® © .0 a 3: Zto % k of $ 2 E = o c N cc > = o W . u ■ M � S k § $ @ 2 f o E 2 f G > c o ■ E a 0 0 2 / / E k S / $ t5 cc k = ■ 2 cU)C13 c 0 CL ch k k ■M ca -o CL EN k > r 02 C � k Cc % cu ® E M.U. W 2 c q ■ ƒ c@ . 0 0 0 ■ r o o o Rcts CL « ' 2 oR � £ 3 � accto ■ a S 6 \'F 2g q @ @ a.05 2 to CLc E W ■ c $ £ a) CU 0 _ / 0 E E f a 0 0 U k 0 k§ # w E a k7 kc :5 a � o o ■ g ' % a g2 f Fc o k c a O 2 2 e f .0 @ ' 2 a _§ 2 / 2 M Cc c -E U .t . : § k © 0 2 . 2 r C K $ z 0 2 2 § k m f $ f § 2co E @ E o f ® cc >, a a 2 c QM 26 0 a) d: m £ t ■ @ m m 2 13 ■ = c v k t t 2 & 2 7 2 § 2 g 2 2 ? i # ■ E c 2 0 °a 2 C@ e c E o m D « Q o U M o a z o 0 no m -3@ Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 24 a� c' c • iC U O ,L J J J J J a U) c� ° o c C _ c ani ani ani ani �N 0 0 0 0 0 rr a a N N U U O o ca c L L !ato N � caa , $ c' c `c � �. U o E y h 0 c L) o caw c c 0 0 > 3 o o o 5 c N o cv -- (M cc . >ZO cm � 3 a) d rccC wTUO > Q H O oti a m o N N cc 3 ~ C a) r O _ C a) cc RS C M ' > cin D -rO -2 O O c aVa t 0 -' M ' r-4 4) ° a $ cc .2 c� o ca> c r M i1ccua 0 C O Nc Cd a .a >M > Cc .O rn d O ca L cn c (Dp c c aoi c a E a s > a o ►- ? ■ ■ a 0U (n Z O (n U U) a a) U C C a)'C L_ to c J co (nfn �• ain3� cn U C w � We 2 6 (n c ct5 Ni E ` cri cM3 _ C N t 'M ` % ao Q)) 0) aa 5 RA E> c ~ cr 0c � mUa~�i c m3E cv °) o �' U E a' � � is c y c $ y OL �t m c U) c aai a) o C0 N C M aci 0 c c i t a c U a) cc N a) C c) 0 M � >. U C6 p '� tv 0. 3 C M .r � • w 3 co 3 ca m Y ~ N E 0 � Qm � ° O � v, a > 0) � Quo moo ccc 05 LM '06v c aN E a 2 N c o N > ccc NU - EUS aM Eo � � � � � � v � Q, N0) .. _ O V to r tMO � in � in _ w L o At `� m c m it m 5 o (p c > •. L L R3 L O O L Albers General Plan Amendment Draft E:IF Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 25 N c c o w U) co U) m (L U) c� oa ts rnN ai ani ai ani 2 2 2 2 a: a` a a` a- 0 o O N C O QO N > ` .� C N O d 0_Ni :� N 0 V O N N Q O d t 2 C N N Q N ai O •$. vi ic v Ec ro w0M cc N v — " Y M m d o v L ° o `° G 2 d cca � N ; co N 2 c N N Y Z N — cc N N N L cmcCD O 0 N 3 N N U �c «• Q N RS �C O t 'D .. O O lc N fa N d N N C •' N = r N 0 C N N N (D CO C !n L N Np_ E it c Ern = r E E O N d .. g' Z o 0 0 w � o v U � � o v°ii a` E05 N U C C C O= ci7 N c=.2 N N !n cn g)= d w C01 N z 3 U N � c6 � x `° race ec N 2 0) t O N � cN a O , cc > ; Qcr � c `° 03 > ar a' c c $v EmcN3 v >o z c` _ cc SaM Cc Z tEEoo o 05 4) i > N c mx N 'Si v' N> E MM N cc Mo o 3 0 r Mcc o2 mc i c C am oCM c N o >v o O rn rn N c cc .. « Tn E Nei M cc N N o N eco «. o 3 vi cccc 2 c E '" 3 v x .� ' E N cc c i c m> c o ,c > cc � a o o ¢ Q . OCMa) o coc o NE O a =c N wc CIS cE Z No O = U3N >" O 0 c > cl. H F- N cc vVNV O II u cU cc 0 H- a U N to .., CO Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 26 a� C c cC cC O N c L_0 J J J .Q c ani m. ani �N 'O O 'O 2¢ a` a` a` O d c vi arn >; 0c � ° �EaEi N �; N ° o o in cv M o ca Q �, cv ° ccv V �' N °' c o y t e m ca:N E p c t5 8 c c = _ CL a °' c cc N 2 ~ 2 is '` N o L ° 2 >. E cv cv cv " �' N N Q° v c N oLO- Q n c a aai x v c�° O O C t t ca — 00 cn Wor 'c� ami as m > o c w ev ° `� w in E c 'DON WOO V O cv o N M Q cc ca v°i a ate) v y cc M v>i 5 c' E a c a> > 3 cv o • 'D c c rn N Q C Q c 0 p� O a L Rf �. (C •� ° .0 Cc O o c cv cc a 3 = 2 > 3 o 0 3 3 c �6 M � ? NOVOCL YO O 0 0c p 2m O ; o ` 22rnR 2T a) wNrn E � 2c— ` co O 4) r 0 o M >.3 E 2 M o. a� coi 2 cEv (D U c c Rf cu .- O c- 0M fn G) c L J U) Lm=din:!: � c Y ° o c>a X02N o c (D2 rnco � a� yrn °) v `-' N � cv 2) _ - o o 0 0 c) 10 E to ch E N H ; 15 M C J r O 0 5 N V a p V 2 E O ca Z M a j 2 0 O 2 .y OOoo ° E o "' `nac°aai a4r Q a E e cc 4 V CC 0 e0 cc L coNL N N M �c n`) a) V W d ° `- V m °- t O F c rn ca ►- moo Q r 00M ° oo . cc>o 2co wcc a 0 N c � �' a a 2 a� 2 Vccn cc tv c .. _ t°4 ` Ev > o C =`c v ° E ° 2m3a 0 0 v3 ° o °o 2 NU cc pO N O O O >.� U3coco� cc M n E W cn M � � 2 � w � H2v cot Q w cn graft IE1R tie \an Pme�dme�t cA P\bens Ge Pata Go\kr C g92 Jv y ?n so m m -toS > v 00 in G G o N N OoO 7 � o J:. T $. ui � ct y o o ��y p: b w 7 O V O ✓ d �O 3► . 3 A N {t6 G O-�G 0 O � 4 d T Q p ? IF i6 '0.l d a GOO o g d o Q �, ,4 .o d 4 � � o a • ocNa � %` � d • i6 N 7 Co- Lo N op 0 v G J o 0 0 to '�i v�O is O R �r 0 d G-�'y 7 G tp U CO O cd G N 97 O d % m G o G to t� G .0 ,NG O �7 v N ,,• ,yi .� �• -' CP L N c4 7 N m 'O O Oi G r CP 3 �,go Dom oho % � m NjN d 0 �, E x d O d d ¢G ,d 7.. O N S v G ! 5 � .-- .: a c`o cg 'S S'.- g D cab v) N ..- ; 5d 71 �G M 0 y E O Q b N .r^ � �N N ; � � G N G 7 D G 'D V O� .M 'O d d a cd tb G y T o p. 7, y OQ = y N Nd 47 m d0" � $ J� �, •• m � ya rr Draft EIR II. Summary Page 28 Albers General Plan Amendment Contra Costa County July 7, 1992 G G O to J U) J N.� _ av�� I c o o a O cc U cli O uj4? y 0 y 0 G 0 p d d c: G 0 N 0 a3 G 0 V ~p g �S OQ 0 0 O N L N tl N N d .v E C 4) N O O 'O t0 N � 0 ON O N O G 0 'L G G 'a v LU = CO 15 0 a 010 0 N r d C C 4) N U O ? O 0 17 y N G c G� Ss� ami � m E ,� oo_ vE av 3 � . N `� 0 C C 0 G 15 .0„ � d N t1 O co cz O tCS 2 1j G 4 O N N 0 V j d 0 O Cl tU O Vi G O q� {y C O 0 .^ L L 2 E c ° o coj 06- 0- 2 o �- o E � c m o } o 0 E G G N !!) RS co " .�.. CL.U) o N Mco ccti o c o o E 'av N o 0. ami °c_' �0 O w doh saw � Cp °> N ; 'G N L N e 0 0 G C 0 0 •0 0 .0• C1 cs t> 0 N tC tJ3 .0 O p t3 t7 C G C C! C N Op O t4 tt} -e N Q 0 rn 0 0 G +y 0 0 0 N G_ 0 0 N .� co °' N `` Z = N 0 N G to J G GiO N '� L .� t3 co b O N A G U N N O y C0) 0 -Y. p Qr. 7 L1 00 oW � �, a10 Ix.� E a) 2 °'co COSwEa�ia 0 X00 r-- 0 o ~ Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 29 a� V 76 m o c� co (n cn co cn ai ; cn O C L_,_ J J J J ch a) M _O J (L U) 8 E cJO • c ani ani ani ani ani ani o 2 c a a a a a au> o rn a) vi w c � ' �, `Y° c O O c 'O vi a U a� o 4) 1 QBE o08 c oao � u3i8m a _ p a) r a) N _ a) C ° O .� C .4% CD mm �• CD d a c 0 L 0) m o T-, '0 S O d N w w m w- a 'o a E o- m — .. c L ce ° N _ a v 0 '5 c m moa, o � E � � NNo N iv O d is O 4) E _ `2 °-' O w :- V N 0 'o O M 'd O > O d M cC m O 4) •� Q O .? c ° N p 3 N y c ° o f ccs c°o t_ cccc is c 3 c 3 o E E �'�°' .` ° c o 0 m o a) m •- 0c U) w- mwEE a) mwW — . ca. — — acocv8 waw a) c c co ca -.0 E•�-_- oiv O C L_,_ U) co U) U) cn cn a.u) N w 'O -) ccr O to O O 10 O > > UO w cc cC 10 . E w C 2 c 2 2L a) `°" c E � ; M c v� 'o t'n o v) c) E m a) m cc c � a m 8' a) v_, t) E om ,= of o3 � Q > Z0 •x mm a a O L a) O m 4)) "� ate) E ate) Y c c Q `y' c a E � B N rdLv � Q U) n.' N N (D H t O U O rn •LN, Z` :.:` O � .0 w g .0 �( Nw m�a' 2m> U � rxcE ai "0 m .2v 0 oLQ E vi 'c�nol i («m$ wa, a) U ca cc 3CD 00 vW i a'v ' Yca c U a >a) a) d = QM on 0 O a) O O aO � o am ma0 m 8 a) E 00 me a) E oo ) E ' o 2 0 o E 8•L La m c L m 8 >• 8 > v8 -1'0 = a vS 'ao aCL co m 0 � cn�u orate SIF 14. Summary Page 30 ral plan Amendment Alters GeneCounw Contra costa N ,uly 7, �g92 � In V _ G p d O v d w O G p G W ,p Oy N r 00 co Q 0 d (� O N E p G Q a C1 W Q v � d) osy G5 a op [L Q 00 G 5 o.• pGO `f to r— 0N U Nce p E dD p U N ✓ © �j v :a v ' a' G Nc •- Gv vpcon •- 4) .. G t6 p 10 p 0 0 0, C1 U) Ob E O tw4y N O i t6 L L o o N o o 'Ci N G v o o v 3 o 0 +pJ., N n G = L v d p �' Z V �° U N Gt v o 0 G O U 0) 3 Or � �' Ry � .p N GQt N G p E ¢ .p o ca ffv y t O '° va o' v iKa N U ocl. � N N v d N 7r o So � v L" 7CO px � Qf tr G N cd m CCf r G N G ai 3 .9- - N U) • "o tT� v �• r N �4 Ofat E%a U- S�ymrnaN ,pekoe 31 Amendment e4 P,\befs Get)GOSWL counw contf1992 aL 301 0, 16 % -0 . C:� N s tj DO C4 V.- O O C', O Slv�N 'V O 0 U) �B C: 0- 10 a 0 oe E 0 3: 01 C). CD 0 0, -o 0 40) 0 - C: -6 O .S P- to s z: c 0 P- 0 F Ig e e Is e 0 r_ C)6. .5- 0 e.- 0 Q> N -0 !P- 00Oi0 S o va a 0 '0a (j) 0 Zr o 4) 0 w ✓ cr s 4i 0 15.0 0 —0 0 0 !�0 R � 0 0 06- 0 a. " N .5 ,e 0 V.- 3; o '7 .0 ro- 00 r- 16 Q 0 4i r- -0. T' CD It 0 0 ✓ go E r- 0 0 0 Salca S CL O t1 to Ova,sWk 1�.SPsae3 Pme�dme�c P\bp-t5 Geoea C)o\)T\�Y ��yi?,C 992 cn, A? N G � � O o .' to g d 9 0 ~ ot4 � U N T v 0.- o> gG O (> D O G C5�N 0 r0 3;5-1 N d p N y 0 f.- O GRt G d 0 O [t O r N ri6 G T �- y r0 �� OS N S G i4 y y E Y i N O m o\ o ca m O dto '0 G O .N w a d �1 ✓ 'U �? N 1 p �^y. v N L G D Ntd 3z:N •' N N G �, ur d 3 W d �, �' G r 0) G — E E N o � -- O .r o. �•- co v N ll. d U N N 7 N dw O y N .O C3 S O V 3 d NO dN d G 6� W 0 O N tod - tb ;O O N O N U t° N G Ci O N t� 0 to to 0 w 0 r � G ib io i�O oN3 N V E7 EE r ✓ = V to r O O O Gv � O �fj iC t 0 y . O N J O O 00 ,. N N � v o Or G 15. 0 o Ul d. ca O r o a%% 0 O NE cd LL- Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 33 d c c N U O rA W 0�-� CL c oN _ c � ani d rnN Q g Q a ; (L ca d _ U) O N N CDcc cc a� c =' .� cu ° s a c g Ern c E 3 c N «. 3 O E E o o c avi o O c C> c m o a� Ncavi N 0 E 5 0 EH UCm c 'OO O � o . ) 000co vaccflQ>c '~Q cN o c U cc c o m oQ a01 E 2 a Ea a 3 a s Ua a a 0 - cuda a a 0 E o z E E ULa. w a� U C C cC OO - U p`. CE M N C L_ cJ) CL U) M H = - a) U h N ca 3 N p N ca -0 V y v O O N U �. N 0 M ME �io °' o � a � � o a � o � 0 ;� � Q�ic° co `� o = � E C (a ca c N d o •- -0 2 E L m ? wcn C V a CNi C RS .Q C_ N O 410 m E U .G 0 0 a a ca N 3 Ga ca C NN d O ` 0 O N N N 10 J5 a� N G Q $ 0 'O O m ea N N 7 O' N .N ea p m � O a � M C O- «>O `=Ca' >5a2 — 0O CL co Naaac t 0 cv a ° M -Q-1rn 10 )EdcN � � Hoc x d - mfn �mnocc n aca a � N eo o E ` - teaiQ � pc % o pgc v a- 0 a Q aE- d - 0 V F- c 3 N ca cn -i c') Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County 11. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 34 m CU cC v O J ain3 � sN � cc M N d cc a a 0 C Mc0 _ L ca c V m t N 2 O N ca m N '.' a is N E v U v 0 a C t~A N N N U O lC w rnY c Y N ca m > L CDU � 0 2 Q _oo = o E �LUU- ca c 4) in c o w. c uj c —@ N = r N o o w O •`- 20 "D N d ? m c`c c c c o ; ca acv ¢ ca M C U- o O N n EO U c ani '0 W � c u U2U) — 0)VD Qa� yLO � L d N N N Q y a o L C N co ca v_, L U- O N M CL 75 W CL m ca0 > Z c`C U p w O F t M U 0 N c c E > «_- N co 0 c u_ N N N O O O U Q N N Q1 d y O U U L d V ,,n d w r C N d = O O 9) CL Z a N o ate' o � HaU) a� U C C RS.r O C- 0 U)d c=,_ J U) co (L W O �` pE N y c C ... Rs m 3 co Cj d W n O N0) m o� g 0 c 'o � CL v � mr N a W 3 0 3. tacor- cr c w . E cNC C d O LZ p m $ .� o -, � cNo 0QE E 0c�a E 0 o c� 3 y �`m cco 0 - o o 0 N `r. y d „� N C 2 Q Q V > U) m 0 C `n °_' M, Z NE 0 V� a~ z A 8 C C C N O W co w 0 - V Y � C «. O O ea N — Q cd O R1 �p =N C O L a N L O N O N O E > L 7 N d C m W Q � N O C C d C N C_ N j cc N E N u cc O co = x L N O y Y Y = r L t w E L F- Q 4M Q 3 V1 c0 w 0 M .. 0 N L co Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 35 a� c c ea ca o d-U)3 � c� O N � eU N O a` T o, eO 3 ai y p = c O a .p ca d 0 V 'a E r N ai T 0 p L C (ry p t C r D. M cv � 5 n v _� .. ca ea Ev NUrncyiL �vEp � `�' o :: t — ) ac � pea en "' ocpirnL � u' oo 0) caaOc° CNeV C t - LL °' a =O E .0w .N V o p O = ^ CE VQ d C r CcN iff N L t p 2CD rU > Mc.�aOEEEEoma) X3cpi � a � 0 °' c'i to qD p d C y L a U C w (D z = W _ _a m Z « Y m � CD s `co o EONC N ,C O N . > ccy rCC VA O > E O p cc O c Y NO £O ) pOw =�E 4) xmtp mdYO oo U cuat ai .cppEQ > t o c Q cn Y in w = E a t O E d N a 3 W U — C C ca ca O C= O p O C t •_ fn N a a> `� L ca meaca c 0 E o a = o U, a v m ca p 3 e- p t p Ow dGUin U isa d p ea c — — (a . O O pa E c`a CD m :3 c r pea .rcc Eca ro �- cO p «v. 0 •- � = Q E m H m a» t v C € ca c > _ � � L O E wC r C p p O ea p -i eo U) m ci c c i. m 3 0 p Q 0 a� (M O ca p ea ~ O N M d p Y C O � Ec � cca � c`aca, � cti ? rnNi� N ° 42 4! 4). � m3 ° � � w in -Iin d = p 2 U � p c. 0 cu ca � ta «- L U p EE Nom . Q II 11 H Q � n Nov coca ° aamD n c -iU) Albers General ma Amendment Draft DB Contra Costa County m Summary July 7 1992 Page 36 . FU cu o � 'E i-- q 0-cok2 §� c 2 �cr (L ; 2 ` � � _ � 2 �2 . . t % £ e cc t - - 0 » § 2 0 c k 0 § � T -=E 7 M t 2 k 0ac8M -02 ■ .0 o n c E 2 — — -Q S > § 0 c 3 £ § 2 k . 2 0 " : 0 2 2 7 C6 ° E k2 © c £ _ & � ok � � $ / 2 2 § - rr 2 2 ■ G g E 2 K � a o ■ � � 2 2 o f k k M c 2 E 2 2 8 x 2 k � . � MSk t. 0Cc m m . -i 1L ch . @ / @ cz - A o '0 (n2 4) 0 « � % 2 � k t ¢ > r- 2 227 E & k 22 0 2 a � � £ k . iE (D s 0 0 2 c t � k • R k �t 2 � a � 2 / 2 U) .0 §§ ' ? 2 CL k � k ' a 0 k $ ts '0 2 q 2 2 § A) 2 f M r- 5 u - ■ ■ c 0 k k 2 a 2 ' a 2 � ' A*co ��aft ESR N. a page . ppe�ame�t Ptbe� Geis a tau GQ�tca 'Og2 N Cl- , t�6 C O O N d 7 +Cn o c�a � Z 'g �, •oco C Q G i c� 0) toN •o o N �p Q ca v sQ o N �G V Q LCP N y O N toto co :� G o N •r d ` C ch ` N No 5 ty G �j C G N C 7 Q �r a> o y N wow —Q G 0 3 D 7 'moo- o, 0 6i t7 4Q ocC a� d y � S o d 2 'o m ? g � d a� Q Q � o� dg Soo co C" G ✓,.':C d Q No oca ' o. wca R � Nom' G��i' � 0ocn j �$> v► we `�'•d Z}1 7 -Z % � u E 's 0,o Zc E mNca � � N to � x 'Q 'N N C o v o E p N o o ate ; o o u a k v G I J N o to 1 m Y o � 0 ca "0 , a,ad m N �, a � oo ,0 omX � o v p 0 % 4 ca Q 'tA m •• d Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County II. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 38 0. SUMMARY OF PROJECT RELATIONSHIPS TO ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES Chapter V of this EIR outlines project relationships to pertinent policies and provisions of the adopted Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 and the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. As required by CEQA, chapter V also evaluates project consistency with several adopted regional plans, including the Association of Bay Area Government's San Francisco Bay Area Regional Plan (1980), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Transportation Plan (1991), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Bay Area Air Quality Plan (1979), and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board's Bay Area Water Quality Management Plan (1980). E. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES As noted in the Introduction, this EIR also examines the comparative merits of a number of alternatives to the proposed action, 'including: (1) the CEQA-required no project alternative, which assumes continuation of the present use of the site; (2) a general plan buildout alternative, or development of the site as would be allowed under its primary existing Agricultural Lands/Agricultural Core land use designations; (3) a mitigated project, or development of the site with lot layout and circulation design revisions and associated reduction in the total number of project lots, in order to reduce or minimize identified adverse environmental impacts; (4) a density transfer alternative, or development of the residential component of the project in a "cluster" design with variations in housing type and density, in order to provide greater areas of common open space, greater setbacks from surrounding land uses, and better protection of existing drainage systems; (5) an all residential alternative, or development of the entire site with larger residential lots (i.e., 10,000 square feet average lot size), without the commercial portion of the project; and (6) an applicant-proposed alternative. In response to CEQA guideline provisions calling for identification of the environmentally superior alternative, the comparative environmental impact ratings of the various project alternatives evaluated in this chapter are listed below. Please note that only "environmental" factors were considered in this ranking. Other considerations, such as local and regional housing needs, economic viability, and landowner intentions were not considered. Highest Environmental Ranking No Project Alternative (most environmentally desirable) General Plan Alternative Residential Only Alternative Density Transfer Alternative 5141DEIRIII.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County It. Summary July 7, 1992 Page 39 Mitigated Alternative Applicant-Proposed Alternative Lowest Environmental Ranking Proposed Project (least environmentally desirable) 5141DE1RIl1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • 5141DEIRI TITLPAGE.514 80' Vallejo 99 78D Pittsburg 4 < Stockton 60 Antioch Brentwood Concord 4 24 Walnut Creek Byron PROJECT s SITE Oakland 6 San, Francisco Q 2 4 6 REGIONAL SETTING MILES y �� +ted `S C9 _ `BETHEL ISLAND ANTlgO}t>,+++4.r,+.r�.r.a.4...aa �� E.18 H ST._ OAKLEY tah� TREE a ¢ z L� 'J x y uf( 3 x CHESTNUTf RD. Z O cc BR NTWOOD m s d CS POINT OF m HIGHWAY 4 TIMBER RD. DISCOVERY a y BAY w PROJECT cc X d MARSH CREEK RD. SITE m O m O y N d 71C o m HIGHWAY 4 F c _ KELLOGG CREEK RD. HOFFMAN ` 0 2 DIABLO BYRON f fi` Figure 1 LOCAL SETTING ,�J REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTING Albers General Pian Amendment EIR Contra Costa County Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 43 . III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the proposed actions or "project" addressed by this EIR. The project description is based on material submitted to the County as part of the project proponent's application for a general plan amendment, rezoning, and subdivision of the project property. As called for by state CEQA Guidelines, the project description has been detailed to the extent needed for evaluation and review of environmental impacts. The description includes: (a) the location and boundaries of the project, (b) a statement of the basic objectives sought by the project, (c) a description of the project's technical and environmental characteristics (i.e., lot and circulation layout, external access, building design, parking, grading, storm drainage, water, sewer, landscaping, construction phasing, etc.); (d) the various permits and jurisdictional approvals required to allow the project; and (e) the intended uses of this EIR. . A. EXISTING SETTING 1. Regional Location As illustrated by Figure 1, the project site is located in the unincorporated Byron-Discovery Bay area of eastern Contra Costa County. State Route 4 (Highway 4) provides regional access to the site. The site is approximately 30 driving miles northeast of Concord and 20 miles west of Stockton. Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood are located to the northwest on Highway 4. 2. Local Setting As illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, the project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 4 and Bixler Road. The site is approximately 1.5 miles west of the Discovery Bay planned community on Highway 4, approximately five driving miles southwest of the city of Brentwood, and approximately one-half mile east of the Byron Highway. The unincorporated community of Byron is approximately three driving miles to the south. The site vicinity includes a flat landscape of traditional east-county rural uses, including agricultural activities (forage crops, grazing, etc.), and rural residential uses, as well as water-related suburban residential and commercial uses (Discovery Bay). Immediately north 5141DEIRIM.514 V •anI9 AVE] la3noOS 01 LL If cc LU P U) QpriW i C ca C cc cc U. 1' d uj Tj cc LL LU cc 4Z — - --�W m U CL oCL 8L NOW 9 + • J a3SOdOHd w a _� da U31XlG FY a h i i �� : a �I cc LL 'O ------------------- Z� - b AVMHCJIH NIMH NOIJAS - - ... ' o Q < tr .. } 1 Q W _-- V C7 = 2 N Z -- E Q LL1 133-A 0 • Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 45 of the site off of Bixler Road are a small number of new "ranchettes" consisting of single- family residences on large lots (approximately five or more acres), plus a few older, established single-family residences on smaller lots, some of which contain accessory agriculture uses. Immediately west of the site are active agricultural (crop) lands. Further to the west are additional rural residential uses. As shown in Figure 3, a 15,400-square- foot (0.35-acre) parcel creates a notch at the southwest comer of the site. This adjacent parcel contains a single-family home and associated outbuildings.' Directly south of the site on the opposite side of Highway 4 are similar active agricultural uses (crop lands). A boat and engine repair shop is located opposite the site on the southwest corner of Bixler Road and Highway 4. As shown on Figure 3, another small lot containing a single-family home and accessory structures is located on this side of Highway 4 directly opposite the southeast corner of the site. Adjacent to the east project boundary is the site of the pending Byron 78 development proposal. A general plan amendment, rezoning, and service area change is proposed for this adjacent 78-acre site in order to accommodate a development plan consisting of commercial, office, and industrial uses. Immediately east of the Byron 78 site is the Discovery Bay planned community, a self-contained, water-oriented suburban residential development with associated commercial and institutional uses. Northeast of the project site on Bixler Road and adjacent to the existing Discovery Bay development is the site of the pending Hoffman development (a.k.a. Discovery Bay West), a proposed 1,400-unit single- family residential subdivision with 6,000-to-10,000-square-foot lots and a golf course. 3. General Site Characteristics Existing project site conditions are illustrated on Figures 3 and 4. The 73.5-acre site is currently used primarily to grow hay, but also contains a single-family residence and associated outbuildings, and a mobile home, all of which are located in the northwest comer of the property. The topography of the site is almost entirely level, with the exception of irrigation-drainage ditches along the eastern, western, and southern boundaries of the property. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has identified the soil on the property as Marcuse clay, a non-prime agricultural soil. This soil type is described by the SCS as poorly drained with a comparatively low strength rating, high-shrink potential, and moderate-to-slow 'This parcel, which is owned by the County, will be conveyed to the project applicant in exchange for demolition and removal of all existing structures and debris on the site. See Appendix B for letter from Ronald D. Babst, May 12, 1992 to Lucia Albers, outlining the County's position. 5141DEIRIl11.514 " . a-- ad 8311X18ca ° LL luuY a. cc r �V 3t ,•s d;:l:s, W W Aw OE is r � � �� • .,,.,:;•:� R', ;.i�p' .#, i � �� C ItoV. Zi t�,z ! i i 'aid'.:a :�;• ,� j t' x ' "04 ;T x < �.. _ " ' .16,40mmm!Now Pt , 1. a ;i:. . to LU t`) <;.�Y,? q: �.,. �< y ",�.� �5' 6 Y •(� �' 'S %:fir�':• F < r < yM.r — 111 t AMAMI i; LL —- AL- ��G °r: .• I V 1 LU ��•r'`i• •iw•Mii•kiii—N-•ri i�7i i's�ltiii'•�•i•'ei.i�•e>��ii�•i�•ei•�i'�•—� 5 yQ 31 -_ !; ,;--, �_ -.�, '-, •:III a c UL d• ¢ W r I .�'.11. T I i I ly.+ 3 �'_ :+ ' ''.I. V •Q N O C �'1 eNi s l I :I 1 :•1 `�� s It CL LU 1 i ( J , 1 ,� 1 I ,f •1� � 7 y t ' i 'Tl • • • i 17 1 • • • • • • ��I i �T�—• •�� 1 7 I '�' Irl' ' • • , , 1 : • • f 1 • . • i .I I ']r 1 'r''�,�''l� � •• i . • , •, i i i oil 1. ��' ' _ 14/\..71'1 \I _ i _�•___`_.� 1 • • • • ,'W ;all • � �� ... — gr4tC. s..�/, •ou}'n�iu:x•�r.. :�:; f�r_I :ill'. u Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 48 permeability. The Soils and Geology section of this EIR (Section IV.E) describes these soil and other geotechnical characteristics in more detail. The Byron-Bethany Irrigation District holds a 33-foot-wide easement along the western property line from a point approximately 1,200 feet north of Highway 4, within the portion of the project site which protrudes north from the northwest corner of the property to Marsh Creek Road. The applicant states on the development plan that this easement will be abandoned or relocated. This easement contains a drainage and irrigation water distribution pipeline serving parcels to the north of Marsh Creek Road.' B. BASIC PROJECT OBJECTIVES The project sponsors, Lucia Albers and Centex Homes, have stated that their primary objectives are "to create and build a residential subdivision of production homes along with a neighborhood commercial center," which respond to a perceived near-term market in eastern Contra Costa County for "reasonably priced and well designed homes," and for more convenient neighborhood commercial and needed medical services. The intent is to construct in phases a residential component of varying Single-family home designs, and an adjacent commercial center with a grocery or drug-variety store anchor, some miscellaneous secondary neighborhood-serving retail and service commercial businesses, and a medical office component.2 To achieve these objectives the applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment from Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Core to Single Family Residential High Density and Commercial. C. PROPOSED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Overall Development Concept The proposed project development plan is shown on Figure 5 (a reduction of the proponent's Tentative Map submittal). The proposed subdivision layout includes a 57.5- acre, 296-lot, single-family residential component, a 12.0-acre neighborhood commercial_ center component, a 2.7-acre medical-office component, and a 1.3-acre central park site. The 296 residential lots would be served by an onsite road system totaling approximately 'Letter from Fred K. Specht, Manager, Byron Bethany Irrigation District, to James Cutler, June 21, 1994. 2Memo from Alan Hyden, Centex Homes, to Wagstaff and Associates, January 8, 1992. 5141DEIR1111.514 i • w • -------------------- o TD rtwor I I A N14V u. .1 N r i %:'n. • 7 j f—I p --- -————- It so AL —x--- ———--——-—— - ----•.•'}--- ----------- It It 1,4 A > (n It m A11N. kt. It 0 kNz G r It stL z i ap -t- > 7 7. —— ———— ————- —————— :It It S r- 14 319, 0 0 z VI Z L4 43 't (n k. Uu t! t t I L 35' -93 N t JI T IL Y r It 51 CO) U1_1 1111111H11111-HM q 91. C C lit— I Ivl I t tb f l I I �_ cia n 1!t T-1: I A,.L I t _ � i , a O I JI Y v �a` `�� ✓' Y L' I N� ♦1' I m It F L 71' Lt. z U 1,T14 I ly I 1 1111 11111111 F I. w _U I I I '1 11111111111111111�/■y % ' ` 0. fn (40 I rn I I I I�'Hfj 111 Cii�1RI r WAV 11 120 I 180 BIXLER ROA -T!:: Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 51 1.5 miles in length, with one connection each to Highway 4 and Bixler Road. The neighborhood commercial center portion of the development plan would be located at the southwest corner of the site with frontage on Bixler Road and State Highway 4, and would include approximately 112,420 square feet of commercial space. The commercial center would include an internal road system with its own direct connections to Highway 4 and Bixler Road (one each), plus additional connections to the internal residential roadway system. The medical office portion of the project would be located in the northeast corner of the site with frontage on Bixler Road, and would eventually contain approximately 52,000 square feet of professional office space. 2. Vehicular Access and Circulation a. Access. The preliminary development plan shows two proposed vehicular access connections to Highway 4, and two vehicular access connections to Bixler Road. The residential and commercial portions of the project would each have one access point on both Highway 4 and Bixler Road. Access to the medical office portion of the development would be via the project residential street system near its connection to Bixler Road. An additional emergency-only access connection to Marsh Creek Road would be provided at the northeastern corner of the site via the existing Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 33-foot easement (see Figure 5). b. Onsite Road System. The onsite residential road system would consist of the.primary entrance road off of Highway 4, the secondary entrance on Bixler Road, four primary internal collector roads, and several cul-de-sacs. The street pattern consists of a number of parallel and gently curving diagonal. links. Proposed internal residential roadway cross- sections are shown on Figure 6. The system would include three roadway types and widths, including the divided entry street off of Highway 4, the internal subdivision streets, and the subdivision courts. The neighborhood commercial center portion of the site would have its own internal circulation and parking system. As shown on Figure 5, the center's parking lot would be accessed from Highway 4, Bixler Road, and the primary residential entrance road. The medical office portion of the project would also have its own internal circulation and parking system; however, no design for this portion of the project has been submitted at this time. c. Offsite Roadway Improvements. To facilitate project access, the applicants propose offsite improvements to both Highway 4 and Bixler Road along the project frontage. The addition of two more westbound lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as shown in Figure 6, are proposed for Highway 4. Proposed improvements to Bixler Road include two additional southbound lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as shown on Figure 6. The new southbound lanes would be separated from the northbound lanes (the existing roadway) by a temporary concrete median along the retail commercial portion of the Bixler Road frontage. 51410E/RW1.514 R/V R/1 80' C 10' 1 22' 1 8' 8' I 22' 1 10' 2 5.5'14.5'14.5' S.5' COUNTY STD. AC B3-8 CURB COUNTY STD SI-6 AB .CURB L GUTTER L WALK ENTRY STREET R/V R/V R/V R/V 56' 10' I8' 18' 10' 10' 16' 16' 10' a 2�5.5'14.5' 4.5.1 5.5' 2 5.5' 4.5' 4.5'1 5.5' --r-- r r r COUNTY STD SI- AB COUNTY STD S1 A8 CURB L GUTTER L WALK CURB L GUTTER L VALK SUBDIVISION STREETS SUBDIVISION COURTS ONSITE CROSS-SECTIONS R/V R/V 63' I 63' FUTURE 9' 6' 1 41r 24' EXISTING A.L. '/- PAVEMENT To I �EXI5TING GROVNO KEMAIN ---- ----- ------------- "�' ----- J—� � A.B. COUNTY STD Sl-6� HIGHWAY 4 FRONTAGE CURB L GUTTER L WALK R/W R/V (FUTURE) 100' 10' 32' 8' 50'(FVTVRE) 7EM'0RARY 5.5' 4.5' A.C. OIKE EXISTING PVMT AC S MEDIAN TO REMAIN EX15TING GROUND AS `---- '---- -- -- BIXLER ROAD FRONTAGE COUNTY STD SI-6 CURB L GUTTER L WALK A.C.OIKE ON EX151-NG PAY"CAW AT COMMERCIAL SITE R/V 42' I 42' FUTURE 32' ito EX. PYMf 2 4'7 TO KEMAW Ac 1 EXISTING GR00140 BIXLER-ROAD FRONTAGE COUNTY STD. SI- "B NORTH OF COMMERCIAL SITE CURB L GUTTER L VALK OFFSITE CROSS-SECTIONS Figure 6 PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENT CROSS SECTIONS SOURCE: Bellecci & associates, Civil Engineers, February 1992 Albers General Plan Amendment EIR Contra Costa County Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 53 3. Proposed Residential Component a. Lot Layout. As shown in Figure 5, the proposed project lot layout is designed around the four main residential streets which crisscross the site. Approximately one half of the project lots would be accessed by the project's primary streets and the remainder would be accessed by cul-de-sacs. The proposed 296. lots would range in size from approximately 4,760 square feet (approximately one tenth of an acre) to 12,240 square feet (0.28 acres), with an average size of 5,970 square feet (0.11 acres). The applicant states that the typical residential lot would have an 18-foot setback from the road, five-foot side yards, and a 20-foot deep rear yard. The residential portion of the project would have a net density of 6.7 units per acre' and a gross density of approximately 5.0 dwelling units per acre. b. Anticipated Home Characteristics. All project homes would be designed and constructed by Centex Homes of Concord. Centex anticipates that the project would contain a mixed combination of four different single-family residential floor plans, ranging in floor area from 1,404 square feet to 2,124 square feet. Each floor plan would have three different "elevation styles" for a total of twelve "different house schemes.*2 The homes would contain three to four bedrooms, two to two and one-half baths, one to two stories, and a two-car garage. Table 2 provides a preliminary breakdown of project home types. Preliminary floor plans and artist conceptions of the different residential types are illustrated on Figure 7. c. Home Prices. The selling price range for the various project home types is expected to range from approximately $180,000 to $220,000 in 1992 dollars. 4. Proposed Park The project layout also includes a 1.3-acre parcel labeled as "park." This triangular-shaped parcel ("Parcel C" on Figure 5) is located near the center of the 73.5-acre site along the Highway 4 entrance to the residential area and opposite the commercial area. No specific improvements to this neighborhood park site have been proposed at this time; however, the applicants state that they will prepare and implement a park improvement plan. 'Net density was calculated as 75 percent gross acreage, as per footnote 1 on Table 3-4, Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005. 2Hyden. 5141DEIRIIl1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 54 Table 2 ANTICIPATED PROJECT HOME CHARACTERISTICS Floor Area Estimated in ft.) Bedrooms Baths Stories Project Mix Plan 1 1,404 3 2 1 20% Plan 2 1,766 3 2 2 30% Plan 3 1,918 3 2.5 2 30% Plan 4 2,124 4 2.5 2 20% SOURCE: Centex Homes 5. Proposed Neighborhood Shopping Center and Medical Office Site a. Shopping Center. The proposed neighborhood commercial center would contain a total of approximately 112,420 square feet of leasable floor area, including one main, interconnected, single-story shopping complex at the rear of the commercial site (approximately 98,420 square feet), and three individual commercial pads along the Highway 4 frontage (approximately 5,000, 4,000, and 5,000 square feet, respectively). The main structure would include two "major" or "anchor" retail tenants (Major 1 and Major 2), which would probably consist of a grocery store and a drugs-variety store, plus adjacent secondary commercial space (Store A, Store B, and Store C) for neighborhood-serving specialty retail and service commercial tenants, such as a cleaners, hardware store, stationery store, video store, financial or real estate operation, hair salon, sporting supplies, apparel shop, small coffee/sandwich shop, delicatessen, etc. The three pads would probably each be occupied by an automobile-oriented, "quick-stop" retail or service- commercial use, such as a fast-food restaurant, quick-stop market, or small bank. A sketch of the proposed shopping center, prepared by the applicant, is included in Appendix B of this EIR. b. Shopping Center Parking. The commercial portion of the project will contain a parking area located along Highway 4 and Bixler Road. Except for the small structures on the three pads along Highway 4, the retail buildings will be set back from Highway 4 behind the parking area. The commercial center parking area would include 627 parking stalls. The zoning ordinance requires 546 parking stalls for the uses described above. All parking spaces are designed as 90 degree stalls. 5141DEIRIll1.514 w(14 . ................... lip, Z .12 H Lou— "L 11N, ...... ...... U 7' W4.-N, 41M DO V� 44W ..N L-3111 EMH If�Mlxw-u t Frx .wt,4 �+ 'r' "t '` •.`, C=cwv 370- L U d'.1 1 �Ei 1j'r=7 M aaaa M r I tj • 0 t6i ro,i L21 o'!;V2�t351, -9K 17T ih Lam ng — I .. I I- I.( -; -yi V.Npp J TT, rL AG 1 7 N7- M m tk—;Z-1 D° 7?jF1 Qu -01 51 _j ITO > :::1'vw ED ROM g,:; u, jf�, ;7t, lob -j U !C, Ji Fill t Hl--am 0 1. a L 110 P". __J is J: P�.,J Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 57 c. Medical Office Site. At this time, the applicant has not provided any specific information regarding development plans for the 2.70-acre area shown on the Tentative Map as "Proposed Medical Office Space." Assuming 25 percent coverage of this site by two- story office (the typical development intensity for suburban office in east Contra Costa County), the site could eventually contain approximately 58,800 square feet of medical office floor space. 6. Project Pedestrian System. The proposed project would include a comprehensive sidewalk system on both sides of all internal subdivision streets and courts, and along the project side of Highway 4 and Bixler Road. All sidewalks would be constructed according to county standards. 7. Landscaping The applicants have prepared and submitted a preliminary landscape plan for the project which is shown on Figure 8. The plan components are illustrated as part of the Applicant- Proposed Alternative which is further described in section VI of this EIR. The preliminary landscape plan includes street trees, entryway planting, planting along Highway 4, and planting in the commercial area parking lot (rows of trees for visual screening and windbreaks), and a 3.5-acre lake within the 5.2-acre park. The proposed street trees would be planted at each lot side boundary (one per lot). No particular street tree type has been proposed. Entryway planting would be located in the median at the main entrance to the project off Highway 4, and in the open space area near the entry to the residential portion of the project off of Bixler Road at the northeast corner of the site. The landscaped area at the Bixler Road entrance would include a eucalyptus grove and a grove of pear trees surrounding the existing drainage canal, plus a trellis and a sign monument. The landscape strip along Highway 4 would be nine feet wide and would include trees and/or shrubs. The parking lot planting would include contain trees in all island areas, plus accent plantings at the corners and entrances. No plant species have been specified in the preliminary plan for these areas. The rows of screen trees would be located along the west property line in a 20-foot wide landscape easement, and along the northern property line in a ten-foot easement. These easements would contain trees and natural grasses. No particular species of trees or grasses have been specified in the preliminary plan. The proposed park would also contain trees and shrubs around the proposed lake. 5141DEIRIlll.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Ill. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 58 8. Water Service Water service to the project for domestic and fire flow purposes is proposed to be provided through expansion of the Discovery Bay water system service area and infrastructure (i.e., the water distribution component of Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19) as necessary to serve the project. Other water service alternatives, including: (a) the construction of a new onsite private well and water distribution system; (b) extension of the existing Byron-Bethany Irrigation District service area and infrastructure; and (c) expansion of the Contra Costa County Water District, which were considered but determined to be infeasible, are further discussed in Section IV.G.2 of this EIR (Public Services). 9. Sewer Service Sewer service to the project is proposed to be provided through expansion of the Discovery Bay community sewer service area and infrastructure (i.e., expansion of the Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19 sewer component, which is operated and maintained on a contract basis by the Delta Diablo Sanitation District). 10. Storm Drainage The project as proposed would contain a conventional, subsurface storm drainage collection system which would direct collected runoff offsite via a new project-provided culvert across (beneath) Bixler Road at the northeast end of the site, which would discharge into an existing open drainage channel. D. REQUIRED JURISDICTIONAL APPROVALS 1. Project Application In order to implement the proposed project, the proponent has submitted an application to Contra Costa County for approval of a proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and an associated Preliminary Development Plan and Tentative Map. a. Proposed General Plan Amendment. The applicant has requested that the Contra Costa County General Pian Land Use Map designation for the 73.48-acre project site be changed from AL: Agricultural-Lands (approximately 31 acres)' and AC: Agricultural Core (approximately 42 acres)' to Single Family Residential High Density and Commercial. This general plan amendment would allow: (1) the proposed substantial increase in residential 'Based on Contra Costa County General Pian 1990-2005 Land Use Element map. The relevant portion of this map is included in Appendix B of this EIR. 5141DE1RIll1.514 p . 71 mvy fri �D 7 - IT, ,� lf IVk n rn . I t . -- r n SNI - — � r D Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 61 density on the site (i.e., from approximately seven total units to the proposed 296 units), and (2) development of the proposed commercial land uses (i.e., retail and office). b. Proposed Rezoning. The applicant has also requested that the zoning for the 73.48- acre site be changed from Heavy Agricultural (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1). The rezoning to P-1 would allow residential uses at densities consistent with the proposed underlying general plan designation change, so long as the county finds the proposed development plan is consistent with the objectives, regulations, and standards outlined in Article 84-66.14 of the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. 2. Required Local Actions The project application will require action by several local governmental jurisdictions. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan, and the associated Tentative Map must be approved by both the East County Regional Planning Commission and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Expansion of any existing municipal service district to serve the project, including Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 19 water and sewer service, would require approvals from the county Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the district itself. 3. Reguired State and Federal Actions The creation of a new water service district or the expansion of the Sanitation District 19 water service area to accommodate the project would also require the approval of the State Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water. Access and associated improvements to Highway 4 would require review and approval by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project grading and drainage aspects may meet the criteria for State Department of Fish and Game (DFG) jurisdiction (i.e., would meet the jurisdictional criteria set forth in State Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1603 pertaining to the need for a DFG Stream Alteration Permit.) The grading and drainage aspects of the project may also meet the criteria for US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) jurisdiction (i.e., may meet the jurisdictional criteria set forth in Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act pertaining to the need for COE issuance of a Section 404 permit for stream and wetland fill activities). These jurisdictional issues are explored in further detail in sections IV.E (Flooding, Drainage, and Water Quality) and IV.H (Vegetation and Wildlife) of this EIR. 5140E1RI111.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County III. Project Description July 7, 1992 Page 62 E. INTENDED USES OF THE EIR As explained earlier in this chapter, Contra Costa County is acting as the Lead Agency for all environmental documentation and procedural requirements for the Albers project, including related offsite improvements. This EIR has been prepared to serve as the CEQA- required environmental documentation for county consideration of this project, including the associated general plan amendment and rezoning application, as well as subsequent subdivision approvals, grading permit approvals, building permit approvals, and other county actions necessary to implement the project. As the Lead Agency, the county also intends that this EIR serve as the CEQA-required documentation for approvals relating to this project which may be made by other responsible agencies, including the County Health Department, LAFCO, State Health Department, Caltrans, DFG, COE, and any other responsible agencies not identified at this time. 5141DEIRIIl1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV. Setting, Impacts, and Mitigations July 7, 1992 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATIONS 5141DEIRI TITLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV. Setting, Impacts, and Mitigations July 7, 1992 5141 DEI RI TI TLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 65 A. LAND USE This EIR section includes a description of the existing land use setting, the project's potential impacts on that setting, and possible mitigation measures to offset identified adverse impacts. Project relationships to adopted local and regional land use plans, policies and regulations, including the Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 and the Contra Costa Zoning Ordinance, are discussed in Chapter V of this EIR (Consistency with Adopted Local and Regional Plans). 1. EXISTING SETTING a. Project Site Land Use As shown earlier on Figures 1 and 2, the project site is located at the unincorporated eastern edge of Contra Costa County. As also shown earlier on Figure 3 (the aerial photograph of the site), the project site is currently in agricultural use. Portions of the site are used for growing hay, while other vacant areas are covered with non-native grasses and low-growing brush. At this writing, the site also contained stacked bales of hay along its eastern edge. Beyond forage, the University of California Cooperative Extension has. advised the applicant that the poor drainage qualities and strong alkaline characteristics of the site's clay soil create significant limitations for the growing of viable commercial crops (row cropping, etc.).' A single-family home, a mobile-home, and accessory structures, are clustered at the northwest corner of the site. The single-family home and the mobile home are currently occupied as residences. The property is enclosed with wire/post fences. Irrigation ditches surround all but the northern boundary of the site. Telephone poles and overhead wires run along the southern edge of the site within the Highway 4 right-of-way. 'Letter from Liese Greensfelder, Farm Advisor, Cooperative Extension, University of California, dated September 4, 1987 to Lucia Albers. The US Department of Soil Conservation Storie Index for the site is Grade 5, which indicates poor suitability for intensive farming because of drainage problems and soil alkalinity. 5141DEIRII".514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 66 The Byron-Bethany Irrigation District holds a 33-foot wide easement along the narrow portion of the site which extends northward from the northwestern corner of the property to Marsh Creek Road. b. Surrounding Land Use This flat easternmost area of Contra Costa County has historically been dominated by agricultural (crop and grazing) land uses, with some associated rural-residential development. In recent years, however, this east county area has experienced substantial growth pressures and conversion to suburban-residential development, particularly at Discovery Bay and in proximity to Brentwood and Byron. This local suburbanization trend has been linked to the growth of existing employment centers in more central areas of the county such as Concord, Walnut Creek, and Pleasant Hill, as well as the development of expanding employment bases in Pittsburg, Antioch, Livermore, Pleasanton, Stockton, and Tracy, and increasing housing costs in the more centralized Bay Area cities. In particular, recent changes in the regional distribution of job opportunities have put the Discovery Bay vicinity within commute distance of a number of growing new job centers.' The various types of land use surrounding the project site are diagrammed on Figure 9 and described below: (1) Rural Residential Development. Ranchettes (i.e., agriculture-related residences on large lots) are common in the project vicinity. These types of residences can be found to the north and west of the project site, particularly along Marsh Creek between Bixler Road and Highway 4 (Byron Highway). A new seven-unit subdivision of four-to-five-acre lots is currently being developed with rural-residential ranchettes immediately to the north of the project site on Feratado Lane and Jacintho Drive, off of Marsh Creek Road. (2) Byron 78. The proposed Byron 78 (Udjur) project site is located on the northeast intersection of Bixler Road and Highway 4, on the opposite side of Bixler Road from the project site. This pending mixed-use development proposal, if approved, would bring a 21- acre shopping center, 13 acres of office space, and 44 acres of light industrial and boat storage to the project vicinity. The Byron 78 project application, now pending, will require county approval of a general pan amendment, rezoning, and associated preliminary development plan. (3) Discovery Bay. The Discovery Bay planned community is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project on the opposite side of the Byron 78 site. First approved by the county in 1965, Discovery Bay now consists of approximately 4,200 existing residential units with an estimated population of approximately 13,000. Many of the Discovery Bay 'Draft EIR for Byron 78, September 1991, Contra Costa County, prepared by Mundie and Associates; page 19. 5141DFIRIIV--A.514 , 1 I t I 500 '+1 1000 o i , i FE ET t ' E I F I I 1 '�v I {, ii II HIGHWAY 4 BYRON HWYIF .'I I _ 1 ! t , 1 i It I ! ! ; D3 m + 1 F t h C 0 m ITTa I I to 1 i o r' L _ .��. ♦ N LM Z !11•l,�'��- 'I`u 14, 1.,'�`j'j(a�.�tl`I'i�;,i /II , i { .a�'�:�,r Ill ll �I ...�(.•�'I�y t �.^�`. � 1 to I.i I" J`.'q��ar.;.,.•�a'•,f r,��i1' 1`1•ry4 r Q • l Q4c„ m 5 ro� , •I' V:c. _ = FE TARO L firr'✓ - 1'3'' a -i �ERTq I 3- ,: C: i l IL m E a �. i 3 a�;rao S'I ;t' 1 'aj:;4 m ' } nL _ I . . r i;!- BIXLER RDLj . t 1 .J .• ...�t'T an, wJ. r .] I !., ti,E _ W."', E E _ 1_i� O rII , r:. !I,IVAa,� E ..,1 (. E , —I� a TJ m D3 m a 11r p Will e lurlo 0 � •sy ysll ...• Z 1 0 l{( L•.. II 11'j \l,'. ''r;``�. p ea55,, 1(11 i i .i"` :i`a i�t�.•i i•.•.•�'i'.i �' .�t.�' _ f_.53 LN• ".-1.,Si:l' i i t 'i,(J IZJ �I l nC Y }i-� ••'i.� i1 a S"�y� � i <r � °LSF. j, (D Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 69 residential units have direct access to the community's man-made lagoon system and its 18-hole golf course. The Discovery Bay community is linked by Indian Slough to other Delta waterways, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The community also includes a yacht club, a community commercial center, and several institutional uses (i.e., a post office, fire station, elementary school, etc.). (4) Discovery Bay West. Discovery Bay West includes a pending proposal by the Hoffman Company for subdivision and construction of an additional 1,400 single-family detached residences and another golf course to be located north of the project between Bixler Road and the existing Discovery Bay development. The overall Discovery Bay West proposal includes a combined general plan amendment (GPA) that involves the Hoffman property as well as four additional contiguous properties, totalling approximately 1,070 acres. Those additional four properties would increase the total number of units in the GPA area by an undetermined amount. (The southernmost, approximately 70-acre portion of this GPA area is shown on Figure 9.) (5) Agricultural Uses. Agricultural lands are located immediately west and south of the project site, and to the north beyond the Marsh Creek Road rural-residential development. Some of these agricultural lands, especially to the west, are used for truck farming (e.g., tomatoes) while others are used for forage crop production, similar to the project site. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the neighboring Byron 78 General Plan Amendment states the following with respect to the agricultural character of east Contra Costa County: "The agricultural character of land in this part of the county has been reinforced by several factors. Until recently, this area has been too far removed from the urbanized areas of Contra Costa County to have experienced development pressure. The continuation of intensive farming in the Delta has lent support to continued grazing uses on lands less suitable for row cropping. Drainage problems, seasonal flooding and proneness to significant flooding pose problems for most kinds of development, therefore presumably keeping land values at a level supportable by grazing use. Contra Costa County continues to have substantial acreage in pasture and range land, although the county has experienced losses of agricultural land in this use category as well as others. Field crop acreage declined by 72 percent between 1940 and 1980; vegetable acreage and fruit and nut acreage declined by 64 percent during the same period. Acreage in pasture and range land declined by only 36 percent during that time (Contra Costa County, Growth Trends, 1985). In part, this difference occurred because grazing lands are often less desirable for development (because of slopes, drainage problems and other factors) than are other kinds of agricultural lands. Recent statistics indicate that pasture and range acreage decreased by about four percent between 1985 and 1989, from 192,930 acres to 185,800 acres (Contra Costa County, Agricultural Report, 1989). 5141DEIRil".514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 70 Soils in the vicinity of the site range from good to poor in their suitability for agriculture. According to the Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California, the best soils, with Storie Index ratings of 1 and 2, are found south and west of SR 4. More specifically, they are about 700 feet south and 1.1 miles west of the site, and cover between 800 and 900 acres. Between the site and the Class 1 soils to the west, the soils are rated 3 and 5. The Class 5 soils on the site extend southerly to the nearby Class 2 soils. Storie Index 5 soils are not suitable for cultivation."' The Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990-2005 seeks to reconcile the recent increases in local east county growth pressures with the need to provide for the continued use of productive agricultural land, by establishing an Urban Limit Line (ULL) which is intended to distinguish between those lands which are to remain in agricultural production and rural use, and those lands that can be considered for urbanization. In the project's Discovery Bay vicinity, the ULL designation essentially follows Highway 4--lands north of Highway 4, including the project site, are within the line; lands south of the highway are outside the line.2 The Contra Costa County General Plan states the following with respect to ULL designation: During the term of the General Plan, properties that are located outside the ULL may not obtain General Plan Amendments that would redesignate them for an urban land use. In addition, those properties outside the Urban Limit Line may be subject to various agricultural and open space preservation measures.... In addition, the Byron 78 EIR states the following with respect to lands within the ULL: "During its time horizon, the General Plan commits to a pattern of no more than 35 percent of land utilized for development. Since the ULL encompasses more than 35 percent of the county, not all the land within the ULL can be made available for development. Thus, there is no presumption that lands within the ULL will be permitted to develop.x3 .(6) Other Vicinity Land Use Characteristics. On the south side of Highway 4 at Bixler Road, directly across from the project site, is a boat and engine repair shop serving Discovery Bay and other project vicinity residents, many of whom are boat owners. In e 'Draft Environmental Impact Report, Byron 78 General Plan Amendment and Related Actions, County File #5-90-EC, SCH #90030515, September 1991, Contra Costa County; prepared by Roberta Mundie and Associates. 2Byron 78 EIR, page 19. , 3Ibid. 5141DEIRIIV-A.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 71 addition, approximately two miles to the west along Highway 4 at the Byron Highway junction are several commercial uses, including a market and gas station. (7) Adiacent Roadways. The site has approximately 1,899.9 feet of frontage along Highway 4 and 1,147.5 feet of frontage along Bixler Road. The proximity of the site to heavily-travelled Highway.4 represents a significant land use compatibility issue. 2. PHYSICAL LAND USE IMPACTS a. Impacts on the Project Site (1) General Impacts. The proposed project would result in the direct conversion of 73.5 acres of irrigated agricultural land to urban use. Existing forage cropland would be replaced with 296 single-family-detached homes and 112,420 square feet of commercial space. The development could be expected to require the removal of the existing single-family residence, mobile home, and associated accessory structures, the clearing of all existing site vegetation, and the widening of the Highway 4 and Bixler Road frontages. Approval of the proposed general plan amendment to allow suburban-residential and commercial development of the 73.5-acre site would result in the incremental loss of another open space component along Highway 4. This incremental open space loss and local land use change would represent an additional adverse impact on local open space values and on the rural character of the area. However, the site is in the General Plan designated Urban Limit Line (ULL), meaning that urban development may be considered. The project is consistent with the county's 65/35 policy, since it would result in the urbanization of approximately three-tenths of one percent of the total 23,982 acres identified in the Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005' as the maximum amount of land within the ULL available for conversion to urban use. Assuming that all other pending or anticipated general plan amendments were approved (approximately 7,560 acres), the project plus this cumulative development would result in the urbanization of approximately 32 percent of the land available for conversion to urban use within the ULL.2 Project compatibility with its land use setting, and its impacts on offsite lands outside the ULL, are described on the following page in subsection b. 'GP Table 3-3, p. 3-18. 2Matt Tomas, Planner, Contra Costa County. Includes DiscoveryBaY West, Albers, Byron 78, Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley, and Lowel Ranch GPAs. 5141DEIRIIV--A.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 72 (2) Direct Agricultural Impacts. The proposed conversion of the site to these urban uses would eliminate any feasible potential for restoring earlier agricultural uses of the property, or for other utilization of any unrealized agricultural potential. As shown on Figure 9, and as reflected in recent urbanization activity in the broader Brentwood-Byron-Discovery Bay area, development activities along Highway 4 in east Contra Costa County (between Antioch and the San Joaquin County line) also represent a substantial trend away from agricultural use. In particular, the nearby Discovery Bay development and the pending development proposals for the Byron 78 (Udjur) and Discovery Bay West (Hoffman) parcels on the opposite side of Bixler may combine to significantly reduce the viability of continued agricultural use of the project site. The change from agricultural land use to suburban density residential land use would be a significant land use impact, as explained below. However, given these development-related limitations and the previously identified soil limitations on viable agricultural use of the project site, the loss of these 73.5 acres of existing agricultural land would not represent a significant direct loss of county agricultural resources. b. Proiect Relationship to Surrounding Land Uses (1) General Impacts on Vicinity Land Use. Approval of the project, in combination with the pending Byron 78 and Discovery Bay West projects, could result in a contiguous, approximately 1,220-acre extension of the Discovery Bay area suburban development concentration. The project itself would also be expected to have a significant local precedent-setting and growth-inducing impact. Project approval and associated infrastructure extensions (sewer, water, etc.) could be expected to increase interest in similar conversion of the remaining two similarly-sized (approximately 75 acres each) agricultural parcels which are between the project site and Byron Highway (Highway 4) (see Figure 9). If the Byron 78 and Discovery Bay West projects are not approved or constructed, the project would represent an island of urban development surrounded almost entirely by agricultural, open space, and low density residential uses (with the exception of the boat repair establishment located on Highway 4). Such an island of urban development would be contrary to county policy relating to the infilling of developed areas and the efficient extension of public services. (2) Rural-Residential Development. Introduction of the proposed suburban residential layout, with a net density of 6.7 units per acre (and a gross density of approximately five units per acre), and with no reduction in density at the project periphery, would represent a distinct contrast in density with the adjacent ranchette subdivisions to the north and northwest. In particular, the proposed 4,800-to-6,000-square-foot project lots along the northern edge of the site would be 29 to 36 times the density of the adjacent ranchette lots on Feratado Lane and Jacintho Drive off of Marsh Creek Road. As shown in Figure 9, 5141DEIRIIV-A.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 73 each existing ranchette lot on Jacintho Drive would directly abut four to ten project lots. This contrast in density may be perceived as a significant adverse impact on the rural character of their homes by the owners of lots within this existing adjacent subdivision, particularly the six Jacintho Drive lots which are contiguous to the project. The project lots along this northern edge may also create significant land use compatibility impacts for adjacent agricultural activities which are allowable on these existing rural lots, such as limited livestock grazing and poultry. In particular, the project could result in . increased disturbance and injury to neighboring animals by project domestic pets (dogs). The introduction of suburban density single-family development adjacent to these rural estate lots could also result in problems for these existing land owners in the form of nuisance complaints from the new residents related to existing livestock and other agricultural activities. (3) Discovery Bay. The project would not have any direct land use impacts on the Discovery Bay community. The commercial portion of the project would bring in additional retail and service activities which would benefit Discovery Bay residents. The extent to which the two commercial centers would compete with or support each other economically is an economic issue which is outside the scope of this EIR. (4) Discovery Bay West. Project impacts on Discovery Bay West would be similar to those described above for Discovery Bay. (5) Byron 78. The project's relationship to the Byron 78 (Udjur) property would depend on the outcome of the pending proposal for commercial development on the Byron 78 site. If the Byron 78 property remains as open space, the project would create land use conflicts with the open space character of the Byron 78 site. By introducing urban development and associated traffic and noise impacts into the vicinity, the desirability of the Byron 78 site as open space and as wildlife habitat would be reduced. In addition, the drainage runoff from the project site would adversely affect water quality within the drainage swale which crosses the Byron 78 property, further reducing the value of the area as open space and wildlife habitat. If the Byron 78 project is approved and constructed, the location of the proposed community commercial center and medical office components along the eastern edge of the Albers project would provide an appropriate land use transition between the Byron 78 commercial activities and the residential component of the Albers project. The extent to which the two commercial centers would compete with or support each other economically is an issue which is outside the scope of this EIR. (6) Surrounding Agricultural Activities. Agricultural uses to the north, west, and south of the site would be impacted by the project through the introduction of suburban density residential development adjacent or in proximity to agricultural land. These uses could 5141DEIRII".514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 74 result in increased disturbance of and injury to neighboring livestock by project children and domestic pets, and could also result in significant problems for existing agricultural operations, including agricultural lands outside the ULL on the opposite side of Highway 4, in the form of nuisance complaints (i.e., noise, odors, etc.) from the new project residents. (7) Adjacent Roadways. Those project homes proposed to be located along Highway 4 would be adversely affected by the noise generated by auto and truck traffic on the highway. This impact is described in more detail in section IV.I (Noise) of this EIR. (8) Other Vicinity Land Uses. The project would have no additional significant adverse land use impacts with the other existing land uses in the vicinity (e.g., the boat repair and storage facility across Highway 4 or the commercial uses west of the project near the intersection of Highway 4 and the Byron Highway). c. Cumulative Land Use Impacts (1) Cumulative Urbanization Impacts. Current growth pressures in the Byron-Discovery Bay-Highway 4 corridor area which have been described in the Setting section of this chapter can be expected to continue, as continued employment growth occurs at burgeoning new job centers within commute distance to the area, and as housing affordability at more centralized, "closer in" Bay Area locations continues to decline. These local urbanization trends, including the project, can be expected to result in continued, significant cumulative impacts on the rural character of the east county area. (2) Cumulative Agricultural Impacts. The project's east Contra Costa County vicinity has experienced the conversion of thousands of acres of agricultural land to urban use in the last 25 years, particularly along the Highway 4 corridor between Antioch and the San Joaquin County line. The combined urban development of the project site, the Byron 78, and the Discovery Bay West GPA would result in an additional loss of approximately 1,230 acres of existing agricultural land in this area. Approval of these additional local conversions would, in turn, reduce the viability of continued agricultural use of the remaining agricultural lands in the area. Cumulative local urbanization would also change the vehicular mix on local roads, creating increased conflicts between agriculture-related traffic and local suburban traffic. These combined local effects on agricultural activity would contribute to significant cumulative countywide losses in agricultural activity. Field crop, vegetable and fruit and nut acreage in Contra Costa County have declined significantly over the past three decades. Acreage in pasture and range land has also declined significantly (approximately five percent in the last five years'). Although the project's 73.5 acres may not be considered suitable for cultivation, their direct removal from the county's inventory of agricultural land, 'Byron 78 Draft EIR, page 73. 5141DEIRII".514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 75 and the contribution of the project to the general urbanization trend in the area, would contribute significantly to continued, significant cumulative regional impacts on agricultural productivity. This cumulative impact finding would apply to any future conversion of a local site of this size from existing forage production to urban use. 3. MITIGATIONS. The following mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce identified significant land use impacts to less than significant levels. a. Impacts on Project Site (1) General Impacts. To make a finding of no significant land use impact on local open space and rural values, the project must be found in compliance with the Contra Costa County General Plan 65/35 policy in terms of use compatibility with its setting, and mitigation of any significant adverse impacts on offsite lands outside the ULL. Measures to mitigate project compatibility impacts with its setting, and- any significant impacts on offsite lands outside the ULL are identified below in subsection b. (2) Direct Agricultural Impacts. While the project would result in significant land use impacts, no significant loss of agricultural resources would occur and no mitigation of agricultural losses would be required. b. Project Relationship to Surrounding Land Uses (1) General Precedent-Setting and Growth-Inducing Impacts on Vicinity Land Use. Significant project precedent-setting and growth-inducing impacts could be expected to occur in the form of similar, individual, separate, general plan amendment actions involving similar adjacent agricultural properties north of the project site within the ULL. Any such individual subsequent action would require completion of its own similar general plan amendment, rezoning, environmental review, and public review procedures to ensure that associated significant adverse impacts were adequately addressed. The county would have the ability to deny or modify such additional actions as a means of mitigating the precedent-setting impact of the Albers project. The county also has an opportunity in reviewing the proposed project layout to consider a more coordinated approach to the planning for the project and adjacent properties. In particular, consideration should be given to possible project circulation plan revisions to provide for a coordinated intra-neighborhood street system separate from Bixler Road as well as a more coordinated service district and infrastructure extension program (water, sewer, and storm drainage). These would include potential extension of "A" Way and "C" Street into properties to the north. 5141DEIRII".514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 76 (2) Impacts on Adjacent Rural Residential Development. Implementation of an effective combination of the following measures should be required as a condition of project approval in order to reduce the impacts of the project on adjacent "ranchette" residential uses along the north boundary of the site to less than significant levels: ■ The project design should be revised to provide a transition in density between the suburban-density project and the adjacent low-density ranchette subdivision--i.e., the lots along the inside northern boundary of the project should be enlarged in size (e.g., to a minimum of 20,000 square feet); or ■ An adequate open space buffer should be introduced along the northern edge, perhaps in the form of a single-loaded residential street and landscaped setback (including vines, low shrubs, trees, and berms); or An effective fence or barrier design (approximately six feet high) acceptable to neighboring homeowners should be introduced. ■ All prospective buyers of lots or homes in the project should be made aware of potential nuisances from abutting animal grazing. ■ Special, dog-proof fencing may be required in areas susceptible to dog intrusion into existing adjacent agricultural operations sufficient to mitigate project impacts. (3) Discovery Bay. .No significant environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigations are required. (4) Discovery Bay West. No significant environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigations are required. (5) Byron 78. No significant environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigations are required. (6) Surrounding Agricultural Activity. Implementation of the following measures would be expected to reduce project direct impacts on surrounding agricultural activity, including impacts on offsite lands outside the ULL (on the opposite side of Highway 4), to less than significant levels: ■ All prospective buyers of lots or homes in the project should be made aware of potential nuisances from abutting and nearby animal grazing and other agricultural practices. ■ Special, dog-proof fencing may be required in areas susceptible to dog intrusion into existing adjacent agricultural operations sufficient to mitigate project impacts. ■ The proposed county Right-to-Farm Ordinance would also protect existing, conforming farming activities from county interference in response to nuisance complaints from new residents. 5141DEIRII".514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.A. Land Use July 7, 1992 Page 77 (7) Adiacent Roadways. See roadway noise intrusion impact mitigations recommended in section IVA of this EIR. (8) Other Vicinity Land Uses. No significant environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigations are required. c. Cumulative Land Use Impacts (1) Cumulative Urbanization Impacts. In order to mitigate the impacts of cumulative urbanization in the Byron-Discovery Bay-Highway 4 corridor to a level of insignificance, the county can maintain its current general plan policy to contain urbanization with the ULL, and to review and act on additional urbanization proposals within the ULL based on compliance with the county's 65/35 policy in terms of compatibility of these proposals with their setting and mitigation of any significant adverse impacts on lands outside the ULL. (2) Cumulative Agricultural Impacts. In order to mitigate the project contribution to cumulative regional agricultural impacts to less than significant levels, the county should implement measures a(1), b(1), b(6), and c(1) above, as well as the road improvements (mitigations) identified in section IV.D of this EIR to minimize conflicts between project- related traffic and agriculture-related traffic. 5141DEIRII".514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 79 B. POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT This section describes current trends in population, housing, and employment growth in the project vicinity, the potential impacts of the project on those trends, and any mitigation measures warranted to address significant adverse effects. 1. EXISTING SETTING a. Population and Housing Trends As shown in Table 3, population and housing totals in the project's rural east Contra Costa County subregion, which includes east county rural communities outside the Antioch and Brentwood spheres--i.e., Byron, Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Oakley, Knightsen, etc.--have grown by 75 percent between 1980 and 1990.' During the same time period, the Brentwood planning area population increased 37 percent, Antioch 37 percent, and the county as a whole, 20 percent. The disproportionately high growth rate for the rural east county area reflects the local urbanization trends which have been described in the Land Use section of this EIR (Section IV.A). Projected 1990 to 2000 population increases for the east county subregion, Brentwood area, and Antioch are 47, 144, and 49 percent, respectively. In contrast, Contra Costa County as a whole is projected to experience a more modest 16 percent population growth increment between 1990 and 2000. Traditionally the least densely developed area of the county, this rural east county subregion has seen the development of higher density subdivisions with larger single-family residences in recent years. These suburban developments include larger household sizes than the existing average county household size. b. Projected Housing Needs Under Section 65581.4 of the California Government Code, cities and counties are required to make a sustained, serious effort to provide for their appropriate share of State housing goals and regional housing needs at all levels, as determined by the local council of 'Population figures for the rural east Contra Costa County area include most of Oakley and Sand Hill (outside the Antioch and Brentwood spheres), Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, and other small rural communities in the area (including Byron). 5141DEIRIIV--8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 80 governments. In pursuit of this mandate, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, which is the council of governments for the nine-county Bay region) periodically makes housing needs determinations for each city and county by four income levels: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. ABAG's housing needs determinations for Contra Costa County's unincorporated areas represent the "fair share" responsibility of the county. The most recent ABAG Housing Needs Determinations, which was published in January 1989, indicated that the projected housing need for the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County from 1988 to 1995 is 6,447 units, a total which ABAG determined could be accommodated without changes to existing zoning ordinances or policies.' Based on an average housing unit production rate in the county's unincorporated areas of 1,527 units per year between 980 and 1989, an estimated 11,070 units could be produced in the 1988- 1995 time period, a total which would substantially exceed the ABAG housing needs projection of 6,447 units.2 According to the county's 1990 General Plan Housing Element, "it appears that the county will have no difficulty in meeting its overall housing needs" (the 6,447 added units) between 1988 and 1995.3 State law also requires ABAG to determine housing needs by income level, so that each jurisdiction can provide for its "fair share" of housing for each income group. ABAG uses. the income categories of very low for household incomes of up to 50 percent of the median income for the region, low for 51 to 80 percent of the median income, moderate for 81 to • 120 percent of median income, and above moderate for household incomes greater than the regional median income. The ABAG-determined Contra Costa County unincorporated area projected housing needs data for the 1988-1995 period, as of January 1, 1988, indicated that 1,289 units affordable to very low income households, 903 affordable to low income households, 1,289 affordable to moderate income households, and 2,966 affordable to above moderate income households, would be needed over this period in order to achieve a healthy housing market." c. Employment Trends As shown in Table 4, employment totals in the rural east county subregion have grown by 38 percent between 1980 and 1990, slightly less than Contra Costa County's total job growth of 45 percent during the same time period. The slightly lower local job growth rate, in comparison to the dramatically higher local housing growth rate over the same period (75 percent local housing growth vs. 20 percent countywide growth) reflects the fact that new 'Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990-2005, Draft, October 1990, page 6-21. 2Contra Costa County General Plan (Draft), Housing Element, page 6-23. 3Contra Costa County General Plan (Draft), Housing Element, page 6-109. °General Plan, page 6-109. 5141DEIRIIV-B.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 81 r n housing construction m the area has been outpacing fob production at a disproportionate rate. Local service sector jobs, which include medical, professional, business, and repair services, grew by only eight percent, a rate far below the countywide growth. Retail jobs in the area grew by 64 percent over the same time period, almost twice the rate of the county as a whole. Table 5 indicates that the rural east county area is expected to experience a 73 percent increase in jobs through 2005, far outpacing the anticipated countywide increase of 24 percent. Increases in services and retail sector jobs in the east county area are projected to be among the highest in the county, at 137 percent and 96 percent, respectively. The projections reflect an anticipated substantial improvement in the local balance between residential and job growth. The proposed Byron 78 project, a mixed-use development, is estimated to produce 2,302 jobs in the area, including 445 retail sector jobs and 321 service sector jobs. These additions would amount to 99 percent of projected retail:job growth and 78 percent of projected service job growth in the east county. Since the Byron 78 project involves a general plan amendment not anticipated in the ABAG job projections, its actual effect would be to increase local job growth beyond the increase projected by ABAG. 2. PROJECT IMPACTS a. Population and Housing Impacts The project sponsor proposes to construct 296 single-family homes containing three to four bedrooms and two to two and one-half bathrooms (see Table 2 for the anticipated project housing type breakdown). Project housing selling prices are expected to range between $180,000 and $220,000. The project would add 296 units to the area's housing stock. Table 3 indicates an ABAG- projected 1990-to-2000 increase of 5,200 households for the rural east county area, and 61,010 for Contra Costa County as a whole. The 296-unit project would account for approximately six percent of the ABAG-projected rural east county household increase between 1990 and 2000, and almost one-half percent of the ABAG-projected county-wide housing unit growth for the decade. 5141DEIRIIV--B.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 82 Table 3 LOCAL POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS--RECENT AND PROJECTED Projected Projected Change % Change Projected Change % Change 1980 1990 1980-1990 1980-1990 2000 1990-2000 1990-2000 Brentwood Population 6,785 9,300 2,515 +371% 22,700 13,400 +144% Households 2,233 3,220 987 +44% 8,570 5,350 +166% Antioch Population 44,195 60,400 16,205 +37% 89,800 29,400 +49% Households 15,543 22,030 6,487 +42% 34,520 12,490 +57% Rural East County Population 14,056 24,600 10,544 +75% 36,300 11,700 +47% Households 5,078 9,230 4,152 +820/6 14,430 5,200 +56% Contra Costa County Population 656,380 790,000 133,620 +20% 913,000 123,000 +157% Households 241,534 303,690 62,156 +26% 364,700 61,010 +20% SOURCE: ABAG Projections '90 5141DEIRIIV--B.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 83 Table 4 RECENT EMPLOYMENT TRENDS Service Sector Jobs Retail Sector Jobs Total Jobs Change Change Change 1980 1990 1980-1990 1980 1990 1980-1990 1980 1990 1980-1990 Rural East County 277 300 23 (+8%) 286 470 184 (+64%) 1,772 2,450 678 (+38%) Total County 59,844 86,420 26,576 (+44%) 44,297 60,160 15,863 (+36%) 201,237 292,700 91,463 (+45%) SOURCE: ABAG ProjectionsABA '90 Table 5 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT TRENDS Service Sector Jobs Retail Sector Jobs Total Jobs Projected Projected Projected Change Change Change 1990 2000 1990-2000 1990 2000 .. 1990-2000 1990 2000 1990-2000 Rural East County 300 710 410 (+137%) 470 920 450 (+96%) 2,450 4,250 1,800 (+73%) Total County 86,420 110,560 24,140 (+28%) 60,160 76,720 16,560 (+280/6) 292,700 361,8670 69,170 (+24%) SOURCE: ABAG Projections '90 5141DEIRIIV-8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 84 Based on an assumption of 3.0 persons per household, the project homes could be expected to increase the rural east county area population by 888 people.' This increase would account for approximately 14 percent of the area's ABAG-projected 1990-to-2000 population increase of 6,200. b. Project Impacts on Projected Housing Needs If the project is able to sell its homes in the $180,000 to $220,000 price range as suggested by the applicant, some of the project homes would be affordable to households in the moderate income category. It is estimated that a household income of $59,000 per year or more (in 1992 dollars) would be necessary to afford a $180,000 home. An income of $70,000 would be necessary to afford a $220,000 home? An income of $59,000 per year is considered to be at the middle of a moderate income range, and an income of $70,000 is considered to exceed the high end of the moderate income range by approximately eight percent, based on an estimated 1995 median income range for the Bay Area of approximately $43,000 to $65,000 in 1992 dollars.3 If half of the project homes were sold to households in the moderate income category--i.e., were sold for $200,000 or less--the project would provide for 11 percent of the ABAG- projected 1988-1995 need in the unincorporated area of the county for homes affordable to moderate income households. c. Project Impacts on Employment The project proposes to construct 112,420 square feet of commercial space and approximately 52,000 square feet of medical office space. Assuming one employee per 400 square feet of retail space, the project would create 281 retail jobs. Similarly, assuming, one employee per 250 square feet of office space, the project would create 185 jobs, for a total of approximately 466 jobs created by the project.° The 281 retail jobs would account for 63 percent of ABAG-projected rural east county retail job growth, and 45 percent of ABAG-projected rural east county service job growth. Since 'The countywide persons per household figure is 2.71. A larger figure of 3.0 persons per household was used for this project because the project would contain large single-family homes which typically contain more persons per household than the county average. 2See Housing Affordability Worksheet in Appendix C of this EIR. 3Moderate income is defined by HUD as 81 to 120 percent of the regional median income. The projected 1995 median income for the region is $48,900 in 1988 dollars, according to ABAG Projections '90, page 69, which amounts to approximately $54,000 in 1992 dollars. °Based on projections from Byron 78 General Plan Amendment DER, September 1991, p. 17. 5141DEIRUV--8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 85 the project, like Byron 78, involves a general plan amendment not anticipated in the ABAG job projections, its actual effect would be to increase local job growth beyond the increases projected by ABAG. Through the creation of more local jobs, the commercial and office components of the project would assist in improving the local balance between job and housing growth. As a result, the inclusion of the commercial and office components in the project may lessen the number of job, shopping, and other vehicle trips in and out of the project vicinity with corresponding environmental benefits in terms of regional traffic congestion and air pollution mitigation. 3. MITIGATION MEASURES a. Population and Housing Impacts The proposed project's impacts relating to population and housing growth would not in and of themselves be significantly adverse. Mitigation needs associated with the impacts of the project population and housing increase on such environmental factors as land use, transportation, municipal services, vegetation and wildlife, noise, air quality, etc., are described in corresponding chapters of this EIR. b. Project Impacts on Projected Housing Needs The proposed project impacts relating to ABAG-determined county housing needs would be beneficial, provided that the applicant-anticipated project home selling price range of $180,000 to $220,000 (in 1992 dollars) was actually realized. . c. Employment.Impacts No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation measures are required. 5141DE1RIIV--8.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.B. Population, Housing, and Employment July 7, 1992 Page 86 5141DEIRIIV-B.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.C. Visual Factors July 7, 1992 Page 87 C. VISUAL FACTORS The following section describes the local visual setting, project impacts on that setting, and mitigation measures warranted to reduce these impacts. A discussion of the proposed project with respect to county general plan visual policies is included in chapter V of this EIR. 1. EXISTING SETTING a. Views of the Project Site The flat topography of the project vicinity limits primary vantage points of the project site to surrounding roadways; i.e., its Highway 4 and Bixler Road frontages. There are also direct views into the site from the rear of the Jacintho Drive "ranchette" lots bordering the north edge of the site (the ranchette subdivision shown on Figure 9). Typical existing views of the project site from surrounding Highway 4 and Bixler Road vantage points are shown by photos 1 through 4. As shown in these photos, the existing site landscape is dominated by flat, disked hay fields, with some weedy grassland areas. Minor variations in this appearance include the small farm house and associated clusters of accessory farm buildings at the northwest corner of the site (see Figure 10), the peripheral irrigation/drainage ditches, and the few clumps of "saltbrush" along the drainage ditch at the northwest corner of the site (see photo 4). Beyond these minor elements, the site appears virtually free of special visual features such as trees or other noticeable natural topographic, vegetative, or man-made elements. b. Appearance of the Project Vicinity The Highway 4 corridor through east Contra Costa County is generally flanked by the flat rural landscape that is typical of the San Joaquin Delta region. The visual character of this east county highway corridor here has been historically dominated by broad, agricultural landscapes, including forage grassland, grazing, irrigated crops and occasional rural homes. The local segment of the Highway 4 corridor from the outskirts of Brentwood to the San Joaquin County line is dominated by similar flat agricultural.(field crop) landscapes, with little topographic relief (see photo 5). Since the late 1960s, however, the east county has experienced a trend of incremental change in landscape from predominantly rural to a mixture of contrasting rural and suburban elements (see section IV.A.1 of this EIR, Land 5141DE1RIl V-C.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.C. Visual Factors July 7, 1992 Page 88 Use). The most prominent suburban component in the local Highway 4 landscape is the 4,200-unit Discovery Bay community, northeast of the project on Highway 4 (see photo 6). c. Anticipated Visual Changes in the Project Vicinity Proposed general plan amendments are currently pending for two large, adjacent properties in the Highway 4/Bixler Road vicinity. These two local development proposals represent possible significant changes to the local visual setting. (1) Byron 78. Opposite the project site on the east side of Bixler Road is the site of the pending Byron 78 general plan amendment, a proposed 78-acre mixed-use commercial, office, and industrial development (see Figure 9). This undeveloped site currently contributes to the local rural landscape. It is not tilled, and instead includes a mix of weedy grassland and alkaline meadow vegetation. As shown on Figure 9, the vacant Byron 78 site separates Bixler Road and the Albers (project) property from the Discovery Bay community. Development of the Byron 78 project as currently planned would convert this open space buffer between Discovery Bay and the project site to an approximately 1.4 million square foot retail commercial-office-industrial complex of approximately 25 one- and two-story buildings, plus expansive paved surfaces for onsite circulation, vehicular parking, and RV/boat storage. Approval and construction of the Byron 78 project would introduce an intensive, contrasting, urban edge along the north side of Highway 4 and east side of Bixler Road, directly east of the project site. (2) Discovery Bay West. The area immediately north of the Byron 78 site on Bixler Road, the Discovery Bay West site, is also the subject of a pending general plan amendment request. The Discovery Bay West proposal includes subdivision and construction of 1,700 additional single-family homes and a golf course on an assembly of parcels totalling approximately 1,070 acres (see Figure 9). Approval and construction of the project would result in the extension of the existing Discovery Bay community west to Bixler Road. With development of both the Byron 78 and Discovery Bay West projects, the west side of Bixler Road opposite the Albers site, from Highway 4 to Orwood Road, would become an intensive urban edge, in strong visual contrast to the broad, open rural landscape which would remain on the west side of Bixler Road. 5141DEIRIIV-C.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.C. Visual Factors July 7, 1992 Page 89 2. IMPACTS a. Impacts on External Views of the Project Site The impacts of the project on views from Highway 4 have been simulated on Figures 11, 12, and 13.' The simulations have been prepared by the EIR authors based on the lot configuration and Highway 4 setback information shown on Figure 5 (the proposed development plan), the Highway 4 frontage improvement characteristics shown on Figure 6 and described in section IV.C.2, and the building design characteristics shown on Figure 7 of this EIR. The simulations also reflect the following additional assumptions with respect to the project design: ■ The proposed project noise wall along Highway 4 would be similar in design to the existing noise wall along the Discovery Bay Community/Highway 4 frontage (see Photo 6); i.e., would be approximately six feet high from finish grade level with pilasters spaced at approximately 15 feet on center; and ■ the mix between one- and two-story structures along Highway 4 would be similar to the overall project mix (see Table 2). As the simulations show, views of the project from Highway 4 would be similar to current views of the Discovery Bay community (photo 6), except that the project homes would be closer to the noise wall and roadway edge (the Discovery Bay community includes a single- loaded frontage road behind its noise wall to provide a greater Highway 4 setback). The simulations on Figures 11 and 12 indicate that the proposed construction of a continuous sound wall along the project's Highway 4 frontage, in combination with the closeness of the project two-story homes to each other and the street, would result in significant adverse visual impacts on views from Highway 4. It appears from the simulations that the project visual impact on Highway 4 would be similar to the impact of the Discovery Bay community, except that the project's "crowded" appearance would be greater due to the smaller setback between the project homes and the highway. The project homes and noise wall would appear to visually crowd the highway and would eliminate the visual balance that currently exists along the two sides of this Highway 4 segment. The project as currently designed would introduce a visually crowded, running barrier-like edge along the north side of Highway 4, elements which would contrast sharply with the existing, flat open, rural landscape on the opposite side of the highway. The even spacing, standard setback, similar building design, and similar lot orientation of the 16 homes along 'The simulation of the shopping center shown on Figure 13 was prepared by the EIR authors without the benefit of architectural elevations. A sketch of the proposed center, provided at a later date by the applicant, is included in Appendix B of this EIR. 5141DEIRIIV-C.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Administrative DER Contra Costa County N.C. Visual Factors March 23, 1992 Page IV.0-4 CD cf) .> CO r• } a as jLLLI '� an � ,�:,..�.... . ... ... .. . . <-•. atm• �•.=..0 .. ��,;�� ^ l LU LU . , �. ...} ( j 22111. si : •j �' '`: I —I C • S 2f l.a AWE _ .:r fr .i s ..I.'•, `•imw�aK....e'�^`4.^n:x�:��:��"'.'= ....+"- ,.....w,"w-�M^!�`.��.:.• � �{ 1 '30 y:. :.E1w�cfia>r..wq'cT,+w•i.•a......w :....`�-/ nµ',.,'�'��'' .� v _ . .. ............... ,. ....�......,...........;.e - fvi 0000or SIT LLI LL r.. ■ ::q $ ;. : a >+i. � _ �p of� t 1•�.., ,�. .� �. �� • ,1 :,' ' %( i� l:.s A. _ � " ♦ 8'� � �. S s A ,yi. i.�. M_.'. V��. . ' i• .' ';' 001. a' � U p ;':.; ..a..:. :•�".:�:.',`� Q Ln ip R F D ? Ry �ss rg' •� U C O C � Lp C :D Com a e ` F �y10 :Y O V k.,q � :,a.. ro NO V CD a o 0 y :YA.< ^ 0 0 � n � I. , Sr w m _ y arilN,; � LOD L?D _ " GLOi 1�:; jyf�yg [U F n y R. R. Co m Cb of y.. Kt.,.. Q.ylb .. O <D O21 01 yll Fit vm 62 :.;,�#y,.V a=ek". ^ •� `':`: 07, 'H . .€K.' •."x: •`° 3� •'ID, er.,' a'n&i�,' Yti..: Mid: p t Aw :=',Yr. 'Vax:'r• ' ''&matt. �•. � :$; � :�"��' c .. r` .� s::' .�-:�:: ` .tee'. '�y5 .' '. All M VF + , j$•.�C� � .4� �gy�'.i'A�•Y A.s...�' •'s� � z: < :sY• , e , A�^ a: k.'a .,r • ;: $'d. : .:,� = r. tea'. �7��Y:. . NOV MW '.� } AA'a'PA� +. �,Q^%A_��1�',} 6.m � '•� �`'F:A,�yt••:P , NL X oil Eli nr ffiY»' ,.t A+ M�y %.�•yP,,. ' s v :9�.?. :gyp.,.. •�;'.s < claim! v';'P•m • :. T,°<;; a....... . m ) w.w.Yx .pixa. VAN :... toll :z.a«:..;"7 TO art icy V in: ,.'a .. .# b�. x r ice✓ .i •:�• 3+ R •.�:. � � ...n:= � IN . J'.._Ya.'.' n: ° ':.$':f. Y> ' o a Cb H .x .. Co Cb N .'� ... Cb C [' Ys.�??�.., c fir:.•:. cu 03 1a 4 :aq.• .:s CD to a 4 cp Cb O � O a o m a . CO j'AeS: '" Cb o - N -_...-._ :`�': '�•��a•�, cnc ,..�� •,4 777 ji r O W ... :: Cb co SS i• p. o m CD CA. mSr' aCD D a ♦ o T co ti- Cb ZI cx cA 41 Cb zIr Sr cx CO lb 'IMiV'Y Cb 0 r O . c p, 2: n qs '. _ is OP IN v 'F .. .: ..e' .� r, .. x i • • n i ca m e � a PM33 ` X R:. m �t IS { I: i ,s ' i i . ......... :: , .. 7777 VIAf a . :: . � x a. aa { �"'.l A'.::: NVAUVO INTO S xy' YR' 6 iYr i F-77-7-- F t. prF � s a : e t: is t'i: .....::::`•: 4 1 �s 1 till ONTO W, .E I owl x. 1 : Icy.....:.., yyk¢ ...53 " ■ ... 3. .. .. .;.:.. �.. ■ :. ... �'...3. , S •'s ... is .. ...'. 1 y : 1. A, 1 Y:' ..j x'x e ; f =.::...,... r:.. O t ..:.:..... h m •P' ti .s s .:x F *a 33 ..:,::.`:E ... � r , - �.••. �.°fir:' VAN AT' 3 ...t. x. E; 'a a<F. s��r VAx` y a O.; .... r.i,�.. F 5 !.. C ............. .i .: Y. a f ' jq . yy S )�N q . ;f .•.�. .. .... !.. ... ... ... .... ............ .. '.":).ted e.�x%.:�'�..;� < n t; v / r' s r: x' J. i i . w MUGAS - OWE MA r $T' :. R ISO toy t' . tf: 1� Y• f' d" i; 1 - i ,y P d":r: i VON d'e^ 3 s +at'': t we q £aka. { E IN: T ', Nos ST too � To:.''`:`, N 3a a. < lip :..:`.l.Y:. :::...x.... :. 'F gg 33 Oto Ta. RJR .°....,cE. x .. ...... ..,... .l......... ... .. .... . . ... .....,'.:f .. .x Y, .. ..:.:xx:,:::....... . ......:........ tV MM KNOCASS All' A.,.. .. :.:.. .:.....:....:...:'.s':.'.:,:...;,:.:.. .R...<d.,x. t4'...,elU,: e ........................... .F'�� Win. S., 5 ................. Q x .: i 4 .. ... ....,s.ai .. ..: ". ,:°. ., ..,fid.,. .......... ' x. F $ _ . ....cad. .,x ... ............... .. .. .... x . ........,.: ...:. .. ..... .:. ... ... ...... .... .............,:.... .. .... ..s to a. .. ........F...... ..... ...... ..`: :.... .. .......:.:......h........,.... t ....,..... , r 99 $ {'.s;-.:....;:.E•.:.x...: 04. .'fix:..ti\�i:•. f ` ..<.... ... ..�p <f. < 4< r ,r V��._Vr �•e. MYeR$`��. ;. .. ,f. OVA M. u< .max• sltt isU. ., .. ..... ..�. , 'n AIM HIM , y u " , ¢4 , rrrd:. i• <5. L ..t<. F3 ..... 77 MUM R A� < i y �} 9. 5,. d,.xtr s . 4 j Yg .� x ,.x. •� .._ �..... �.. ..:.. .. ... .�.�. 5X3•. ff. �t .. ..F. a. F,TMAM WAX My gy MX 77 1 � "�'�s::..�...:::.. .......�.5.•;,.;. 13 i :.• .... °�i':•�i viz: ..'zr:.. fl rc)� .......... > C a r: S r x ° r a ff^^ 1. /1� 6 P Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.C. Visual Factors July 7, 1992 Page 101 Highway 4 could also result in an uninteresting, repetitive, and monotonous project 9 Y 9 Pe P 1 appearance, unless softened by berming, landscaping, site design, architectural and other techniques. No project landscaping plan has been submitted at this time by the applicant. b. Internal Visual Impacts (1) Internal Streetscape. The numerous long, relatively straight street runs indicated on the proposed illustrative site plan (Figure 5), in combination with the generally consistent building setbacks and home types, could result in internal visual repetition and monotony. The upper photo on page 102 illustrates an example of this effect in an existing Bay Area subdivision. In addition, the proposed combination of limited front-yard setbacks and 80 percent two-story building heights could result in an internal visual sense of excessive density and enclosure. These two effects could combine to create a significant adverse impact on the internal visual character of the project. The location of blank two-story facades located on street corners and at the ends of streets, as shown in the example photographs on page 102 of an existing Bay Area subdivision, could also be visually undesirable. These features could add to the confining appearance of the development. (2) Noise Walls. The anticipated six- to eight-foot-high noise wall along the rear yards of the project lots along Highway 4 could be visually undesirable for those project homeowners (approximately 16 units). (See the photograph on page 103 of an internal noise wall view from a similar residential.) The perceived height of the noise wall would also be exaggerated by the shallow depth of the proposed back yards, and would create a significant visual impact (an undesirable sense of containment) for the rear yard areas between the wall and the two-story homes. c. Project Impacts on the Appearance of the Project Vicinity The project would introduce another incremental conversion of agricultural land to urban use along the Highway 4 corridor between Brentwood and the San Joaquin County line. The project would appear as an isolated extension of suburban residential development similar in appearance to the Discovery Bay community, and would contribute to a significant cumulative loss in the rural, open space character of the east county/San Joaquin River Delta subregion. d. Project Relationship to Other Anticipated Changes in Existing Local Setting Approval of the project, in combination with the pending Byron 78 and Discovery Bay West projects, would represent an extension of Discovery Bay urbanization from its current western boundary west to the general plan designated Urban Limit Line. This intensive 5141DEIRIIV-C.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.C. Visual Factors July 7, 1992 Page 102 .... ...... .. .................. 777777 _... ZZ i S. "•fib ..s'.< s �. k.. v:R3t'•. .......... .......... ... ....te "............ .a<."1. .ate. � < .:.,.... "........... .. F . a •.�<......, n....,........ ....:..:::...:-?swig.,.:...........�...:.:::: Long, linear streets with repetitious building heights and setbacks should be avoided. :•:?x,S'Sq�3.'.s,, ,;�i?�h:• ,..�.:n�`w.,:-�;a;•...<;:i:'.�:.:,v:: 4:I:oma. X:x:< ..................c... �::._...:��c,'v.,�:�:k>•<.:.:.'a�'.�.., ..o, .. .:. .. nF�.. ..i��3�9u.,a 4!x: .. .... ... ...."s,..�..3 e, d `$;R5'..a:.> .x ....a:. 'i3. ,. i L....n• r); ..::........ ..;..�... •T'xu ax::.R.��•,ae?Y'��... � ,.:..R..,,... x....., C sb, .53.... :. a,:.:,:•if;<'....x:�•x!,.... ..¢' �y• s.., .aha. .a.R� .`, v•......Z...,...•.=c-+:;x••;:.::'s.• ... ,.....,e.... .................t .:..x.:YL..<.). x.,. .�.�...,... ..3 ..K...v}<„°Y,�w.•'L....,..... :. 35.:< ...... .......,,3xx•,;::c:s:..e,�..ns: ,.a:"a•.: p..xx.,., e , 3�xy.�:.;,x,,.„ 1<�, E ....... r7 Curvelinear streets with varied rooflines and building heights should be encouraged. 402 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.C. Visual Factors July 7, 1992 Page 103 ..-- Example view of the potential negative visual impacts of typical noise wall designs in residential developments. Effective landscaping would significantly reduce this visual impact. Li �IIII': @I ..,._;�."-s� �tr c36;tib'€ .0 c ' '3? 0>i3'ut ER :'x 3.i. Example view of a blank two-story facade at a street-corner location in a recent residential development similar in nature to the proposed project. 402 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.C. Visual Factors July 7, 1992 Page 104 combination of infilling would result in a significant adverse cumulative visual impact on the rural, open space character of the east county Highway 4 corridor. The three developments would result in the physical realization of the general plan Urban Limit Line in this area as an intensive, hard urban edge which contrasts sharply with the surrounding open, flat, rural landscape. 3. MITIGATION a. Impacts on External Views of the Project Site The adverse effect of the project in creating a visually crowded, barrier-like edge along the north side of Highway 4 in contrast to the open, rural character of the south side of the highway, could be mitigated to insignificant levels through incorporation of an appropriate combination of the following measures: ■ deepening of the project setback along the highway to 12 feet to allow increased noise wall and building setbacks; ■ introduction of a single-loaded roadway along the south edge of the project residential component to increase home setbacks from the highway (this measure would also have a noise mitigation benefit, as described in section IV.1.3 of this EIR); ■ introduction of more one-story building elements along the highway edge; ■ noise wall design refinements to reduce its "barrier" appearance, perhaps through incorporation of slight berming to reduce its perceived height (the suggested increase in building setback would facilitate this); ■ incorporation of features in the design of the noise wall to provide more visual interest, such as a continuous architectural cap along the top of the wall to create shadow, the planting of climbing vines along the wall, the incorporation of trellis elements to accommodate such vegetation, etc.; ■ incorporation of a project-maintained street tree planting program along the project frontage between the highway edge and the noise wall to introduce needed visual interest and soften the visual appearance of the project in relationship to its surrounding rural setting; and ■ replacement of the proposed sidewalk along Highway 4 with a five-foot wide meandering sidewalk to reduce visual monotony. Given the importance of a Highway 4 street tree planting and maintenance program in mitigating project visual impacts to insignificant levels, planting plans, specifications, and long-term maintenance responsibilities for these street trees would have to be stipulated to 5141DEIRIIV-0.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.C. Visual Factors July 7, 1992 Page 105 the satisfaction of the county. Such plans and specifications should provide reasonable assurances for the long-term health and survival of these trees. The lack of such street tree features in other local projects may reflect local soil limitations. Such possible soil limitations (high water tables, alkaline soils, etc.) must be addressed in the project street tree planting and irrigation specifications (effective irrigation and subsurface drainage systems, etc.). Maintenance of introduced street landscaping should be the common responsibility of the project residents. b. Internal Visual Impacts (1) Internal Streetscape. The potential monotony and other undesirable visual characteristics of long, uninterrupted streets with unvaried home setbacks and building heights could be mitigated by the introduction of more curvature to the internal street alignments (see example photo on bottom of page 103), and introduction of occasional single-story elements, and perhaps, single-story homes, at selected locations along each street. The potentially overly-massive appearance of the project could also be reduced by the location of single-story homes on the most conspicuous corner lots and at the end of streets (see example photograph on page 106). (2) Noise Walls. Rear yard visual impacts due to the perceived noise wall height and sense of containment could be mitigated by increasing rear yard depths along the noise wall edges of the project and/or, through berming and rear yard landscaping within affected project yards. c. Project Impacts on Appearance of the Proiect Vicinity The project contribution to the cumulative adverse impacts on the rural, open space character of the east-county, San Joaquin River Delta subregion, would be unavoidable, although the measures described under a and b above, and d below would substantially reduce this impact. d. Project Relationship to Other Anticipated Changes in the Existing Local Setting If required, preparation of the project periphery street landscape plan should be coordinated with landscape planning for the proposed Byron 78 and Discovery Bay West projects. Such a coordinated street landscape planning effort would provide this extension of local urbanization with a stronger sense of visual harmony and identity, with significant benefits to the project and the community. 5141DEIRIIV--C.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.C. Visual Factors July 7, 1992 Page 106 ...... ..:.x... ..s.... ........ ...........x...,..s`.: .,x,. ....>... N......< .��.. x.35'... :....:....:..:xr..a,:<.......:.:.x•R:<:..x.�:,,/x'sT3L, s......e¢k.,... -r;?r:..,s5rn,��..Y....�.;,.n., G<5'.s.:.?..xxc:a ..,.;.: �..::d'�<F z:, ....... :..).:<:::x,.;:,;/:u'�:x:...s:'x..........•:...�.:...... <,...... ....,k.... ..... .�,,..r;�c s•„�:.:x: :,:.::fie-. :::.:::::.... ............:........:::::..... , ............ .. Single-story homes should be encouraged at the end of streets and at other strategic locations throughout the project to reduce the perception of excessive enclosure, to allow variations in the visual skyline, and to improve solar access. 5141DEIRIIV-C.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 107 D. TRANSPORTATION The following section describes the existing transportation system in the project vicinity, the anticipated project-related impacts on that system, and recommended mitigation measures to offset identified impacts. The discussion addresses such issues as intersection operation, offsite roadway link operation, traffic and pedestrian safety, project access and internal circulation, parking, transit, construction period impacts, and the impacts of cumulative traffic increases in the area. 1. SETTING a. Existing Roadway System Figures 1 and 2 earlier in this EIR show the regional and local roadway network. The local roadway system is also diagrammed on Figure 14 (next page). Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 4 (Highway 4), and Byron Highway. Local access is provided by Highway 4, Bixler Road, and Marsh Creek Road. (1) Highway 4. State Highway 4 borders the project site on the south and provides access west to Brentwood,' Antioch, and other urbanized areas of Contra Costa County. It also provides access east to the community of Discovery Bay and to Stockton. In the site vicinity, Highway 4 is a two-lane, generally well-paved arterial roadway with 12- to 13-foot travel lanes and seven- to eight-foot gravel shoulders. Approximately one mile east of the site, at the approaches to Discovery Bay Boulevard, the roadway has been recently improved to include 13-foot wide travel lanes, nine-foot wide paved shoulders, and right and left turn deceleration lanes. Highway 4 also has separate, central left tum lanes on its approaches to the Marsh Creek Road, Byron Highway, and Bixler Road intersections. At each of these four intersections, Highway 4 is the through road and the side street approaches to Highway 4 are stop sign controlled. The posted speed limit on Highway 4 in the vicinity of the site is 55 miles per hour (mph). Observed speeds ranged from 55 to 70 mph. 'Half a mile west of the site, Highway 4 turns north at Byron Highway for about one and one- half miles, then turns westward again toward Brentwood. 5141DEIRII V-D.514 L --I O Y 9 a O�tij HIGHWAY 4 m �y I i D 70 U) 2 = I � i I m D -< o r y I O cn ' n m I r � � m a a I m � I BIXLER ROAD N d m � a m m M m N n 0 o M DISCOVERY BAY BLVD. N n = 0 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 109 Properties near the site with frontage on Highway 4 generally contain agricultural uses. There also are a few frontage properties which contain rural residences and small businesses. An exception to this rural pattern occurs at Discovery Bay. The north side of Highway 4 west and east of Discovery Bay Boulevard is bordered by the south edge of the Discovery Bay community, including a continuous noise wall at the rear of a mile-long row of suburban density residential homes. (2) Bixler Road. Bixler Road borders the project on the east, extending about three miles north and one mile south of its intersection with Highway 4. In the site vicinity, Bixler Road is a two-lane rural roadway with average pavement conditions, nine-foot travel lanes, and eight-foot shoulders. Bixler Road has combined left, right and through lanes on its approaches to Highway 4 and single departure lanes at this intersection. Sight distances are good for vehicle turn movements in all directions. There is no posted speed on Bixler Road in the site vicinity; observed vehicle speeds range from 45 to 60 mph. f3L Marsh Creek Road. Marsh Creek Road is a two-lane, well-paved arterial roadway extending in an east-west direction from the city of Clayton to Bixler Road. Marsh Creek Road intersects with Highway 4 in the one and one-half.mile Highway 4 segment which is oriented due north-south. West of Highway 4, Marsh Creek Road has nine-foot travel lanes with eight-foot gravel shoulders. Between Highway 4 and Bixler Road, the route has nine- foot travel lanes and no shoulders. The Marsh Creek Road approach to Bixler Road is stop sign controlled. Sight distances are good for vehicle turn movements in all directions at this location. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Properties with frontage on Marsh Creek Road include agricultural operations plus some rural single-family residences. (4) Byron Highway. Byron Highway is a two-lane, well-paved arterial roadway which runs generally north-south from the community of Knightsen (five miles northwest of the site) south to Byron and eventually to Tracy. Byron Highway and Highway 4 are the same road during the mile and one-half stretch of Highway 4 which runs due north-south one and one- half miles from the project site (see Figure 14). The posted speed limit south of the commercial area near Taylor Lane is 55 mph. In the vicinity of its southern intersection with Highway 4 (near Taylor Lane), Byron Highway has 13-foot travel lanes and seven-foot shoulders. Properties with frontage on the highway generally include agricultural uses and a limited number of rural residences and small commercial operations. Sight distances are good for vehicle turn movements in all directions at the southerly intersection with Highway 4. (55) Discovery Bay Boulevard. Discovery Bay Boulevard is a four-lane, well-paved north- south arterial roadway extending northerly from Highway 4 and providing the primary access to the Discovery Bay community. North of its intersection with Highway 4, Discovery Bay Boulevard contains a raised median, and has curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides of the route. Discovery Bay Boulevard is generally bordered by suburban residential uses with 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 110 a few small-scale commercial (shopping and office) developments within the Discovery Bay development. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Sight distances are good for vehicle turn movements in all directions at its intersection with Highway 4. b. Existing Roadway Link Traffic Volumes (1) Existing Volumes. Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour two-way traffic volumes at representative midblock locations are listed in Table 6 (numbers are rounded to the nearest five).' (2) Impact Significance Criteria for Roadway Links. For critical local roadway links that are currently operating within their design capacity, any project-related or cumulative traffic increase that exceeds the design capacity of the roadway link is identified in this analysis as a significant environmental impact. For critical roadway links that are already carrying in excess of design capacity, a project-related increase of five percent or more is considered in this EIR to represent a noticeable, significant additional impact. c. Exlsting Intersection Operation (1) Analysis Methodology. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling portion of a local circulation system. Therefore, this transportation analysis evaluates existing and post-project intersection operation in detail. All of the key intersections on the local roadway system are currently unsignalized. Some may be signalized in the future. The common methodology used for analyzing signalized intersections is different from that for unsignalized intersections. Signalized Intersections. Signalized intersection operation is typically evaluated based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A (best), indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, down to Level F (worst), indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The second scale for evaluating signalized intersections is the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio, which represents the relationship between the total design 'AM and PM peak period volumes were counted by the Crane Transportation Group at the five intersections near.the project site on Wednesday, November 20 and Thursday, November 21, 1991 (Highway 4 at Marsh Creek Road, Byron Highway, Bixler Road and Discovery Bay Boulevard, and Marsh Creek Road at Bixler Road). These late fall counts were adjusted to average summertime conditions (when volumes are generally higher along the state highway), based upon historical count information from Caltrans for Highway 4 at Byron Highway and Marsh Creek Road (from November, 1990 and July/August, 1991). The weekday peak hours were determined to occur between 7:00 and 8:00 AM and 5:00 and 6:00 PM. Truck traffic was determined to represent as much as four percent of total peak hour traffic. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV-D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 111 Table 6 TWO-WAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES--EXISTING (VEHICLES PER HOUR AM PM Highway 4 East of Discovery Bay Boulevard 495 490 East of Bixier Road 1285 1420 East of Byron Highway 1225 1370 South of Marsh Creek Road 1180 1355 North of Marsh Creek Road 1025 1170 South of Balfour Road 705 905 North of Balfour Road 1410 1520 Marsh Creek Road East of Highway 4 35 30 West of Highway 4 195 220 Bixler Road North of Marsh Creek Road 25 40 North of Highway 4 60 75 South of Highway 4 55 65 Byron Highway South of Highway 4 975 1000 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group adjusted counts, except for Highway 4 counts north and south of Balfour, which are from the South Brentwood Village Draft EIR, City of Brentwood, January 1992. 5144DEIRUV--D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 112 capacity of an intersection and its current traffic volumes.' However, the V/C ratio computation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. The relationship between the LOS and V/C evaluation scales for signalized intersections is shown in Table 7. Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is typically evaluated based on one scale, using a similar LOS grading system of A to F. The LOS rating is calculated for individual turning movements at the minor (lowest traffic volume) approach to the intersection rather than for the intersection as a whole. The V/C ratio scale evaluation is typically not used for unsignalized intersections. Table 8 provides a description of the unsignalized intersections evaluation scale; i.e., the relationship between vehicle delays and levels of service ratings for individual turning movements at minor approaches. (2) Impact Significance Criteria for Intersections. In response to the requirements of Measure C, Contra Costa county is currently in the process of establishing an intersection operation standard for "Routes of Significance" in the county, such as Highway 4? In the absence of any adopted Measure C criteria, LOS D has been considered in this EIR to represent the minimum LOS for all analyzed intersections. LOS D is a common standard used by many Bay Area suburban communities. At LOS D conditions, excessive and continuous back-ups in traffic at an intersection would not occur. However, at peak hours, some drivers may have to wait at the intersection for more than one signal cycle (if signalized), or may be subject to long traffic delays for the minor intersection movement (if �. unsignalized). Based on this basic standard, any traffic volume increase which degrades an existing level of service of D or better to level E or poorer is considered in this EIR to represent a significant environmental impact. (3) Vicinity Intersection Operation. Existing AM and PM peak hour operational conditions at five intersections in the project vicinity were evaluated based on the intersection analysis methodologies described above. The five existing vicinity intersections and their current operational conditions are listed on Table 9. (All existing intersections in the table are currently unsignalized, and thus have been evaluated in this existing setting section using the unsignalized intersection methodology.) 'TRB Circular 212. 2Measure C, adopted by the voters in 1988, establishes a sales tax add-on roadway improvement fund for "Routes of Significance," and sets forth a Growth Management Program which includes several requirements or criteria for funding eligibility. One Measure C requirement is to adopt and apply traffic service standards for local and regional roads. The Contra Costa County Transportation Authority is currently formulating such traffic service standards and related analysis methodologies. 51410EIR1I V-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 113 Table 7 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Traffic operation is characterized by very slight (low) delays; less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. Short cycle lengths contribute to the low delays. Progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles do not stop at all (most vehicles arrive during the green phase). Volume/capacity (V/C) ratio = 0 to 0.60. B Delays are in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. Traffic operation at this service level is characterized by good progression and/or short cycle lengths, although more vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing the higher levels of average delay. V/C ratio = 0.61 to 0.70. C Delays are in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. Traffic operation is characterized by fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear; i.e., drivers having to wait through more than one signal cycle. The number of vehicles Sstopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. V/C ratio = 0.71 to 0.80. D Delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable, characterized by unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. V/C ratio = 0.81 to 0.90. E Delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. Such delay is considered the limit of acceptable delay, and is characterized by poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Individual cycle failures are frequent. V/C ratio = 0.91 to 1.00. F Delays are greater than 60.0 seconds per vehicle. Such delays are considered unacceptable to most drivers, and are characterized by oversaturation (i.e., arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection), by many individual cycle failures, and by poor progression and long cycle lengths. V/C ratio = 1.01 or greater. SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates, and the Goodrich Traffic Group, June 1990; based on the signalized intersection chapter of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). 5141DEIRIIV-D.514. Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 114 Table 8 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Little or no delay is anticipated for the minor movement under evaluation. The movement's reserve capacity is 400 or more passenger cars per hour. B Short traffic delays are expected for the minor movement being evaluated. The movement's reserve capacity is from 300 to 399 passenger cars per hour. C Average traffic delays are expected for the minor movement under evaluation. The movement's reserve capacity is from 200 to 299 passenger cars per hour. D Long traffic delays are expected for the minor movement under evaluation. The movement's reserve capacity is from 100 to 199 passenger cars per hour. E Very long traffic delays are anticipated for the minor movement being • evaluated. The movement's reserve capacity is less than 100 passenger cars per hour. F Extreme delays with queuing are expected as a result of demand volume in excess of the capacity of the minor movement under evaluation. Such delays may cause severe congestion which would, in turn, affect other traffic movements. Intersection improvements are usually warranted. SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates, and the Crane Transportation Group, June 1990; based on the unsignalized intersection chapter of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 115 Table 9 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE--EXISTING Peak Hour LOS Intersection Control AM PM (1) Highway 4/Marsh Creek Rd. U E/E/A' EEA' (2) Highway 4/Byron Hwy (south) U F2 F2 (3) Highway 4/Project Residential __ --3 -3 (4) Highway 4/Project Commercial __ --4 _4 (5) Highway 4/Bixler Rd. U EEA5 EEA5 (6) Highway 4/Discovery Bay Rd. U D6 F6 (7) Bixler Rd./Marsh Creek Rd. U A7 A7 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group ' Westbound Marsh Creek left, through, right / eastbound Marsh Creek left, through, right / northbound Highway 4 left, southbound Highway 4 left 2 Northbound Byron Highway left / right / westbound Highway'4 left 3 Southbound access left / right / eastbound Highway 4 left ` Southbound access left / right / eastbound Highway 4 left 5 Northbound Bixler left, through, right / southbound Bixler left, through, right / eastbound Highway 4 left, westbound Highway 4 left 6 Southbound Discovery Bay Blvd. left / right / eastbound Highway 4 left Eastbound Marsh Creek Road left / right / northbound Bixler left 6 From Draft_Environmental Impact Report, South Brentwood Village: A Mixed-Use Development Plan (Brentwood), January 1992. U = Unsignalized s 5141DEIRVV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 116 As shown in Table 9, three of the eight vicinity intersections (Highway 4 at Marsh Creek Road, Byron Highway and Bixler Road) have stop sign controlled turn movements operating at unacceptable levels (poorer than Level of Service D) during the AM peak hour. Four of the eight vicinity study intersections (Highway 4 at Marsh Creek Road, Byron Highway, Bixler Road and Discovery Bay Boulevard) have stop sign controlled turn movements operating below acceptable levels during the PM peak hour. During the AM peak hour, tum movements from Discovery Bay Boulevard to Highway 4 are operating at LOS D, while all turn movements at the Bixler Road/Marsh Creek Road intersection are operating at LOS A. During the PM peak hour, only turn movements at the Bixler Road/Marsh Creek Road intersection are operating at acceptable levels (at LOS A). Extended delays were observed during both peak traffic periods for vehicles turning onto Highway 4 from Marsh Creek Road, Bixler Road and especially Byron Highway. Back-ups of 10 or more vehicles frequently occurred on the Byron Highway approach to Highway 4. d. Current Slanalization Needs Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of tratfic through an intersection. Often they are needed to provide side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where high volumes and/or high vehicle speeds block safe crossing or turn movements. However, signals do not increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period of time. Signals can also cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations. The Caltrans Traffic Manual includes 11 possible tests for determining if a traffic signal is warranted. These tests, called "warrants", consider criteria such as actual traffic volume, pedestrian volume, presence of school children, and accident history. Usually, two or more warrants must be met before a signal is installed. In this study, the Caltrans test for Peak Hour Volumes (Warrant #11) has been applied. When Warrant 11 is met, there is a strong indication that a more detailed signal warrant analysis covering all possible warrants is appropriate. These more rigorous analyses are described in Appendix D of the Caltrans Traffic Manual. The Warrant 11 test is presented in Appendix D of this EIR. Currently, the Highway 4/Marsh Creek Road, the Highway 4/Byron Highway, and Highway 4/ Discovery Bay Boulevard intersections have AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes which exceed peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. The Highway 4/Balfour Road intersection exceeds peak hour signal warrant levels in the PM peak hours only.' These are existing significant impacts. 'South Brentwood Village DER, page 71. 5141DEIRIIV--D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 117 e. Existing Road System Safety Concerns (1) General. The Highway 4 arterial corridor includes the following general hazardous conditions: (a) high speeds combined with stretches containing narrow gravel shoulders with little room for emergency stops, and (b) many small, intersecting roadways with the potential for conflicting turn movements onto and off of the highway. (2) Highway 4 Accident Rates. Table 10 provides a summary of Caltrans recorded accidents on the Highway 4 section in the project vicinity for the years 1988, 1989, and 1990. Table 11 provides a summary of county accident data for nearby intersections for the years 1990 and 1991. (3) Highway 4/Byron Highway Intersection. The Caltrans accident data in Table 11 indicates a higher number of accidents at the Highway 4/Byron Highway intersection than .at other local intersections. This higher recorded accident rate is possibly due to the high speeds and high volumes of peak hour traffic traveling around the 90-degree curve on Highway 4 at this location, and the potential difficulty for drivers turning from Byron Highway to judge the adequacy of traffic flow gaps along Highway 4. Caltrans has plans to signalize this intersection (see section f on Planned Improvement's which follows), a measure which should reduce some types of accidents at this location. f. Planned Local Roadway System Improvements Caltrans is planning to signalize the Highway 4/Byron Highway intersection within the next one to two years and to add one additional through lane on Highway 4 in each direction in the immediate vicinity of the intersection.' The city of Brentwood anticipates that Byron Highway will be upgraded to a two-lane arterial north of Highway 4 to Delta Road. The city of Brentwood also anticipates that Highway 4 through that community will be widened to four lanes in the near future (from Sellers Avenue, through the Balfour Road intersection, up to Cypress Road).' There are also preliminary plans to widen Highway 4 to four lanes through selected sections. However, the specific locations and timing of these improvements have not yet been determined. Planning is also underway by Caltrans and participating jurisdictions for construction of the Delta Expressway, a proposed roadway link between SR 160 in Antioch to the north and the proposed East County Transportation Corridor (relocated Vasco Road) which would extend to Livermore on the south. The facility would be a four-lane freeway north of Balfour Road and a two-lane expressway (limited access roadway) south of Balfour Road, 'Mr. Jerilyn Struven, Caltrans Contra Costa County Operations Division, personal communication. 'South Brentwood Village DEIR, p. 86. 51410EIRIIV--0.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 118 Table 10 ANNUAL ACCIDENT INFORMATION, HIGHWAY 4 BETWEEN MARSH CREEK ROAD AND SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LINE--1988, 1989 AND 1990 1988 1989 1990 Total Number of Accidents Involving Injury 20 35 26 81 Involving Trucks 6 7 7 20 At Intersections 19 11 20 50 Open Road 22 37 24 83 Total Accidents 41 48 44 133 Weather Conditions Clear 32 35 39 106 Fog 0 10 3 13 Rain 9 3 2 14 Road Surface Conditions Dry 36 42 39 117 Wet 5 6 5 16 SOURCE: TASAS Selective Record Retrieval, Caltrans, Barton-Aschman. 5141DE1RI1V--D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 119 Table 11 ACCIDENT INFORMATION--INTERSECTIONS IN PROJECT VICINITY--1990 AND 1991 Intersection 1990 1991 Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard 1 4 Highway 4/Bixler Road 0 0 Highway 4/Byron Highway 11 14 Highway 4/Marsh Creek Road 2 2 Marsh Creek Road/Bixler Road 0 0 SOURCE: Mr. Vendon McCloud, Contra Costa County Public Works, personal communication, February 1992. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514. Albers General Pian Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 120 and would be located west of the existing Highway 4 in the Brentwood area.' Balfour Road would be widened to four lanes between the new Delta Expressway and Sellers Avenue! The expressway would intersect Highway 4 well north of the project vicinity and, therefore, is not specifically analyzed as a part of this study. a. Transit Service Tri-Delta Transit and BART Express provide bus service in the Brentwood vicinity. Residents of the Discovery Bay community currently use these services via a "life line" bus service between Brentwood and Discovery Bay (via Highway 4 adjacent to the site). Use of this service requires scheduling a bus pick-up (dial-a-ride) 24 hours in advance. The "life line" bus picks the rider up at their residence and delivers them to the bus stop at the Lucky Shopping Center in Brentwood. Tri-Delta Transit routes 385 and 930 serve the Brentwood area, and BART Express routes PE, PEI and PE2X connect the Concord BART station to Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley and Brentwood. Connections to all of these routes can be made at the Lucky Shopping Center in downtown Brentwood. 2. IMPACTS a. Prolect Trip Generation Anticipated project trip generation characteristics are illustrated in Table 12. The project would be expected to generate a total of approximately 11,160 daily two-way trips, including about 280 inbound and 240 outbound trips during the AM peak traffic hour (7:00 to 8:00) and about 580 inbound and 565 outbound trips during the PM peak traffic hour (5:00 to 6:00). b. Prolect Trip Distribution Project traffic distribution assumptions used in this study are based upon observed existing travel patterns in the local area during peak traffic hours (i.e., through traffic counts), on the distribution of local and regional population, and on the distribution of office and commercial uses in the area. Specific consideration was given to each project land use type and the expected differences in the number and direction of residential, employee and customer trips arriving and departing. In addition, consideration was given to onsite trips captured 'Transportation and Circulation Element, Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990. 2South Brentwood Village DEIR, p. 90. 5141DEIRII V-D.514. Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV-D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 121 internally, such as those between the project shopping, office and residential areas. Consideration was also given to trips diverted or captured from the existing traffic flow along Highway 4 and Byron Highway. Overall, about 10 percent of the total AM and PM peak hour project trip generation was projected to remain internal to the site, and about 30 percent of AM and 40 percent of PM peak hour traffic was projected to be captured from the existing traffic flow on Highway 4 or diverted from Byron Highway.' Assumed project traffic distribution to the local roadway network, based on the above considerations, is listed in Table 13. c. Protect Impacts on Off-site Roadway Links Midblock two-way traffic volume increases from the proposed project during the AM and PM peak traffic hours are listed in Table 14 and are illustrated on Figures 15 and 16. The addition of project traffic to existing volumes along Highway 4 would not increase total peak hour volume levels beyond those considered acceptable.for a two-lane rural highway at any of the analyzed midblock locations. Project traffic increases along Byron Highway, Marsh Creek Road, and Bixler Road could also be accommodated within each roadway's two existing travel lanes. d. Protect Impacts on Intersection Operation (1) Vicinity Intersection Operation. Project impacts on peak hour levels of service at the various study intersections are shown in Tables 15 (AM peak hour) and 16 (PM peak hour). Overall, project traffic would increase delays for stop sign controlled turn movements onto Highway 4 at all analyzed intersections. As shown in Tables 15 and 16 under "Existing Plus Project" impacts, none of the unsignalized intersections analyzed in this study would experience a project-related traffic volume increase which would degrade an existing acceptable LOS (D or better) to level E or poorer. 'Based upon passby capture/diverted trip data for shopping centers contained in Trip Generation, 5th edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. The rate which has been used in this EIR analysis for internal capture is higher than might normally be expected due to the mix of land uses in the project (i.e., the high ratio of commercial square feet to residential units), and the location of the project with respect to other shopping opportunities. A higher than normal adjustment was also utilized with respect to exterior capture rates due to consideration of the potential number of diverted link trips (trips which change their travel pattern from their original trip to stop at a shopping center) which are also likely, considering the outlying location of the project. 5141DEIRIIV--D.514. Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 122 Table 12 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out Land Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rote Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Single-Family Residential 292 Units 9.55 2790 0.19 60 0.55 165 0.66 195 .35 105 Retail Shopping Center 112,420 sq. ft. " 7480 'Z 115 i2 65 " 365 " 365 Office 52,000 sq. ft. " 1.780 " 110 i° 30 '' 65 '° 150 TOTAL 11,160 280 240 580 565 SOURCE: Trip Generation, 5th edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. Note: Trip generation was calculated based on an assumed 292 residential units and on an estimated 52,000 square feet of general office floor space. The applicant has indicated that some or all of the office complex may accommodate medical- related activities. If all of the 52,000 square feet were medical office, the trip generation characteristics would increase, resulting in an overall project traffic generation total of approximately 12,050 daily trips (an 8 percent increase) and 620 PM peak hour trips (a 10 percent increase). These increases would not change the significant impact and mitigation findings of this analysis. ' Ln(T) = .625 Ln(X) + 5.985 2 Ln(T) = .589 Ln(X) + 2.378 (in 63%, out 37%) 3 Ln(T) = .637 Ln(X) + 3.553 (in 50%, out 509/6) 4 Ln(T) = .756 Ln(X) + 3.765 Ln(T) = .777 Ln(X) + 1.674 (in 89%, out 11%) ° Ln(T) = .737 Ln(X) + 1.831 (in 17%, out 83%) T = TRIPS X = 1,000 square feet Ln = Natural Logarithm Table 13 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AM PM In Out In Out Highway 4 north of Marsh Creek Road 39% 55% 12% 22% Marsh Creek Road west of Highway 4 8% 9% 10% 5% Byron Highway south of Highway 4 8% 13% 27% 17% Bixler Road north of Marsh Creek Road 6% 60/6 6% 2% Bixler Road south of Highway 4 3% 1% 20/6 3% Highway 4 east of Bix ler Road 360/6 160/6 43% 51% SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group Note: Does not include passby capture or internal trips. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 �y C) Ln -,, t al: CD (D f— 4- Cy) Ul (71 Ln o..o cQ o co r HIGHWAY 4 c i rl r �► v X � U' o 01 a cn cn Ln m• c Ln o 1 C --► O O _ y O CD W v to O cn v CD C) C O C i "�--.-----...----- CDCD I al 1 DI > cn i 1 M j 1 y j o 14 1 1 oo Ln � m I I 1 I 1 1 I t � v i Ln ^ ^1 1-- O 1 U7 N OLn I_/1Ln0 vc— CO Ln L ----------------+ ^ S o Ln RD. �.. . �. N O N (n '+ O O O CD CD cn •-- 2 2 D -< r•--• --------------------------- ----- I.—ml:o o '` 105 (110) �■ C) Ul N � � Dvv ( ) —' 0D m U' cn r 1 (10) +�(25) S PARKWAY m Z) L '11 _ C) (J, j PTl 0 I m t I O p m � � Y- ^•-. cn o� Z O O (7 -3 03 o I C) r < m 0 � � 1 0 m 1 UlN Cl) in D 1 v-c" 25 -0 (f) O O '< D i 1 r UJ (15) z o o m -� 1 _ 1�► m m m m z m (n m i -' -1 n 33 U) (n o (4) o o (1) c:' L(5). o o ,�(5) ZD �► k-F-(10) � �► 4-- (10) �. f—(10) .� �, �--- (10) co n Ln 0 00 0 0 + 0 " I n BIXLER RD. < I n C) Or IN C- c: ------------------------------- m 0 in J ' V , l eyR p p cn t 5 (0) cn J i� Ln O f-- 660(20) �► -- - p -3-- -(-1 0) cQ o HIGHWAY 4 : cn rl I 1► 0 0 (b Ui -u X rn �,�. --► ^ ^ o � O � CO: U' o 0 0CD -y -- 9. ^ cCl n C,) :—: o cn cn rn L CD B o' CD o 1 CD I ml 1 ml D DI :El cn m n I _m I i I I I �- � --4 co cn I O (n O I ------ .2 O O N O vc—co 00 4 -----� `_' BIXLER RD. Cn co—1 cn Ul N U7 O p• -. O ; Cl v .T vO C= G D CA) � I -� -(�0) D 0 0 . I D 4_ .A m V o I r x(20) ,r' p S PARKWAY (n L '17 o �..= D . _ ,C-- W 17D 1�` (105)–+ •� �► m m p i D (35) 7r z 0 n ? Co 0 o (nn o 0 7 0 m tel' V " O cn Lrl; W:O r N, o o I n C O o m I - z > l o G) m O o � m z z t�►^ m mmT �`m^ .l .J.J V J ■ TAk NVN v N (2) T Ul (0) O O 7 -n _ ^ G) l BIXLER RD— D v p; M cD Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 127 Table 14 TWO-WAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES--EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (VEHICLES PER HOUR) AM PM Project Project Increase Total Increase Total Highway 4 East of Discovery Bay Boulevard 20 515 35 525 East of Bixler Road 95 1380 220 1640 East of Byron Highway 225 1450 215 1585 South of Marsh Creek Road 175 1355 80 1435 North of Marsh Creek Road 160 1185 75 1245 South of Balfour Road 145 850 50 955 North of Balfour Road 135- 1545 50 1570 Marsh Creek Road East of Highway 4 15 50 30 60 West of Highway 4 30 225 35 255 Bixler Road North of Marsh Creek Road 20 45 20 60 North of Highway 4 120 180 205 280 South of Highway 4 5 60 10 75 Byron Highway South of Highway 4 20 995 65 1065 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 128 Table 15 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE--AM PEAK HOUR, EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PLUS CUMULATIVE (UNMITIGATED) Existing + Cumulative Intersection Existing Project (Year 2005) Highway 4/Marsh Creek Rd. EEA/EEA/BA' EEA/EEA/BA FFA/FFC/FD Highway 4/Byron Hwy. F/A/B' F/A/C F/B/F Highway 4/Project Residential --- E/A/C6 E/C/E Highway 4/Project Shopping Center --- E/A/C6 E/C/E Highway 4/Bixler EEA/EEA/CA' EEA/EEA/CA FFA/FFD/FA Highway 4/Discovery Bay Blvd. D/C/A' D/D/A E/F/C Bixler Rd./Marsh Creek Rd. A/A/9 A/A/A B/A/A SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group/Wagstaft and Associates ' Westbound Marsh Creek left, through, right / eastbound Marsh Creek left, through, right / northbound Highway 4 left, southbound Highway 4 left ' Northbound Byron Highway left / right / westbound Highway 4 left ' Northbound Bixler left, through, right / southbound Bixler left, through, right / eastbound Highway 4 left, westbound Highway 4 left ` Southbound Discovery Bay Blvd. left / right / eastbound Highway 4 left 5 Eastbound Marsh Creek Road left / right / northbound Bixler left 6 Southbound access left / right / eastbound Highway 4 left 5141DEIRIIV--D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 129 Table 16 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE--PM PEAK HOUR, EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PLUS CUMULATIVE (UNMITIGATED) Existing + Cumulative Intersection Existing Project (Year 2005) Highway 4/Marsh Creek Rd. EEA/EEA/BA' EEA/EEA/BA FFB/FFE/EE Highway 4/Byron Hwy. F/E/AZ F/F/A F/F/F Highway 4/Project Residential --- E/A/A! E/A/D Highway 4/Project Shopping Center --- F/A/A6 F/A/D Highway 4/Bixler EEA/EEA/AC' EEC/FEA/AB FFC/FEC/DD Highway 4/Discovery Bay Blvd. F/A/F4 F/A/F F/A/F Bixler Rd./Marsh Creek Rd. A/A/AS A/A/A E/A/A SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group/Wagstaff and Associates ' Westbound Marsh Creek left, through, right / eastbound Marsh Creek left, through, right / northbound Highway 4 left, southbound Highway 4 left z Northbound Byron Highway left / right / westbound Highway 4 left 3 Northbound Bixler left, through, right / southbound Bixler left, through, right / eastbound Highway 4 left, westbound Highway 4 left ` Southbound Discovery Bay Blvd. left / right / eastbound Highway 4 left S Eastbound Marsh Creek Road left / right / northbound Bixler left 6 Southbound access left / right / eastbound Highway 4 left 5141DEIRIIV--D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 130 However, as shown in Table 16, the following two unsignalized intersections would experience a project-related traffic volume increase which would degrade an existing LOS of E to the next lower service level: ■ Highway 4/Byron Highway, where the northbound right tum movement would deteriorate from LOS E to F in the PM peak hour. ■ Highway 4Bixler Road, where the southbound left tum movement would deteriorate from E to F in the PM peak hour. These two deteriorations would represent significant impacts. Project traffic would also worsen levels of service for specific turning movements that are now operating at acceptable levels (Highway 4/Marsh Creek Road, AM; and Highway 4/Byron Highway, AM). However, no currently acceptable turn movement (LOS D or better) would be changed by project traffic to an unacceptable level of service (below LOS D), and therefore these project-related impacts would not be characterized as significant. (2) Other Affected Regional Roadway Facilities. In addition to the five intersections in the immediate project vicinity, analysis by the EIR traffic engineer indicates that three other more distant intersections along Highway 4 will experience project-related traffic increases which should be identified in this EIR under Measure C impact accountability criteria (i.e., will be subject to an increase in traffic of 50 or more peak hour trips due to the project). These facilities and project-related traffic increases include: ■ Highway 4/Newport Drive (second connection to Discovery Bay): approximately 220 two-way PM peak hour project trips; ■ Highway 4/Camino Diablo (Byron): approximately 65 two-way PM peak hour project trips; and ■ Highway 4/13alfour Road (Brentwood): approximately 70 two-way PM peak hour project trips. Under Measure C criteria, these impacts would be considered significant. e. Prolect Impacts on Signal Warrants Based on Caltrans Highway Manual signal warrant criteria, the proposed project would also increase PM peak hour volumes at the Highway 4/Bixler intersection above signal warrant criteria levels. This would be a significant impact. 5141DEIRII V-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 131 Table 17 ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL CUMULATIVE TRIP GENERATION--YEAR 2005 Note: The recent project proposals and associated trip generation figures listed below have been added to the other cumulative year 2005 cumulative trip generation estimates in the January 1992 Byron 78 Draft EIR to determine total year 2005 cumulative trip generation in the project vicinity. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In out In out Land Use Size Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Rate Vol Discovery Bay West 1700 SF Homes 9.55 16,240 .19 325 .55 935 .66 1125 .35 595 18-hole Golf 37.6 680 2.67 50 .55 10 1.75 35 1.61 30 Course tripsthole 44-Unit Subdivision 44 SF Homes 9.55 430 .19 10 .55 25 .66 30 .35 20 (located in Discovery Bay) SOURCE: Trip Generation, 5th edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. f. Prolect Impacts on Offsite Road System Safety Project traffic would aggravate existing safety concerns along those sections of local roadways lacking paved shoulder areas. However, project traffic alone would not result in significantly increased safety impacts. g. Year 2005 Cumulative Offslte Traffic Impacts (1) Cumulative Projects and Traffic Generation. The analysis of cumulative traffic impacts in this EIR is based on year 2005 baseline traffic volume projections prepared by Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. for the Byron 78 Project Draft EIR, plus consideration of two additional general plan amendment requests which have been submitted since the Byron 78 Draft EIR was prepared. Table 17 lists the two additional developments (1991-92 general plan amendments) and the associated trip generation rates which have been added to determine cumulative year 2005 traffic volumes for this study. (2) Cumulative Traffic Volume Changes. Two-way traffic volume increases on the local roadway system from the proposed project plus anticipated cumulative traffic during the AM and PM peak traffic hours are illustrated on Figures 17 and 18. These figures represent a cumulative traffic volume on Highway 4 segment through the area that would exceed the available capacity of the existing two lanes, and would represent a significant impact. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 i co i ` > *GALS AV13 SE LL Q �, � AHBAOOSIO 505 o N J o Mw ,2 a W D c V E m NM CV cD 4-009 CL a Q13 b3'lX18 CD CD 5ZE --� t c`r'v —�` LtJ 08 r 1 CV)co N LO --)fQ i Cl) 1 LU uj w cc t cc 4 LL. ' Q � t <U) 1 tr t : 1 1 t i t L............... O C O �- 5t, coN n Lo M a 4--055 L 1 t,osz �► ,C-00l t, AVMHE)IH -sg 58E L .—+ o Oc�y-f 0 0 CO .. T 't� sum c� O � iii cy U. 3 U 'C3n-19 AVS U-) o = UJAU3AOOSI(3 N N uJ i U Q N LOLO R LO �. cCDQ GU 133`1X19 - l s+ a �► a a Qd �'y i L ` 00 —+ M Q� M 'y+ Q L;;", C 1 r 0. T' 1 U-) --� r 1 W 1 'z t J ti a W U. 1 i o �t LIJ cc 3: = t W Q � t 1 t 1 L_- — — _ a t� c 0 N a rn .. 0 G to r 560 t r• �c' ui U') Q v 0 Gtr J, AbMHJIH �� UJ U o 'oLOb g 06 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 134 (3) Intersection Operation with Cumulative (Year 2005) Traffic. Estimated cumulative traffic volumes on the local roadway system for AM and PM peak hour conditions are shown on Figures 17 and 18, respectively. Associated impacts on the various study intersections, assuming no signalization, are listed in Tables 15 and 16 (previous two pages). The cumulative intersection LOS figures in Tables 15 and 16 indicate that the addition of anticipated year 2005 cumulative traffic with no local intersection signalization would result in unacceptable peak hour operating conditions for all stop sign controlled turn or through movements (below LOS D for the AM, PM, or both peak hours) at all study intersections with an exception: all movements at the Bixier Road/Marsh Creek Road intersection would operate at LOS A or B during the AM peak hours. With this one exception, the cumulative operational effects shown in Tables 15 and 16 would be considered significant impacts. Cumulative operational impacts on local intersections, assuming that they were signalized, are listed in Tables 18 and 19. The figures indicate that, even if the following intersections were signalized, they would still operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F) during the PM peak traffic hour under anticipated year 2005 cumulative conditions:. ■ Highway 4/Marsh Creek Road ■ Highway 4/Byron Highway • Highway 4/Bixler Road ■ Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard ■ Highway 4/Project Shopping Center Driveway ■ Highway 4/Project S Parkway (4) Cumulative Signalization Needs. Application of Caltrans Traffic Manual signal warrant criteria indicates that, under anticipated year 2005 cumulative traffic conditions, in addition to the signal warranted at the Highway 4/Bixler Road intersection under existing and existing plus project conditions, signals would also be warranted at Bixler Road/Marsh Creek Road. This need would be a significant impact. (5) Cumulative (Year 2005) Traffic Safety Considerations. Both the Albers and Byron 78 projects are proposing two driveways each along Highway 4. The proposed frequent spacing of intersections would produce more disruption to mainline traffic flow than would a fewer number of intersections. These would be considered significant impacts. There is also a potential for other traffic safety hazards resulting from the location of the project Bixler Road driveways in relation to the Byron 78 Bixler Road driveways. The main access drives to the shopping centers in both developments are aligned directly across from each other. If potential future driveways to the project medical office buildings are offset in the wrong direction from those proposed for the Byron 78 office and professional center, 5141DE/RI1V--D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 135 conflictingvehicle turn movements could result. These would be considered si nificant g safety issues attributable to the proposed project site design. h. Prolect Access Impacts (1) Project Driveway Locations. The project development plan shown earlier on Figure 5 indicates that site access to the surrounding roadway system would be provided-via six driveways, including two along Highway 4, located approximately 500 and 900 feet west of the Bixler Road intersection, and four along Bixler Road, located approximately 330, 480, 750, and 1000 feet north of the Highway 4 intersection. (Although only three driveways are specifically shown along Bixler Road on the development plan, for purposes of this traffic analysis it has been assumed that a fourth driveway would be located about 750 feet north of Highway 4 to provide a separate Bixler Road access to the medical offices proposed for Parcel A.) As illustrated on Figure 5, the westernmost Highway 4 project access road would directly serve project residential units as well as provide two driveway connections to the west side of the project shopping center. The easterly Highway 4 access would directly serve the project shopping center. This driveway would have single, 17-foot wide inbound and outbound travel lanes. (2) Access Drive/Highway 4 Intersection Operation--Unsignalized. Turn movement provisions at the project driveways have not been specified by the applicant at this EIR stage. For purposes of conservative "worst case" analysis, all turn movements onto Highway 4 have been considered in this EIR to be possible at each project access driveway. Assuming this were to be the case, stop sign controlled left tum movements from both of the two project driveways along Highway 4 would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during both peak traffic periods under both the existing plus project and the cumulative scenarios (see Tables 15 and 16 on pages 128 and 129). Traffic turning out of the project driveways onto Highway 4, a high speed highway, would experience extended delays and occasional difficulty in safely joining the Highway 4 traffic stream. This project access situation would represent a significant safety concern. (3) Signal Warrants. Both project driveways along Highway 4 would have volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. This would also represent a significant impact of the project. Anticipated intersection operational conditions (LOS ratings) at local intersections with signalization are listed in Tables 18 and 19. (4) Access Drive Intersection Locations. Caltrans standards call for at least 1000 feet between signalized intersections along high speed state highways. Assuming that the Bixler Road/Highway 4 intersection will eventually be signalized, neither of the Highway 4 project 5141DEIRIIV--0.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 136 Table 18 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE, IF SIGNALIZED--EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE, AM PEAK HOUR (UNMITIGATED) Existing + Cumulative Existing Project Year 2005 Intersection LOS (V/C) LOS (V/C) LOS (V/Q Highway 4/Marsh Creek Rd. A (.46) A (.53) F (1.51) Highway 4/Byron Highway B (.69) . B/C (.70) F (1.09) Highway 4/Project Residential N/A B (.69) F (1.34) Highway 4/Project Shopping Center N/A B (.68) F (1.26) Highway 4Bixler N/A D (.81) F (1.82) Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard A (.31) A (.33) A (.58) Bixler/Marsh Creek Road N/A N/A N/A SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group N/A Not Applicable (does not meet signal warrants) 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 137 Table 19 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE, IF SIGNALIZED--EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE, PM PEAK HOUR (UNMITIGATED) Existing + Cumulative Existing Project Year 2005 Intersection LOS (V/C) LOS (V/C) LOS (V/C) Highway 4/Marsh Creek Road A/B (.61) B (.64) F (1.53) Highway 4Byron Highway B (.62) B (.66) F (1.84) Highway 4/Project S Parkway N/A B/C (.71) F (1.26) Highway 4/Project Shopping Center N/A C (.73) F (1.21) Highway 4Bixler N/A E (.95) F (1.71) Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard B (.67) C (.75) F (1.04) Bixler/Marsh Creek Road N/A N/A A (.55) SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group N/A Not Applicable (does not meet signal warrants) 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 138 driveways would be located at a sufficient distance from Bixler Road to meet this standard, although the most westerly driveway would be approximately 950 feet away (measured center line to center line). As a result, significant operational concerns would be created if one or both of these intersections were signalized in their proposed locations. (5) Access Drive Safety Concerns. The design of the proposed project entry street (S Parkway) entrance from Highway 4 is too narrow to allow for all possible turning movements which could occur at this location, resulting in significant safety impacts. (6) Adequacy of Proposed Highway 4 Widening at Project Intersections--Signalized. The project development plan (Figure 5) shows an existing 126-foot wide Highway 4 right-of-way along the project site frontage. The applicant is proposing to construct a new northern half of the highway along the project frontage, providing 48 feet of pavement (24 feet of existing pavement plus 24 additional feet of new pavement), a six-foot sidewalk with curb and gutter, and nine feet of landscaping. This widening measure would provide sufficient pavement to accommodate up to four travel lanes along the north side of the Highway 4 right-of-way (i.e., two through lanes, a separate eastbound left turn lane, and either a second eastbound left turn lane or a westbound right turn deceleration lane). Separate left turn lanes have been assumed in this analysis at the project access driveway intersections along Highway 4, due to the need to separate vehicles slowing or stopping while waiting to turn left from high speed through traffic. If appropriately striped and assuming signalization, the proposed 48-foot wide roadway surface would be adequate here for the existing plus project scenario (LOS B, B/C, or C), but inadequate for the cumulative scenario (LOS F). Also, the project developer is assuming that the 63-foot wide south half of the ultimate Highway 4 roadway cross-section would eventually be improved by either Caltrans or by the property owners on the south side of the roadway. This is not the usual process of providing widening along a public roadway (usually property owners on either side of a road are responsible for an equal amount of widening). Since the project applicant is assuming that the existing Highway 4 roadway surface would be fully credited to the project side of the new highway centerline, this improvement approach could produce a significant financial burden on Caltrans or on the property owner on the south side of Highway 4 if future improvements are to be provided along the opposite side of the roadway. (7) Safety Impacts on Bixler Road. The applicant-proposed improvements to Bixler Road adjacent to the project are also shown on the development plan and tentative map (see. Figure 5). The applicants would construct a 32-foot paved roadway, a four-foot raised median, a four and one-half foot sidewalk with curb and gutter, and five and one-half feet of landscaping, all to the west of the existing 18400t wide Bixler Road surface. The county or the property owner on the opposite side of the roadway to the east (the Byron 78 site) would be responsible for improving the eastern half of the roadway, and would have the benefit of the existing paved roadway. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 139 1 The proposed four-foot wide raised median in the center of Bixler Road would need to be removed on the approaches to the shopping center driveways in order to provide enough width for left turn lanes;and the potential would still exist that northbound vehicles on Bixler Road slowing or stopped waiting to turn into the project commercial area could be rear- ended by high speed through traffic. Lack of left turn lanes in this location would produce significant safety concerns. North of the project commercial center, Bixler Road is proposed to have an 84-foot right-of- way. The project would construct 32 feet of pavement adjacent to and just west of the existing 18-foot wide roadway surface. Curb, gutter and sidewalk would also be provided. If appropriately striped, this section of Bixler Road north of the commercial center would have sufficient room for right and left turn lanes on the approaches to the project driveways. (8) Proposed Emergency Access. An emergency vehicle access connection would be provided between the project site (at'the northwestern cul-de-sac) and Marsh Creek Road. Because this connection would add no regular traffic flow to Marsh Creek Road, it would result in no significant circulation impacts, but would be available for emergency use in the event that the other access routes were blocked or closed. 1. Prolect Residential Subdivision Internal Circulatlon and Parking The proposed project design (as shown on Figure 5) would have several internal circulation system impacts related to street widths, street layout, sight lines, distance between intersections, and other safety concerns. (1) Street Widths/Onstreet Parking. All residential subdivision streets and courts are proposed to have two through travel lanes with curbs, gutters and four and one-half foot wide sidewalks, plus five and one-half feet of area for landscaping on both sides of the roadway. The subdivision streets would have 10-foot wide travel lanes with eight-foot parking lanes on both sides of the roadway. The subdivision courts ending in cul-de-sacs would have eight-foot wide travel lanes and 8-foot parking lanes on each side, with 45-foot radius cul-de-sacs. Four to six homes would front on each cul-de-sac. All of these proposed internal subdivision street dimensions would meet county width requirements. However, a common problem with residential cul-de-sacs is that residents may have insufficient room for on-street parking between driveways. While this is not a significant impact of the project, onstreet parking could be improved if additional parking bays were provided in cul-de-sacs or project homes on cul-de-sacs included three-car garages. (2) Street Layout. The project tentative map shows two relatively long stretches of straight or gently curving subdivision streets that would promote higher than desirable speeds for a 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 140 residential neighborhood (A Street and D Street). This street design characteristic represents a significant safety concern. (3) Sight Lines. There is one sharp 90-degree curve shown on C Street within the proposed subdivision streets layout. On-street parking along the inside of this curve would block sight lines of traffic from residential driveways. The C Street leg of the S Parkway/C Street intersection would be aligned in a horizontal curve at its approach to the intersection. This alignment could result in significant sight distance limitations for vehicles turning left from S Parkway westbound onto C Street. Drivers would be unable to see oncoming eastbound vehicles on C Street due to the roadway curvature combined with any intervening vegetation or on-street parking. This condition would represent a significant safety concern. In addition, County Public Works Department staff have identified potential sight line impacts associated with the knuckle design of "L" Court.' (4) Distance Between Intersections. The distance between the intersections of S Parkway/C Street and the cul-de-sac intersecting C Street just east of this intersection is 60 feet. The county subdivision standard for distance between intersections on residential streets is 150 feet. Since traffic volumes on this cul-de-sac should be low, this would represent a minor safety concern only, and not a significant project impact. (5) Other Safety Concerns. The S Parkway/B Street intersection configuration also raises potential traffic safety concerns. The S Parkway northbound intersection approach would provide room for separate left, right and through lanes separated from southbound traffic by a raised median. However, no striping is shown on the project's development plan and tentative map. Immediately north of the intersection, northbound traffic would be limited to a single northbound travel lane. This abrupt narrowing of the roadway could create significant safety concerns unless proper striping is provided on the northbound intersection approach. 1 Prolect Shopping Center Internal Circulation and Parking The proposed shopping center would have five access driveways: one intersecting Highway 4 about halfway along the center's frontage on the state highway, two intersecting S Parkway, and two intersecting Bixler Road. The two most northerly driveways intersecting S Parkway and Bixler Road would be for service access to the back of the major stores. 'Memo from Steven J. Wright, Associate Civil Engineer, Road Engineering, to Jim Cutler, Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning, April 10, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV--D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 141 (1) Design and Safety of Proposed Highway 4 Shopping Center Access. Figure 5 indicates that the driveway connecting the proposed commercial center to Highway 4 would have single, 17-foot wide inbound and outbound lanes with a central median. This drive would extend approximately 70 feet into the center where the median would end and turns would be possible to an intersecting east-west parking aisle. The following are site design and traffic safety concerns generated by the proposed configuration of this driveway: Stacking Space. Inbound vehicles waiting for outbound traffic to dear before turning left at the first parking aisle 70 feet inside the shopping center (just past the end of the median) could obstruct inbound through traffic flow. This situation potentially could back traffic onto Highway 4 and would represent a significant safety concem. Pedestrian Conflicts. Vehicles seeking access to the eastern end of the shopping center parking lot would be required to drive north all the way to the main east-west parking lot aisle running immediately in front of the major stores. This situation would add traffic to the shopping center parking aisle which has the highest volume of pedestrian cross traffic. This would represent a potentially significant safety impact. (2) Design and Safety of Other Shopping Center Access Provisions. The following are site design and traffic safety concerns raised by the proposed configuration of the shopping center access driveways intersecting S Parkway and Bixler Road: Aisle Obstruction. Vehicles entering primary access driveways from Bixler Road and/or from S Parkway (adjacent to the front of the major stores) would immediately encounter 90- degree parking bays in front of stores A and C (see Figure 5). Vehicle parking maneuvers at these spaces could obstruct traffic entering and exiting the shopping center at these locations. This situation would represent a significant traffic operational and safety concern. In addition, turn movements to and from the first north-south parking aisles could obstruct traffic entering and exiting the center at both driveways. This would also represent a significant operational and safety concern. Adequate Curve Radii. The service driveway behind and north of the shopping center stores would presumably accommodate one-way truck traffic and two-way non-truck traffic. However, the southwest and southeast corners at the service road intersections with S Parkway and Bixler Road, respectively, do not appear to provide adequate curve radii for truck turn movements. This would represent a significant safety and operational concern, as the proposed configuration would force trucks to swerve into the opposing lane of traffic to complete turns. Adequate Curve Geometrics. Geometrics of the service driveway S-curve at the east end of Major Store 1 could force turning trucks to swing wide into the opposing traffic lane. This would represent a significant safety hazard. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV-D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 142 (3) Shopping Center Parking. The project contains 669 spaces to accommodate shopping center parking. This proposed parking would be adequate to meet county code parking requirements for retail development (which would require 450 spaces, or one space for each 250 square feet of retail development). (4) Project Medical Office Internal Circulation and Parking. No internal circulation access or parking plan has been provided for the project office development. k. Prolect Construction Impacts Project construction related traffic could produce potentially significant safety and operational impacts to the local roadway system. Large trucks turning to or from Highway 4 would present significant safety hazards to high speed through traffic. Also, Bixler Road and other local roads may not be structurally adequate to accommodate the weight of and frequent use by large truck traffic and could be subject to significant damage. In addition, construction workers parking along either Highway 4 or Bixier Road could cause significant safety concerns. 3. MITIGATION MEASURES a. Mitigation of Existing Intersection Deficlencles (1) Signalization. The Highway 4/Marsh Creek Road, Highway 4/Byron Highway and Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard intersections should be signalized. Signalization and lane additions are already planned by Caltrans at the Highway 4/Byron Highway intersection. These measures would improve the existing unacceptable levels of service for stop sign controlled turn movements at each location from LOS F or E as shown in Tables 15 and 16 to the acceptable signalized levels of service shown in Tables 20 and 21. These signalization improvements would reduce existing significant impacts at each location to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures are necessary to offset existing unacceptable LOS conditions and therefore should be the fair share responsibility of the county, Caltrans, and new local development.' The project should contribute its fair share to these existing signalization needs. As signals are not warranted at the Highway 4/Bixler Road intersection, existing significant impacts for stop sign controlled turn movements at this location could not be reduced to a level of insignificance. 'County budget limitations could reduce the county's ability to participate in these projects. 5141DEIRIIV--D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 143 Table 20 SIGNALIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE--EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE, AM PEAK HOUR (MITIGATED) Existing + Cumulative Existing Project Year 2005 Intersection LOS (V/C) LOS (V/C) LOS (V/C) Highway 4/Marsh Creek Road N/A N/A D (.82') Highway 4/Byron Highway N/A N/A A (.542) B (.66') Highway 4/Project Residential N/A N/A B (.698) Highway 4/Project Shopping Center N/A N/A B (.658) Highway 4/Bixler Road N/A D (.84) E (.965) D (.848) Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard N/A N/A A (.50') SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group ' Four lanes on Highway 4, separate right/through-left turn lanes eastbound Marsh Creek Road, second Highway 4 left turn lanes and two westbound departure lanes on Marsh Creek Road-merging to single lane. 2 Four lanes Highway 4, two westbound Highway 4 left tum lanes, two northbound Byron Highway left turn lanes. ' Six lanes Highway 4, two northbound Byron Highway left turn lanes, one westbound Highway 4 left turn lane. ' Separate right, through, left turn southbound lanes. separate northbound left turn lane. 5 Four lanes Highway 4, one eastbound Highway 4 left turn lane, separate southbound/northbound Bixler left, through, right turn lanes, separate left and right turn lanes westbound Highway 4. 6 Same as (5) but with second eastbound Highway 4 left turn lane. ' Second eastbound Highway 4 in left turn lane. e Four lanes on Highway 4. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 144 Table 21 SIGNALIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE--EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE, PM PEAK HOUR (MITIGATED) Existing + Cumulative Existing Project Year 2005 Intersection LOS (V/C) LOS (V/C) LOS (V/C) Highway 4/Marsh Creek Road N/A N/A C (.74') Highway 4/Byron Highway N/A N/A E (.922) D (.833) Highway 4/Project Residential N/A N/A B (.64°) Highway 4/Project Shopping Center N/A N/A B (.658) Highway 4Bixler Road N/A D (.844) D (.885) D (.886) Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard N/A N/A B (.627) SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group ' Four lanes on Highway 4, separate right/through-left turn lanes eastbound Marsh Creek Road, second Highway 4 left turn lanes and two westbound departure lanes on Marsh Creek Road-merging to single lane. 2 Four lanes Highway 4, two westbound Highway 4 left turn lanes, two northbound Byron Highway left turn lanes. 3 Six lanes Highway 4, two northbound Byron Highway left turn lanes, one westbound Highway 4 left turn lane. Separate right, through, left turn southbound lanes. separate northbound left turn lane. 5 Four lanes Highway 4, one eastbound Highway 4 left turn lane, separate southbound/northbound Bixler left, through, right turn lanes, separate left and right turn lanes westbound Highway 4. 6 Same as (5) but with second eastbound Highway 4 left turn lane. Second eastbound Highway 4 in left turn lane. ° Four lanes on Highway 4. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 145 b. Mltloatlon of Prolect Impacts on the Offsite Roadway System The project would be required to pay an off-site traffic mitigation fee for the east county area of benefit. This fee would be $1,994.00 per residential unit, or $3.19 per square foot of office area and $4.99 per square foot of commercial area. This fee would be applied towards a predetermined list of needed east county traffic improvements, such as the Delta Expressway. County Public Works has indicated, however, that there are no improvements programmed on the roadways or at intersections near the site that would be funded from this fee source.' Therefore, in addition to this fee, the project must provide for mitigation of its own additional direct impacts on the offsite roadway system. (1) Offsite Roadway Link Operation. Contribute a fair share fee, to be negotiated with the county, towards shoulder/widening improvements needed now and in the future along Highway 4 and Byron Highway, including the provision of adequate shoulders south of Highway 4. This measure would reduce project impacts on offsite roadway link operation to less than significant levels. (2) Offsite Intersection Operation. Implementation of the following measures would reduce project traffic impacts on study intersections to a level of insignificance: ■ Contribute a fair share fee, to be negotiated with the county Public Works Department, towards sign alization/widening improvements that are now, or will in the future be needed at the Highway 4 intersections with Byron Highway, Marsh Creek Road, and Balfour Road. ■ Signalize the Highway 4/Bixler Road intersection when warranted (or fund, in conjunction with the Byron 78 development, the signalization of this intersection) as determined by the County Public Works Department. When signalization is provided at these main intersections along Highway 4, resultant existing plus project operation would be at acceptable peak hour levels of service at all locations except at the Bixler Road intersection. This assumes that existing geometrics are maintained at all locations (other than the new lanes to be added by Caltrans at Byron Highway). ■ Provide separate left, through, and right turn lanes on the southbound Bixler intersection approach. In addition, provide a separate left turn lane on the northbound Bixler Road intersection approach. Ms. Heather Ballinger, Contra Costa County, Public Works Department, personal communication, February 1992. 5141DEIRII V-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 146 Tables 20 and 21 indicate that with these mitigations, existing-plus-project intersection impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. c. Mitication of Cumulative (Year 2005) Impacts on the Offsite Roadway System The following mitigation measures should be the combined fair-share responsibility of the county, Caltrans, and all new developments in the area, including the project. Implementation of these measures would reduce identified significant cumulative impacts to less than significant levels: (1) Cumulative Traffic Generation. The project should be required to construct improvements if warranted by project traffic, or contribute towards their future construction if not warranted, prior to anticipated project buildout. The following measures would reduce . the overall project contribution to cumulative traffic volume increases and would therefore reduce related cumulative impacts. These measures are not specifically required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. ■ Provide bus pull-outs and covered shelters wherever the transit authority deems appropriate. ■ Monitor TSM plans for each development, as required by Contra Costa County. ■ Revise the project site plan to provide a pedestrian and bicycle access from the end of L, D, J, H, or A Courts to Highway 4. (Sound walls should turn up at this access way to prevent noise intrusion into adjacent homes.) ■ Include provisions in the project development plan for bicycle racks, showers, and lockers at retail and office development to encourage walking and bicycle riding to and from the commercial portion of the project. ■ Revise the project site plan to maximize pedestrian and bicycle connections between residential, retail and office portions of the development. ■ Consider signing portions of the Albers and Byron 78 shopping center parking lots for use as a park-and-ride facilities on weekdays, when many parking spaces are unused. ■ Consider providing bus pick-up locations within the shopping center parking lots and/or along Bixler Road, convenient to both the project and Byron 78 shopping centers. (2) Cumulative Highway 4 Traffic Volume Changes. The following measures relate to Highway 4 operation: ■ Widen and upgrade Highway 4 to a six-lane arterial between Marsh Creek Road and Bixler Road. ■ North of Marsh Creek Road and east of Bixler Road, Highway 4 should become a four-lane arterial. 5141DEIRIIV--D.514 . Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 147 ■ Ideally, access to Highway 4 should be allowed only at major intersections such as Discovery Bay Boulevard, and the westerly project access (S Parkway), Bixler Road, Marsh Creek Road, and Byron Highway. Secondary Impacts and Mitigation Needs. The widening of Highway 4 to a six-lane roadway would require increasing the existing right-of-way width to 126 feet. This widening could impact the adjacent segment of Kellogg Creek which has been reconstructed as a drainage channel parallel to the south side of Highway 4 across from the project. The widening could have significant impacts on this drainage system, and on water quality in Kellogg Creek due to grading and increased erosion and sedimentation. In addition, such widening could have significant adverse impacts on existing vegetation and wildlife habitat values within and along the creek channel. To mitigate these potential impacts of the widening of Highway 4 on the Kellogg Creek drainage channel, one of the following additional measures should be implemented with the widening: ■ all right-of-way widening should occur on the project side of Highway 4 as necessary to avoid impacts to the creek; or ■ alternatively, the channel should be reconstructed to the north of its existing location. The latter mitigation approach may require a Streambed Alteration Permit from the DFG and review by the USA COE for compliance with the Corps' Section 404 Permit requirements. (3) Cumulative Intersection Operation. Resultant peak hour intersection operation, with the Highway 4 improvements listed above in combination with the other required turn lane additions and signalization improvements required to mitigate the existing-plus-project impacts, is presented in Table 15. The table indicates that intersections would be operating at acceptable levels of service during both peak traffic periods with the improvements recommended herein. (4) Cumulative Signalization Needs. Contribute to the signalization of the Bixler Road/ Marsh Creek Road intersection when warranted. (5) Cumulative Traffic Safes Considerations. Widen and upgrade Bixler Road north of Highway 4 to five lanes from Highway 4 to Marsh Creek Road. d. Mltlpation of Prolect Access Impacts (1) Project Safety Impacts on Highway4. The following measures would mitigate identified significant safety impacts related to the proposed project access on Highway 4 to • less than significant levels: 5141DE1RIIV--D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV-D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 148 Assumed Highway 4 Access Design Approach: This project access road, as proposed by the applicant, would have two inbound and three outbound travel lanes near Highway 4, and would narrow to a two-lane facility to the north of the first shopping center driveway. Turn Movement Delays/Distance Between Intersections. The following measures would be required to mitigate identified safety impacts related to turn movement delays and inadequate distances between intersections. ■ For safety, signal coordination/synchronization, and other operational purposes, restrict the project to one major intersection along Highway 4 (at S Parkway), located a minimum of 1000 feet from the signalized Highway 4/13ixler Road intersection (per Caltrans' standard) where all turn movements would be allowed. This would minimize the number of new full intersections along Highway 4, and would allow for optimal functioning of both intersections when signalized (e.g., synchronization). ■ Signalize this main intersection when warranted. These improvements would provide acceptable intersection operation (AM peak hour LOS B and PM peak hour LOS B/C. ■ Construct a raised median along Highway 4 from Bixler Road to the relocated S Parkway intersection to prevent left turns in and out of the project shopping center driveway. ■ The S Parkway connection to Highway 4 should be signed to indicate access to both the residential and shopping areas. ■ Provide deceleration lanes on each Highway 4 project driveway approach. Adequacy of Proposed Access Widths. Provide sufficient right-of-way along the Highway 4 site frontage to allow eventual provision of six through lanes, one right tum deceleration lane on each westbound approach to project accesses, dual left turn lanes on the eastbound approaches to Bixler Road and S Parkway, landscaping, and sidewalks. The project applicant, now and in the future, should be fully responsible for half of all additional paving along Highway 4 adjacent to the project site, regardless of which side of the roadway centerline it is located. (2) Access Drive Safety Concerns. The proposed design of the project entrance from Highway 4 (S Parkway) should be widened to allow for a left-tum lane, a through lane (for potential development across the street), and a right-turn lane. (3) Safety Impacts on Bixler Road. To reduce safety impacts on Bixler Road to less than significant levels, provide left turn deceleration lanes on the northbound approaches to all project driveways on Bixler Road as well as right-tum deceleration lanes on the southbound • approach to all project driveways. In addition, coordinate the site plans and driveway 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 149 designs to optimize safe traffic flow between the Albers and Byron 78 developments proposed on either side of Bixler Road. Major driveways should be aligned to allow.for eventual signalization coordination/synchronization, if warranted by future traffic volumes. (4) Emergency Access. No mitigation required. e. Protect Residential Subdivision Internal Circulation and Parking Mitigations The following measures would reduce identified impacts of the internal circulation and parking aspects of the residential portion of the project to less than significant levels: (1) Street Widths/Parking. Proposed project street widths are adequate. However, consideration should be given to providing parking bays in the design of subdivision cul-de- sacs or the provision of three-car garages in cul-de-sac homes. This would relieve the problem of too little on-street parking within the subdivision cul-de-sacs. (2) Street Layout. Landscaped chokers, landscaped islands, use of more curvilinear roadways or other measures should be provided to reduce speeds on internal streets with long stretches of straight streets. Alternately, a finer web of streets with appropriate stop signage could be provided. (3) Sight Lines. On-street parking on the inside of the 90-degree curve on C Street should be prohibited. Parking along the south side of C Street on its eastbound approach to S Parkway should also be prohibited, and vegetation should be restricted in the northeast corner of the proposed park to preserve sight distances at this intersection. Alternatively, the intersection should be redesigned so that better sight distance is available. The design of "L" Court should be modified to a minor street curve with adequate sight distance, or to a barbell "Tee" intersection. (4) Distance Between Intersections. The distance between the intersections of S Parkway/C Street and the nearest C Street/Cul-de-sac intersection to the east should be increased to comply with county standards. This could be accomplished by reversing the cul-de-sac and surrounding lot component (turning the component upside down on the site plan) so that it intersects D Street instead of C Street. (6) Other Safety Impacts. Adequate signing and striping at the S Parkway/B Street intersection should be provided to properly channelize drivers on the northbound S Parkway intersection approach. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 150 f. Project Shopping Center Internal Circulation and Parking Mitigations (1) Design and Safety of the Proposed Highway 4 Shopping Center Access. The following mitigation measures would reduce project impacts to less than significant levels: Stacking Space. Assuming right-turn only in and out restrictions are enforced (as per mitigation IV.13.3.d(1)), provide at least 100 feet of stacking space internal to the shopping center parking lot for in- and outbound vehicles at the center's Highway 4 driveway. In addition, provide a separate left turn lane on the northbound approach to the first east-west parking aisle on the inbound lane from Highway 4 for vehicles desiring to tum left into the west section of the parking lot. Pedestrian Conflicts. Provide an east-west parking aisle connection immediately north of Pad 2 along the Highway 4 driveway for inbound vehicles desiring to turn right into the east section of the shopping center parking lot. (2) Design and Safety of Other Shopping Center Access. The following measures would reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels: . Aisle Obstruction. Eliminate all but two to three of the 90-degree parking spaces adjacent to Stores A and C. Those two or three spaces which are retained should be reserved for use by handicapped drivers and should be located at least 200 feet from S Parkway and Bixler Road. Channelize the primary (southerly) access driveways from S Parkway and Bixler Road at least 100 feet into the shopping center parking lot. Adequate Curve Radii. Lengthen the curve radii at the service road access driveway connections to both Bixler Road and S Parkway to accommodate large truck turn movements. Adequate Curve Geometrics. Provide sufficient space for truck turning movements at the S- curve at the northeast corner of Major Store #1. a. Project Construction Traffic Mitigations A project construction period circulation plan, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department and approval of the Zoning Administrator, should be completed by the applicant. The following measures should be included in the plan to assist in reducing project construction traffic impacts to a level of insignificance: Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes. Provide acceleration and deceleration lanes on Highway 4 wherever construction traffic would enter or exit the site. 5141DEIRIi V-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 151 Repairs to Bixler Road. Repair any damage to the structural integrity of Bixler Road or Highway 4 resulting from construction traffic. Construction Worker Parking. Provide on-site parking for all construction workers. Fill Importation. The source(s) of fill for the site should have easy access to Highway 4 and/or to other roads where the additional truck traffic would not create significant noise, safety, or road maintenance problems. 5141DEIRIIV-D.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.D. Transportation July 7, 1992 Page 152 5141DEIRIIV-17.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.E. Drainage and Water Quality July 7, 1992 Page 153 E. DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY This EIR chapter describes local drainage and water quality conditions relevant to the project, identifies likely significant impacts of the project site on these conditions, and recommends measures to mitigate those impacts. 1. SETTING The regional and local drainage system is illustrated on Figure 19. a. Regional Drainage The project site is located in the southern portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. The southern portion of the Delta is drained by the San Joaquin River which flows generally in an east-west direction in this portion of the valley. The project site is located within the regional watershed of the Old River, a north-south oriented tributary to the San Joaquin River. b. Local Drainage (1) General. Locally, the project site is within the watershed of Kellogg Creek which flows in an east-west direction on the opposite side of Highway 4, just south of the site. The creek turns north (passing under Highway 4 approximately 1,200 feet east of the Highway 4 intersection with Bixler Road) towards the Discovery Bay water system and Indian Slough. Runoff from the project site flows through an open drainage swale east of the site (within the Byron 78 property) to Kellogg Creek, into the Discovery Bay water system, into Indian Slough, and eventually into the Old River. (2) Kellogg Creek. Kellogg Creek is an ephemeral, unlined channel with profuse vegetation along its bottom and banks which are protected by levees in the vicinity of the project site. The creek serves as both a drainage channel and an irrigation water storage area for surrounding farm land. 5141DEIRN--E.514 f �OPaJ\a 0¢ i BETHEL Z ISLAND o i �p G z OAKLEY \ U r CYPRESS ROAD i I i I v } Q i C7 S Y S CHESTNUT I RD. Z ° o I BRENTWOOD co SLOUGH m POINT OF HIGHWAY 4 TIMBER RD. DISCOVERY c� -} BAY V 4 PROJECT. X �`` GQ� > o MARSH CREEK RD. SITE UNNAMED O m DRAINAGE 9 Q �C SWALE o m HIGHWAY 4 � Y W KELLOGG CREEK RD. RO' HOFFMAN O BYRON O i w Y I 0 2U) W Figure 19 I _ REGIONAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM Albers General Plan Amendment EIR Contra Costa County Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality July 7, 1992 Page 155 The section of Kellogg Creek between Highway 4 and Discovery Bay (generally downstream of the project site) has been improved to convey a 100-year storm flow.' Contra Costa County is currently planning to improve the Highway 4 bridge which crosses Kellogg Creek near the southeastern corner of the Byron 78 site to also handle the 100-year storm flow. Kellogg Creek south of Highway 4 (upstream of the project site) is undersized in some areas and subject to regular winter flooding. However, the elevated design of Highway 4 in the immediate project vicinity protects the project site from such flooding during smaller storms. The county is currently planning to improve this segment of the creek to handle 10-year flow. No greater capacity is planned for this upstream segment of the creek due to its classification by the county as a rural creek. c. Project Site Drainage Drainage of the site consists of overland flow toward the northeastern corner of the site. Drainage is also captured in a system of man-made ditches which traverse the site and line its edges. Runoff from these ditches follows into a culvert under Bixler Road at the northwestern corner of the site. The Bixler Road culvert discharges into an unnamed drainage channel running easterly through the Byron 78 property to Kellogg Creek, approximately 1,200 feet east of the project site. d. Flooding (1) Flood Plain. The project site is located within the designated 100-year flood plain of Kellogg Creek and the Old River. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has designated this flood plain as "Zone A," which means that the area would be inundated by the 100-year flood. However, the depth of flooding on the site during a 100-year flood event has not been determined. Flooding in areas designated "Zone A" is usually shallow and associated with surface runoff, rather than tidal conditions. Areas along both Kellogg Creek and the Old River have experienced numerous significant floods. Most recently, in 1986, a large area of flooding was triggered along both Kellogg Creek and the Old River by a 50-year storm. It is likely that the site was at least partially flooded as a result of this storm. (2) Sea Level Rise/Subsidence. The project's susceptibility to flooding could be affected by two factors: by a relative change in mean sea level compared to the elevation of land, and/or by areawide subsidence in the project vicinity. 'This flood capacity does not include the flood control benefit associated with the proposed Vaqueros Reservoir upstream of the project. 5141DEIRIIV--E.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.E. Drainage and Water Quality July 7, 1992 Page 156 • Sea Level Rise. Recently, several studies have projected an increase in the general rate of sea level rise. Some climatologists and oceanographers believe this change is or will be occurring due to future warming of the atmosphere associated with the "greenhouse effect," which is being produced by human-induced loading of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other gases. Relative sea level rise may also be increased or decreased by land movement. Using the Presidio tidal station in San Francisco as a reference point, the base rate of sea level rise (not including land movement) was determined to be 0.0072 ft/year.' Any land movement (such as subsidence or uplift) would either be additive or subtracted from this base number. An average rate of sea level rise was calculated at the Pittsburg tidal station to be 0.0162 feet/year (0.19 inches/year).2 Other more general predictions have been made of an approximate sea level rise of 10 cm in the next 25 years, or an average rate of 0.15 inches per year for the next 25 years.3 Subsidence. Subsidence, as explained in the Geology and Soils section of the EIR (Section IV.F), is the gradual setting or sinking of a large area due to groundwater withdrawal and other factors. Subsidence rates levels in the project vicinity have been documented at up to six inches per year.' However, subsidence at a rate of 0.50 inches per year is far more common. If the project site is subsiding, it is reasonable to assume that it is not occurring at a rate greater than 0.50 inches per year. e. Water Quality (1) Kellogg Creek. The quality of surface water runoff in Kellogg Creek entering the Discovery Bay water system downstream of the project site is affected primarily by non- point source pollutants. Non-point source pollution includes materials and chemicals which are washed from the watershed area surface into the drainage system from a variety of sources. Unlike water pollutants that come from discrete point sources, such as factories or sewage treatment plants, non-point source pollutants are washed by rainwater and other means from streets, construction sites, golf courses, and agricultural areas. 'Sea Level Rise: Predictions and Implications for the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), 1988. 'Ibid. 3Responding to Changes in Sea Level, Committee on Engineering Implications of Changes in Relative Mean Sea Level Rise (CEICRMSLR), 1987. 4Evaluation of Selected Data to Assess Causes of Subsidence in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USGS, Rojstaczer, Stuart, et al. Open File Report, 91-143, 1991. 5141DEIRIIV--E.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.E. Drainage and Water Quality July 7, 1992 Page 157 Local pollutants, including suspended sediment, fertilizers, herbicides, and other agricultural residues, flow directly into surface waterways, Kellogg Creek, and eventually into the Discovery Bay water system and the Delta. No surface water quality sampling data are available for Kellogg Creek. However, the creek's water quality is expected to be similar to other creeks which carry agricultural runoff. Agricultural runoff from such areas typically contains nutrients, trace amounts of pesticides and herbicides, and other constituents that accompany normal agricultural activities found in the surrounding area. (2) Discovery Bay and Delta. The water quality of Discovery Bay and the adjoining area of the Delta has been monitored for over 15 years. Data has been collected to satisfy Regional Water Quality Control Board-mandated mitigation measures for the Discovery Bay project. According to the Regional Board staff, the water quality testing of these waters over the years has shown very few detrimental effects.' Accordingly, the Regional Board has recently suspended surface water quality monitoring requirements for the Discovery Bay community. 2. IMPACTS The primary hydrological.impacts of the project are anticipated to include increased runoff from the site resulting in downstream erosion and flooding impacts, and the site's own susceptibility to flooding. a. Drainage and Runoff Impacts The proposed project would involve the building of residential, commercial, and office structures, and the paving of streets, driveways, and parking lots, all of which would contribute to an increase in impervious surfaces on the site. (1) Amount of Increase. General estimates of the proposed impervious area associated with the Albers project include 15 acres of residential roof area; 13 acres of roadway; and 15 acres of commercial/office roof area and parking lots. The total impervious area to be created by the project would be approximately 43 acres of 74 acres, or 59 percent of the site. This change in site conditions would greatly affect the timing and volume of runoff leaving the property. Table 16 provides estimates for pre- and post-development runoff conditions on the project site. 'Alex McDonald, Water Resources Engineer, CVRWCB, personal communication, February 1992. 5141DEIRIIV-E.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality July 7, 1992 Page 158 Table 22 PRE- AND POST RUNOFF ESTIMATES FOR THE ALBERS PROJECT SITE Recurrence Interval Pre-development Post-development Percent Increase 5 year 6.2 cfs 35.2 cfs 560 10 year 7.6 cfs 38.9 cfs 511 25 year 9.0 cfs 48.7 cfs 541 SOURCE: Questa Engineering Corporation Note: Calculations based on the Rational formula described in Rantz, 1971 and Contra Costa County precipitation depth-duration-frequency curves. (2) Downstream Drainage Capacity. As illustrated in Table 22, there would be a significant increase in the peak storm water discharge due to the project. This additional runoff would enter a project storm drain system and flow under Bixler Road via the existing culvert near the northwestern corner of the project site. From there it would flow east into the open drainage swale which traverses the Byron 78 property (within a 20-foot wide easement held by the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District), into the lower improved section of Kellogg Creek, and eventually into Indian Slough and the Old River.' All segments of the downstream drainage system have adequate capacity to handle project generated runoff increases. (3) Erosion. Increased runoff from the project has the potential to affect existing drainage facilities by causing erosion within the downstream system. Erosion potentials are particularly high where the drainage swale on the Byron 78 property converges with Kellogg Creek at a 90 degree angle. These project impacts could be significant. b. Flooding Impacts (1) Seasonal Flooding. The site is located within Flood Zone A, which delineates an area of anticipated shallow flooding (typically less than 1 foot deep) during the 100-year storm 'The open swale within the Byron 78 property would remain intact in the current development proposal for that site. 5141DEIRIIV-E.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County ME. Drainage and Water Quality July 7, 1992 Page 159 event. The current best estimate of the 100-year flood elevation at the site is 7.5-8.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The project preliminary grading plan (Figure 5) calls for building pads to be at an elevation of 11 to 15 feet NGVD. This plan would provide the homesites with at least three feet of flood height freeboard and the completion of grading, well above the one foot of freeboard required by FEMA. The proposed grading would require the importation of fill from somewhere in the project vicinity within the 100-year flood plain. This activity would require delivery of fill by trucks, adding to construction period truck traffic. Construction period traffic impacts are addressed in section IV.D of this EIR. (2) Sea Level Rise/Subsidence. The combined events of potential sea level rise and area- wide subsidence pose an additional minor flooding concern in the project area. It is unknown whether the project site is undergoing subsidence; but given documented occurrences in nearby areas of the Delta, it is conceivable that the site could be subject to a subsidence rate of 0.5 inches per year. Combining this potential subsidence rate with a conservatively estimated sea level rise of 0.02 inches per year gives a relative sea level change of 0.52 inches per year. This means that within- 12 years, a relative land surface drop of six inches could be expected, and that over a 50-year period, a two-foot change in elevation could be expected. Such an elevation change could potentially reduce the amount of project freeboard from the 100-year flood from three feet (as currently proposed) to approximately one foot, the required minimum acceptable freeboard. While two feet of relative elevation change is substantial, the project building elevations would remain sufficiently above the projected 100- year flood level for at least 50 years. However, the potential increase in project site susceptibility to flooding impacts due to subsidence would be a significant adverse impact in 50 years if the assumed subsidence and seal level change rates. (3) Increase in Baseflood Heights. The placement of fill within the floodplain to establish elevated building pads on the project site would contribute to a slight rise !in flood elevations in surrounding areas. The importation of fill would protect the site from flooding. However, flood levels in adjacent areas would slightly increase because floodwater currently stored on-site would be displaced to other areas. This displaced water would spread broadly over the surrounding agricultural lands and rural residential uses, and the amount of water level rise impacts to these lands would be negligible. This impact would also be reduced to the extent that the site is subject to subsidence. Nevertheless, this impact would contribute to a cumulative impact within the floodplain to area-wide development activities which would reduce floodplain storage of the area, and could result in significant cumulative impacts. c. Water Quality Impacts The conversion of the project site from agricultural use to residential and commercial development would change the character of runoff pollutants from the site. Pesticides and 5141DE1RIIV--E.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.E. Drainage and Water Quality July 7, 1992 Page 160 fertilizer residue commonly associated with agricultural lands would be reduced, while higher concentrations of oil and grease, heavy metals, bacteria, and street litter could be expected in the runoff. The runoff from the site would be routed through a single discharge point and could create concentrated water quality effects in the swale in the Byron 78 property and at the area of the swale discharge to Kellogg Creek. While the nearby Discovery Bay development has shown no evidence of long-term water quality deterioration from similar residential and commercial runoff, the possibility for aesthetic impacts from wash-off of street litter is a potentially significant impact of the proposed project. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently established permit application requirements for storm water discharge as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project would be subject to the requirements of this program, which are currently being developed at the state and county levels. 3. MITIGATIONS a. Drainage and Runoff Impacts (1) Project Runoff Increase. No mitigation required. (2) Downstream Drainage Capacity. No mitigation required. (3) Erosion. In order to reduce project erosion-related impacts from increased runoff to less than significant levels, the following storm drain and bank protection measures should be taken: ■ Project storm drains should be sized to safely convey the appropriate design flow in accordance with Contra Costa County standards. ■ All open channel sections of the project drainage system should include adequate bank protection to prevent bank failure and excessive channel scour. This may include rip- rap for outfall and inlet protection, energy dissipators, and channel bottom protection. ■ The confluence of the Byron 78 site drainage swale and Kellogg Creek should be specifically designed to prevent erosion, including widening of the Kellogg Creek channel if necessary. This improvement should be funded by the Albers and Byron 78 projects, to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Flood Control District. b. Flooding (1) Seasonal Flooding. Because the project is located within the 100-year floodplain, all buildings must conform to FEMA requirements for Zone A as well as pertinent Contra Costa 5141DEIRIIV--E.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.E. Drainage and Water Quality July 7, 1992 Page 161 County Floodplain Management Ordinance provisions (87-65). The project meets the basic requirements for flood-proofing of the structures by establishing the building pad elevations at three to seven feet above the estimated 100-year flood elevation. Following project construction, the applicant should be required to apply to FEMA, through the Flood Control District, to have the project site taken out of the flood hazard area. In addition, any new sanitary sewer sewage systems should be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. (2) Sea Level Rise/Subsidence. The county should consider the possibility of project participation in the repair and/or improvement of perimeter levees in the project vicinity. While this measure could assist in reducing vicinity-wide flooding hazards, the potential long-term flooding hazards to the project due to sea level rise and/or subsidence would remain a significant unmitigable impact. As a condition of project approval, a procedure should be established by the project proponent for full disclosure to potential buyers of the potential for subsidence of the property over the long term. (3) Increase in Baseflood Heights. No mitigation required. c. Water Quality The following measures would reduce project related water quality impacts to less than significant levels. ■ The project site drainage system should incorporate grass-lined ditches and swales wherever practicable. These types of ditches have been known to reduce potential pollutants by the filtering action of the grass and filtration into the subsoil.' ■ The drainage system design shall incorporate measures for the control of street litter to minimize potential aesthetic impacts to downstream receiving waters. ■ The project shall apply for the necessary NPDES stormwater discharge permit from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Issuance of such a permit would be conditioned upon satisfactory treatment of short- and long-term erosion and sediment controls, and standard mitigation of typical offsite, non-point pollution (e.g., use of grease traps, wet detention, etc.). 'Grass Swales Prove Cost-Effective for Water Pollution Control. Kercher, W.C., J.C. Landon and R. Massarelli, 1983. 5141DEIRIIV--E.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.E. Drainage and Water Quality July 7, 1992 Page 162 5141DEIRIIV-E.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.F. Geology and Soils July 7, 1992 Page 163 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following section describes geology, soils, and related geotechnical conditions; related project impacts; and those mitigation measures necessary to reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels. The findings in this section have been developed by the EIR engineering geologist, based on the review of geotechnical documents for existing and proposed projects in the project vicinity; pertinent maps and reports published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS); other published literature dealing with various geological and soil aspects of the Albers project site; and a site survey. Relevant issues addressed include nearby faults and local seismicity, and potentials for liquefaction, subsidence, lateral spreading, and settlement. 1. EXISTING SETTING a. General Geological Conditions The project site is located along the southwestern portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta region, at the northern end of the Diablo Range, and within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. The Coast Range Province is characterized by northwest-southeast trending, low mountain ranges that separate the San Joaquin Valley from the Pacific Ocean. The geologic and topographic characteristics of this province are a product of a combination of the tectonic processes, geologic materials, and regional climatic factors. Generally, this Province is a complex system of sub-parallel ranges and valleys whose structural trends are controlled by the San Andreas fault system. The San Joaquin Valley and Delta were formed in the Mesozoic Era, nearly 136 million years ago, as a shallow lagoon bordering the ocean. As the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east increased in height, the San Joaquin Valley/lagoon received sands and gravels which eroded from the mountains. These gravels, thousands of feet thick, form the basement deposits of the project site. During the early Quaternary period, three (3) million years ago, glaciation was occurring in the Sierra Nevada range, providing the valley with many large streams. These streams, which still exist today, have deposited large amounts of sediment in their channels and floodplains. It is these sediments which make up the existing surficial deposits of the project site. The surface soil in the project area is Quaternary stream alluvium. These deposits are irregularly stratified mud, silt, sand, and gravel. The more recent alluvium on the site (post- 5141DEIRIIV-F.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.F. Geology and Soils July 7, 1992 Page 164 Quaternam) is fine- to medium-grained. Both of these deposits are unconsolidated, moderately to poorly sorted silt, clay, and fine-grained sand that contain small amounts of organic matter. As shown earlier on Figure 4, the project site has little topographic relief. Ground elevations range from 15 feet above sea level on the western boundary to eight feet above sea level on the eastern boundary. However, the site has a very gradual, gentle slope which appears flat. b. Faults and Seismicity. (1) Fault Locations. The project site and the San Francisco Bay Area in general are located in a region that is seismically active. The repeated occurrence of earthquakes in the region is related to the accumulation of stress caused by motion occurring between the North American and Pacific tectonic plate boundaries. The Pacific plate is moving in a northwesterly direction relative to the North American plate. It is this relative movement (i.e., right lateral movement) that causes the surface ruptures, or "faults," in the region. These faults are contained in a broad zone extending from the coast to approximately 100 miles inland. Within this zone there are several major parallel, northwest trending, faults or rupture areas, including the San Andreas, Greenville, Concord, Antioch, Hayward, Rogers Creek, and Calaveras faults. These faults are historically active, meaning they demonstrate evidence of movement within the last 10,000 years. As shown on Figure 20, these faults vary in distance from the project site from eight to 55 miles. There are also several minor faults (e.g., the Livermore, Davis, and Pleasanton faults) in the region. However, these faults are unlikely to significantly affect the project. (2) Earthquakes. Earthquakes are generated along fault zones when a sudden rapid geologic shift occurs. . This shift releases a great amount energy which causes ground motion or an earthquake. Earthquakes are measured by the amount of ground motion they cause which is usually referred to as the "magnitude" of the earthquake. The most common earthquake scale is the Richter Scale. This scale is logarithmic; each successively higher magnitude reflects an increase of 31.5 times the amount of energy released by the earthquake. The term "epicenter" is used to define the area of greatest ground motion. Of the major faults listed above within the general vicinity of the project site, all but the Concord and the Antioch faults are capable of producing moderate to very strong ground motions within the site vicinity. 5141DEIRIIV-F.514 /22° 1 f 1V O 1 ♦ O m \F`�, t z 1 / vp 10 \o 30.�� ♦`,y \\\ �O�O {s / !z: s •SITE r L iN Scale 1" = 30 miles Figure 20 SOURCE: Questa Engineering REGIONAL FAULT SYSTEM Albers General Pian Amendment EIR Contra Costa County Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.F. Geology and Soils July 7, 1992 Page 166 In the event of an earthquake occurring on one of these faults, the area could be subject to maximum rock accelerations of up to 0.5g, or half the force of gravity.' Structures could sustain significant damage from earthquake intensities of this magnitude. c. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the transformation of low cohesion surface materials from a solid state to a liquefied state as the materials are shaken during an earthquake. The shaking elevates pore pressure and reduces shear stress within the sediments. The sediments most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, fine-grained sands which lie within 50 to 100 feet of the surface. At this point, it is unknown to what extent the site is underlain with liquefiable material (no soil boring data was available to the EIR engineering geologist). However, clean, loose, saturated sands can be found in similar geologic environments in the region. d. Subsidence Subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of a large area with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence can either be caused by natural factors or man-induced activities. Usually the rate of natural subsidence is much lower than the rate of man-induced subsidence. In the Delta area, where subsidence is common, it has generally been attributed to the withdrawal of groundwater, which allows peat deposits to oxidize and compact? New evidence suggests that, although groundwater withdrawals may cause temporary subsidence in the summer months, the aquifer rebounds in the wetter winter months and, therefore, groundwater withdrawal is not the primary factor in determining subsidence rates.' Numerous areas within the Delta are subsiding at rapid rates. However, the subsidence rates are not uniform. The closest USGS monitoring station for subsidence is on Bacon Island, six miles north of the project site, where subsidence rates have been determined to be between one and three inches per year.° 'Probabilities of Large Earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS), Circular 1053, 1990. 2Flatland Deposits - Their Geology Engineering Properties and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning, Helley and Lajoie, USGS, Professional Paper 943, 1979. 'Evaluation of Selected Data to Assess the Causes of Subsidence in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USGS, Rojstaczer, Stuart, et al., Open File Report 91-143, 1991. 41bid. 5141DEIRIIV-F.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.F. Geology and Soils July 7, 1992 Page 167 A primary problem caused by subsidence in the Delta region is flooding of low flatland areas which have sunk below sea level. Networks of dikes or levees have been constructed to allow farming and construction on parcels that are at or below sea level. . Continuing subsidence poses a threat to the stability of these levees. As the land surface subsides, the hydraulic gradient across the levees increases. This in turn increases the stress on the levees, and the probability of their failure.' e. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading occurs when severe seismic ground motion causes rapid compaction and settlement of underlying soil. Unconsolidated sediments, such as those which underlie the project site, are susceptible to this type of geologic hazard. f. Settlement Settlement is similar to subsidence. It is defined as the gradual downward movement of a placed structure due the compaction of unconsolidated.material. "Settlement" differs from "subsidence" in that it generally occurs over a much smaller area and is caused by applied pressure or weight. Settlement is a direct result of placing homes or other heavy structures on unconsolidated material. The underlying sediment of the project site may be susceptible this type of long-term movement. g. Soil Conditions The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) recognizes two soil mapping units for the project site. These are the Capay Clay (CbA) and Marcuse Clay (Mb) soil units. The distribution of these soils on the project site is shown in Figure 21. Their pertinent characteristics are described below: (1) Capay Clay. Capay Clay is a moderately drained soil formed over fine grained alluvium on the lower edges of floodplains. It is dark grayish brown soil which is slightly acidic to moderately alkaline. The intermittent water table is between 40 to 50 inches below the surface and is supplied primarily by irrigation water. Runoff is slow and there is little or no erosion hazard. This soil is used most often in the project vicinity for the growing of irrigated sugar beets, head lettuce, tomatoes, alfalfa, pasture, walnuts, and some almonds. 'Evaluation of Selected Data to Assess the Causes of Subsidence in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, USGS, Rojstaczer, Stuart, et al., Open File Report 91-143, 1991. 5141DE1RIIV-F.514 T C N Q . �_-',,._ j�,l'e�r�sr�i Wii sir w�tiiia i�a r�rtr•rrri�irii�rr s..r�iingiri�, /'m f`ih�1 y 1 i R n i -F----- Eli � Oil F , L �!j } i • II \..moi "�„) � !i�� t 1 1 t t w rr ■`i i •,I Cts t i i •+ i `'•^ {1 � t t L L 11 t i n L t J V' 1.711 ' \` t '. t 1 t :.'.!14'�!' «"t•a f�f} :I` �„'� ' `it;—7��+�--ttfJ��tj�;1 L` $..�--'•�--'- ...� I i • •• ., '•''llLL,,� �dl♦ �" we� 133:4 1 Ir>•• } w •iw■ ■rrw frlliitif iis�il�fsaa�ai�sr.sais+ssll�:ate��'••••�•yM:,.�'` ,�`� ._. yt+ 'ai+sa�.i�r�,TI I. �'i'•r i y '� ,1 .. Yf� , z Q..�.=r_'�w4�rz. !'•y..s:.i., . -a�. ..L".r.:..,z..,..z.�.•.. :'�.i�! f.'L!1 Q,} � Ute- 41 < -fl v U 0 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.F. Geology and Soils July 7, 1992 Page 169 (2) Marcuse Clay. Marcuse Clay is a very poorly drained soil that is commonly found over alluvium. These soils are usually saturated from mid-December to early-March, unless they are artificially drained. The runoff is slow to very slow and is subject to ponding. This soil is primarily used for irrigated and dryland pasture. (3) Site Soil Engineering Considerations. The engineering properties of these two project site soil types are similar. Both have seasonally high water tables of three to four feet below the surface, both have high shrink-swell potential, and both are relatively corrosive to uncoated steel fixtures. 2. PROJECT IMPACTS The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the geologic environment as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project". The guidelines also stipulate that the EIR analyze... "significant environmental effects the project might cause by bringing development or people into the area affected..."--i.e., into the local soil or geologic environment. a. Groundshaking The northern section of the Hayward fault has a 28 percent probability of generating an Yw P P tY 9 9 earthquake of magnitude 7.0 (Richter) within the next 30 years.' The magnitude and amount of ground motion would be affected by the depth and consolidation of the underlying sediments and by groundwater conditions. The southern section of the Hayward fault and the Rodgers Creek fault have a 22 to 23 percent probability of generating a magnitude 7.0 (Richter) earthquake by the year 2020.2 Thus, it is likely that the site will undergo at least moderate seismic ground motion within the lifetime of the project. The project site is located within Seismic Zone 4 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which requires the highest level of earthquake resistance in the design of structures. Compliance with this code would be expected to reduce groundshaking impacts to less than significant levels. b. Liquefaction Clean, loose, saturated sands susceptible to liquefaction can be found in similar geologic settings. Should liquefaction occur on the site, significant structural damage to project infrastructure and homes could occur. 'USGS, 1990. 2Ibid. 5141DEIRIIV-F.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IVY. Geology and Soils July 7, 1992 Page 170 c. Subsidence The project Tentative Map contour data indicates that approximately three feet of freeboard above the flood elevation would be provided at the completion of grading. Subsidence of the site over time may result in a lower elevation for structures on the site, increasing the potential for significant impacts due to flooding. If the site were subsiding as rapidly as is Bacon Island (e.g., up to three inches per year), the proposed three feet of freeboard above the flood elevation would be lost within 12 years. With a slower subsidence rate (e.g., one- half inch per year), the proposed three foot freeboard would be lost within 72 years. No scientific monitoring of the site for subsidence has been performed. In addition, there is no other evidence of subsidence on the site at this time. However, the possibility of onsite subsidence and the associated long-term potential flooding impacts represent significant impact concerns. d. Lateral Spreading The site is located in an area known to contain unconsolidated sediments which are subject to lateral spreading during groundshaking. This could result in significant damage to project infrastructure and structures. e. Settlement The site is located in an area known to contain unconsolidated sediment subject to settlement. Settlement of the project site could result in significant damage to project infrastructures and structures. f. Soil Conditions (1) Shrink-Swell Conditions. The shrink-swell characteristics of project site soils can result in damage to project paved surfaces, underground utilities, and building foundations as the soil expands and contracts with seasonal moisture changes. This damage would be considered a significant adverse impact. (2) Corrosiveness. The corrosive characteristics of the project soils can do damage to project infrastructure pipes which could also result in significant adverse impacts. 3. MITIGATION Implementation of the following standard engineering practices would reduce identified geologic and soil-related project impacts to less than significant levels. 5141DEIRIIV--F.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.F. Geology and Soils July 7, 1992 Page 171 a. Groundshaking None required beyond UBC compliance. b. Liquefaction Design of building foundations, utility lines, roadways, and sidewalks on the site should include specifications to adequately address the site's susceptibility to liquefaction. c. Subsidence The county should consider the possibility of project participation in the repair and/or improvement of perimeter levees in the project vicinity. While this measure could assist in reducing vicinity-wide flooding hazards, the potential long-term flooding hazards to the project due to sea level rise and/or subsidence would remain a significant unmitigable impact. As a condition of project approval, a procedure should be established by the project proponent for full disclosure to potential buyers of the potential for subsidence of the property over the long term. d. Lateral Spreading Building foundations, utility lines, roadways, and sidewalks should be designed to accept the degree of soil settlement due to lateral spreading anticipated for the site by project engineers. e. Settlement Design of building foundations, utility lines, roadways, and sidewalks should be designed to accept the estimated degree of soil settlement anticipated by project engineers due to the compaction of soil resulting from the placement of structures on unconsolidated material. f. Soil Conditions (1) Shrink-Swell Conditions. Shrink-swell characteristics of the site's soil can be reduced to insignificant levels through normal engineering methods, including selection of proper foundation system designs and, if necessary, subgrade treatment. (2) Corrosiveness. Impacts to project infrastructure pipes due to the corrosive characteristics of project site soil can be mitigated to insignificant levels through standard pipe coating procedures. 5141DE/RI1 V--F.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.F. Geology and Soils July 7, 1992 Page 172 5141DEIRiIV--F.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 173 40 G. PUBLIC SERVICES This EIR chapter describes project impacts and mitigation needs with respect to public service provisions in the Byron area, including schools_, water, sewer, police, fire, parks and recreation, child care, and road maintenance. 1. SCHOOLS a. Existing Setting The project site is located within the boundaries of the Byron Union School District (which operates elementary and junior high schools) and the Liberty Union High School District. Elementary school students from the area attend Discovery Bay Elementary School (grades K-4) at 1700 Willow Lake Road in Discovery Bay. Junior high school students attend Byron Middle School (grades 5-8), located on Highway 4 in Byron. High school students attend Liberty Union High School (grades 9-12) at 850 Second Street in Brentwood. The Liberty Union High School District serves the city of Brentwood and its sphere of influence, a portion of the city of Antioch and its sphere of influence, and the surrounding unincorporated communities of Oakley, Byron, Knightsen, Discovery Bay, and Bethel Island. The Liberty Union High School District also has a continuation school, the La Paloma Continuation High School, on Lone Tree Way in Brentwood. (1) School Enrollments and Capacities. The current enrollment capacity and related expansion plans for each public school affected by the project are shown in Table 23. The table indicates that the local elementary and middle schools are currently operating within their capacity. Discovery Bay Elementary is operating at 80 percent of capacity while Byron Middle School is operating at 98 percent of capacity. The Byron Union School District, in anticipation of substantial increases in enrollment at the elementary school in the near future, has developed preliminary plans for construction of an additional elementary school in the area, possibly at Discovery Bay West.' 'Notice of Preparation, Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment; April 20, 1990 and George Hoover, Business Services Manager, Byron Union School District, personal communlcation, March 13, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 174 Also, in anticipation of similar substantial enrollment increases at Byron Middle School, the district is considering various options including possible relocation of fifth grade students to Discovery Bay Elementary School, installation of temporary relocatable classrooms, or construction of another permanent middle school facility. The school district currently owns a 28-acre parcel adjacent to the existing Byron Middle School which is available for future facility expansions or construction. Liberty Union High School has recently added several temporary classrooms due to past overcrowding, and is now operating at 87 percent of its expanded capacity. In anticipation of rapid growth in the east county area, the District has also purchased a second high school site on O'Hara Street in Oakley, where the opening of a new high school is anticipated in 1995.' (2) Current Impact Fee Structure. Both the Byron and Liberty school districts anticipate that future facility improvements will be funded in part by existing school impact fees currently levied for residential and commercial development. The current fee structure is $1.58 per square foot of residential space, and $0.25 per square foot of commercial space, the maximums that were allowable under the provisioRs.of Government Code section 53060 for the construction of new permanent school facilities. The fee is shared by the two districts, with the Byron Union School District receiving 70 percent ($1.11 per square foot residential space and $0.17 per square foot of commercial space) and the Liberty Union High School District receiving the remaining 30 percent ($0.47 per square foot residential space and $0.08 per square foot commercial space). The Byron Union School District estimates that the portion of the total estimated cost of projected new facility needs which would be covered by these existing impact fees would be 51 percent. A recent study completed by Associated Architects, consultants to the Byron Union School District, concluded that the actual cost of constructing adequate school facilities to meet projected cumulative demands for elementary and middle schools only would cost approximately $2.13 per square foot of residential development (commercial square footage was not included in the study). Government Code section 53060 also provides for a biennial cost-of-living adjustment subject to State Allocation Board approval. Such an adjustment is currently pending, with approval expected within a few months. The adjustment would allow for a maximum school impact fee of $1.65 per square foot of residential space and $0.28 per square foot of commercial space, provided that certain local justification criteria can be met. Based on this criteria, both local school districts are currently reviewing their impact fee structure and may increase fees. However, even with this increase, impact fees would not be sufficient to cover the anticipated total cost of new school facility needs. As a result, the District is 'Kimberly Wood, District Consultant, Land Planning Consultants, Inc., letter to Wagstaff and Associates, January 22, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV--G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 175 Table 23 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CAPACITY--EXISTING Current Enrollment Qgpacity Planned Expansion Capacity Discovery Bay Elementary 440 550 See note 1 Byron Middle School 326 332 See note 2 Liberty High School 1,809 2,078 See note 3 ' Possible new facility at Discovery Bay West project site. 2 Possible temporary expansion as needed or construction of new facility at adjacent site. 3 An additional high school will be constructed in Oakley by 1995. SOURCE: Byron Union School District, 1992; Liberty Union High School District, 1992 Table 24 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CAPACITY--PROJECT IMPACTS Project-Generated Existing + Project Anticipated Remaining Enrollment Enrollment Capacity Capacity Discovery Bay Elementary 53' 493 650 157 Byron Middle School 532 379 332 -47 Liberty High School 563 1,865 2,078 213 SOURCE: Byron Union School District, 1992; Liberty Union High School District, 1992 ' George Hoover. Y Hoover. 3 Wood. 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 176 seeking other financing methods, such as participating in statewide bond issues, to cover the remaining costs of expansion. Government Code section 53060 also provides for additional increases in impact fees should any statewide bond referendum fail. b. Project School Impacts (1) Elementary and Middle Schools. Estimated project impacts on elementary and middle school enrollment in the Byron Union School District are shown in Table 24. The additional project enrollment would not result in over enrollment at Discovery Bay Elementary School, with or without the planned 100-student capacity expansion. However, Byron Middle School would be over enrolled by 47 students. Because current impact fees are apparently not sufficient to cover the total cost of project middle school impacts, the project could be expected to have a significant adverse impact on the adequacy of local middle school provisions. (2) High School. Estimated project impacts on Liberty Union High School are also indicated in Table 24. It is anticipated by the district that the project's 296 residential units would generate an additional 56 high school students.' ..As shown in Table 24, these additional students would raise the enrollment to approximately 90 percent of capacity, assuming no significant change in current enrollment characteristics. c. Cumulative School Impacts In addition to the project impacts, anticipated cumulative residential growth in the area associated primarily with the proposed Discovery Bay West GPA would be expected to warrant additional elementary, middle and high school construction in the Byron-Discovery Bay area. Based on enrollment rates provided by the two school districts, the combined project-plus-Discovery Bay West enrollment increases would be over 300 students each in elementary (K-4) and middle school (5-8) enrollment, and over 320 added high school students. Comparison of these enrollment figures with the current capacity figures in Table 24 illustrates the cumulative need for a new elementary, middle, and high school in the Byron area. The planned 1995 opening of the second high school in Oakley would be expected to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated cumulative additional growth in local high school enrollment. A new elementary school site has been included with the pending Discovery Bay West GPA. However, the outcome and timing of that pending GPA are unknown at this time. Plans for the middle school expansion and/or new construction at the existing district site adjacent to Byron Middle School are in the preliminary stages. 'Wood. 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 177 Because current impact fees are apparently not sufficient to cover the total cost of project P aPP Y P 1 impacts, the project could be expected to contribute to significant unavoidable cumulative impact on the adequacy of local elementary and middle school facilities. d. Project School Impact Mitigation (1) Elementary and Middle Schools. No significant direct project impact on Discovery Bay Elementary School has been identified (i.e., the project alone would not exceed the school's currently capacity, assuming no change in existing enrollment). Mitigation needs for project plus cumulative adverse impacts on local elementary facilities are described under c(i), below. Project adverse impacts on Byron Union Middle School enrollment would beap rtially mitigated through existing elementary school impact fee requirements ($1.11 per residential square foot and $0.17 per commercial square foot). However, these fees would not be sufficient to cover the full cost of the expansion of enrollment capacity as made necessary by the project and by cumulative residential growth in the area. The Byron and Liberty school districts are currently preparing "justification studies" to allow an increase in fees to $1.65 per square foot of a residential unit and $0.28 per square foot of commercial space. While this increase in fees will reduce the severity of the shortfall between true costs and authorized impact fees, the increase would still not cover the estimated total impact costs. To mitigate this impact, the applicant could be required to develop an interim school impact mitigation plan in consultation with the BUSD (e.g., the provision of one to two portable classrooms, or the contribution of a voluntary fee). This interim plan would remain in effect until a funding program is implemented which, to the district's satisfaction, adequately covers the difference between current impact fees and the true cost of expansion. (2) High School. No significant direct project impact on Liberty High School has been identified (i.e., the project alone would not exceed the school's current capacity, assuming no significant change in existing enrollment). Mitigation needs for project plus cumulative adverse impacts on local high school facilities are described below. The Liberty Union High School District, in addition to collecting impact fees to mitigate development impacts, states that it would like new developments be required to participate in a Mello-Roos district or similar type capital facilities program.' This funding would supplement impact fees currently collected by the District. 'Kimberly Wood, January 22, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 178 e. Cumulative School Impact Mitigation (1) Elementary and Middle Schools. As explained above (Associated Architects' study), current impact fees, and antiquated state-authorized increases in these fees, are not expected to be sufficient to cover the true cost of needed additional local elementary and middle school construction. Until a funding program is implemented to make up the district- estimated difference.between maximum authorized impact fees and the true cost of school expansion necessitated by cumulative local residential development, construction of the project will contribute to a significant adverse cumulative impact on Discovery Bay Elementary School and Byron Middle School. To mitigate this impact, approval of the project should be conditioned upon project commitment to fair share participation in a future added capital facilities funding program to be established by the Byron Union School District. (2) High School. Similar to the situations with cumulative impacts on local elementary and middle schools, the Liberty Union School District has indicated that the high school district's share of local school impact fees would be insufficient to provide for the high school expansion needs generated by the project plus other cumulative development in the area. The District also states that it cannot rely on state funding programs or voter supported bond issues to generate the necessary funds. The District would like to see all new developments in its boundaries conditioned to participate in a Mello-Roos District or some similar type fair-share capital facilities program.' To mitigate the project contribution to this cumulative impact, approval of the project should be conditioned upon its commitment to fair share participation in some added capital facilities funding program to be established by the Liberty Union School District. 2. WATER a. Setting (1) Project Site Water System. No municipal water service is currently provided to the project site. Residents on and near the site along Bixler Road and Marsh Creek Road obtain drinking water from shallow, individual, private wells. These have been tested for the presence of coliforms and high nitrate levels and found to fall within safe limits. However, the Contra Costa County Health Department has identified the Byron area, including the project site, as an area of high nitrate concentrations in groundwater? The Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 requires, as one of its water policies, that "[D]evelopment 'Wood. 2Contra Costa County General Plan, Figure 7-2: Areas of Identified High Nitrate Concentrations. 51410EIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 179 of rural residences, or other uses, that will be served by well water from an underground water supply, shall be discouraged in areas with high nitrate concentration in the groundwater."' (2) Municipal Water Service Possibilities. Water service to the project is proposed via expansion of the Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19, which currently serves the Discovery Bay development. Sanitation District 19 is the nearest water district to the site, and was created expressly to provide the Discovery Bay development with water and sewer service. The district's service area boundary and sphere of influence currently run contiguously with the Discovery Bay development boundaries. The Delta Diablo Sanitation District, which is located to the north of the Discovery Bay area, provides management and maintenance for District 19 on a contractual basis. All other residential and commercial users in the project vicinity utilize individual private wells. Sanitation District 19 obtains its water from five wells. District staff anticipate that a sixth well will be needed before the Discovery Bay community reaches planned buildout.2 Water from the Discovery Bay wells is chlorinated at the pump and meets primary drinking water standards. However, the Discovery Bay wells have exceeded state standards for concentrations of manganese and iron. These exceedances are considered to be more of an aesthetic than a health hazard--they can result in stained plumbing fixtures and crockery. The Discovery Bay system is currently operating under state-granted exemptions from manganese and iron standards. Such an exemption would also be required for any new well-based water service systems in the area.' As stated in the project description, other alternatives for water service to the project have been considered and dismissed as infeasible. These alternatives include: (a) the construction of a new onsite or local private well and water distribution system, (b) expansion of the Contra Costa County. Water District (CCCWD), or (c) extension of the existing Byron-Bethany Irrigation District service area. The creation of a separate new onsite water system or new local water district to serve the project and other future development in the area appears to have poor feasibility, given the large capital costs and the extensive permitting and regulatory actions that would be required by various agencies. The CCWD is one of the two major water providers in the county (the other is EBMUD). CCWD provides treated water service to several central county cities, and untreated ("raw") water service to several city water departments and other water agencies. The CCWD . 'Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Count' General Plan, 1990-2005, 1990, page 7-15. • 2Byron 78 Draft EIR, page 73. 'Byron 78 Draft EIR, p. 73. 5141DEIRVV--G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 180 district boundary includes portions of Walnut Creek, most of Pleasant Hill, portions of Martinez, and all of Concord, Clayton, and Oakley. The edge of the existing CCWD service area boundary is more than six miles northwest of the project site.' Extension of water service over this distance would be highly controversial and would require major changes in County General Plan policy. The Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) has pre-1914 water rights to extract some 50,000 acre-feet per year from the rivers feeding the Delta. In addition, the town of Byron has a 50-year-old contract allowing it to purchase this untreated BBID water. For both the CCWD and BBID water service alternatives, existing infrastructure would require substantial extension and enlargement. Such prospects would result in significant and controversial growth-inducement impacts, and thorough environmental and public review would be required. It appears that these substantial growth-inducement and environmental review implications make these two project water service alternatives infeasible at this time. b. Project Impacts Expansion of Contra Costa Sanitation District 19 water service would require District and LAFCO approval, plus an amendment of the existing Domestic Water Supply Permit issued by the State Office of Drinking Water. An engineering study would be required to determine the extent to which the existing District 19 well water supply could be used and whether additional wells and storage facilities would be necessary. The engineering study would also be necessary to determine the design and location of the expanded water distribution system. The amendment to the Discovery Bay permit could also require additional exemption of state limits on manganese and iron concentrations or the implementation of additional treatment systems. The Byron 78 development proposal, to the immediate east of the site and adjacent to the district's boundary and sphere of influence, has.also requested annexation to District 19 for water and sewer service. Presumably, the pending Discovery Bay West GPA would involve a similar request. The approval of any one of these development applications in the project vicinity and associated approval of District 19 water service expansion would have significant growth-inducing impacts. c. Mitigation The Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005, January 1991, states in its Public Facilities✓Services Element that "New development . . . shall be required to pay all costs of upgrading existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are exclusively needed Contra Costa County General Plan, 1990-2005, Draft, October 1990; Figure 7-1: Water Services Districts. 5141DE1R11V--G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 181 • to serve new development." In order to reduce project-related water service impacts to less P P J P than significant levels, project approval should be conditioned upon applicant design and construction of an expansion to the District 19 water supply, treatment, and distribution system as necessary to meet project water service needs. The expansion design shall be subject to the review and approval of the District, LAFCO, and the State Office of Drinking Water. To secure service from District 19, the project site would have to be annexed to the District's Sphere of Influence and to the District itself. It is most likely that some financial contribution to the district would be required, in addition to the cost of pipeline installation, to cover a share of start-up costs. No annexation fee has been established to date because District 19 was created expressly to provide service to Discovery Bay, which was approved as a self-contained project. No expansion of either the District or the Discovery Bay project was anticipated at the time that project was approved. In addition, the proposed water system must meet the fire flow requirements of the National Fire Protection Association and the East Diablo Fire District. The water supply system should be adequate to meet fire flow requirements with the largest pump out of service. Any new wells should be equipped with emergency power. The growth-inducing impacts of such an expansion of water service should be mitigated at the time of each subsequent project review. The total amount of water demands of the project should be reduced through incorporation of water conservation measures in the landscaping plan, and use of water saving fixtures. 3. SEWER SERVICE a. Setting (1) Project Site. As shown on Figure 22, the project site is located west of the service area boundary and sphere of influence of the Contra Costa Sanitation District 19. No sewer service is provided to the project site at this time. Currently, residents on and near the site along Bixler Road and Marsh Creek Road use individual septic systems for sewage disposal. (2) Existing and Potential Service Alternatives in Project Vicinity. As discussed above.in the water service section, the Sanitation District 19 service area boundary and sphere of influence run contiguously with the Discovery Bay development, the western boundary of which is located approximately one-half mile to the east of the project. Expansion of this sewer service area to include the project is the most feasible sewage disposal system available to the project. 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 r BETHEL ISLAND OAKLEY i ! ! 1 Q CHESTNUT RD. O o BRENTWOOD ; cc j . t ci POINT OF HIGHWAY 4 TIMBER RD. p :0.0. OVERY� y B A L, ., SANITATION PROJECT X MARSH CREEK RD. SITE DIST. 19 '� ��'�"�� ................. ...... ;t KELLOGG CREEK RD. j R0 BYRON SANITARY j i' Y j\ :......:.'.:.5' .'. -000� .......... SANITARY AND SANITATION DISTRICTS —-- EAST DIABLO FIRE PROTECTION Figure 22 DISTRICT BOUNDARY SERVICE AREA DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Albers General Plan Amendment EIR Contra Costa County Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 183 As explained above, Sanitation District 19 is operated and maintained by the Delta Diablo Sanitation District. The district's wastewater treatment plant is located in the eastern portion of the Discovery Bay community, and was improved in 1988 to meet current Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. The plant has a RWQCB-rated treatment capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day, which is expected to be sufficient to serve the Discovery Bay community at buildout.' The Byron 78 development proposal (located across Bixler Road from the project) has also requested annexation to Sanitation District 19 for both water and sewer service. Other sewer service alternatives considered and determined to be infeasible included (a) expansion of the Byron Sanitation District and (b) the use of an onsite common septic system. The Byron Sanitation District serves the unincorporated Byron area, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site (see Figure 22). This district serves a limited number of residential and commercial users in Byron, including the Boys Ranch. As shown on Figure 22, the project site is located outside the district boundaries and sphere of influence of the Byron Sanitation District. Due to (1) the unavailability of a sewer system and (2) the large size of most lots in the area, all other residential and commercial users in the area utilize individual septic systems. Expansion of this limited system to serve the project would not be cost effective or politically feasible. The use of an onsite, common septic system to serve the 296-unit project is also considered infeasible. The Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 recommends that "[D]evelopment of rural residences, or other uses, that will be served by septic tank and leachfields, shall be discouraged in areas with high groundwater levels or soils with poor percolation characteristics."2 According to the Geology and Soils section of this EIR (IV.F), the project site groundwater levels are considered to be relatively high, and project site soils are considered to have poor percolation characteristics, prohibiting the feasible use of septic systems for a suburban density project. b. Project Impacts The project would require additional sewage collection and treatment capacity. The project's 296 dwelling units could be expected to generate approximately 102,000 gallons of wastewater per day, and the commercial and office components could be expected to 'Byron 78 Draft EIR; page 75. 2Contra Costa General Plan 1990-2005, p. 7-27. 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 184 generate another 9,320 gallons per day, based on the population and employment estimates in section IV.B of this EIR (Population, Employment, and Housing). The project applicants propose to expandthe boundaries of the existing Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19 as the most feasible means to serve the project. County Health Services Department staff have also identified this proposal as the only option for sewage disposal service on the site.' To accommodate the added wastewater flows from the project and Byron 78 developments, the District 19 sewage collection system and treatment plant would require extension and expansion. Sewer lines would have to be constructed across (under) Kellogg Creek, and a pumping station would probably be required. The ability to expand the existing district to the west may be contingent upon the county's decision whether to allow the requested expansion to the adjacent Byron 78 proposal. This expansion is feasible; however, the project would have to secure the required land or necessary easements for construction of any necessary offsite sewer improvements (i.e., sewer lines, pumping stations, etc.). c. Mitigation In order to reduce project wastewater impacts to less than significant levels, the. applicant should be required to design and construct an expansion of the District 19 sewer collection and treatment system adequate to meet the needs of the project. The proposed district expansion must be reviewed and approved by LAFCO. Before annexation into the District could occur, the District's Sphere of Influence would also have to be expanded to encompass the site. Some type of annexation fee to buy into the District would probably have to be arranged. Such a fee could be set to reflect the cost of expanding the sewage treatment plan to accommodate wastewater flows from the proposed project. It could also include a payment to cover the cost of some of the existing facilities. (Because expansion of the District beyond the boundaries of Discovery Bay has never before been considered, no fee policy has been established to date.) Expansion of the Discovery Bay wastewater treatment plant and any associated increase in effluent discharge from the existing facility must also be approved by the Central Valley Section of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Before expansion of the facilities may be approved, plans must be developed by the applicant which address collection, treatment, and conveyance to the treatment facility; disposal of project-generated sludge; potential expansion of operation and maintenance. . needs and facilities; and the mitigation of odors at any necessary sewage pump stations. 'Memo from fr Craig Smith, R. .H. • C a g S E S., Sr. Environmental Health Inspector, Contra Costa County Health Services Department, dated June 20, 1990 to Jim Cutler, Chief of Comprehensive Planning. 5141DEIRIIV-6.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 185 4. POLICE SERVICES a. Existing Setting The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department provides police service to the project vicinity. The Delta Station, based in the town of Oakley, serves the entire East County area from unincorporated West Pittsburg south and east to the county line. The Delta Station serves approximately 50,000 residents over the 304-square-mile unincorporated east county area. The project vicinity is included within the Sheriff's Department "Beat 32." The 119-square- mile Beat 32 is staffed by one officer per shift. Police service in unincorporated areas of the county is currently provided at an officer per capita ratio of 1.4 per 1,000.' The ratio within rural Beat 32 is one officer per 1,000 residents. For general police service facilities need planning purposes, a standard level of 155 square feet of station per 1,000 residents within the unincorporated area of the county is identified in the General Plan.2 Existing facilities are projected to meet this standard in the unincorporated area for the next five years.3 Currently, the average police response time for non-priority calls within Beat 32 is estimated to be approximately ten minutes' Responses to priority calls are estimated to be approximately eight minutes.' This existing average response time is considered barely acceptable; an emergency response time of under five minutes is preferable. The long existing police response times are a result of the large, rural coverage area of Beat 32 (119 square miles) and the overall lack of manpower currently available to the Sheriff's Department. b. Impacts The project would result in a greater residential population and an increased number of commercial and office establishments to be served by the Sheriff's Department Beat 32. Situations that would require a police response within the project are similar to those required for existing residences and business establishments in the area, such as Discovery 'Lieutenant Scoff Parsons, Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner, Feld Operations; letter to Anthony Lee, Wagstaff and Associates; January 20, 1992. 2Contra Costa General Plan 1990-2005, p. 7-40. 3Sergeant Scoff Daly, Contra Costa County, personal communication, June 30, 1992. `Parsons, 1992. 'Mr. John Snell, Senior Crime Analyst, Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department, personal communication, January 27, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV--G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 186 Bay. This increase would translate into a greater number of calls to the Sheriff's Department and, according to the Sheriff's Department, a longer response time to emergency and non-emergency calls in the area. Although difficult to estimate in terms of minutes, the impact of the proposed project, or any further development in this beat, is likely to push the Sheriff's Department average response time into an unacceptable range.' The project would also reduce the already comparatively low ratio of officers per 1,000 population in the project vicinity. These project police service impacts are considered to be significant. c. Mitigation According to the Sheriff's Department, one of two mitigation measures would be necessary to. reduce project impacts on police services to less than significant levels. First, a reduction in the geographic area of Beat 32 would create a smaller coverage area and lower response time due to the greater likelihood of an officer in the area. Second, (alternatively), the addition of another officer to the beat would lower average response times and would improve the officer-to-population ratio in the project vicinity. Implementation of either of these measures would reduce the police service impacts of the project to less than significant levels. To implement either mitigation measure, additional funding is required. The Sheriff's Department is funded through the county's general fund, which is supported primarily through property taxes, sales taxes, and business license fees. This project, with homes in the moderate price range and in line with average home prices in the county, and with 112,420 square feet of commercial and approximately 52,000 square feet of medical office space, would generate an undetermined general fund increment in added property tax, sales tax, and business license revenue. The County General Plan states that "General Purpose revenues . . . from unincorporated areas should be used to the maximum degree possible, to provide required municipal services (such as police protection) to those areas." Several additional measures have also been recommended by the Sheriff-Coroner's office to improve crime prevention and further reduce project impacts on the provision of police service. These include the provision of: (1) adequate street, parking lot, and porch lighting, (2) clearly discernible address signs on each residential unit, (3) dead-bolted exterior doors, (4) window locks, (5) no-lift window frames, and (6) clear views of streets and garages from project homes. 'Parsons. 2Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005, p. 7-40. 5141DEIRIIV--G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 187 5. FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES a. Existing Setting (1) Equipment, Personnel, and Response Time Capacity. The East Diablo Fire Protection District (EDFPD), which recently consolidated with the Byron Volunteer Fire Protection District, provides fire protection, fire suppression, and emergency medical services to Brentwood, Byron and unincorporated areas in the project vicinity. The boundaries of the East Diablo consolidated district are shown on Figure 22. The EDFPD is currently operating at capacity.' The Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating for the EDFPD is nine on a scale of one to ten, ten representing the most hazardous condition. However, this local ISO rating is currently being re-evaluated in light of the recent consolidation of the two districts. EDFPD Station 58, located 1.7 miles from the project site at 1535 Discovery Bay Boulevard in Discovery Bay, is the closest district fire station to the project site. The primary emergency response route from Station 98 to the project site is via State Highway 4. Station 58 is currently staffed with two paid, non-fire-fighting personnel during the day (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM), plus a roster of 22 on-call volunteer fire fighters. Station 58 is equipped with two pumper trucks with capacities of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm), one conventional triple-combination pumper, a power wagon, a water tender (3,000 gallon capacity), and a rescue van.2 Backup fire protection service to the project vicinity is provided from district Station 57, located at 3024 First Street in Byron. While the County General Plan goal for emergency and non-emergency total response time is under five minutes, the estimated current total response time to the project vicinity is a minimum of seven minutes.3 In the case of fire protection, "response time" includes the time required for dispatch, running time to site, and set-up time at site. (2) Current Impact and Assessment Fee Structure. The EDFPD anticipates that its needed future facility and staffing improvements will be funded in part by an existing district Fire Facilities Element Fee and Benefit Assessment Fee. The Fire Facilities Element Fee is assessed for future capital improvement needs, such as station sites, station construction, fire apparatus, and equipment. The current fee structure applicable to the project would be $365 per residential dwelling unit and $0.23 per square foot of commercial or industrial 'McCarthy, written communication to Wagstaff and Associates; February 25, 1992. ZJohn Clary, Assistant Fire Chief, East Diablo Fire Protection District, February 10, 1992. 3Kevin McCarthy, Fire Inspector, East Diablo Fre Protection District, February 14, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 188 development. The Benefit Assessment Fee is-assessed annually on taxable values within the fire district for financing of additional staffing. b. Project Impacts (1) Response Time Impacts. The Growth Management Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan requires that a fire station and a minimum of three fire fighters shall be located within one and one-half miles of all suburban areas, and that a total response time (dispatch, plus running plus set-up time) of five minutes shall be maintained in suburban areas for 90 percent of all emergency responses.' The project site is located within the one and one-half mile standard; however, the estimated response time to the site is seven minutes,2 which is two minutes longer than the "acceptable" time identified in the General Plan. The project would also result in a greater residential population, plus approximately 112,000 additional square feet of commercial and 52,000 additional square feet of office space, to be served in an area which currently has inadequate response times. This project-related increase in the number of people and business located. outside of acceptable response time range would represent a significant adverse impact. (2) Personnel and Equipment Impacts. The EDFPD is currently operating at its service capacity.3 Current personnel and equipment provisions are inadequate to handle larger commercial fires.° The addition of the project demands to the area would exacerbate this existing deficiency and would constitute a significant adverse impact. Project impacts on the EDFPD would be offset in part through the Fire Facilities Element Fee of $365 per dwelling unit and $0.23 per square foot of commercial or industrial development. The fees generated by the project would be approximately $108,040 from the residential component and $25,857 from the commercial component totaling $133,897 for capital expense purposes (station sites, station construction, fire apparatus and emergency medical equipment). However, these fees would not be sufficient to completely cover the project's fair share of the cost of a new fire stations Until other additional methods of financing a new station are implemented, the project would result in significant response 'Contra Costa County General Plan, page 407. The General Plan definition of "Suburban areas" includes ares which are designated in the General Plan for low and medium density single family homes (such as the proposed project GPA). 2Kevin McCarthy, Fire Inspector, EDFPD, personal communication, February 26, 1992. 3Kevin McCarthy, written communication, February 25, 1992. `Kevin McCarthy, personal oommunication, February 14, 1992. r'McCarthy; February 26, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 189 time impacts. These other methods of capital improvement financing may require use of voter approved mechanisms and/or other legislative authorizations.' c. Mitigation (1) Response Time Impacts. According to the EDFPD, the creation of a new fire station in the area is warranted to reduce project and cumulative response time impacts to less than significant levels. A new station site is included in current Discovery Bay West GPA plans. As a condition of approval, the project should be required to provide, to the satisfaction of the fire district, its fair share of those local fire and emergency medical service facilities, equipment, and apparatus costs which will not be covered by Fire Facilities Element Fees from the project. This contribution could be applied towards the potential future new fire facility in Discovery Bay West, if that project is approved. In addition, the East Diablo Fire Protection District states that all project commercial buildings shall be protected by fire sprinkler systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard #13. Given the response time deficiencies associated with this project, the project should be required to also protect all project residential buildings by fire sprinkler systems, unless project-related responsibilities in meeting the local fire facilities, equipment, and personnel upgrade needs identified in this EIR are addressed to the satisfaction of the fire district. (2) Personnel and Equipment Impacts. As a condition of approval, the project should be required to provide, to the satisfaction of the EDFPD, its fair share of those local fire capital improvement and personnel needs which will not be adequately covered by Fire Facilities Element Fees or Benefit Assessment Fees from the project. The fire district has also specified the following additional specific provisions to ensure adequate fire suppression, fire protection, and emergency medical service: ■ The project will be required to provide water storage and delivery facilities capable of a fire flow of 4,000 gallons per minute, with a duration of not less than four hours for all commercial structures, assuming they are sprinklered throughout; a fire flow of 3,000 gpm, with a duration of not less than three hours for all office structures, assuming they are sprinklered throughout; and a fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute with a duration of not. less than two hours for all residential development. The size and design of the water system, and the location of associated fire hydrants, must be established in accordance with Insurance Services Offices (ISO) requirements and would be subject to EDFPD approval. • 'McCarthy; February 25; 1992. 5141DEIRIIV--G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 190 i ■ The project will also be required to provide access roadway design specifications which meet EDFPD design standards. 6. PARKS AND RECREATION a. Seiting Public parks and recreation services in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa county are provided by in the form of regional parks and local parks, the latter including community parks, neighborhood parks, and playgrounds and playlots on school grounds. The existing public recreation facility closest to the project site is Cornell Park, a 9.9-acre neighborhood park on Newton Street in Discovery Bay. The maintenance and operation of public parks on similar sites in the project vicinity are typically funded through state-mandated Landscaping and Lighting District mechanisms. The county has enacted a Park and Recreation Land Improvements Fee Ordinance to assist in the acquisition and improvements of neighborhood and community parks. For major subdivisions, this ordinance establishes a requirement for the dedication of a minimum of five acres of land, or 350 square feet of parkland per residential unit, whichever is greater. The dedicated land must not exceed a maximum slope of ten percent. Alternatively, an in-lieu fee of $2,000 per residential unit may be paid to meet county park dedication obligations. Non-residential projects are subject to park dedication and/or fee requirements negotiated with the county during project review. b. Impacts The Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 Conservation Element sets a standard of 1.5 acres of community park and 2.5 acres of neighborhood park per 1,000 population. Based on this countywide standard, and assuming an average of three persons per household, the project generates a need for approximately 1.33 acres of community park and 2.22 acres of neighborhood parks. The project includes a 1.3-acre undeveloped parcel proposed for use as a neighborhood park. The proposed 1.3-acre park site does not meet the county's minimum park dedication requirement of five acres. c. Mitigation The project park should be enlarged to meet the county minimum park land dedication requirement, or the applicant should be required to pay an appropriate portion of the required in-lieu fee to assist in the acquisition and improvement of parks in the project vicinity, with possible credit for the 1.3-acre dedication (depending on the amount of credit 5141DEIRIIV--G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 191 given for the 1.3-acre site, the required in lieu fee could total up to $592,000 for the 296- unit project). 7. ROAD MAINTENANCE a. Setting All county roads are maintained by the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works. State Highway 4 is maintained by Caltrans. The County's Department of Public Works currently has 92 total employees working in eight road maintenance crews, four in general maintenance and four in specialty crews. The east county area crew which serves the project site currently has an 11-person general maintenance crew and a four-person specialty crew. The crew's responsibilities include sweeping and cleaning streets, pavement repair, street striping sign maintenance, and guard rail and shoulder repair. b. Impacts All of the project streets are prepared to be public. As a result, the added roadway length to be maintained by the county would total approximately 8,190 feet (1.55 miles). Although the new project roads would require little maintenance over the first few years, the roads would eventually deteriorate and generate additional county maintenance needs. County staff estimates that maintenance costs for a two-lane road in the county average $14,500 per mile ($2.75 per foot) annually. Based on the rate of $2.75 per foot, the added road maintenance cost associated with 8,190 feet of new roadway area would average approximately $22,513 each average year after construction (in 1992 dollars). Project increases in local gas tax revenues to the county, the principal source of ongoing road maintenance funding, would offset these costs by an undetermined amount. The added maintenance requirements of the project alone would not represent a significant, environmental impact. c. Mitigation No significant environmental impacts have been identified. No mitigation is warranted. 8. CHILD CARE a. Setting The Public Facilities/Service Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 includes goals and policies to "assist and encourage the development of adequate, affordable, and quality child care in Contra Costa County." In April, 1988, the county 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 192 adopted Ordinance No. 88-1 (Child Care Facilities), which requires the establishment of child care facilities in connection with residential and non-residential developments. The ordinance requires residential projects of more than 30 units and non-residential developments with 150,000 gross square feet of floor space or over 100 employees to provide a child-care facility on-site or off-site to mitigate child care needs generated by the project. Licensed child care services in the county are provided through two types of facilities, distinguished by capacity: family day care centers and child care centers. Family day care centers are licensed for up to 12'children while child care centers are licensed for care of more than 12 children. Both facility types may offer a combination of care for infants (age up to two years), pre-school (two to five years), and school age (six to twelve years). As shown in Table 25, the need for infant and school age child care slots currently far exceeds supply in the Brentwood area. There are currently eight child care centers and 20 family day care homes providing a total of 452 child care slots in the Brentwood area.' A total of 343 of these slots are available in six child care centers, while the remaining slots are provided in private homes. As shown in Table 23,.there is an actual need for 510 slots, or 13 percent more than are currently available.Z The actual shortage of child care slots in the Brentwood area is likely to be greater than the shortage estimated in Table 25, for two reasons. First, the number of available slots includes the maximum number of slots family day care homes are licensed to provide. Although a home may be licensed for up to six slots, only four slots may be actually offered by.the provider. Second, a 15 percent vacancy rate is considered necessary for a healthy child care market goal. Thus, the actual existing local need for child care slots probably exceeds the 13 percent increment stated above. b. Impacts Estimated impacts from the residential portion of the project on child care'services in the project area are shown in Table 26. The additional need for child care from the residential portion of the project would exacerbate existing slot shortages for infant and school age children. This need represents a significant adverse impact of the project. The commercial portion of the development would further exacerbate the demand for child care services (depending on numbers of employees and specific business types included in the shopping center and the medical office building). 'The Brentwood area includes Discovery Bay community, Byron area, and City of Brentwood. Statistics from survey in 1991 by Contra Costa Child Care Council. 2Janet Traenkner, Child Care Broker, Contra Costa Child Care Council, personal communication, March 2, 1992. 5141DE/R IV--G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 193 Table 25 EXISTING CHILD CARE NEED AND SUPPLY--BRENTWOOD AREA Available Need Supply' Cgpacity 0 Infant 120 44 (-76) (0-2 years old) Preschool 135 275 140 (2-5 years old) School Age 255 133 (-122) (6-12 years old) ' Includes child care centers and day care homes. SOURCE: Contra Costa Child Care Council, 1992 Table 26 PROJECT RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT CHILD CARE NEEDS Project Child Women's Household Child Residential X Generation X Labor X Child Care Care Units Rate Rate ' Need Rate 2 Need Ages 0-5 296 .25 .58 .50 = 21 Ages 6-12 296 .36 .72 .58 = 38 TOTAL NEEDED 47 ' Rate of working mothers with children. 2 Rate of households that will need non-relative child care outside of home. SOURCE: Contra Costa Child Care Council, 1992; Byron Union School District, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV-G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.G. Public Services July 7, 1992 Page 194 c. Miti act tion Ordinance 88-1 requires residential projects of more than 30 units and non-residential developments with 150,000 gross square feet of floor space or over 100 employees to provide a child-care facility on-site or off-site to mitigate child care needs generated by the project. 0 While the ordinance does not exact an impact fee, it does require each developer to find a reasonable and adequate way to mitigate project child care impacts. In the past, mitigation measures proven effective have included providing portable classrooms for before and after school care, contracting with the Contra Costa Child Care Council to recruit and train family day care home providers, and providing funds for the purchase of future child care facility sites and construction of child care facilities. To mitigate project impacts on area child care services to less than significant levels, the applicant should develop a child care mitigation plan in consultation with the Contra Costa Child Care Council and in compliance with the requirements of the Child Care Facilities Ordinance. 5141DEIRIIV--G.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife July 7, 1992 Page 195 H. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE The following section evaluates existing vegetation and wildlife conditions, potential project impacts on those conditions, and necessary measures to mitigate identified impacts. The evaluation is based on review of relevant available data and field surveys by the project biologist. The section addresses general vegetation and wildlife habitat conditions, with more specific consideration of sensitive features, such as wetlands and rare or endangered species. 1. SETTING a. Project Setting The project vicinity has historically been generally used as orchard, hayfield, or grazing land. Virtually all of the natural topographic and/or other features of the project vicinity have been converted to agricultural fields or pasture. Many of these fields now contain introduced networks of ditches and culverts that discharge into larger irrigation ditches and drainage channels. The project itself contains hay fields and has historically contained cultivated crops. The site is also generally surrounded by lands currently or historically used for agriculture. Most fields in the vicinity have been recently graded and cultivated. However, several adjacent and nearby parcels to the north have been converted to low density "ranchettes," and.one parcel across Highway 4 to the south from the project site contains a boat storage and repair establishment. The Byron 78 project site to the east (across Bixler Road) has not been used intensively for some time and supports a remnant community of valley grassland and an associated component of alkaline sink and/or meadow vegetation. b. General Onsite Vegetation and Habitat Conditions The project site is situated on Marcuse clay, a very poorly drained soil, often affected by alkaline conditions, and generally of limited value for agriculture. Despite these conditions, the property contains agricultural fields that have been and continue to be used for cultivated crops and hay production. The site appears to undergo annual disking and like most properties in the area, contains a series of peripheral drainage ditches to facilitate irrigation and runoff. 5141DEIRIIV--H.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.H. Vegetation and Wildlife July 7, 1992 Page 196 The site has no remaining natural habitats or true plant communities, but consists rather of a disturbed, non-native environment with crops and weeds as the predominant vegetation. There are no native trees or other significant woody vegetation onsite (with the exception of a very few individuals of a woody saltbush in the extreme northeast corner as shown on Figure 23). Virtually all of the existing vegetation is either part of the hay production operation or is common agricultural weeds. The site currently supports a typical mixture of common pasture grasses (Avena, Bromus, Hordeum, Lolium), broad-leaved herbs (Phacelia, Erodium, Hypochoeris, Rumex), and weeds (Centaurea, Polygonum, Cirsium, and others). There is also a moderate representation of salt-tolerant weeds, herbs, and grasses (Atrip/ex, Beta, Hordeum, Heliotropium, Distichlis, Frankenia, Bassia), plus a few individuals of a woody "saltbush" (Sarcobatus) along the banks of the man-made ditch in the extreme northeast comer of the project site. The presence of these species indicates a somewhat saline or alkaline soil, and may represent weedy remnants of a once natural saline meadow or sink community on the site. Remaining salt-tolerant species are shown as remnant alkali scrub on Figure 25. However, there is very little left of such a community and there are no indications that such a natural feature has been present here for some time. In summary, the historic and/or recent use of this property has completely altered whatever natural terrain and vegetation was historically present. A complete plant list identifying those species currently identified on the site is included in Appendix E of this EIR. c. Sensitive Features (1) Vegetation. As described above, the broader local area probably contained some mixture of alkaline meadow, valley grassland, and possibly even some saline/alkaline vernal pools at one time, but no conclusive evidence of such features were found on the site. Recent surveys of the Byron 78 site opposite Bixler Road from the site have identified the San Joaquin salt bush, and have documented the possibility of extensive jurisdictional wetland.' Soils on the project site are virtually unmottled and without hydric indicators. Although there are some indications on the project site of possible historic seasonal wetland conditions (Atriplex, Distichlis, Frankenia), there is no evidence of prolonged surface inundation or soil saturation. Aside from the man-made drainage ditches, there are no wetlands on the project site. 'Letter report from David J. Hartesveldt, H.T. Harvey and Associates, to Suzanne Lampert, Mundie and Associates, January 31, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV--H.514 r . ...,..1. .......... � .. ".»•... b.v..�•. Q . 1 CY pp 83 LL 'r'r• :., ;. ;:. Vii. .b s•�`.,,i�. J tic:t ,mi `.'aj N • .�r Pit :i ( v�.w •!� '. .st .'� { � ..' ,}i:�',;� ',X '>b'S�:. �.s'4' e.�,.4eJ�` �!. ai14 w ui ui �}�'.i �Rx�. v, �R�':i i •�,�',+. I .:fig n t i r r'. h y, �t �.•..+ww�r t � .z. `.`.;»`44'e �'2''.�'�'• Yt[` ;;t .. .� ;3: .,;x .,�.,�, :�.� ";.34 .:'�0. �r�j� C • 3,p. ;;6d t :: :''.it ;x 'v 6a A. Lij qw- ♦+" r°e: Y. { •yam ,r �, .�•'" ) ' ..S i• T*: l. M1• '� 4 >:�1� ,�>Crt :Y- <.t. �. ,�i:'�•s ro r§ ,.i`:..iy y t.I �i i 1",i' `k: as � „f�"�C�� ,:3�:�. yij{��i :. .: '} ,.">:,` ;:. jiI 000 '.T.>".G';i; ', G, i:.: -E?+'?�, � ;tel"'�;:'� .:�1.•-`• i .w. XI LLJ -r tar.+e.aa.:.. •'.H•, :�,.wK;aix< _ �(. i " i�t , • 'axM•y- _ • .a. , ,'. .'#•'' e:•' t�. t.,*.��. ..� '_+.�'.�� -�' -,Mtn `�; )�.• •�.'.: •k.7� ...ti' s ► �`. ,L Sy`t� �,�i��,s�.$s�. ' � � ii::�s„�?.::t,p:� a+"qa:. ''�': 'Y.;: AY' �'g�`.:f..' 4" �r .. ■ ,, : .: . aq 7 #.. s — `+h•i: z+ t z?:,:' ��!+�.�`. }} 114 ' `f.. �y C co i6 a: Ca jk.:5i x >. 'i: i:: #•.. #S s+ (Z CLS W ;a� *t Cz, •.. ,' `�._ ;a' E;, "'.e:, ';z�`: •a91`ti,� a = s. Q coW lam. .. .�:. 't:._s.:"Y''o...+, r wr.:-i3.-s :'.:,:+ir•a.:.t,::aT^r.: ;. C N U3 LL w .�• ii ilii i'ii" .. E C"a Ai,•; :<-�p-i`t.. •w':e•�+`•:�mA'�t,b .,:a. �,M:.xt,�.; ;�'; N Q m ClJ Cl) Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife July 7, 1992 Page 198 While there are a number of sensitive plant species known from this region,' it is highly unlikely that any of these species find suitable habitat on the project site. Plant species known from regional vernal pools, meadows, and clay soils are not expected on this site based on the lack of suitable habitat, plus the annual disking and hay harvesting that has occurred. No unusual plants or habitat conditions were found during the field survey of the site. All plants encountered were identified to genera that are only represented in the region by common species. (2) Wildlife. There may be infrequent use of parts of the site for foraging by common raptors, and there may be occasional visits by herons, egrets, or other waterbirds seeking local irrigation and drainage ditches, but none of these or any other sensitive species would find significant resources on this site. The site provides minimal habitat value as open foraging country for a limited number of raptors (possible marsh hawks, red-tail hawks, kestrels, etc.). However, the ditching and draining, disking and grading have limited the value of the site as a resource for wildlife. The San Joaquin kit fox, a California Threatened and Federally Endangered species, has been spotted on two occasions in the project vicinity, the closest one of which was two miles south of the project site.Z While the site does not offer prime habitat for the kit fox--e.g., there is no evidence of den sites or suitable denning habitat, and the site does not provide a predatory base for the fox--representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have preliminarily determined that the site may provide suitable habitat for the fox.3 d. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdiction As shown on Figure 4 of this EIR, the site contains approximately 1.2 miles of irrigation and drainage ditches which are approximately 2.5 feet wide in most locations, and thus represent approximately 15,600 square feet (0.36 acres) of the channel area. Potential governmental jurisdiction over these ditches is addressed below. (1) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, the U.S. Amory Corps of Engineers (COE) administers a program to regulate discharges of fill into "waters of the United States," which includes not only recognizable waterbodies, such as rivers and lakes, but also "wetlands." The determination of what is a "wetland" and thus what areas are subject to COE controls has long been a source of controversy, and to some degree has been left to the discretion of individual regulators using set COE criteria. Even though drainage ditches in the project area are virtually all man-made and are 'A list of sensitive plan species in the region is available as Table 1 in Appendix E. 2Hartesveldt, 1992. 3Laurie Simons, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; personal communication; June, 1992. 5141DEIRIIV-H.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife July 7, 1992 Page 199 surrounded by disturbed land, some can be presumed to be within the jurisdiction of the COE, based on current criteria and practice. The criteria used by the COE to determine whether wetlands are present are the existence of hydric soils, wetland plants, and water. Given the type and quality of the onsite ditches, the fact that the ditches appear to function purely as agricultural drainage ditches, are less than half an acre in area, and do not appear to replace former wetlands on the site, any alterations of the ditches (fill, etc.) would probably be covered by the Corps general Nationwide Permit No. 26 and would not require a specific Section 404 Corps permit. For non-tidal wetlands involving less than ten acres of fill, there are a number of "Nationwide"permit types which provide for many kinds of activities involving small amounts of fill. Issuance of a "Natonwide"permit involves a relatively simple procedure, provided that 14 specific environmental conditions are met that demonstrate a less than significant impact. (2) State Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has jurisdiction over any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream, under the Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1603. Grading that would alter an "ephemeral stream" such as the onsite drainage ditches dannot be initiated until a Standard Streambed Alteration Agreement is executed between the CDFG and the applicant. • 2. IMPACTS a. General Habitat and Vegetation Impacts Project impacts on vegetation would generally include the loss of common pasture grasses, salt-tolerant weeds, herbs, and grasses, and a small amount of native plants which are scattered across the site. Loss of these plants would not result in a significant adverse impact. A small amount of low quality wildlife habitat would be lost, but no wildlife species would be significantly affected. These impacts may minimally contribute toward regional declines in overall habitat available to wildlife, but would not constitute significant adverse biological impacts. b. Sensitive Features (1) Vegetation. Because the EIR site surveys were undertaken in the months of January and May, there is a small possibility that sensitive plant species associated with alkaline meadow, valley grassland, or saline/alkaline vernal pools have survived the agricultural uses and practices on the site, but were not identified during the site survey. The potential location of these remnant communities is shown on Figure 23. If these plants do exist on the site, construction of the project as proposed would result in significant adverse impacts to these sensitive plants. 5141DEIRII V-H.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.H. Vegetation and Wildlife July 7, 1992 Page 200 2. Wildlife If the project site is determined to be habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox, development of the site as proposed would eliminate this habitat, and thus would contribute to a significant cumulative loss of habitat area for the kit fox. c. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictions The project development plan would appear to require filling or alteration of some segments of the existing drainage ditch system surrounding the site periphery for construction of roads, sewer, and other common infrastructure. Subsequent development of the individual project residential lots, the commercial area, and the office component may require additional fill or alteration of some drainage ditch segments. Potential jurisdictional implications of these drainage ditch modifications are described below: (1) USACE. The proposed project drainage ditch modifications may require issuance of a USACE "Nationwide" permit, a relatively simple procedure, provided that 14 specific environmental conditions are met that demonstrate a less than significant impact. (2) CDFG. The drainage ditch modification aspects of the project grading plan may involve alteration of an "ephemeral stream," and thus may be subject to CDFG jurisdiction. The CDFG may determine that the project grading plan cannot be initiated until a Standard Streambed Alteration Agreement is executed between the CDFG and the applicant. 3. MITIGATION a. General Habitat and Vegetation No significant biological impact has been identified. No mitigation is required. b. Sensitive Features (1) Vegetation. To ensure that no sensitive plant species are present on the site, additional site surveys should be completed in August (to look specifically for the San Joaquin Salt bush), and prior to project final map approval. If this species is identified on the site, a redesign of the project to protect its location, or other mitigation efforts approved by the DFG, such as transplantation to protected on- or offsite areas, would be necessary. (2) Wildlife. The site should be evaluated by the California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), Endangered Species Division, to determine its suitability as kit fox habitat. If determined necessary by the CDFG, an additional survey, including (1) night spotlighting, (2) line 5141DEIR11 V-H.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County N.H. Vegetation and Wildlife July 7, 1992 Page 201 3 scent stations, and 4 photo stations, should be undertaken prior to roject transects, ( ) ( ) p p p j approval to determine whether the site is used by the San Joaquin kit fox. This survey should be completed in compliance with the approved survey methodology adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game.' If the kit fox is found to utilize the site, the applicant should be required to secure the preservation of similar habitat within the identified range of the kit fox, subject to the review of the DFG and the USFWS. c. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictions (1) USACE. As a condition of final map approval, the applicant should be required to submit a written determination from the USACE that the project either does not fall within USACE jurisdiction, or that the project has complied with applicable USACE (Nationwide Permit) procedures. (2) CDFG. As a condition of final map approval, the applicant should be required to submit a written determination from the CDFG that it does not fall within CDFG jurisdiction, or that a Standard Streambed Alteration Permit has been issued. Implementation of the mitigation described in section IV.D regarding the relocating of Kellogg Creek would require the review and approval of both the USACE and the CDFG. • Relocation of the creek channel in accordance with the requirements of these two agencies would mitigate project impacts to less than significant levels. 'Description of these methodologies are included in Appendix E of this EIR. 5141DEIRIIV-H.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.H. Vegetation and Wildlife July 7, 1992 Page 202 5141DEIRIIV-H.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 203 I. NOISE The following section addresses the project relationship to noise-related issues. It includes a description of the existing noise setting at the project site (including a discussion of the fundamentals of acoustics and relevant regulations), a description of related project impacts (e.g., impacts of project construction and long-term traffic increases on existing land uses, and impacts of State Highway 4 traffic noise on project homes), and an identification of measures warranted to mitigate identified impacts. 1. SETTING a. Fundamentals of Acoustics Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The effects of noise can range from interference with sleep, concentration, and communication, to physiological stress, and, at higher noise levels, to hearing loss. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Decibels and other related technical terms are defined in Table 31. (1) Human Sensitivity to Noise. The method commonly used to quantify environmental noise involves evaluation of all frequencies of sound, with an adjustment to reflect that human hearing is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than to midrange frequencies. This measurement adjustment is called "A" weighting. A noise level so measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA).' In practice, environmental noise is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electronic filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Examples of typical A-weighted noise levels in the environment and industry are provided in Table 28. Environmental noise fluctuates in intensity over time. Therefore, time-averaged noise levels are typically used to quantify noise levels and determine impacts. The two descriptors that are most commonly used are Ld,, and CNEL. Ld„, the day-night average noise level, is the 24-hour noise intensity average, with a ten dBA "penalty” added for nighttime noise (10 PM to 7 AM) to account for the greater human sensitivity to noise during this period. CNEL, 'In practice, the level of a sound source is convenient) measured using a sound level meter P Y n9 to that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. 5141DEIRIIV-1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 204 Table 27 DEFINITIONS OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS Term Definition Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20 micronewtons per square meter). Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. A-Weighted The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level Sound Level, meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de- dBA emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted. Ln„ L,,, LW, LIN The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 01%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period. Equivalent The average A-weighted noise levet during the measurement period. • Noise Level, Lp Community The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after Noise addition of 5 decibels to levels in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM Equivalent and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between Level, CNEL 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Day/Night The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after Noise Level, Ld, addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Ambient Noise The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or Level existing level of environmental noise at a given location. Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient raise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin 5141DEIRIIV-1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County W.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 205 Table 28 TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS MEASURED IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY A-Weighted At a Given Distance Sound Level Subjective From Noise Source in Decibels Noise Environments Impression 140 Civil Defense Siren (100') 130 Pain Jet Takeoff (200') 120 Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert Pile Driver (50') 100 Very Ambulance Siren (100') Loud 90 Boiler Room Freight Cars (50') Printing Press Plant Pneumatic Drill (50') 80 In Kitchen with Garbage Freeway (100') Disposal Running 70 Moderately Loud Vacuum Cleaner (10') 60 Data Processing Center Department Store Light Traffic (100') 50 Private Business Office Large Transformer (200') 40 Quiet Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin 5141DEIRIIV--1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County [V.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 206 the community equivalent noise level, is similar to Ld", but adds a five dBA penalty to . evening noise (7 PM to 10 PM). One way of determining a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is to compare the new noise with the existing noise environment to which the person has become adapted, i.e., the so-called "ambient" noise level. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding this EIR chapter: ■ Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of one dBA cannot be perceived. ■ Outside of the laboratory, a three dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference. ■ A change in noise level of at least five dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. ■ A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. b. Regulatory Background The Noise Element of 1991 Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005' contains the following pertinent policies regarding the noise impacts of development projects: ■ New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the noise and land use compatibility guidelines contained in Table 29. These guidelines, along with the future noise levels shown on the future noise contour maps, should be used by the county as a guide for evaluating the compatibility of noise sensitive projects in potentially noisy areas. ■ The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ld,, of 60 dB or less.2 However, an L-d" of 60 dB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints. ■ If an area is currently below the maximum "normally acceptable" noise level, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. ■ Construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise sensitive for any adjacent land uses and should be conditioned to occur during normal work hours of the day so as to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning periods. 'Adopted in January, 1991. ZLd„ is the same as the DNL descriptor used in the Noise Element of the 1991 Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005. 5141DEIRIIV-1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 207 Table 29 LAND USE/NOISE LEVEL COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS LAND USE CATEGORY COMMUNITY NOISE LEVEL INTERPRETATION Ldn or CNEL, dB 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Q NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based Residential: Single Family, upon the assumption that any buildings Duplex, Mobile Home Involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Residential: Multi-Family Transient Lodging: CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE ................ Motel, Hotel New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed School, Library, Church, analysis of the noise reduction Hospital, Nursing Home I requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but Auditorium, Concert Hall, with dosed windows and fresh air supply Amphitheatre systems or air conditioning, will normally Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Playground, Neighborhood New construction or development should Park generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise Golf Course, Stable, Water reduction requirements must be made Recreation, Cemetery and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Office Building, Business, Commercial 8 Professional ................ - CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Noise Source Characteristics The land use-noise compatibility recommendations should be viewed in relation to the specific source of the noise. For example, aircraft or railroad noise is normally made up of higher single noise events than auto traffic, but occurs less frequently. Therefore, different sources yielding the same composite noise exposure do not necessarily create the same noise environment. Suitable Interior Environments One objective of locating both single and mufti-family residential units relative to a known noise source is to maintain a suitable interior noise environment no greater than 45 dB CNEL or L,,. This requirement, coupled with the measured or calculated noise reduction performance of the type of structure under consideration, should govern the minimum acceptable distance to a noise source. Soume: State of Califomia,Office of Noise Control, 1975. 5141DEIRIIV-1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 208 ■ Sensitive land uses shall be encouraged to locate away from noisy areas, or the impacts of noise in these uses shall be mitigated. If residential areas are planned adjacent to industrial noise sources, then a noise study shall be performed to determine the extent of any noise impacts and recommend appropriate noise mitigation measures. ■ Noise impacts upon the natural environment, including impacts on wildlife, shall be evaluated and considered in review of development project. c. Existing Project Noise Environment The project site is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County near the Discovery Bay development. The current noise environment at the project site is typical of a rural, agricultural setting, except that it is bounded to the south by Highway 4 and to the east by Bixler Road. The principal noise source affecting the site is traffic on State Highway 4. Less significant noise sources are traffic on Bixler Road and occasional.aircraft overflights. Existing noise level contours on the site are illustrated on Figure 24,' based on field measurements by the EIR noise consultants, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The noise measurement locations were selected to provide representative noise levels in those areas of the site most susceptible to traffic noise. Table 30 provides specific information on each noise measurement location. Noise levels in the portion of the site within 320 feet of the center-line of Highway 4 currently exceed an Ldr, of 60 dB (the county standard for acceptable outdoor noise levels in residential areas). Average noise levels are higher than 70 dB within 60 feet of Highway 4. The traffic volume on Bixler Road is low compared to Highway 4 (see traffic counts in Table 30). Existing noise levels exceed an Ldr, of 60 dB within 30 feet of the center-line of Bixler Road. Noise levels beyond 30 feet from the center-line are below an Ldr, of 60 dB, and are well within the outdoor noise standards for residential development. Several existing residences in the vicinity are located within 100 feet of Highway 4 (including the existing residence located in the "cutout" property at the southwest corner of the project site) and are subject to noise levels above county noise standards for residential development. 'Onsite noise measurements were conducted on December 4, 1991 at locations identified in Figure 24. The measurements were conducted using Larson-Davis Laboratories Model LDL 700 integrating sound level meter equipped with Bruel & Kjaer Type 4176 prepolarized condenser microphone. This meter meets the electrical frequency response criterion of American National Institute Standard SI.4-1971 for Type I (precision) sound level meters. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the measurements. 5141DEIRlIV--1.514 �p « of •��',� ,� .. ...�.�':: �,r;,: .�'�� .. - � a••X 't',- gci..:'Lyc..;sfM.�•y •�" ey�_ �F..•,..., 6 U C W O -c x-44 ..�• �.. +W �//�� ,'..}►._r •1 Yy+ + ... 1'...-. yA•�.� ,>C':'s V a"•.H;4" •�b'..i O'..•.r r/ Z p 't.. ... ,'L:■ .::.> mak:�s�_ -- c. �' ,.,si;.R 'mss..:. :•�`' i .. . 3•. i", :i�lf'If�ii_.'"-''-i a i r ' I C� i. +s:�. �� ttMM.." ft � �.K':" ..r'�.i 1��.. ':r�')� t ...+-•^' ,.. Vii; - {{ ! yy �� <. :::. ,. ifi ;.">',':y i, ys :t.'^gg>;,�:: .aF',is ,'a.., is s••- 4�! j ,.i D J _ 1 .i:.' P- a }'>•. .r Sy �. ;:41 ': x'.: 1"• `„ &' .•r;' ;.�^..- .R� i' .�t� �, }'• ,r�1•�',`.. "�£.: ..A!f f '•l,; < ; t�. ,ice Z s ' 5 LU Lij I= AIA i l _ �j Vii'=- `•.. ., /A = m :�-: '_ ,yy +�•ie"S. �IF:. .F.=... ..i �•1'1�R7 i. <��':`•�,.s '�`.�� ••��,'� Q ':t' ��■ d LLJc of • ".:.,` ,,l`.. �tf�' 11(lyy� P h: t1' .'tx � �Z;f: �'�. � a+es ` •.•'INT. : i3 Z +X•. :.. �.'�• ..'a,.' :P`::•,:•3' .'}.!, L. a.s:'• ''tea': . p� ''R � �' f Cl) •v' t ^vl` `.It�� ''��• i�':..j°,.:� � .,� <a,',$*.a„1�•��6? ' {., :�.iF"`..;.e 'iip..f!'. i � ” '7 ;E4•, . ? �.Q�t�.:r' :Ia'��:Lig :1 •K� •'� a -If 4. +�;.�ar.•'' t.�l .,<..:�.. j• LU t� .. ...� «^"� .+�-a•� ice• k. .. art ""•1f�14:. a�ixxs �cn Amw .. .. .......: >.•arwr.er�+�Ya 3 •�.. ......r^� -<+�, p.ax^•'.c:�+-n°ygr .�, 7T:,�:7-:_. � �,•�:�.•.,+ari.•:.:�� V ''��t t�r'.� �i .'T•`: �y'j.R' f� , T j �r � I. '. :...."::.`........... ._..-..... c..._. T+....a._.y}'_' :a••�*��r'�p'.�••'-moi'..'T „ a `y yea... dd j •: F t. 3 , t{� � :.is u.; ,'•. '9, xr��;� � ; iS ''��'('�(i I � .ti"�•��'' '�T •'. +' i 7- ilm. (�i;.' j> l 3 �: ,-Arm ;:ray .. f :. ,.',^�of '�.►:.��.�. �� 3�n. :.: ; r�. .` N kA ca i cn t. i;i fir. i zi. A i WLLJ p V) LLco 3 " t,: ,. - ..,,','• ,,,,.: "fig �_ Q. C oot Albers Genr ,a Ra Amendment Administrative DE F Contra Costa County I I Noise July 7 1992 Page l.�-2 0 S � . . k 2 7 ■ ® ® ® £ ■ 2 o o w . p k ( � n � � LA @ §M Wipe � k �kv QNB NM CYw 0) E . E 2 � E $ $ 2 2 G \ LU § ' ■ 0 § $ R 2 2 L � k c Ui 2 g J 2 w 2, • 2 2 e . w K Ld cli A F t F- U) . CM � § O b 3 0 - S LO $ G w f z E t k k k k k k E U) § f q q � . 2 to U a n n 4 4 E w $ � cc k ¢ # ; D 0ZE � � C / o Q � a 2 E0 Eo0 � o % © � � gg g E 2 ■ § o E E £ _ c - � 2 £ � � - £ 33 2 £ � £ � � o ■ k - - � 4) mem � � - ■ E � �_ @ o � 2k oma ¢§ � � a0 � f $ o kc O r ) O 2 £ I � £ �m M £ 2 - 2E Ln 0 ■ o 2 LL _ a % & �0 R co \ - 04 n U 2 § 2 5 © � k 2 0 k Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.1. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 211 2. IMPACTS The following section addresses the compatibility of the anticipated noise environment with the proposed land uses on the site, the impacts of project and cumulative traffic related noise level increases on existing land uses, and the impacts of project construction noise on. existing land uses. a. Pro8ect Land Use Compatibility with Future Noise The compatibility of the proposed project land uses with the site's noise environment is determined by applying the Noise and Land Use Compatibility guidelines contained in the Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan, which are reproduced in Table 29 of this EIR. As shown in that table, the county considers residential development to be normally compatible on sites exposed to noise levels below an Ld,, of 60 dB. Commercial and retail uses are normally compatible with noise levels up to an Ldp of 70 dB. When noise levels exceed these limits, mitigation measures are required in order to reduce excess noise to acceptable levels. Table 31 presents estimated future (year 2005) traffic noise contour distances for the 60, 65 and 70 Ldp noise levels along Highway 4, Bixler Road, and Marsh Creek Road.' Anticipated noise levels illustrated in Table 31 along the project site frontage would not be compatible with the county's guidelines for residential development within approximately 590 feet of Highway 4 and approximately 200 feet of Bixler Road. Commercial uses would not be compatible with the county's guidelines within approximately 130 feet of Highway 4 and 40 feet of Bixler Road. Proposed project residential and commercial development within these distances from adjacent roadways would be subject to significant adverse noise impacts. b. Project Traffic Generated Noise The county has no specific guidelines for assessing incremental noise impacts on existing residences as a result of a proposed project. As mentioned earlier, a three dB noise level change is considered a "just noticeable" difference. Noise level changes of at least five dB are required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 10 dB change would be considered to be a doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response. For the evaluation of this project, a noise level increase of five dB or more is used as the criterion for a significant impact. 'Noise levels projections along roadways around the site were based on data supplied by the. transportation consultant for this project (Crane Transportation Group). Noise levels were calculated using a computerized version of the FHWA Noise Prediction Model. 5141DEIRIIV-1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 212 Table 31 • NOISE LEVEL CHANGES AND FUTURE NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES Distance to Len Noise Contour Noise Level (feet) Future Changes (dB) Cumulative (2005) Existing + Project Future Cumulative Roadway vs. Existing (2005) vs. Existing 60 65 70 Highway 4 South of Marsh Creek Rd. 0 +4 590 270 130 East of Byron Hwy. +1 +3 500 230 110 East of Bixler Rd. 1 3 Bixler Road North of Highway 4 +3 +12 200 90 40 Marsh Creek Road West of Bixler Road +3 +10 75 40 -- SOURCE: 5141DEIRIIV-1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 213 Construction of the proposed project would introduce additional traffic which in turn would result in higher noise levels along roadways surrounding the site. Table 31 identifies anticipated specific noise level increases along various roadways in the project vicinity due to the project. The table indicates that project-related traffic would increase roadside noise levels by one to three dB, an increase not considered to be significant. Specifically, project related traffic would increase noise levels by one dB along portions of Highway 4 and by three dB along portions of Bixler Road and Marsh Creek Road. c. Construction Noise The evaluation of construction related noise impacts in this EIR is based on accepted estimates of noise levels expected from typical construction activity. Noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project would be elevated during construction. Noisy activities would include grading of the site, paving of the roadways, the construction of project infrastructure, and construction of the individual project structures. These project construction activities would involve the use of heavy machinery and equipment typical for large scale construction projects. Trucks would also be..used to transport materials as needed in and out of the site. Noise levels associated with typical construction equipment are identified in Table 32. The table indicates that noise levels associated with certain individual pieces of equipment could reach as high as 95 dB at a distance of 50 feet.' Table 33 shows estimated average noise levels during different phases of project construction at various setbacks from the center of the construction activity.2 The table indicates that noise levels at existing residences around the perimeter of the project would increase significantly during construction, particularly for the rural residential homes immediately north of the project on Jacintho Drive and Fertado Lane, and residences along Bixler Road and Marsh Creek Road. (The one residence on Highway 4 near the southwest corner of the project site would be removed and added to the project property.) At times, construction activity on the site could take place as close as 50 feet from these existing residences. At these distances, construction noise would be highly annoying and would interfere with regular everyday activities. As a result, construction noise would be considered a short-term significant adverse impact for existing residences around the project boundaries. d. Cumulative Noise Impacts Table 31 indicates that cumulative traffic-related noise level increases of up to four dB would be experienced along portions of Highway 4 near the project site. Based on the 'These noise levels are associated with equipment operating at its noisiest mode. Please note that pile drivers are not likely to be used for this project. 2Based on studies of construction related noise by the Environmental Protection Agency. 5141DEIRIIV-1.514 Albers General Plan -Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 214 Table 32 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL RANGES A-weighted Noise Level (dB) At 50 Feet 60 70 80 90 100 110 Earth Moving: Compacters (Rollers) Front Loaders Backhoes Bulldozers Scrapers, Graders Pavers Trucks Materials Handling: Concrete Mixers Concrete Pumps Cranes (Movable) Cranes (Derricks) Stationary: Pumps Generators Compressors Impact Equipment: Pneumatic Wrenches Jackhammers and Rock Drills Pile Drivers (Peak) Other: Vibrator Saws Source: Handbook of Noise Control, Cyril M. Harris, 1979. 5141DEIRI1V--1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 215 Table 33 TYPICAL RANGES OF AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS (L,,,,) IN dBA DURING CONSTRUCTION 50 Feet 100 Feet 500 Feet 1000 Feet 3000 Feet Construction Phase from Source from Source from Source from Source from Source Ground Clearing 83-84 77-78 63-64 57-58 47-48 Excavation 71-89 65-83 51-69 45-63 35-53 Foundations 77 71 57 51 41 Erection 72-84 66-78 52-64 46-58 36-46 Finishing 74-89 68-83 54-69 48-63 38-53 SOURCE: U.S. EPA, 1973 significance criteria described above, this degree of roadside noise level increase would not be considered significant. Table 31 also indicates that cumulative development in the area would result in traffic related noise level increases of 10 and 12 dB along portions of Marsh Creek Road and Bixler Road, respectively, near the project site. These cumulative increases would be considered significant impacts. These cumulative increases are expected whether or not the project is approved. Residences along Bixler Road (and on adjoining roads near their intersections with Bixler Road) would be exposed to an Ld, of approximately 65 dB, up to 100 feet from the road and an L-d,, of 60 up to 200 feet from the road. This noise environment is not compatible with residential development and would represent a significant cumulative adverse impact. Residences along Marsh Creek Road would be exposed to an Ldp of 65 dB up to 40 feet from the road and an Ldp of 60 dB up to 75 feet from the road. The noise environment for existing residences in this location would be compatible with the county's noise guidelines for new development. 5141DEIRIIV--1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 216 3. MITIGATION MEASURES All noise related mitigation measures would be subject to the review of the Public Works Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. a. Proiect Land Use Compatibility with Future Noise Proposed residential development within areas exposed to an L,,„ above 60 dB must include mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to the county's applicable limits. Noise reduction techniques could include construction of sound walls along the project frontage of Highway 4 and Bixler Road, and/or the creation of a buffer zone between proposed residential areas and roadways to allow for natural attenuation of traffic noise. (1) Sound Walls. The applicant has proposed the construction of sound walls, but has not specified their exact location, height, or type. A sound wall in excess of 12 feet in height along Highway 4 would be required to adequately reduce the impacts of anticipated future (year 2005) noise levels to accepted limits. An eight-foot high sound wall would be required along Bixler Road to adequately reduce buildout traffic noise. Due to the adverse aesthetic concerns associated with a 12-foot sound wall, the following alternative noise mitigation techniques are recommended: (2) Proiect Redesign. This alternative would include redesign of the project to increase the setback of proposed homes from Highway 4, which in turn would allow for a reduction in the height of the Highway 4 noise wall. This could be accomplished by designing the project to include a single-loaded internal subdivision road parallel to Highway 4 with no homes located on the highway (or south) side of this subdivision road. (The Discovery Bay community features this design approach.) This design would have the added benefit of using the residential structure itself to shield the back yards of the homes on the opposite side of this project frontage road from highway noise.' (3) Elevation Change. Another alternative to reduce the required height of the sound wall would be to increase the proposed ground elevation of the project home building pads and/or noise wall above the elevation of the travel lanes. Such an increase in ground elevation would reduce the necessary sound wall height. (4) Noise Abating Home Designs. In addition to the construction of sound walls and/or increased setbacks from the roadway noise source, second floors of proposed residences adjacent to Highway 4 and Bixler Road must be equipped with mechanical ventilation. This measure will allow windows to remain closed to provide the necessary noise reduction to maintain interior noise levels below an Ldp of 45 dB, the county's applicable interior noise standard. 5141DEIRIIV-1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IV.I. Noise July 7, 1992 Page 217 Depending on the height of sound walls constructed along Highway 4, sound-rated windows might also be necessary. When detailed project home plans become available, they should be reviewed by an acoustical engineer to determine whether sound rated components should be required. b. Project Traffic Noise No mitigation is required to mitigate noise impacts created by project generated traffic. c. Construction Noise During the project construction phases, the identified short term noise impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant levels. However, the following measures could be implemented to lessen the impact of construction noise: (1) Noise generating construction activities (including truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose) should be limited to day time hours (7:00 AM to 5:00 PM), on weekdays. (2) All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines should be properly muffled and maintained. (3) All stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as air compressors, should be located as far as possible from existing residences. Such equipment should be acoustically shielded from existing residences where possible. (4) "Quiet" construction equipment, particularly air compressors, should be selected whenever possible. The prudent selection of equipment, together with the use of proper muffling can result in a maximum construction related noise level generated by a particular piece of equipment of no more than 85 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet at the equipment's noisiest mode. d. Cumulative Impacts. No feasible mitigation strategy is available for identified cumulative offsite noise impacts on existing residences. The location of these homes with driveways directly on these roadways which are the source of the noise makes sound walls ineffective. The installation of noise rated windows in affected homes could be effective in reducing interior noise levels. However, administration of a project fair-share contribution program for such noise mitigation is not currently available through county agencies. Therefore, the impact of projected cumulative noise increases on existing residences, with or without the project, would remain significant and unmitigable. 5141DEIRIIV-1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 V. RELATIONSHIP TO ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES 5141DEIRI TITLPAGE-514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 5141DEIRI 77TLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 221 • V. RELATIONSHIP TO ADOPTED PLANS AND POLICIES The project site is located in an unincorporated area of southeast Contra Costa County and is thus subject to the review and approval of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission and the County Board of Supervisors. County development review will be guided by the adopted land use, housing, transportation, open space, and other polices of the Contra Costa General Plan 1990-2005.' Use of the site is also regulated by the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance.2 This EIR chapter evaluates project relationships to pertinent goals and policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan and the relevant regulations of the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the chapter evaluates project relationships to pertinent goals and policies of pertinent regional plans and policies, including the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) San Francisco Bay Area Regional Plan (1980), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan (1991), and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) Bay Area Water Quality Management Plan (1980). A. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN The following section evaluates the relationship of the proposed project to adopted county land use policies set forth in the various elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005. 1. Urban Limit Line The project site is within the general plan designated Urban Limit Line. The purpose of the Urban Limit Line is to identify and insure protection of agricultural lands and open space areas by establishing a line beyond which no large-scale development may be considered within the duration of the general plan (i.e., until 2005). A property's location within the Urban Limit Line does not necessarily guarantee that it may be developed during the general plan's time period. Properties located inside the Urban Limit Line are still governed by the other land use designations and provisions contained in 'Contra Costa General Plan 1990-2005, October 1990. ZContra Costa County, Zoning Ordinance. 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 222 the general plan, and are also subject to all the goals, policies, and implementation measures included in each general plan element. The application of these policies may preclude the development or reduce the allowable intensity of development of certain properties. 2. General Plan Land Use Designations The project site covered by two Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use Map designations, Agricultural Lands and Agricultural Core. Approximately 31 acres in the eastern portion of the site are designated Agricultural Lands. Approximately 43 acres in the western portion of the site are designated Agricultural Core. The Agricultural Lands designation is generally assigned to privately owned rural lands in the county, and generally excludes lands with prime agricultural soils or lands located in or near the Delta. The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to "preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber, and plant materials" on non-prime soils. In the flat, eastern portion of the county where the project site is located, this category is primarily given to non-prime agricultural lands which are planted in orchards. The current use of portions of the site to grow hay is consistent with this land use designation. The Agricultural Core designation is generally given to agricultural lands which are composed of prime soils, or soils considered the very best for a wide variety of crops. Much of this designation in the east county area is under active cultivation of intensive row crops such as tomatoes and other vegetables. The land in the western portion of the site that is subject to this designation does not include intensive row crops at this time. The poor soils and hay fields on the site are not consistent with this land use designation. 3. Prooect Consistency with Proposed General Plan Designation The proposed change in general plan land use designation to Single-Family Residential- High Density would allow single-family units between 5.0 and 7.2 units per net acre. The proposed project would have residential densities of 6.7 units per net acre, which would be consistent with this designation. The proposed shopping center and medical office development are consistent with the proposed Commercial land use designation of this 14.7-acre portion of the project site. 4. County General Plan Policies The various elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 also include a number of specific goals, policies, and implementation measures which are pertinent to the project. These goals, policies, and implementation measures are collectively referred to in the general plan and in this EIR as general plan "policy." 5141DE1RI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 223 Those general plan policies relevant to the project, and corresponding project relationships, are summarized below: a. Land Use Element Policies Project Relationship Encourage aesthetically and functionally The project as proposed would not be compatible development which reinforces aesthetically and functionally compatible the physical character and desired images with existing rural residential development of the County. (Goal 3-C, p. 3-43.) to the west and north of the project. Project residents may also be disturbed by agricultural activity on surrounding lands. Section IV.A of this EIR, Land Use, recommends measures to partially resolve these conflicts. Permit urban development only in To comply with the Growth Management locations of the County where public Element of the general plan, the needed • service delivery systems that meet public service delivery systems must be in applicable performance standards are place before approval of the preliminary provided or committed. (Goal 3-F, p. 3- development plan. While project water 43.) and sewer system provisions are not finalized at this writing, feasible alternatives for these services appear to be available. The necessary water and sewer improvements would be installed by the applicant and would bring the project site into compliance with county standards. Development of all urban uses shall be The applicant has proposed to undertake coordinated with provision of essential all costs associated with improvements to community services and facilities including, water and sanitary facilities. While the but not limited to, roads, law enforcement applicant has not proposed specific and fire protection services, schools, improvements to schools, offsite roads parks, sanitary facilities, water, and flood (other than limited widening of Highway 4 control. (Policy 3-6, p. 3-44.) and Bixler Road), law enforcement, fire protection services, and parks (other than the 1.3 acre parcel in the project design proposed to be used as a park), Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, includes 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 224 -specific recommendations to-ensure consistency with this policy. Areas not suitable for urban development Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, because of the lack of availability of public recommends feasible methods of providing facilities shall remain in their present use for all needed public infrastructure. until the needed infrastructure is provided. (Policy 3-9, p. 3-45.) The extension of urban services into Although the project site is located within agricultural areas, especially growth- the general plan Urban Limit Line, no inducing infrastructure, shall be request for change in general plan land discouraged unless the area has been use designation to allow for urban designated for urban development, and development is guaranteed. The assuming that all appropriate criteria have measures necessary to achieve project been applied to allow the designation consistency with general plan criteria for change. (Policy 3-10, p. 3-45.) development within the Urban Limit Line are identified in the Land Use section of this EIR (IV.A.3). Urban uses shall be expanded only in Although currently designated for areas where conflicts with the agricultural agricultural uses, the soils on the property economy will be minimal. (Policy 3-11, p. are not suitable for intensive crop farming. 3-45.) This EIR concludes that project direct impacts on the county's agricultural productivity would be minimal. The predominantly single family character The project contains single family homes. of substantially developed portions of the However, the proposed density is high county shall be retained. Multiple-family enough to require a multiple-family general housing shall be dispersed throughout the plan designation. The project is proximate county and not concentrated in single to a major road (Highway 4) and contains locations. Multiple-family housing shall its own neighborhood shopping center. generally be located in proximity to The closest existing fixed-route transit facilities such as arterial roads, transit service is in the city of Brentwood. corridors, and shopping centers. (Policy 3-20, p. 3-46.) Housing opportunities for all income levels The project would provide housing for shall be created. (Policy 3-21, p. 3-46.) moderate income residents of the county. Well-defined commercial areas oriented to The proposed project, along with the community shopping shall be provided in Byron 78 project, if approved, would the County. (Policy 3-32, p. 3-47.) define a new commercial area in the east 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 225 county. The proposed project shopping and office components would be oriented toward serving the retail and service needs of the project, Discovery Bay, and surrounding rural residential development. Businesses and professional office The project contains office development development shall be encouraged in areas within its proposed commercial area. designated for commercial land use within However, the location of the proposed shopping areas and where a transition or office would not provide a buffer effect buffer use is appropriate between between the shopping center and most of commercial and residential areas. (Policy the residential portions of the project. 3-37, p. 3-47.) New local convenience shopping shall No specific commercial uses have been generally be located at the intersections of designated on the project development major streets and highways. Such uses plan. It is unlikely that convenience shall be discouraged on more than two stores would be proposed at the Bixler/ corners of an intersection. (Policy 3-36, Highway 4 intersection corner due to p. 3-47.) access limitations at this location. The density and development of single The project as proposed assumes that family homes in the East County area, in public sewer and water service consistent lands designated for residential or other with the criteria required by this policy will urban uses, shall be related to service be provided (i.e., that both public water availability criteria, as defined below: and sewer connections will be available.) Service Availability (Minimum Allowable Parcel Size) No public water or sewer connection available. (5 acres) One public service (sewer or water) connection available. (1 acre) Both public water and sewer connections available. (Minimum parcel size consistent with the specified General Plan densities, as well as drainage, health, and other applicable standards) 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 226 (Policy 3-48 specific to East county area, p. 3-52.) Restrict access onto State Highway 4 The proposed project design includes two within those areas designated for access points to and from State Highway residential development. (Policy 3-49 4, one to the residential portion and the specific to East county area, p. 3-52.) other to the commercial portion. No individual residential driveways onto Highway 4 are proposed. Section IV.D.3 . of this EIR, Transportation, recommends that only one combined access from the highway be allowed to serve both the residential and commercial portion of the project. Maintain the 65/35 Land Preservation The project would be within the total Standard. (Implementation Measure 3-p, acreage amount available within the ULL p. 3-49.) for conversion to urban use. The project would represent approximately three tenths of one percent of this total available acreage. The project plus cumulative proposed development would represent approximately 32 percent of the acreage available for conversion to urban use under the 65/35 Preservation Standard. b. Growth Management Element Policies Project Relationship New development shall not be approved The project, with incorporation of the in unincorporated areas unless the proposed mitigation measures in this EIR, applicant can provide the infrastructure could meet Policy 4-3 growth-management which meets the performance standards performance standards relating to traffic, outlined in Policy 4-3, or unless a funding schools, water, sewer, parks and mechanism has been established which recreation, flood control and drainage, and will provide the infrastructure to meet the fire and police protection services. standards at the time the development However, while meeting these relevant occurs. (Policy 4-1, p. 4-6) standards isop ssible, the applicant has not yet assured the availability of several of these services, most notably sewer and water. 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 227 c. Transportation Element Policies Project Relationship Development shall be allowed only when Section IV.D.3 of this EIR, Transportation transportation performance criteria are met Mitigation, recommends offsite and necessary facilities and/or programs improvements to the road system are in place or committed to be developed necessary to achieve compliance with within a specified period of time. (Policy relevant County transportation 5-4, p. 5-24.) performance criteria. Through-traffic along arterials shall be The proposed project would include two improved by minimizing the number of access driveways from and onto State new intersecting streets and driveways; Highway 4. The EIR recommends that and, when feasible, by consolidating only one project access driveway onto existing street and driveway intersections. Highway 4 be allowed. (Policy 5-6, p. 5-24.) New subdivisions should be designed to Sidewalks are proposed throughout the permit convenient pedestrian access to internal residential portion of the project • bus transit and efficient bus circulation which could provide safe, convenient patterns. (Policy 5-19, p. 5-25.) access to future transit service along Highway 4, should such service be provided. Similar pedestrian provisions should be incorporated in the commercial and office components of the project. Appropriate buffers, such as soundwalls, The project applicant proposes a noise bermed embankments, depressed wall along Highway 4 to protect project alignments, and open space areas along residents from noise impacts. However, major transportation facilities, shall be no specific plans for this improvement provided adjacent to noise sensitive land have been submitted. This EIR uses. (Policy 5-31, p. 5-26.) recommends alternative site design approaches (e.g., increased setbacks, bermed embankments, etc.) to reduce noise impacts from Highway 4. To identify, preserve, and enhance scenic The proposed project would result in routes in the county. (Goal 5-5, p. 5-32.) significant adverse visual impacts along Highway 4, a General Plan-designated Scenic Highway. Section IV.C.3 of this EIR, Visual Impact Mitigation, recommends measures to reduce these visual impacts. 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 228 d. Housing Element Policies Project Relationship The County shall encourage the See discussion on page V--3 herein of development of communities that are project relationship to Goal 3-F. served by adequate and appropriate facilities and services. (Policy 6-7, p. 6- 107.) Use flexible techniques such as Planned The proposed project would contain a Unit Developments and mixed residential mixture of residential and commercial and commercial developments to obtain a uses. However, the housing types, balance of housing types, tenures, density, and price ranges would appear to densities, and price ranges. be uniform throughout the site. (Implementation Measure 6-c, p. 6-108.) e. Public Facilities/Services Element Policies Project RelationshiQ • To permit urban development in See discussion of project relationship to unincorporated areas only when financing Policy 4-1. mechanisms are in place or committed which assure that adopted service standards in the growth management program will be met. (Goal 7-13, p. 7-5.) New development shall be required to pay See discussion of project relationship to its fair share of the cost of all existing Policy 4-1. public facilities it utilizes, based upon the demand for these facilities which can be attributed to new development. (Policy 7- 1, p. 7-5.) New development, not existing residents, See discussion of project relationship to shall be required to pay all costs of Policy 4-1. upgrading existing public facilities or constructing new facilities which are exclusively needed to serve new development. (Policy 7-2, p. 7-5.) 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 229 To ensure that new development pays the See discussion of project relationship to costs related to the need for increased Policy 4-1. water system capacity. (Goal 7-J, p. 7- 15.) Expansion of urban development into new Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, areas beyond the existing water Spheres recommends mitigations which would of Influence should be restricted to those achieve compliance with general plan areas where urban development can meet standards related to water service. all service standards included in the General Plan. (Policy 7-19, p. 7-15.) Prior to approval of development While no formal verification that Sanitation entitlements, new development shall be District 19 can provide water service to required to obtain verification from a water the project has been obtained, preliminary service agency that an adequate water discussions between the EIR authors and supply can be provided to serve the water district management indicate that development if the development is built such service is feasible. within a period of time specific by the water agency. (Policy 7-22, p. 7-15.) The need for water system improvements To date, the applicant has not proposed shall be reduced by encouraging new the incorporation of water conservation development to incorporate water measures. conservation measures to decrease peak water use. (Policy 7-27, p. 7-16.) To assure that new development pays the Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, costs related to the need for increased recommends mitigations relating to sewer sewer system capacity. (Goal 7-N, p. 7- system capacity improvements which 27.) would require funding by the applicant. The need for sewer system improvements To date, the applicant has not proposed shall be reduced by requiring new the incorporation of water conservation development to incorporate water measures to reduce flows into the sanitary conservation measures which reduce flows sewer system. into the sanitary sewer system. (Policy 7- 37, p. 7-27.) New development shall be required to No additional downstream improvements finance its legal share of the full costs of relating to channel capacity are identified drainage improvements necessary to in this EIR. However, this EIR does accommodate projected peak flows due to recommend mitigations relating to 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 230 the project. Reimbursement from downstream erosion which would require subsequent developments which benefit funding by the applicant. from the added capacity may be provided. (Policy 7-45, p. 7-35.) On-site water control shall be required of No specific improvement needs related to major new developments so that no downstream drainage system capacity are increase in peak flows occurs compared identified in this EIR. Downstream to the site's pre-development condition, drainage facilities are adequate to handle unless the Planning Agency determines the runoff generated by the project. that off-site measures can be employed which are equally effective in preventing adverse downstream impacts, or that the project is implementing an adopted drainage plan. (Policy 7-45, p. 7-35.) As appropriate, and to the extent allowed Section IVY of this EIR, Drainage and by law, assess all new development Water Quality, acknowledges that the projects at least $0.35 per square foot of project is subject to this fee for required impervious surface created. This drainage improvements and maintenance of the fee is to be collected through existing Kellogg Creek and Old River watershed • County Flood Control drainage area fee drainage systems. ordinances, newly adopted drainage are fee ordinances, existing and new assessment districts, or other financial entities. The fee may be applied to the cost of any developer-sponsored regional flood control improvements on-or-off-site which mitigate the project's flooding impacts. Regional facilities are defined as system sized to handle at least 15 cubic feet per second and suitable for public agency maintenance, i.e., 24-inch diameter and larger system drains. (Policy 7-55, p. 7-36.) All residential and non-residential uses The mitigation recommended in this EIR proposed in areas of special flood hazards ensures project compliance with the as shown on FEMA maps, shall conform County Floodplain Management to the requirements of the County Ordinance. Floodplain Management Ordinance (County Ordinance #87-45). (Policy 7-56, p. 7-36.) 5141DE1RI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 231 A sheriff facility standard of 155 square As discussed in Section IV.G of this EIR, feet of station per 1,000 residents shall be Public Services, this countywide per-capita maintained within the unincorporated area sheriff facility standard for unincorporated of the County. (Policy 7-57, p. 7-40.) areas is currently being met. The county shall strive to reach a Although the project is within 1.5 miles maximum running time of three minutes from the "first-due" fire station, the area is and/or 1.5 miles from the first due station, currently served by a station which utilizes and a minimum of three fire fighters to be volunteer fire fighters. Section IV.G of maintained in all central business district, this EIR, Public Services, describes urban, and suburban areas. (Policy 7-62, necessary measures to provide adequate p. 7-46.) fire protection service to the project. The county shall strive to achieve a total The response time specified in this policy response time (dispatch, plus running, cannot currently be met for the project plus set-up time) of five minutes shall be site. Section IV.G of this EIR, Public maintained in CBD, urban, and suburban Services, describes those measures areas for 90 percent of all emergency necessary to improve response times to responses. (Policy 7-63, p. 7-46.) the site. New development shall pay its fair share Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, of costs for new fire protection facilities describes the project's funding and services. (Policy 7-64, p. 7-46.) responsibilities for new fire protection facilities and services. Needed upgrades to fire facilities and Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, equipment shall be identified as part of recommends mitigation measures to project environmental review and area reduce project fire risks and improve planning activities, in order to reduce fire emergency response to the project site. risk and improve emergency response in the County. (Policy 7-65, p. 7-46.) When considering General Plan Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, Amendment requests which increase evaluates project impacts on schools and density, the capacity of area schools and recommends mitigation measures to offset the district shall be given close attention. those impacts. (Policy 7-142, p. 7-74.) Proposed development projects shall be The project as proposed does not include required to provide for child care and any provisions for child care. Section preschool facilities in accordance with the IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, General Plan and applicable ordinances, recommends mitigation measures 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 232 when significant demand for these necessary to achieve project compliance facilities is created by the projects. with this policy. (Policy 7-153, p. 7-78.) Proposed commercial and residential The project as proposed would not directly projects which do not directly provide child provide child care or preschool facilities. care or preschool facilities shall be Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, required to comply with the provision of recommends mitigation measures for the adopted child care ordinance. (Policy provisions of adequate child care facilities 7-154, p. 7-78.) to serve the project. f. Conservation Element Policies Proiect Relationship Important wildlife habitats which would be The site may be considered "fringe" disturbed by major development shall be foraging habitat for the San Joaquin kit preserved, and corridors for wildlife fox. Section IV.H of this EIR, Vegetation migration between undeveloped lands and Wildlife, recommends measures to shall be retained. (Policy 8-7, p. 8-26.) ensure that any project impacts to the kit fox habitat are mitigated. Areas determined to contain significant The project site may contain two sensitive ecological resources, particularly those plant species, the Contra Costa goldfields, containing endangered species, shall be and the San Joaquin salt brush. Section maintained in their natural state and IV.H of this EIR, Vegetation and Wildlife, carefully regulated to the maximum legal contains recommendations to ensure extent. Acquisition of the most protection of these species, should they ecologically sensitive properties within the be found on the site. county by appropriate public agencies shall be encouraged. (Policy 8-9, p. 8- 26.) The planting of native trees and shrubs The local landscape and project site shall be encouraged in order to preserve appears to be essentially devoid of native the visual integrity of the landscape, trees and shrub. The project landscaping provide habitat conditions suitable for plan, which has not yet been submitted, native wildlife, and insure that a maximum should emphasize use of native and welk number and variety of well-adapted plants adapted plants. are sustained in urban areas. (Policy 8- 21, p. 8-30.) Urban developments shall be required to The project as proposed does not provide establish effective buffers between them buffers between its residential uses and 5141DE1RI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 _ Page 233 and landlanned for agricultural uses. P 9 the agricultural lands to the west and (Policy 8-34, p. 8-42.) north. Section IV.A of this EIR, Land Use, recommends measures to provide such a buffer. Residences in or near agricultural areas Section IV.A of this EIR, Land Use, shall be informed and educated regarding recommends measures to ensure the the potential nuisances and hazards education of project residents about associated with nearby agricultural uses. potential nuisances and hazards (Policy 8-35, p. 8-42.) associated with nearby agricultural uses. The free flow of vehicular traffic shall be The mitigation measures recommended in facilitated on major arterials. (Policy 8-99, Section IV.D of this EIR, Transportation, p. 8-85.) would ensure flow of vehicular traffic in compliance with county standards. A safe, convenient pedestrian system shall The project would contain sidewalks to be created and maintained in order to provide safe and convenient internal encourage walking as an alternative to pedestrian access between residences driving. (Policy 8-102, p. 8-85.) and the shopping center. Proposed projects shall be reviewed for The county Initial Study determined that their potential to impact air quality project air quality impacts did not require conditions. (Policy 8-103, p. 8-85.) consideration in this EIR. Land uses which are sensitive to air Proposed residences would be located pollution shall be separated from sources away from the intersection of Bixler Road of air pollution. (Policy 8-105, p. 8-85.) and Highway 4, the probable primary location of local carbon monoxide concentrations. g. Open Space Element Policies Project Relationship Development plan reviews and project The project relationship to open space Environmental Impact Reports shall needs is addressed in Section IV.A of this include assessments of the open space EIR, Land Use. needs of the County, as well as those which relate specifically to a proposal. (Policy 9-8, p. 9-5.) The appearance of the County shall be Section IV.0 of this EIR, Visual Quality, improved by...encouraging aesthetically makes recommendations to improve the 5140EIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 234 designed facilities with adequate setbacks aesthetics of project designated facilities, and landscaping. (Policy 9-24, p. 9-11.) including the provision of adequate setbacks and common landscaping. Require that new development meet the The project as proposed does not meet park standards and criteria included in the county standards related to acres of park growth management program and set forth per 1,000 population. Section IV.G of this in Table 7-3. Ensure that credit for the EIR, Public Services, recommends park dedication ordinance requirements be measures to achieve compliance with the given for private recreation facilities only county's standards. after a finding has been adopted that the facilities will be open to and serve the public. (Implementation Measure 9-r, p. 9-37.) h. Safety Element Policies Project Relationship Significant land use decisions (General Section IVY provides an evaluation of the Plan Amendments, rezonings, etc.) shall geologic-seismic and soils conditions on be based on a thorough evaluation of the site and associated project impacts. geologic-seismic and soil conditions and No unmitigable conditions have been risk. (Policy 10-2, p. 10-33.) identified in this EIR. Additional, more detailed site specific investigations will be required by the county during the review of the tentative map application. The General Plan shall discourage urban The project is located in an area or suburban development in areas susceptible to liquefaction. Section IV.F susceptible to high liquefaction dangers, of this EIR, Geology and Soils, while recognizing that there are low- recommends measures necessary to intensity uses such as water-related adequately mitigate liquefaction related recreation and agricultural uses that are impacts. appropriate in such areas. (Policy 10-18, p. 10-35.) Any structures permitted in areas of high See discussion of the project's relationship liquefaction danger shall be site designed to Policy 10-18. and constructed to minimize the danger from damage due to earthquake-induced liquefaction. (Policy 10-20, p. 10-35.) 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 235 Approvals to allow the construction of See discussion of the project's relationship P public and private development projects in to policy 10-18. areas of high liquefaction potential shall be contingent on geologic and engineering studies which define and delineate potentially hazardous geologic and/or soils conditions, recommend means of mitigating these adverse conditions; and on proper implementation of the mitigation measures. (Policy 10-21, p. 10-35.) The areas designated on Figure 10-8 shall The proposed project would be within the be considered inappropriate for 100-year flood plain. Section ME of this conventional urban development due to EIR, Drainage and Water Quality, outlines flood hazards as defined by FEMA. measures necessary to reduce flood Applications for development at urban or hazards to less than significant levels. suburban densities in areas where there is a serious risk to life shall be denied. (Policy 10-33, p. 10-50.) In mainland areas affected by creeks, The project complies with the development within the 100-year floodplain management plan for this watershed shall be limited until a flood management prepared by the Contra Costa County plan can be adopted, which may include Flood Control District. regional and local facilities if needed. (Policy 10-34, p. 10-50.) Flood-proofing of structures shall be The applicant proposes fill on the project required in any area subject to flooding; site to raise building elevations well above this shall occur both adjacent to water the flood level. No source of fill has been courses as well as in the Delta or along identified at this time. .the waterfront. (Policy 10-38, p. 10-50.) Building and urban development near the Section ME of this EIR, Drainage and shoreline and in flood-prone areas shall Water Quality, evaluates flooding hazards be protected from flood dangers, including on the site, including consideration of the .consideration of rising sea levels caused potential for rising sea levels due to the by the greenhouse effect. (Policy 10-41, greenhouse effect. Mitigation measures p. 10-53.) have been recommended for all identified significant impacts relating to flooding. Whenever studies indicate subsidence is Subsidence has occurred in the project or may become a flood-threatening vicinity. However, it has not yet been problem, the county should continue to documented for the site. Section IVY of 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 236 monitor subsidence until flood protection is the EIR, Geology and Soils, recommends assured. (Policy 10-46, p. 10-53.) measures to offset the potential effects of subsidence, should it occur on the site. The General Plan shall not permit a The project would involve substantial fill to substantial non-agricultural, residential raise building elevations well above the population to be subjected to increased required flood freeboard. Section ME of flood hazards due to subsidence. (Policy this EIR indicates that the potential effects 10-47, p. 10-53.) of subsidence on the site would not reduce the amount of freeboard to the extent that project homes would be subject to unacceptable flood hazards. New projects shall be required to meet Portions of the project residential areas acceptable exterior noise level standards would be subject to adverse noise as established in the Noise and Land Use conditions (exceedances of general plan Compatibility Guidelines (contained in compatibility criteria). Section IV.I of this Figure 11-5 of the General Plan). These EIR, Noise, recommends measures to guidelines, along with the future noise reduce these land use and noise levels shown in the future noise contour compatibility impacts to acceptable levels. maps, should be used by the county as a guide for evaluating the compatibility of "noise-sensitive" projects in potentially noisy areas. (Policy 11-1, p. 11-42.) The standard for outdoor noise levels in Section IV.I of this EIR, Noise, residential areas is a DNL of 60 dB. recommends measures to ensure However, a DNL of 60 dB or less may not compliance with these general plan noise be achievable in all residential areas due standards. The recommendations in to economic or aesthetic constraints. section IV.C.3 address potential noise wall (Policy 11-2, p. 11-44.) aesthetic constraints. B. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The project site is currently zoned A3: Heavy Agriculture, and is proposed to be rezoned P-1: Planned Unit. The intent and purpose of the county's P-1: Planned Unit district is described in the zoning ordinance as follows: A large-scale integrated development or general plan special area of concern provides an opportunity for, and requires cohesive design when flexible regulations are applied, whereas the application of conventional regulation, designed primarily for individual lot development, to a large-scale development may create a monotonous and inappropriate neighborhood. The planned unit district is intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 237. uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes and open spaces while ensuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety, and general welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the advantage of large-scale site or special area planning. The project takes advantage of these P-1 Unit District provisions, in that it allows the development of both residential and commercial uses and proposes lot sizes up to 20 percent smaller than the minimum lot sizes allowed within the conventional zoning district most similar to the proposal. While the project utilizes the flexibility in dimensions requirements allowed by the P-1 district, it does not provide the diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open spaces which the district is intended to encourage. Rather, as explained in the Visual Factors section of this EIR (IV.C.3), the proposed project could be characterized as the type of "monotonous" neighborhood that the P-1 district was specifically created to avoid. C. REGIONAL PLANS In keeping with CEQA EIR requirements, project relationships to adopted regional plans are described below, including the ABAG's San Francisco Bay Area Regional Plan (1980), the MTC's Regional Transportation Plan (1980), the BAAQMD's Bay Area Quality Plan (1979), and the RWQCB's Bay Area Water Quality Management Plan (1980). 1. Association of Bay Area Governments (a) ABAG Housing Needs determination. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Plan in July 1980. The ABAG Plan includes a number of regional housing and economic development policies which are pertinent to the Albers project. A principal plan objective is to "increase the housing supply in accord with regional housing needs." In pursuit of this objective and in keeping with related state laws requiring councils of governments to periodically determine existing and projected regional housing needs for persons of all income levels, ABAG published its latest San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Determinations in January 1989. The existing need was calculated in 1988, and the projected need was calculated for the 1988-1995 period. The report states that the "total projected regional housing need for the period 1988-1995 is 283,713 units";' i.e., for all nine Bay Area Region counties. Existing and projected needs for Contra Costa County, unincorporated areas of the county, and selected cities in the county, are listed in Tables 34 and 35. 'ABAG, San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Determinations, p. 24. 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 238 • The figures in Table 34 indicate the need for housing units in the unincorporated areas of the County, and a total projected need over the 1988-1995 period of approximately 6,447 units. For Contra Costa County, the total projected countywide housing need for the 1988- 1995 period is 48,756 units. Thus, housing needs in unincorporated areas are expected to account for approximately 13.2 percent of the total county 1988-1995 need. Of the approximate seven-year need for 6,447 added units in the county, approximately 1,289 units (20 percent) are expected to be in the "very low" income category, 903 units (14 percent) in the "low" category, 1,289 units (20 percent) in the "moderate" category, and 2,996 units (46 percent) in the "above moderate" category.' (b) Other ABAG Housing Policies. Housing needs determinations for the county as a whole, the unincorporated area, and cities near the project site have been estimated based on consideration of a number of objectives and policies set forth in ABAG's regional plan, including the basic goal of increasing housing supplies in accord with regional needs, and the policy of maintaining a subregional balance between housing and jobs. The ABAG plan states that "new residential development should be located in or near areas that offer employment opportunities and should be discouraged elsewhere." To meet these housing goals, the ABAG plan includes numerous housing policies pertinent to consideration of the Albers project. The ABAG plan calls for stimulating private housing development, consistent with local and regional policies, needs, and goals; and housing construction sufficient to produce vacancy rates that will increase housing choice and check the rate of housing price inflation. The plan also promotes the "infill" development concept, encouraging new residential development where public services and facilities are adequate. Other pertinent ABAG policies include preservation of community values and a safe, healthy environment; discouragement of new development in areas containing environmental hazards, unless adequate mitigation is taken; and location of new housing close to commercial services and jobs in order to reduce the number of vehicle trips and the amount of vehicle miles travelled within the county. (c) Proiect Consistency with ABAG Housing Needs and Policies. The project relationships to these ABAG housing and employment goals are described in section IV.B.2.a, b, and c of this EIR. The project is consistent with, and would further most of the ABAG housing 'Household incomes are generally divided into four categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income. Each category corresponds to a proportion of the region's household income distribution. A household with very low income is one with an income of up to 50 percent of the median income for the region; a household with low income is one with an income of 51 to 80 percent of the regional median; a moderate income household is one with an income of 81 to 120 percent of the regional median. A household with an income greater than 120 percent of the regional median is considered to be above moderate income. 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 239 Table 34 EXISTING AND PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS--CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, UNINCORPORATED AREAS, AND SELECTED CITIES, 1988-1995 Percent of Total Percent of Existing County Projected County Need Total Need Total Unincorporated areas 0 0.0 6,447 13.2 Brentwood 9 0.2 1,905 3.9 Antioch 130 3.4 6,343 13.0 Contra Costa County 3,870 100.0 48,756 100.0 SOURCE: ABAG, Housing Needs Determinations, January 1989, P. 27. i Table 35 PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS BY INCOME CATEGORY--CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, UNINCORPORATED AREAS, AND SELECTED CITIES, 1988-1995 Total Projected Very Above Need Low Low Moderate Moderate Unincorporated areas 6,447 1,289 903 1,289 2,966 Brentwood 1,905 476 343 381 705 Antioch 6,343 1,395 951 1,395 2,602 Contra Costa County 48,756 8,670 6,472 10,416 23,918 SOURCE: ABAG, Housing Needs Determinations, January 1989, p. 46. 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 240 goals and policies summarized above. The project would increase the local housing supply • by 296 units, representing approximately 4.5 percent of the projected 1988-1995 need for new housing in the unincorporated areas of the county. Assuming that half of the project home sales prices.will be affordable to the moderate-income category, the project would represent approximately 11 percent of the projected need for housing affordable to the moderate income category for the unincorporated area of the county. The project as currently proposed would not be expected to have a direct impact on meeting the housing needs of the very low and low income categories, although the 296- unit addition to the county housing stock would tend to have an indirect, positive, effect on the other housing needs categories by increasing local opportunities and thereby reducing upward pressures on local housing prices. Section IV.G of this EIR, Public Services, indicates that the provision of adequate public facilities and services to the project is feasible, although several services have not yet been secured. The project would provide needed commercial services and would create new jobs in the east county area. 2. Metropolitan Transportation Commission The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which plans for and advances regional mobility, updated its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in 1991. The plan represents the MTC's current statement of transportation policy and recommendations for the Bay Area. The plan consists of goals, objectives, and strategies providing a policy framework for regional transportation improvements. The plan's major goals include: improving the regional transportation system's capacity, convenience, efficiency, and safety; providing equitable access to the system; analyzing and understanding environmental impacts of transportation decisions; and supporting economic vitality through an effective transportation system. The proposed project, with incorporation of the offsite transportation mitigation measures recommended in section IV.D.3 this EIR, Transportation, would be consistent with the plan. 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) policies set forth in the District's 1979 Bay Area Air Quality Plan call for consideration of the traffic-related air quality impacts in the review of residential developments of 200 or more units. In preparation of the Initial Study for the project, the county determined that traffic-related air quality impacts would not be significant. 5141DEIRIV.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 241 4. San Francisco Re ional Water Qualily Control Board The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board has adopted a Bay Area Water Quality Management Plan (1980) for protecting the water quality of regional streams, lakes, and San Francisco Bay. The project would be of concern to the agency primarily with respect to possible changes in the quality of surface runoff from the project site due to project grading and vegetation removal, and the introduction of additional urban surface runoff. Associated project impacts on regional water courses and water bodies (siltation, increased urban runoff pollutants, etc.) and related mitigation measures which would reduce these impacts to insignificant levels are described in Section ME of this EIR, Drainage and Water Quality. 5141DEIRI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V. Relationship to Adopted Plans and Policies July 7, 1992 Page 242 • 5141DE1RI V.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project July 7, 1992 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5141 DEIRI TI TLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County V1. Alternatives to the Proposed Project July 7, 1992 5141DEIRITITLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 245 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed Albers General Plan Amendment development plan shown on Figure 5 has been considered in this assessment as the principal proposal for development of the 73.5- acre project site, and has been subjected to detailed impact analysis in this EIR. To provide a further understanding of the environmental effects of the project and possible approaches to reducing significant impacts, and to meet CEQA requirements, five alternatives to the proposed action are described and evaluated in this chapter. The five altematives are: ■ No Project. The CEQA-required no project alternative, which assumes continuation of the present use of the site. ■ General Plan Buildout Alternative. Development of-the site as would be allowed under its primary existing county general plan designation, Agricultural Lands. ■ Mitigated Project. Development of the site with lot layout and circulation design revisions, and a reduction in the total number of project lots, to reduce or minimize identified adverse environmental impacts. ■ Density Transfer Alternative. Development of the site in a clustered design, with variations in housing type and density to provide greater areas of common open space to be used for recreational purposes, to increase setbacks from surrounding roadways and land uses, and to increase avoidance of existing peripheral drainage and irrigation ditches. ■ All Residential Alternative. Development of the site with the same number of units (296), but with larger residential lots (i.e., approximately 10,000 square feet on average), without the 14.7-acre commercial/office portion of the project. ■ Applicant Proposed Alternative. Development of the site with lot layout and circulation design revisions, and the addition of a lake within the proposed park, as most recently proposed by the project applicant. A. NO PROJECT 1. Principal Characteristics This alternative would involve maintaining the existing undeveloped characteristics of the site without any new construction. The site's existing agricultural (forage crop) and related residential uses would remain unaltered. 5141DE1RI V1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 246 2. MitInatina Effects (a) Land Use. No land use compatibility problems between the proposed urban density residential development, and the existing rural residential and agricultural uses would be created. However, the potential for introduction of the proposed Byron 78 commercialAndustrial project on the opposite side of Bixler Road may result in future incompatibility impacts (commercial/agricultural traffic conflicts and nuisance complaints associated with project site agricultural activity; i.e., dust, etc.). (b) Population, Housing, and Employment. No mitigation needs identified. (c) Visual Quality. The rural character of the project site and vicinity would be maintained along the project segment of Highway 4, a county-designated scenic route. (d) Transportation. No new traffic would be added to the existing circulation system. The comparative traffic generation impacts of this and all the alternatives discussed in this section are illustrated in Table 36. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. No new erosion and non-point pollution impacts would be added to the downstream drainage system. No additional fill within the floodplain would occur. (f) Geology and Soils. No new housing and population would be subject to seismic and soil related hazards. (q) Public Services. No increased service demands for schools, sewer, water, police and fire protection, parks and recreation, road maintenance, and child care would be created. (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. No additional risk of impacts to sensitive plants which may exist on the site, and no additional disturbance to potential San Joaquin kit fox "fringe habitat" on the site, would occur. (i) Noise. No new homes would be exposed to the projected adverse roadside noise environments in the area. 3. Adverse Effects (a) Land Use. Project provisions for needed local commercial and medical services would not be provided. (b) Population, Housing, and Employment. Needed housing units would not be provided. No additional local employment accommodations would be provided. 5141DE/RI VL514 1 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 247 (c) Visual Quality. No adverse effects would occur. (d) Transportation. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (f) Geology and Soils. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (Q) Public Services. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (i) Noise. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. B. GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ALTERNATIVE 1. Princloal Characteristics This alternative assumes that the project site would be developed to the maximum extent possible under its primary general plan land use designation, Agricultural Lands, which will allow one residence per every five acres. This existing general designation will allow the creation of up to approximately 15 rural residential lots on the site; i.e., a development type very similar to the "ranchette" rural residential subdivision immediately to the north of the project site on Fertado Lane and Jacintho Drive (see Figure 9). 2. Mitisaatinsa Effects (a) Land Use. This alternative would be compatible with the adjoining rural residential large lot subdivision to the north and would reduce the severity of land use conflicts between project residential uses and existing agricultural uses to the west. (b) Population, Housing, and Employment. No mitigation needs identified. (c) Visual Quality. This alternative would reduce the intensity of change and related visual contrast associated with development of the project site, and would be more consistent with the rural character of the project area. This altemative would also not require installation of a noise wall, one of the principal visual shortcomings of the proposed project, and would not include the commercial portion of project, further reducing the visual impacts of the development. 5141DEIRI VI.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 248 Table 36 ALTERNATIVES: TRAFFIC GENERATION COMPARISON A/ternat/ves: A B C D E F No General Mitigated Density All Applicant Project Project Plan Project Transfer Residential Proposal Residential Number of units 296 2 15 246 206 263 286 Daily Trips (@ 9.6/unit) 2,790 19 145 2,362 2,005 2,525 2,746 PM Peak Hr. Trips In 195 1.3 10 165 140 175 190 (7% of daily) Retail Shopping Center Floor Area (sq. ft.) 112,410 -- -- 112,420 112,420 -- 109,500 Daily Trips (C&66.5/1000 so 7,480 -- -- 7,480 7,480 -- 7,300 PM Peak Hr. Trips In 365 -- -- 365 365 -- 355 (5% of daily) Office Floor Area 52,000 -- -- 52,000 52,000 -- 5,200 Daily Trips (@)17.1/100 so 890 -- -- 890 890 -• 890 PM Peak Hr. Trips In 20 -- -- 20 20 -- 20 (2% of daily) TOTAL TRIPS Daily 11,160 19 145 10,730 10,375 2,525 10,936 PM Peak Hr. In 580 1.3 10 550 525 175 560 SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates 5141DEIRI VI.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 249 (d) Transportation. As shown in Table 36, this alternative would generate 10 PMP eak hour trips, an insignificant amount of traffic compared to the 580 PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed project. In addition, this alternative would not create any of the traffic operational and safety concerns generated by the commercial portion of the project. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. The substantial reduction in units and the increased lot sizes would significantly reduce the amount of impervious surfaces, and related increases in the volume, rate, and duration of stormwater runoff, as well as reduce related non-point source pollutants from the project. This alternative would require substantially less grading and construction and would therefore reduce potential erosion impacts. (f) Geology and Soils. This alternative would reduce the number of people and homes exposed to seismic related hazards and soil-related subsidence and shrink-swell problems. (g) Public Services. This alternative would reduce the increase in demand for services related to schools, sewer, water, police and fire protection, parks and recreation, road maintenance, and child care. (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. This alternative would reduce the likelihood of disturbance to sensitive plants and to potential "fringe" foraging habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. (i) Noise. This alternative would allow substantially greater residential setbacks from Highway 4 and Bixier Road which would reduce the project contribution to projected cumulative traffic noise impacts on nearby homes. 3. Adverse Effects (a) Land Use. This alternative would not provide for needed commercial and office (medical) services in the area. Lb) Population, Housing, and Employment. This alternative would create substantially fewer needed housing units than the project, and would provide no local employment accommodations. (c) Visual Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (d) Transportation. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (f) Geology and Soils. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (g) Public Services. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. 5141DEIRI VI.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 250 (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (i) Noise. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. C. MITIGATED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1. Principal Characteristics This alternative would include several project modifications intended to reduce the impacts associated with the proposed project to less than significant levels. These modifications would include the following: ■ the reduction of density (i.e., increased lot sizes) along the project's northern border; ■ construction of single-loaded project roadways along Highway 4 and along the project's western boundary; ■ increased use of single story units on project edges and at the end of streets; ■ modifications in the project internal circulation system to eliminate roadways conducive to speeding; ■ redesign of cul-de-sacs to improve opportunities for onstreet parking; ■ relocation of the proposed park parcel; ■ revisions to the internal circulation system of the proposed shopping center to improve operation and safety; and ■ full improvement of Highway 4 (i.e., widening to four lanes in front of the project). Such modifications to the project would require elimination of up to 50 residential units, for a revised project total of approximately 246 project units. 2. Mitlpatinsa Effects (a) Land Use. This alternative would reduce land use compatibility impacts between the project and adjacent rural residential uses to the north, agricultural uses to the west, and the adverse noise environment created by Highway 4 to the south. (b) Population, Housing, and Employment. No mitigating effects have been identified. (c) Visual Quality. This alternative would reduce the visual impacts of the project by providing better visual transitions in land use from the edges towards the center of the project, by increasing the setback from the property line to the first structures, and by 5141DEIR1 V1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 251 locating lower, single-story homes on the edges of the project. These changes would also result in a reduction of the height necessary for the proposed noise wall, which would further reduce the visual impact of the project. (d) Transportation. This alternative would reduce overall traffic impacts by virtue of the associated reduction in the number of project units (see Table 36). This alternative would also reduce internal project safety impacts within the residential and commercial portion of the project. The completion of full improvements to Highway 4 along the site's frontage would eliminate the funding shortfall associated with the proposed project. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. Drainage and water quality impacts related to runoff quantity, erosion, and non-point source pollutants would be slightly reduced by virtue of the lower total number of project units in this alternative. (f) Geology and Soils. Impacts related to seismic hazards and soil conditions would be slightly reduced by virtue of the lower total number of project units in this alternative. W Public Services. Impacts on schools, police and fire protection, sewer service, water service, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and child care services would be slightly reduced by virtue of the lower total number of project units in this alternative. (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. No mitigating effects identified. U Noise. The noise impacts on project homes located near Highway 4 would be significantly reduced through the incorporation of the proposed single-loaded project street along Highway 4, and the use of more single-story units along the highway edge. 3. Adverse Effects (a) Land Use. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (b) Population, Housing, and Employment. This alternative would slightly reduce the number of needed housing units provided by the project. (c) Visual Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (d) Transportation. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (f) Geology and Soils. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. W Public Services. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. 5141DEIR1 V1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 252 (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (i) Noise. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. D. DENSITY TRANSFER ALTERNATIVE 1. Princloal Characterlstics This alternative would incorporate a revised, "cluster" design that would include a variety of residential unit types and densities (single-family detached, duplexes, townhomes, and apartments). The proposed residential clusters would be located to create a substantial increase in common project open space, particularly in those areas where open space buffers between incompatible land uses are appropriate (e.g., adjacent to existing rural residential, agricultural, and highway uses), and to preserve the existing drainage area in the northeast portion of the site. Such a cluster design is assumed in this analysis to include approximately 17 acres of usable common open.space, and an acreage density similar to the proposed project for the remaining 38 acres of residential development. Such a design would be expected to contain approximately 206 residential units. This project alternative would retain the proposed commercial and office aspects of the project. 2. Mitigating Effects (a) Land Use. This alternative would provide a means to reduce land use compatibility conflicts between the project and adjacent rural residential and agricultural uses, and between the project and Highway 4. ,(b) Population, Housing, and Employment. This alternative would provide a greater variety of housing types and thus would respond to a broader range of county housing needs. (c) Visual Quality. This alternative would provide for greater setbacks of proposed homes from the project property lines, a better transition in building form and intensity from the edge of the project towards the center, increased internal visual interest, increased internal open space areas, and a reduced need for noise mitigation (allowing lower noise walls), all of which would reduce the visual impacts of the project. (d) Transportation. As shown in Table 36, this alternative would create substantially less daily and peak hour traffic than the proposed project and would reduce overall impacts on the surrounding circulation system accordingly. 5141DElRI V1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 253 e Drainage and Water Quality. The reduced number of project units and the reduced � � J amount of associated impervious surface would decrease project stormwater runoff impacts, and would also reduce erosion and non-point pollution impacts. (f) Geology and Soils. This alternative would reduce the severity of impacts related to seismic activity and soil conditions by virtue of the lower number of residential units. (g) Public Services. This alternative would reduce the impacts on schools, police, fire, sewer, water, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and child care services by virtue of the lower total number of dwelling units. The increased quantity of open space within the alternative could also allow for increased opportunity for parkland dedication. (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. The increased quantity of open space area, particularly in the northeast corner of the project site, could create more opportunity for the protection of any sensitive plants which may exist on the site. (i) Noise. The greater setbacks provided by this altemative would reduce the noise compatibility concerns associated with locating housing adjacent to Highway 4. The inclusion of multi-family housing could also raise the level of noise considered to be compatible with the proposed housing component. 3. Adverse Effects (a) Land Use. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (b) Population, Housing, and Employment. This alternative would reduce the total number of housing units.provided by the project. (c) Visual Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (d) Transportation. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (f) Geology and Soils. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (,g) Public Services. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (i) Noise. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. 5141DEIRI V1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 254 E. ALL RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE 1. Principal Characterlstics This alternative would exclude the commercial portion of the project and would provide for development of the entire 73.5-acre site with a residential subdivision featuring lot sizes averaging 10,000 square feet (approximately one quarter acre) in size. At this density, the project site would accommodate approximately 263 single-family detached lots. 2. Mitigating Effects (aa) Land Use. This alternative would reduce the severity of land use conflict with adjacent rural residential and agricultural uses due to increases in lot sizes. (b) Population, Housing, and Employment. No mitigation needs identified. (c) Visual Quality. The larger lots included in this alternative could allow greater setbacks of structures from Highway 4, decreasing the abruptness of the highway edge of the development and reducing the required height of the proposed noise walls. These two factors would reduce the visual impacts of the project. (dd) Transportation. As shown in Table 36, this alternative would result in fewer daily and peak hour trips than the proposed project, and would therefore have less impact on the surrounding circulation system. This alternative would also eliminate the safety and operational impacts associated with the design of the shopping center access and interior circulation. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. Drainage and water quality impacts of this alternative would be less than those of the project due to its lower total number of units and - associated impervious surfaces, and the elimination of the shopping center and office components. (f, Geology and Soils. Impacts relating to seismic and soil conditions would be reduced by virtue of the fewer number of units proposed within this alternative. (g) Public Services. Impacts on schools, police, fire, water, sewer, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and child care would be reduced by virtue of the fewer number of project units and the elimination of the commercial and office portions of the project. (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. No mitigating effect identified. 5141DEIRl V1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 255 Q) Noise. The larger lots included in this alternative would allow greater residential setbacks from Highway 4, reducing the compatibility problems between residential uses and highway noise. 3. Adverse Effects a) Land Use. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. b)' Population, Housing, and Employment. This alternative would reduce the quantity of needed housing units provided by the project, and would eliminate the local employment accommodation advantages of the project. (c) Visual Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. d) Transportation. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. U Geology and Soils. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (Lg) Public Services. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. () Vegetation and Wildlife. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. 1i) Noise. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. F. APPLICANT.PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 1. Principal Characteristics This alternative would include several modifications to the project design made by the applicant in response to the EIR consultants preliminary review of the project. The alternative is illustrated on Figure 25. Some of the modifications directly respond to issues and mitigation needs raised in the preliminary review of the project, while others were originated by the applicant. These suggested modifications include: ■ A four percent reduction in the total number of units from 296 to 284; • A 2.2-acre percent increase in the land area proposed for retail from 12.0 to 12.30 acres, with a 2.5 percent reduction in proposed retail space from 112,420 to 109,500 square feet. 5141DE/RI V1.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Vl. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 256 ■ An enlargement of the proposed park site from 1.3 acres to 5.2 acres, including a 3.5- acre lake. • Substantial revisions to the design of the internal street system (as shown on Figure 25), including changes to the primary project entrance (S Parkway on project plan), a revised design of L Court (G Street on the alternative plan) as proposed in the EIR, the realignment of C Street (J Street in the alternative plan), the creation of a separate entrance at the southern end of I Court (K Street in the alternative plan), and the division of A Way into two cul-de-sacs (A Lane and P Court on the alternative plan). ■ Preservation of a 0.3-acre area surrounding the existing drainage channel in the northeast comer of the site (i.e., proposed parcel B on Figure 25) as open space. 2. Mitigating Effects (a) Land Use. Preservation of proposed parcel B would slightly reduce the number of units on the northern edge of the project which have land use compatibility impacts with the rural residences to the north. (b) Population, Housing, and Employment. No mitigating effects have been identified. (c, Visual Impacts. No mitigating effects have been identified. (d) Transportation. This alternative would modestly reduce overall traffic impacts by virtue of the reduction in project units (see Table 36). This alternative would also reduce onsite safety concerns in the residential portion of the project through the breaking up of the long straight A Way route into two cul-de-sacs, elimination of the sight line problem at the intersection of S Parkway and C Street, and elimination of the distance problem between intersections along C Street. This alternative would reduce safety concerns in the commercial portion of the project through the blocking off of the westernmost and easternmost aisle in the parking lot to eliminate stacking space conflicts (as recommended in the EIR), the removal of several 90- degree parking bays from the front of the major stores (as recommended by the EIR), and the redesign of the service driveway behind the major stores to reduce safety conflicts identified in the EIR. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. Drainage and water quality impacts related to runoff . quantity, erosion and non-point source pollutants would be reduced by virtue of the reduced number of units and the increase in the size of the park (plus the addition of the lake). (f) Geology and Soils. Impacts related to seismic hazards and soil conditions would be slightly reduced by virtue of the lower total number of project units in this alternative. 5141DEIRI V1.514 ,'fit •,•w.••r.l ,l`^" � Sf i - � -- -- -�'-- �i t'j; - fir-„ - •_-�_:�_ .T v. _._ f. ' �� _•-_� —+�--_�---- a'��I;= t��e,• - t •t `t s� �• .ty e _ `.t •s -L .tom •tk •e�1. .s�,: !s- 4trZ• !'`FL ,``i ;tG EiR ._t` I "•�� el _ �•' �s 1 I I Ciolt � � . -S �i I Zi CI` `r'1�_ `1� - 1"i` II_-"f F. . 1 I I q!oSg ;S� ctS � Ci t [ -t: I tig: ii �4i7 �iL t C I t 1 `.tS 4thit It ltvl .aIslq I •c =- � -� I I I I ,ix I ) J ,i L' [ ,i , ' 1, ,i,l [ '[r i1t ilU q. IV I S I �� !��• !!R 't !," ! I I ai I ' `,It I :rt�l * tl �' i !t / ////`� I 1 •t..11 r H I !r �� --- --- 1 � �-t J r "•—_f :' \ ES 31 I �`�I I 'ti oit k �i.,�� i l ' 1 �^ I 1 L I N1,�\• _>.. _ _---..--._-r -_ -:: -. --- t� ` 1� livl t .1 I _�� ' t �.- t" •� ' I I L IS niAlt - L� N; 'I ---- - - -- -- , - :iy iiY .:ice �x I t I I 'F I IE`'2 it °�a * ��d I :ie I I tvl I I i1�It— -� - - -- - -...._-- -•^'�� iQI' •., `.Cl- °e8 ��o ;SNw ` •cE � 1 � , —�. : :_c:' , I I I t�%i I t s C"r,-- --- L J t_'.`J ---- �_.� i iS�l I .I fi � .�-- --- -�- �l• r►_� �-- -w -=�� CE . Ji 1 "'I �• L-- -�L- t F` n �i �S ai �i I :.tl� I :ilt •it" oSx iI ------ 't I t do .sI .i°sg �� a' \ � ,tl girl D 2� L o --- -- --- tl ``U t [ ofIt - - -- tt5 ;� '' [ I •s- - .t� I m /75' •-••I M/N. °� ii ti, ki oi�iR ' 4i� V' , , 1� p ' F `I c 1 I q v 3 1 -- --- L J �J --- t Zia V �� J , - -- Tr-I D �—+ •`^ \�..�.ti 1 i el ` ^ I I •• t "_ _`��—`—_— =-=D�` �� 't T �i\ �\J t r L � 1 -a a �! :i", I N `�/ r ' �•iii :ik ^5�>J °iYt41 !iC['t I t'�t ii• ��\\ ';i i' JJ =e�/' --- lu:--� °I D I I • � •1 c r I I •iIt it t=.. `y•. � �. ,' ;S /' '// _`a I I ;I [ :I -T - - {� - , tl ji It I [ ii vlt, \ •\ \ •� `\�ck 1\n � � I)�1 - — ..� . -14 39' "n v I� '1� : \ 't�' \ •I I �` C Q � \ r,1,.•" / I Z VI Z w it '�I -1 - t 1 I tt�t t l iihlt 4 S\ .V , h ,�` I e. •� _—cie,:o — ' t; Vit^ f T (,:� �,�� \ .\ it,e Y \ Ltc! ♦ I I a . U). aiN ,I ! 1, 1 F ;t. •�1. .J.tt- �c _ _ _.� vl ��i;='I•-.._......__ 1 1 ,[ `t�l� '',jj'' �� I �— 1 .I � 'i' I tj '��t I ,� :i4i� tY •_tS -!e•"• t-"tJlt' I t 'I � o. � ate. 1!I It�ti t� , I [ . . _J_-_-. �-�- -_— rr-- __.tF l 'i i�� I � 4a• z Eih I lt , t wI I yl -''1E-- -J :iu� / iN 4IN oi" 4i I` t�l t I y 35 33 � --- w L�Jr� I II II• to, i i 'tom� ' j' --- -- --- 1 kl :ful ' rna+{ruo{r 1 o t A'i"i + - I , •' , �• I U.l.l.l.11� � ` I l �. \ tt81 I �il�j I , II 8 "� _ � fl I i ..>_;i• I � Y\ ti tht• I I �iEI1!# �� o S Ti STOR� - i / onosr- < W hl;l II' » M c .xi ii"I £ �` ., i �((�'��{{�� {f �I{I {I{I }I I It I} I}{I , -L L i 1 r r I DI I I I IJ I I�I•I FI141 1 1�� -I' I hl -y - _- a N I .i YI I i tib �'I.h.l I ' i I III I' I s•� .YI', J ti •. 1 el iiyit ' °' 't�,l': ., t 94r r I I n � IRI i g l t : I _ ' I i 'A[V[�w>' ; ' j •I I.' I lr lll W1 1 _ �'. ' ' ' y ' I 'ihlt 1 cis\• �. �' I ,ihll �. ^.00 - / ' w: tl :i"I t \� X I til{T.—,: ffl!11 ff f��j:jjWff II -off _ f II 't til '� I •l I I :i" ~ I I i 'emelt 1 'tC t•� ! �' , iihl e ' Is ``LL Il��IIIII tt x ( Q I. I I.i"'\�\ \ \ tJ C.ti I III 1III\I� III /IO • �- 70 RI II�lll� IIII1 1� �l .off A�.� I I 1 \\p J i,1 LCJtIt 'I' z `_� ? �I I•I-I I-I I 'i 1f1F1+}I -1I.'} IF +�+f+ 1F 1►��-t1Hf1I � ;o _ I . t a '! M >• �• :1 � r.r I I ' •Iv � ' L I •\ I T�1� n I I 00 _I_. 1 _I r N L <i D t -0 1 D r ll1WLL1 � I ti��/,rb 120 M M -_.- ---. :..---• = - _- -- — ,�==-�=-sem— - J_ IXLER - - ----- --- T B .. I —•.. _:'. . �" �.�.-,__ __.—� - 180 ROAD, .I f rr� v � Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 259 (g) Public Services. Impacts on schools, police and fire protection, sewer service, water, parks and recreation, street maintenance, and child care service would be slightly reduced by virtue of the lower number of project units in this alternative. The increase in park size would reduce project impacts on local recreational service needs to the extent that the county considers the lake eligible for credit towards meeting park acreage standards. The inclusion of the lake may also provide emergency water supply in case of fire. (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. This alternative would retain more habitat for wildlife, (particularly waterbirds) by the inclusion of the pond. The preservation of remnant alkali scrub in the northeast corner of the site would also retain sensitive vegetative resources not preserved in the proposed plan. (i) Noise. No significant mitigating effects related to noise have been identified. 3. Adverse Effects (a) Land Use. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (b) Population, Housing, and Employment. This alternative would slightly reduce the. number of housing units provided by the project. (c) Visual Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (d) Transportation. The proposed additional entrance to Highway 4 would involve significant operational and safety impacts. The elimination of connection of S Parkway and C Street would create an awkward internal circulation pattern. (e) Drainage and Water Quality. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (f) Geology and Soils. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (c) Public Services. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (h) Vegetation and Wildlife. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. (i) Noise. No significant additional adverse effects would occur. G. CONCLUSIONS In response to CEQA guideline provisions calling for identification of the environmentally superior alternative, the comparative environmental impact ratings of the various project alternatives evaluated in this chapter are listed below. 5141DEIRI VI.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Action July 7, 1992 Page 260 Please note that only "environmental" factors were considered in this ranking. Other considerations, such as local and regional housing needs, economic viability, and landowner intentions were not considered. Highest Environmental Ranking No Project Alternative (most environmentally desirable) General Plan Alternative Residential Only Alternative Density Transfer Alternative Mitigated Alternative Applicant Proposed Alternative Lowest Environmental Ranking Proposed Project (least environmentally desirable) 5141DEIRIVI.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions July 7, 1992 VII. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 5141DEIRI TITLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions July 7, 1992 5141 DEIRI TI TLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions July 7, 1992 Page 263 VII. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS This section summarizes report findings in terms of the various assessment categories suggested by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for EIR content. This section summarizes report findings with respect to "growth inducement," "unavoidable and irreversible adverse impacts," "short-term versus long-term environmental productivity," and "effects found not to be significant." A. GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS (1) Direct Population, Housing and Employment Increases. Development under the proposed action would add 296 dwelling units, 112,400.square feet of gross leasable retail floor space, and approximately 52,000 square feet of gross leasable office floor space to the rural east county area of Contra Costa County. Based on an average of three people per household, the project would provide housing for up to 888 people. As discussed in section IV.B, (Population, Housing and Employment) of this EIR, the added project homes would account for approximately 4.5 percent of the ABAG-projected rural east county household increase between 1990 and 2000, and less than one percent of the ABAG- projected countywide housing unit increase for the decade. The project retail and office floor space would be expected to eventually accommodate 466 additional retail and office employees (by the year 2000), which would account for approximately 63 percent of the ABAG-projected east county retail job growth and 45 percent of ABAG-projected service job growth for the 1990-2000 period. Thus, the project would be expected to have a substantial direct effect on expected countywide population, household, and employment growth over the next decade. (2) Cumulative Growth. The project is one of three major developments proposed in the vicinity. The other two projects include the Byron 78 mixed-use proposal (commercial and industrial) and the Discovery Bay West proposal, a 1400-unit residential development and golf course. The Byron 78 proposal is slightly ahead of the project in the development process (a draft EIR was completed in September, 1991) while the Discovery Bay West proposal has not begun the EIR process at this time. 5141DE1R1 V11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions July 7, 1992 Page 264 (3) Precedent Setting Effects. Expansion of the Discovery Bay sewer and water system (Sanitation District 19) to serve the project would probably facilitate approval of the other two proposals or vice versa. In addition to this project, Byron 78, and Discovery Bay West, another approximately 134 acres of developable land are available within the urban limit line within the project vicinity. This acreage is located on the east side of Bixler Road between Discovery Bay West and the Byron 78 project. The County Community Development Department staff has indicated that this acreage will be included in the Discovery Bay West general plan amendment application, should that application go forward. Approval of the Albers project and related infrastructure extensions and improvements could ultimately facilitate development of the Byron 78 and/or Discovery Bay West project, as well as the additional 134 acres included in the Discovery Bay West general plan amendment application. In general, approval of the proposed Albers project and related service district expansions would contribute to the trend toward urbanization of the Highway 4 corridor in east Contra Costa County, would make it more difficult for county decision-makers to deny similar future general plan amendment proposals north of the project within the Urban Limit Line. B. UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE ADVERSE IMPACTS If the proposed project were subject to effective implementation of all mitigation measures P P P 1 1 P 9 recommended in this EIR, certain significant adverse impacts of project buildout would remain unavoidable, and in some cases irreversible. The conclusions of this EIR with respect to unavoidable or irreversible impacts are listed below: 1. Land Use. No significant unavoidable impacts identified. 2. Visual Factors. The project visual change would result in a significant, unavoidable, incremental impact on the rural and open space character of the Highway 4 corridor in East Contra Costa County. 3. Transportation. No significant unavoidable impacts identified. 4. Drainage and Water Quality. The potential for flooding of the project due to subsidence of the project vicinity over the long term would be a significant unavoidable impact. S. Geology and Soils. The potential for flooding of the project due to subsidence of the project vicinity over the long term would be a significant unavoidable impact. 5141DE1RI V11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions July 7, 1992 Page 265 6. Public Services. Until a funding program is implemented to make up the.difference between existing school impact fees and the true cost of school expansion necessitated by development, the project could directly result in an unmitigated, significant adverse impact on Byron Middle School, and would contribute to an unmitigated significant cumulative adverse impact on local elementary, middle school, and high school capacity. 7. Vegetation and Wildlife. No significant unavoidable impacts identified. 8. Noise. Temporary construction period noise impacts on adjacent properties could be reduced substantially by the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR, but could not be reduced to less than significant levels; i.e., would be significant and unavoidable. The impact of projected cumulative offsite traffic noise levels on existing residences along highway and arterial road segments in the project vicinity, with or without the project, would also be significant and unavoidable (i.e., no feasible mitigation program has been identified in this EIR). C. SHORT-TERM VERSUS LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTIVITY In keeping with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for EIR content, those plan impacts which narrow the range of long-term beneficial uses of the environment due to short-term interests must be identified. Long-term impacts of the Albers project would include the replacement of agricultural land and open space with urban development. Although the crop-growing potential of the site's clay soils is limited due to poor drainage qualities and strong alkaline characteristics, the site has a demonstrated potential for forage crop production. Development of the proposed project would eliminate any feasibility of restoring earlier agricultural uses of the property, or for any other utilization of unrealized agricultural potential. The proposed development would also limit the potential of the site for other future beneficial uses, such as parkland or affordable housing. D. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Contra Costa County, in its Initial Study of the project, determined that a number of possible environmental effects would be insignificant or could be adequately addressed by county staff in the development review process without further environmental assessment in this report. These Initial Study determinations (Environmental Checklist Form) and associated explanations by county staff are included in Appendix A of this EIR. These insignificant effects include: 5141DEIRI V11.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions July 7, 1992 Page 266 (1) destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features; (2) any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site; (3) changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may,modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake; (4) substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality; (5) creation of objectionable odors; (6) changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine of fresh waters; (7) alterations to the course or flow of flood waters; (8) change in the amount of surface water in any wafer body; (9) change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations; (10) substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies; (11) increase in the rate of use of any natural resources; (12) risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions; (13) possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan; (14) impact existing parking facilities or create demands for new parking; (15) alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods; (16) alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic; (17) use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy; 5141DEIRIVII.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VII. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions July 7, 1992 Page 267 (18) substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy; (19) creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health); (20) exposure of people to potential health hazards; (21) alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site; (22) adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object; (23) physical changes affecting unique ethnic cultural values; (24) restrict existing religious or sacred uses within potential impact areas; (25) potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of California history; and (26) cause significant adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 5141DEIRI VII.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VIII. CEOA-Required Assessment Conclusions July 7, 1992 Page 268 5141DEIRIVII.514 Albers General Plan.Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VIII. Mitigation Monitoring July 7, 1992 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING 5141 DEIRI TI TLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VIII. Mitigation Monitoring July 7, 1992 • 5141 DEI R I TI TL PAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VIII. Mitigation Monitoring Plan July 7, 1992 Page 271 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING This chapter describes a recommended monitoring program for implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this EIR, and describes relationships between various anticipated monitoring needs and responsible monitoring agencies. A. BACKGROUND On January 1, 1989, AB 3180 became law in California. The bill requires all public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects which are subject to environmental impact reports.' The complete text of the bill can be found in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. A project-specific mitigation monitoring program will be required for implementation recording purposes subsequent to certification of the Albers General Plan Amendment EIR. Most of the environmental mitigation measures which have been recommended in this EIR will be subject to effective monitoring through the county's normal planned unit development, tentative map, building permit, and associated plan check and field inspection procedures. However, to satisfy CEQA Section 21081.6, a documented record of implementation will be necessary. B. MONITORING CHECKLIST While actual formulation of a specific mitigation monitoring program should not be completed until the EIR is certified and the project is approved, the relationship between the various impact mitigation categories in this EIR and the responsible monitory agency, and the framework to be followed in finalizing the monitoring program subsequent to project approval, can be determined on a preliminary basis at this Draft EIR stage. The attached checklist includes matrix spaces for: (1) each mitigation measure included in the EIR; (2) the party responsible for implementing each mitigation measure and any . requirements with respect to the timing of implementation; and (3) the party responsible for performing mitigation monitoring, plus information on the type, required timing, and cost 'Randy Pestor and Ron Bass, "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting," California Planner, January 1989. 5141DEIRI VII[514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County VIII. Mitigation Monitoring Plan July 7, 1992 Page 272 implications of the various monitoring procedures. These checklist categories are discussed in more detail below. 1. Mitigation Measures (Performance Criteria) This column would include each mitigation measure as it is described in the EIR Summary table (EIR section II). The description would be supplemented by any applicable performance criteria (i.e., the measure by which the success of the mitigation can be gauged) associated with each measure. 2. Implementation Responsibility and Timing This column would describe the party responsible for carrying out each mitigation measure (e.g., the applicant, a county department, a public agency, etc.). This column would also describe any specific implementation timing requirements, e.g., measures may need to be implemented prior to project construction, prior to project occupancy, following completion of certain project phases or components, or when some specific threshold (e.g., measured traffic volumes, etc.) is reached. 3. Monitoring Responsibility, Type, Timing, and Cost Implications This column would specify which party is responsible for performing the monitoring of each mitigation. This responsibility could be assigned to the applicant, a professional specialist hired by the applicant, a county department, another public agency, or some other entity. In addition, this column would specify what type of monitoring program would be required. In some cases, established plan check and/or inspection procedures by county departments may be sufficient. In other cases, specialized monitoring procedures by hired professionals may be required. This column would also specify any monitoring timing requirements similar to those options listed above for implementation. Some monitoring programs could involve one-time procedures while others could be required to continue for up to several years after project completion. Finally, this column would describe the cost implications of each mitigation monitoring program element. Once the program is formulated, the cost of those monitoring steps which are appropriately included as part of the normal development review procedures of the county or other Responsible Agencies may be routinely covered by the normal administrative budget of those agencies. Such costs are typically funded by existing review fees, permit fees, connection fees, impact fees, etc. For those mitigation measures which are clearly not part of these normal development review and due diligence procedures of the Responsible Agency, the agency may wish to require payment by the applicant of a monitoring fee or the pre-establishment of a monitoring fund. Fund monies could be used 5141DEIRI VIIL514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Vill. Mitigation Monitoring Plan July 7, 1992 Page 273 to cover related Responsible Agency staff time and materials, or could be used by the agency to retain qualified outside professionals to complete the monitoring. 5141DEIRIVIII.514 � �d �o jlr- 01 o � � � � Na NN ra too 00 d Eta 01 C—A 0,o - tot Sit to 7g w % I in ¢(f) 0 L�-� 4� �N �- m O sa* So co rn cr) 0 to Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IX. Organizations and Persons Contacted July 7, 1992 IX. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED 5141DEIRI TITLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IX. Organizations and Persons Contacted July 7, 1992 5141 DEIRITITLPAGE.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IX. Organizations and Persons Contacted July 7, 1992 Page 277 IX. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Jim Cutler, Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning, Community Development Department Dan Pulon, Principal Planner, Community Development Department Matt Tomas, Planner, Community Development Department John Snell, Senior Crime Analyst, Sheriff's Department Scott Parsons, Lieutenant, Sheriff's Department Scott Daly, Sergeant, Sherrif's Department John Pitau, Acting Supervisor, Brentwood Yard Maintenance Division, Department of Public Works Donna Allen, Planning Technician Specialist, Community Development Department Greg Connaughton, Senior Civil Engineer, Maintenance Division, Field Operations, Department of Public Works Craig Smith, R.E.H.S., Senior Environmental Health Inspector, Health Services Department Mitch Avalon, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works Department APPLICANT/DEVELOPER Stephen Cross, Project Manager, Belecci and Associates Alan Hyden, Forward Planner, Centex Homes Will Leighton, Land Acquisition Manager, Centex Homes Lucia Albers, Property Owner OTHERS Ron Martine, District Consultant, Associated Architects Kimberly Wood, Land Planning Consultants (Liberty Union High School District Consultant) Phil White, Superintendent, Liberty Union High School District John Clary, Assistant Chief, East Diablo Fire Protection District George Hoover, Business Services Manager, Byron Unified School District Kevin McCarthy, Fire Inspector, Riverview Fire Protection District Janet Traenkner, Child Care Broker, Contra Costa Child Care Council William McDonald, Chief of Operations and Maintenance, Delta Diablo Sanitation District 5141DEIRIIX.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County IX. Organizations and Persons Contacted July 7, 1992 Page 278 James Fife, Sanitary Engineer, State Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water Ronald A. Tsugita, General Manager/District Engineer, Delta Diablo Sanitation District Terry Palmisano, Wildlife Biologist, Department of Fish and Game Laurie Simons, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5141DEIRIIX.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County X. Appendices July 7, 1992 X. APPENDICES 5141DEIRIX-APP.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Appendix A July 7, 1992 APPENDIX A: NOTICE OF PREPARATION INITIAL STUDY 5141DE1RIX-APP.514 r1 Harvey Bragdon Community Contra of Development Director of Community Development Department0 Costa County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945530095 Phone: (415) 646-2035 ' f April 3, 1991 REVISED NOTICE OF PREPARATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR Albers General Plan Amendment, County File #4-90-EC: This is a proposal to amend the County General Plan for approximately 74 acres from Agricultural-Residential and Agricultural Core to Multiple Family Residential Low Density, Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density, and Commercial. This project has been modified from a previous project which included a small lake and different densities and configurations. The site is located to the northwest of the intersection of State Route 4 and Bixler Road. The proposed project also includes rezoning, annexations, spheres of influence amendments and other entitlements necessary to allow the land to develop. (CT 3040.00) As the owner of abutting property, or as an otherwise interested person or organization, you are invited to submit any comments you may have on this project, and raise any significant environmental issues of which you are aware so that they can be considered in the environmental review process. This letter plus enclosures will constitute a Notice of Preparation. Please circulate this information to the appropriate persons and agencies as soon as possible. I would encourage those interested to contact me directly by letter to convey any concerns they may have about the environmental review for the project no later than 30 days after receipt of this Notice. Comments previously received on a June 30, 1990 Notice on this property will also be utilized and does not need to be resubmitted. J. If you have any questions regarding this Notice, please contact me at (415) 646-2035. Sincerely, James W. Cutler Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning 1WC:cm ljwc1:Albers.NOP Enclosures APR - 51991 clri u inE:'4l:;031) co�lyl!tiin'rtkF�fr.`:7w DEPT. __ ALBERS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lucia Albers, the owner of approximately 74 acres in the Discovery Bay area of Contra Costa County, is proposing a planned residential community supported by a mixed- use center(commercial/retail/office). The property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 4 and Bbder Road, immediately west of Discovery Bay. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is to be a planned development community, including . approximately 300 single-family lots (on approximately 50 acres); approximately 165 attached residential units (on approximately 10 acres) and an approximately 13-acre mixed-use center (commercial /retail/office). The residential units will be of nice architectural design and the landscaping design will help the development blend with the area. The mixed-use center will contain many of the facilities that are lacking in the immediate area. Proposed uses may include: Grocery Store Movie Theater Drug Store Financial Facilities Coffee Shop Service Station Cleaners Stationary Store Hardware Store Recreational Facilities Restaurants Professional Offices — The cost of establishing, managing and maintaining the community will be pais] by the developer, residents and tenants of the residential and mired-use portions of the project. The following are proposed solutions to the planning matters related to the development. J. AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY The Cooperative Extension of the University of California and the United States Department of Agriculture have referred to the project site: as being very poor for agricultural uses (see enclosed copy of September 4, 1957 letter from the Cooperative Extension and related materials provided by the Department of Agriculture). Residential development of this site offers an excellent opportunity to meet area housing needs established by ABAG. rA SEWER / WATER Sewer service will be through annexation to the County Service area Delta Diablo Sanitation District 7A at the developers' expense. Water service will be through annexation to an existing service area, or, in the alternative, by well water. UTILITIES All other utilities(electric,gas, telephone and cable)will be brought to the site by the developer and respective utility companies. FIRE PROTECTION The project site is already located within the Byron Fire Protection District. POLICE The project would be served by the County Sheriffs Department. The residential portion of the project may be a gated community, resulting in reduction of police protection requirements. SCHOOLS Funds provided by new residents and/or the developer will assist both Byron Union High School District and Liberty Union High School. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION _ The main entrance to the project will be off Highway 4 and Bixler Road. The developer will dedicate road frontage along Highway 4 and:Bixler Road for any necessary widening of these roads and will participate in road fee district or benefit district appropriate for the improvement of roads. Z Z 00 = U 10 o•Oy y CD t.0 C •+, '�- w . EN.' O X o a .� t oVk v a va t 1 1- 05 lu cU o i' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent: Ms. Lucia Albers 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponents: Lucia Albers - 1400 Deer Valley Road, Brentwood. CA 94513 3. Date Checklist Submitted: Aoril 3. 1991 4. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Albers General Plan Amendment County File #4-90-CO 11. Environmental Impacts Quad Sheet Parcel # Site Zoning (Explanations of all significant, (S), answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in.- a. n:a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcoveripg of the soil? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification, of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X • Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for Insignificant *S „I 2. Air.. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X C. Alterations to the course or low of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X Environmental Checklist - Page 2 of 7 r .S .l 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any.unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Environmental Checklist - Page 3 of 7 OS •I 9. Natural Resource. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X- 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X- 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: -a_ Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X Environmental Checklist - Page 4 of 7 .Al ,r •S •I 14. Public Services. Will thero osal have an P P effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the'proposal result in a need --for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazardor potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X Environmental Checklist - Page 5 of 7 OS •I 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to; degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?. (A short, term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X Environmental Checklist - Page 6 of 7 •S •I d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation See Attachment IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and.an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X Date ligignature 1iwc1/cm/sIbers.eir Environmental Checklist - Page 7 of 7 7. Light and Glare - will the proposal produce new light or glare. The homes and commercial area will add substantial light sources to an existing agricultural area. 1 substantial alteration S. Land Use - will the proposal result m a su sta al al erat on of the present or planned land use of an area. The proposal is for the shift of seventy four acres from agricultural to suburban land uses; this will cause a change in the existing site characteristics. 11. Population- will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,or growth rate of the human population of an area. This proposal will add additional people to the population in this rural area. 12. Housing- will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing. It is highly probable that this proposal shall encourage other developers to attempt to develop other adjacent lands. It will also trigger requests for commercial and other lands uses in the nearby areas. 13. Transportation/Circulation - will the proposal result in: a. generation of substantial additional vehicular movement. As proposed the project shall expand traffic on State Route 4 in the local area. It will cause additional impacts to State Route 4. 14. Public Services - will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. It will impact fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other recreation facilities, road maintenance, or other governmental services. The project will have cumulated impacts on all of these public services. In addition, it may create impacts on the need for childcare facilities. 16. Utilities - will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the public utilities. This project will require PG&E to expand its service to include this site and to upgrade the area wide service capability. 19. Recreation - will the proppsal result in.an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. The project will add a new local use lake as well as allow for commercial recreational potential in the General Plan. JWC:cm 1jwc1/ECHK.WPF Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Appendix B July 7, 1992 APPENDIX B:. ADDITIONAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LAND USE INFORMATION 5141DE1RIX-APP.514 T. = F'' . C, ] Contra Public Works Departm- ent pblicµorhsDire Costa 25.5 Glacier Drive County Martinez,California 945.53.4897 Muton F.Kubicck y FAX:.(510)373.2333 Deputy Director Telephone: (510) 313.2000 swwxe E Ktchcti May 12, 1992 Gaputy Director Lucia Albers 9601 Deer Valley Road Brentwood, CA 94513 RIF - 3.35 Highway 4 Surplus, Byron Dear Ms. Albars: Your letter of February 12, 1992, to Mr. Watford, requesting the County to convey the above-referenced site to you for your project incorporation, has been referred to me for my handling. The County is amenable to convey the excess. land to you in exchange for your demolition and removal of all the existing structures and debris on the site. To facilitate this conveyance, you will need to include the conveyance activity ir, the EIR currently being processed for the larger project. A portion of the surplus arcel may need to be retained to provide for the ultimate 126- P p y foot wide Highway 4 right-of-way. K91logg Creek may have an impact on the additional amount of lard ;seeded to the north. Once the ultimate Highway 4 alignment has been determined &nd the EIR has been certified as complete, we will request the Board of Supervisors to approve and authorize the conveyance of the excess parcel to you. If you have any further q:�estions, please contact me directly at (510) 313-2226. Very truly yours, Ronald D. Babst Real Property Agent AB pw C Amara t9 Enclosuroo cc F Balled. BoNoci &Aseocia!os J cuttot,comruntty Devolop-lant J M Wi0wc, Public Works Director M Shay, Rood Enp►noorinp P Onyoy. Roal Property ?: W kA !.r t:�'r� ,p;, T �.1.,.,n.. tr.:rn, 4SZ ^,w, r/ `' rr tni oi': ^r•,tr • r v 1+ lY 1, �4k; •` t s 4 l ' SIm 'PS w �.... _ C I $N -- AL.. t. OS O SM - - DR : . OS -. PS .... A L ...>... _ — - - DR, SH PS...--..- , .,. ML - - .._...... _ T .V n A b AC SH — ... O$ AL - os -- -----`; - _ WI F: I PS L a _ I 1 YYA "I WA I ` I M CCR CR PS m A C "' PS I PR Sm AC J t. 1 PR I PR PR ' B it L P�ZoAGT • St I DRco _ s ... SM C o ntrq osta C n y MM ._Ge era Plan 19ctU-Zoon SM \ n ° " E - Qf % rpt N eM'Slp rcIeC �gnvary e i �� Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Appendix C July 7, 1992 APPENDIX C:. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY WORKSHEET 5141DEIRIX-APP.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Appendix C July 7, 1992 Appendix C HOUSING AFFORDABILITY WORKSHEET Low High Anticipated Project Price Range $180,000 220,000 Percent Down 15 15 Interest Rate 10 10 Mortgage Term (yrs.) 30 30 Qualifying Percent' 34 34 Property Tax Rate (est.) 1.25 1.25 Home Price $180,000 220,000 Down Payment 21,600 33,000 Mortgage 158,400 187,000 Lot Value 45,000 55,000 Annual Mtg. Pmts. $16,681 19,693 Property Tax (est.) 2,238 2,735 Insurance (est.) 473 578 Special Assessments (est.) 89 108 Annual Total 19,481 23,114 Required Income (annual) 59,575 70,332 Mtg. Pmts/Income 28 28 House Price/Income 3 3 SOURCE: Wagstaff and Associates, February 1992 ' 33 to 36 percent are common qualifying ratios 51410EIRIX-APP.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Appendix D July 7, 1992 APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION 5141DEIRIX-APP.514 600 2 OR MORE LANES £t 2 OR MORE LANES 500 Lu Q 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE � 400 - 1 LANE & 1 LANE 0O w 300 z 5 200 J +f j 100 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 'NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) > IM 400 2 OR MORE LANES £f 2 OR ORE LANES w Q 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE cc 300 a 1 LANE & 1 LANE p w 200 p 100 > = 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 'NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT #11 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Appendix E July 7, 1992 APPENDIX E: . ADDITIONAL VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE INFORMATION 5141DE1RIX-APP.514 Table 1. Sensitive plants potentially in east Contra Costa Count PLANT TAXON COMMON LIST R-E-D FWS CDFG HABITAT Likely In NAME Study Area ? PECIES OF PRIMARY ONCERN: 4Eriogoumntruncatum Mt. Diablo la PE C2 - dry slopes, edge of NO; no habitat buckwheat 1940 chaparral Trifolium amoenum showy Indian la PE C2" - low rich fields, NO; too disturbed, clover 1969 swales; serpentine marginal historic habitat Amsinckia furcata forked fiddleneck 1 b 1 -2-3 C2 - valley grassland NO; too disturbed, potential historic h b' at ? Amsinckia grandiflora large-flowered 1 b 3-3-3 C1 E open grassy NO; too disturbed, fiddleneck slopes/swales; no suitable habitat valley grassland Aster chilensis var. Suisun aster 1 b 2-2-3 C2 - tidal marshes, fresh NO; no habitat lentus and brackish, stream banks Cirsium crassicaule slough thistle 1 b 3-2-3 C2 - streambanks, NO; too disturbed; sloughs, wet plains, potential historic sinks habitat Cordylanthus mollis hispid bird's-beak 1 b 2-2-3 C2 - saline flats NO, none seen;too ssp. hispidus disturbed,potential historic habitat Cordylanthus mollis ssp. soft bird's beak 1 b 3-2-3 C 1' R salt and brackish NO;no good mollis marshes, transition habitat; potential zone historic habitat ordylanthus palmatus Ferris' bird's 1 b 3-3-3 C1 E low saline/alkaline NO,none seen; no beak flats, valley good habitat; rassland ossibl historic Delphinium recurvatum recurved larkspu 1 b 1 -2-3 - - valley sink, scrub, NO; too disturbed, grassland potential historic habitat ? Downingia humilis dwarf downingia 1 b 1 -2-3 C3c - vernal pools; wet NO; no good habita places in valley rassland Erysimum capitatum var. Contra Costa 1 b 3-3-3 E E sand dunes, clay NO; no habitat angustifolium wallflower dust; Antioch Dunes vicinity Eschscholzia diamond-petaled 1 b 3-3-3 C2 - dry flats, brushy NO; too disturbed, rhombipetala Calif. poppy slopes ? potential historic habitat Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillar 1 b 1 -2-3 C2 - heavy adobe soils, NO; too disturbed, coastal grassland potential historic and scrub habitat ? Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthell lb 3-2-3 C2 - grassy hillsides, oak NO; no habitat woodland Hibiscus californicus California lb 2-2-3 C2 - freshwater marsh, NO, none seen; no hibiscus stream banks, good habitat, acto/SJ delta ditches too small Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa 1b 3-2-3 C2 - vernal pools; wet NO; no habitat; goldfields places in valley potential historic rassland habitat ? thyrus jepsonii ssp. Delta tule pea 1b 2-2-3 C2 - freshwater and NO, none seen; no p s o n i i brackish marsh good habitat Table 1. Sensitive plants potentially in east Contra Costa Count PLANT TAXON COMMON LIST R-E-D FWS CDFG HABITAT Likely In NAME Study Area ? Legenere limosa legenere lb 3-3-3 C2 - vernal pools; wet NO; no habitat places in valley rassland Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsi 1 b 2.2.3 C2 R tidal marshes, NO,none seen: no brackish habitat Oenothera deltoides ssp. Antioch Dunes 1 b 3-3-3 E E sand dunes; near NO; no habitat h o w e l l i i evening-primrose Antioch Orthocarpus Campestris succulent owl's 1 b 2-2-3 C2 E vernal pools and NO; too disturbed var. succulentus clover swales; valley and no current arassland habits Perideridia gairdneri Gairdner's 1 b 1 -2-3 C2 - moist places, NO; too disturbed, ssp. gairdneri yampah woodland, chaparral poor habitat; out of range Plagiobothrys bearded 1 b 3-3-3 C2 - vernal pools NO; no current hystriculus popcornflower habitat Tropidocarpum caper fruited 1 b 3- 1 -3 C2 - low alkaline hills & NO; too disturbed, capparideum tropidocarpum plains; Mt. Diablo potential historic region habitat SPECIES OF SECONDARY CONCERN: Atriplex cordulata heartleaved 3 ?-?-3 _ saline / alkaline Possible, but not saltbush sink, scrub, meadowlikely; too disturbed Fritillaria agrestis stinkbells 4 1 - 1 -3 C2 - low heavy soil, NO; too disturb valley grassland, no good habita woodland historic habitat . Grindelia humilis marsh gum plant 4 1 - 1 -3 - - salt and brackish NO; no good marshes; SF Bay habitat, none seen region Cluercus IObata valley oak 4 1 -2-3 - - foothill and valley NO, none present; woodland, riparian may have been historic here Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic 4 1 -2-3 - - shallow vernal pond NO; poor habitat; buttercup & pools ditches too disturbed saline? Gutierrezia californica California - C2 - dry hills and plains, NO, none present; snakeweed rockoutcrops no good habitat Table 2. Partial Plant Species List, Albers Study Area PLANT SPECIES COMMON NAME HABITAT Aira caryophyllea annual hairgrass grassland, woods, disturbed Allenrolfea occidentalis iodine bush alkaline flats, scrub, sink Amsinckia intermedia fiddleneck grassland, woods Anagallis arvensis pimpernel moist grassland, meadows Anthemis cotula mayweed disturbed Atriplex patula ssp. hastata fat-hen saline wet places Atriplex rosea saltbush alkaline, dist. places Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush disturbed, saline places Atriplex sp. saltbush alkaline flats Avena fatua wild oat grassland, disturbed Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea coyote bush dry hills, floodplains, pasture Bassia hyssopifolia Australian saltbush disturbed saline places Beta vulgaris beet cultivated fields Brassica geniculata wild mustard disturbed fields, grassland Brassica rapa ssp. olifera (B. campes.) field mustard disturbed Bromus diandrus ripgut grassland, woods, disturbed Bromus mollis soft chess grassland, woods Bromus rubens red brome or foxtail grassland, disturbed Calandrinia ciliata ( C. c. var. menz.) red maids grassland, woods, disturbed Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd's purse grassland, fields, disturbed Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle disturbed, grassland Cerastium glomeratum (C. viscosum) mouse-ear chickweed disturbed places Chenopodium album Iamb's quarters disturbed areas, weed Cichorum intybus chicory disturbed areas Cirsium vulgare common thistle disturbed areas Claytonia perfoliata (Montia p.) miner's lettuce shaded vernally moist banks Conium maculatum poison hemlock disturbed, pastures Convolvulus arvensis morning-glory, bindw disturbed grassland Conyza canadensis horseweed disturbed places Cotula coronopifolia brass buttons wet places, brackish marsh Cressa truxillensis var. vallicola alkali weed saline, alkaline Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass moist disturbed places Cyperus eragrostis umbrella sedge riparian, wet places Distichlis spicata salt grass moist saline/alkaline places Echinochloa crusgalli barnyard grass damp waste places, ditches Elymus triticoides creeping wild rye gra moist and alkaline places Epilobium paniculatum willow-herb open, dry, disturbed Eremocarpus setigerus turkey mullein dry open sandy soil, disturber Erodium cicutarium red-stemmed filaree grassland, disturbed Eschscholzia californica California poppy grassy, open places Foeniculum vulgare fennel, wild anis disturbed Frankenia grandifolia alkali heath moist, saline places Source: unpubl. field data, C. Patterson, 1992 Table 2. Partial Plant Species List, Albers Study Area PLANT SPECIES COMMON NAME HABITAT Geranium dissectum wild geranium disturbed Heliotropum curassavicum var. oculatum wild heliotrope moist saline, akaline Hemizonia sp. tarweed valley grassland, coastal hill; Hordeum brachyantherum perennial wild barley moist places Hordeum hystrix wild barley grassland, disturbed Hordeum jubatum foxtail moist, disturbed Hypochoeris glabra cat's-ear grass, disturbed Juncus bufonius toad rush vernal pools, wet places Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce disturbed Layia sp. layia, tidy tips grassy flats and slopes Lepidium nitidum peppergrass grasslands Lepidium virginicum var. pubescens peppergrass dry sandy places Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass disturbed Lupinus bicolor bicolor lupine sandy grassland, woods Lupinus sp. lupine dry slopes and flats Lythrum hyssopifolia loosestrife moist places, saline Malva neglecta mallow disturbed Malvella leprosa (Sida hederacea) alkali mallow moist, saline places Matricaria matricarioides pineapple weed disturbed fields, roadsides,et Medicago polymorpha var. brevispina bur-clover disturbed Melilotus albus yellow sweet-clover disturbed, moist Orthocarpus pusillus dwarf owl's clover grasslands Paspalum dilatatum . Dallis grass roadsides, ditches, waste pla. Plagiobothrys sp. popcornflower mesic grasslands, meadows Plantago lanceolata rattlesnake plantain disturbed Poa annua annual bluegrass seasonal wetlands, disturbed Polygonum aviculare knotweed moist disturbed places Polygonum coccineum ? water smartweed wet places, ponds, ditches Raphanus sativus wild radish disturbed Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel grass, disturbed Rumex crispus curly dock wet places, disturbed Senecio vulgaris groundsel disturbed Silybum marianum milk thistle disturbed Sisymbrium officinale disturbed Solanum nodiflorum nightshade moist, disturbed places Sonchus asper sow thistle disturbed Spergularia rubra disturbed Stellaria nitens chickweed grasslands, disturbed Vicia sp. vetch many plant communities Vulpia bromoides (Festuca dertonensis) annual fescue grassland, disturbed Xanthium- strumarium cocklebur floodplains, disturbed ripariar Source: unpubl. field data, C. Patterson, 1992 References and Literature Cited Atwater, B. F. 1980.Distribution of vascular plant species in six remnants of tidal wetland of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,California. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 80 - 883. (Unpubl. prelim. report, April, 1980). Calif. Natural Diversity Data Base. 1988.Unpubl.file data available at Calif.Dept.of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. California Dept.of Fish and Game. 1988.Status of California's state-listed threatened and endangered plants and animals, 1987 annual report.Prep.by Natural Diversity Data Base,Feb. 1988. CDFG, Sacramento, CA California Dept.of Fish and Game. 1988.Information leaflet,California's fully protected birds,mammals,reptiles,amphibians,and fish. Leaflet/memo clarifying state policy,March 1988. CDFG, Sacramento, CA California Dept.of Fish and Game. 1989. 1988 annual report on the status of California's state listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. Unpubl.report from the State of Calif.,The Resources Agency, Sacramento,CA California Native Plant Society.Ongoing.Collection of rare plant maps for California. On file at the Calif. Natural Diversity Data Base,Dept.of Fish and Game,Sacramento,CA. Chuang, T.I., and L.R. Heckard. 1973.Taxonomy of Cordylanthus subgenus Hemistegia (Scrophulariaceae). Brittonia 25 : 135-158. Wstep, J. A. 1989.Biology, movements,and habitat relationships of the swainson's hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. Unpubl. report to the Calif.Dept.of Fish and Game,Wildlife Management Division,Sacramento,CA Harvey, Mason, Gill, Wooster, 1977.The marshes of San Francisco Bay: their attributes and values. Report to S.F. Bay Conservation and Development Commission;June 1977. Heady, H. F. 1977.Valley grassland. Chapter 14 In: Barbour and Major(eds.). 1977.Terrestrial vegetation of California.Wiley-Interscience. Holland, R. F. 1978.The geographic and edaphic distribution of vernal pools in the Great Central Valley,California. Calif. Native Plant Soc. Spec. PubL No.4 Holland, R. F. 1986.Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpubl.papa prep. for the Dept. of Fish and Game,Nongame Heritage Program,The Resources Agency,Sacramento,CA Hoover, R.F. 1937.Endemism in the flora of the Great Valley of California. Unpubl. dissertation(PhD), Univ. of Calif. Berkeley,CA. anon, H.L. 1975.A flora of the marshes of California. Univ.of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA. Munz, P. A. 1968.Supplement to a California flora. Univ. of Calif. Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA. Munz, P. A., and D. D. Keck. 1959.A California flora. Univ. of Calif. Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. Ornduff, R. 1966.A biosystematic study of the goldfield genus Lasthenia. Univ. Calif. Pub. Botany,40 : 1 - 92. Smith, J.P.,Jr. and K. Berg. 1988.Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California.California Native Plant Society. Spec. Publ. No. I (4th Edit.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 1987.Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation Manual. Prep. by Env. Laboratory,Dept.of the Army,Waterways Experiment Station;Wetlands Research Program,Tech. Report Y-87-1;Vicksburg,MI (revised 1989) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985.Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species;notice of review.50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 50, No. 188, Sept. 27, 1985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989.Wetland plant list:Wetland plants of the state of California. Prep. by Porter B. Reed,Jr., Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, US Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg,FL. USDA-Soil Conservation Service. 1977.Soil survey of Contra Costa County,California. Prep.by Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Univ.Calif. Agricultural Experiment Station Wetland Training Institute. 1989.Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands:Unified Federal Method WTI 89-1, 131 pp. PEC_M 4 S;;YK1i 'Y DC1CiG:F FOR SENSITIVE S?t.GIT:S . N JOAQUIN KIT FOX, yu2nes Macrctls mutica Status: cT, .FE Methods: Three net;ods should be vsed to survey for £an. Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) : 1 ) night spotlighting, 2) line transects (to identify known and potential den sites) , and 3) scent stations. 1) Fight spotlighting should be conduc:ed on a mir.imur.: of six nights (within a =4-6ay period) using 400, 000 (ninimum) candle pzwer spotlights. Surveys should be conducted using at 3east two observers with spotlights (one for each side c+ the read) . For adequate visibility the observer's eye level sh culd be a nininum of 50 inches above the road surface. This generally precludes the use of cars and small 'trucks fur spotlight Eunreys. The sarvey vehicle should be operated at 10 m.p.h. or less. The entire project area should be sur-.eyed, as well as approximately a twc-mile area Around the subject property. Vehicr.es should only be operated on existing roads to avoid adversely inpac ing endangered species or their habitat. Spotlighting should ba conducted for a minimum of 3 hours each night and the routes sho,.ild be varied so that specific locations are not spotlighted at the same time each survey period. k'henever eyesh_ne or animal ic:ovement is detected, the vehicle should be stepped and the anirsal idfntlfied using bino:ulars ( -:inimum 7x35) or spotting scopes. Sightings of SJKF, their prey, and competing predators should be recorded for later napping, and the tine, n1leage, weather, and moon prase noted. Spotlight surveys should not be conducted when visibility is less than 2 a:iles. 2) Daytire line transect surveys for dens, tracks, scat, etc. , should be conducted by walking the property at 10-30 r,,eter (30 to 100-foot) interva's so that the area is cor.pletely severed in a sy_-te:-,atic warner. Transect width should be ad;usted based on vegetation height , topography, etc. , to facilitate the detection of dens and other sign. When a den or burrow is discovered, the observer should determine if it has the potential to be used by S3KF and if it is currently occupied (please refer to the attached USFWS S.7KF den definitions) . Potential burrow openings are Generally round or oval in shape, 10-25 centimeters (4.-10 .-Inches) in diameter, and often have multiple openings. SJKF acti��ities at a den site should be determined by noting a variety of factors (fresh digging, presence of prey renains, tracks, or Ecat near the opening) . All known and potentla2 dens she::_d be acc%:rat&lr napped. Fhctcgrephs of the dens shoal; be taken along }pith infcr:r,ation on to.;ography, vece_ation, ',Arid use, den characteristics, and activity. 31 Scent Std4- iZ,,:s 5T,Cu2d t_o esta'�l isr,eu at a rnini1r density of five scent stations per 640 acres . One scent station sbr)uld be placed at the center of the .project .cite wit.11 the other fr�,L'r placed 1114 rile away (i .e. a domino 5 pattern) , A ninir�um of 5 seer±t stations is required far a1 ). projects unless otnerwise agreed to by CDF4- and USfwS , If a linear corridor is being surveyed, five scent static.^s should be established per linear :r.,Jle. scL-nt stations should not be set adjacent to heavily traveled roads to reduce the potential fcr kit :ox/vehicle collisions. Scent stations shcald be operated for a minimum of six nights (within a 14-day period) , and checked each norni.ng for visitatio.,, re-baited and tracks cleared when necessary. All tracks observed (i . e. fit fox, dogs, kangaroo vats, etc. ) should by recorded on pre-formatted data sheets. .Scent stations should be situated or, relatively level ground and cover a circle approximately ? meter (39-inches) in dia-meter. All vegetation and debris should be cleared and a thin layer (1-2 cry) of :ine-gra:nee tracking rate;i.a: (diatomaceous earth, fire clay, finely sifted soil) sifted over the site. . (Tho tracking substrate nest ,be of a consistency to delineate the lines of a hum::n hand wher. placed on the tracking medium) . Snoked tracking plates are also acceptable. The scent stations should be 'gaited with cat food placed at the center of the scent station (i.e. directly on the trackny substrate) Cr with "Predator Survey Disks" . Because kit fox have been observed to occasionally avoid scent statiolns baited with predator survey- disk.: and fish-based baits, no more than 50% of the scent stations should use these tl•pes of bait. The disks are available from Pocatello Supply Depot, 238 E. Dillon, Pocatello. ID 83201, or (206) 236-6920.. Timing: The optimum survey period is bet-ween May ? and September 30. Surveys conducted ovtsi.de of the optinum period should include e pini-mum, ten nights of scent station operation. The period of lowest detectability is December, January and February. Sur-,;ey net:Rods for detecting kat fox during these months should be Tevie.;ed with the agencies prior to commencing field work. When pr.e__nce of SJR F is -- confiined, the agencies should be contacted for further instructions. Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Appendix F July 7, 1992 APPENDIX F: CEQA STANDARDS FOR EIR ADEQUACY According to Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, the standards for Adequacy of an EIR are as follows: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. 5141DE/RIX-APP.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Appendix G July 7, 1992 APPENDIX G: CEQA DEFINITION OF "MITIGATION" According to Section 15370 of the CEQA EIR Guidelines, the term "mitigation" Includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 5141DE1RW APP.514 Albers General Plan Amendment Draft EIR Contra Costa County Appendix H July 7, 1992 APPENDIX H: EIR CONSULTANT TEAM WAGSTAFF AND ASSOCIATES Urban and Environmental Planners; Prime Contractors John Wagstaff, Principal-in-Charge .Brian Dolan, Project Manager Deborah Holley Anthony Lee Steve Ridone Laurel Engel Toni Fricke THE CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP Transportation Consultants Mark Crane, P.E., Project Manager Carolyn Cole, Project Manager ILLINGWORTH & RODKIN, INC. Noise Consultants Richard Illingworth, P.E., Project Manager Tassos Papadimos QUESTA ENGINEERING Geotechnical and Drainage Consultants Norman Hantzche, P.E., Sydney Temple CHARLES PATTERSON Consulting Biologist GRAPHICS STAFF Graphics Lynda Wagstaff 5141DEIRIX-APP.514 i California Environmental Quality Act NOTICE OF Completion of Environmental Impact Report . F Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance F851PINE NTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REET NORTH WING-4TH FLOOR MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 : (510) 646-2035 Contact Person: James W. Cutler Project Description and Location: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR Albers General Plan Amendment, County File #4-90-EC: This is a proposal to amend the County General Plan for approximately 74 acres from Agricultural-Residential and Agricultural Core to Single Family Residential-High Density, Multiple Family Residential-Medium Density, Commercial, and Water. The site is located to • the northwest of the intersection of State Route 4 and Bixler Road. The proposed project also includes rezoning, annexations,.spheres of influence amendments and other entitlements necessary to allow the land to develop. (CT 3040.00) The Environmental Impact Report or Justification for Negative Declaration is available for review at the address below: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing - Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: August 17, 1992 October 1, 1992 By C munity Development Department ftepresentative CP/ml/albers.nd