Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 05161995 - H3
H.3 i Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa , .iliaiooQ" s County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �•, `4° DATE: May 16, 1995 os�q coUUfN t civ SUBJECT: Hearing on the Hofmann Discovery Bay West Project, Rezoning 2963-RZ, to Rezone Approximately 756. 19 acres of land to the Planned Unit District for 2, 000 Residential Units, a 10 Acre School Site, a 6. 5 Acre Park Site, a Commercial Recreational Center, a Senior Housing Village, a Marina, Lakes, Fire Station, Open Space Areas, Trails and Other Landscaped Areas. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Take testimony on the rezoning request. 2 . Accept as adequate and in compliance with CEQA the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum. 3 . Approve Rezoning 2963-RZ along with the preliminary development plan, subject to conditions as recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission (Attachment A) . 4 . Adopt the Final EIR and Addendum and CEQA Findings (Attachment B) and approve the related Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C) . 5 . Adopt the East County Regional Planning Commission' s findings as set forth in Resolution #14-1995 as basis for the Board's determination for this action. 6 . Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning, wavie reading and set forth date for adoption of same. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE O `'' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM TEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) / ACTION OF BOARD ON May 16, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X I See Addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X 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. Contact:Arthur Beresford - 646-2031 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 16, 1995 cc: Hofmann Co. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Sheriff-Coroner AN CO:N Y ADMINISTRATOR BY PAA ' , DEPUTY 2 . Other Alternatives the Board Could Adopt 1. Deny the project. A. Declare Board's intent to deny the project. b. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board action. 2 . Declare intent to approve the project with reduced number of units. A. Declare Board's intent to approve project with a reduced number of units (determine number of units allowed) . B. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board action. 3 . Refer project back to the East County Regional Planning Commission for further hearings. A. Adopt a motion to refer the project back to the East County Regional Planning Commission for further hearing and report to the Board, with direction as to your Board's intent. FISCAL IMPACT Covered by Developer's Fees. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On December 20, 1994 the Board approved the General Plan Amendment for the Hofmann property as well as neighboring properties (4-93- CO) . The designation of the Hofmann property was changed from Agricultural Land to Single Family Residential-High and Medium Density, Parks and Recreation, Public/Semi-Public and Delta Recreation and Resources. On April 3 , 1995 the East County Regional Planning Commission, after several previous hearings, recommended that the Board approve the P-1 rezoning (2963-RZ) of the Hofmann/Fallman property subject to attached conditions (Attachment A) to the preliminary development plan. On December 20, 1994 , while certifying the EIR and the General Plan Amendment for the Discovery Bay West area, the Board requested that the GMEDA staff (Community Development and Public Works Departments) try and help facilitate the resolution of several concerns regarding approval of further entitlements on the project. The Board directed the following: 1. Direct staff in GMEDA to help facilitate resolution of school facilities funding issues with the Knightsen, Byron, and Liberty School Districts. County staff has attended several meetings between the affected school districts and the developer. The discussions between the school districts and the developer are continuing. At the time of preparation of this report (late April, 1995) a resolution has not yet been reached. 3 . It should be noted that the East County Regional Planning Commission is recommending through the Conditions of Approval for 2963-RZ (Condition #33 , Attachment A) that no Board approval be given to 2963-RZ until the developer and the -school districts have reached agreement. 2 . Direct GMEDA staff (including M-8) to meet with the Discovery Bay MAC to explain information in the report done by staff on the evolution of conditions in the existing Discovery Bay community and to answer any questions they might have. GMEDA staff has provided the Discovery Bay Municipal Advisory Council with the requested information. 3 . Direct staff to assist the Hofmann Company and Supervisor Torlakson in defining the size and location or options for location of a community center to serve the Discovery Bay community. This review should include the size of the facility, it construction budget, and a financing plan for capital improvements, operations, and maintenance. Additional pro-rata share funding by other Discovery Bay area projects should also be considered. There have been two meetings between community representatives, County staff, the developer and Supervisor Torlakson regarding the community center. At this time several locations have been discussed, however, a site has not yet been agreed upon. There is also on-going discussion on the size of the planned community center. The discussions are on-going on this matter. 4 . Direct the Public Works Department to meet with Discovery Bay, Knightsen, and Byron MACS (or their transportation committees) to review the process for traffic mitigation; including the subjects of collection of fees, prioritizing of projects, analysis of needs, traffic patterns, and the on-going involvement of the effected communities and to bring back a report on these meetings to the Board at the public hearings on the rezoning. See attached report from the Director of Public Works (Attachment D) . 5. Direct the Public Works Department to work with Sanitary District 19 and the Delta Diablo Sanitary District to work on water master plan issues for supply, the need for State water permits, for fire fighting capabilities, and for the ground water backup system, etc. ; and to work with developer, the Discovery Bay MAC, and Supervisor Torlakson to resolve those issues and to report back to the Board of Supervisors on these issues. See attached report from the Director of Public Works (Attachment D) . 6. Direct staff to look into the issues on the chlorine facility on Bixler Road, dealing with safety concerns, what buffers are needed, if a warning system exists, etc. Attached are a memorandum staff has received from the Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Division. The recommendations of the Health Department are included in the Conditions of Approval for 2963-RZ (Condition #44) . (Attachment E) 4 . Staff has also contacted the East Bay Municipal Utility District regarding their plans for the chlorine facility. At this time the District is reviewing the use of gaseous chlorine and should, in 1995, decide whether or not to go to a less hazardous method using sodium hypochlorite. The District's letter is attached (Attachment E) . 7 . Direct staff to review the Marine Patrol funding issues including the potential for special tax areas to fund this service. At present developers of new residential developments are required to vote their land into new Police Service Zones prior to recording final maps; Condition #8 of 2963-RZ requires this. The present charge is $200. 00 per single family or attached residential unit indexed to the Consumers Price Index. Thus, for 2, 000 units, $400, 000. 00 would be generated each year, in constant dollars. At this time all new residential developments need to meet the above charge. However, this development plans to put in a 300± berth marina. As such it will create a further increase in boat traffic in the area. one solution would be to add $50. 000 per year to the required Police Service District, thus raising about $100,000. 00 additional each year to be directed toward funding Marine Patrols in the Discovery Bay area. of course, the County Sheriff can use part of the eventual $400, 000. 00 per year that would be generated by the normal Police Service District created for the Discovery Bay West development. It should be noted that there is no special Police Service District for any part of Discovery Bay at this time. Also attached is a memorandum recently received from the Special Districts Coordinator concerning open space and street lighting policies (Attachment F) . AB/aa BDII/2963-RZ.AB 5/9/95 cc: via Community Development Department Discovery Bay MAC Byron MAC Knightsen Town Council Knightsen School District East Bay Municipal Utility District Health Services Dept. - Hazardous Materials Division East County Reigonal Planning Commission East Contra Costa Irrigation District Byron-Bethany Irrigaiton District East Bay Regional Park District ADDENDUM TO ITEM H. 3 MAY 16, 1995 This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission on the request by Hofmann Construction Company (applicant) and Hofmann Construction Company and Edna M. Fallman (owners) for approval to rezone and for a preliminary development plan (2963-RZ) on approximately 756 . 194 acres of land from General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) for approximately 2, 000 residential units, marina, lakes, park areas, a school area, a fire station area, open space areas, a commercial recreational area and other landscaped areas in the Discovery Bay area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposed project, describing the proposed location, and the various villages and infrastructure . Mr. Barry commented on the approval of the General Plan Amendment and the school facilities funding issues with the Knightsen, Byron and Liberty school districts, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the Board not approve the rezoning until the districts and the developer have reached an agreement on the school facilities issue . Mr. Barry also commented on meetings on the location of the community center between the Municipal Advisory Committees and the developer and staff, and he spoke on the plans of the East Bay Municipal Utility District for the chlorine facility, commenting on the 'District ' s letter in attachment E. Mr. Barry further commented on modifications. to the Conditions of Approval on issues including the formation of a police services district, review of plans by the reclamation district being deleted, and other minor modifications . Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, commented on meetings with the three municipal advisory committees and the review of the project impacts, mitigations, and the traffic fee . Mr. Avalon recommended that the conditions reflect that the county not maintain the street lights and the private roads in Villages Two, Three and Four. He advised that Village One is public roads and the County would maintain the street lights there . On maintenance of wetlands on parcels E and F, Mr. Avalon advised that the County could consider maintaining them with lighting and landscaping funds . Supervisor Rogers commented on Condition 44 and the formula used to compute the cost . The following persons presented testimony: David Lennon, P.O. Box 907, Concord, representing the Hofmann Company; Dan Boatwright, P .O. Box 907, Concord, representing the Hofmann Company; Dan Smith, 20 Oak Street, Brentwood, Liberty Union High School District; Frank Hengel, P.O. Box 7, Oakley, Oakley Union High School District; Alan Newell, 2805 Dandelion Circle, Antioch, representing the Antioch Unified School District; Bob Kingsley, 601 University Avenue, Sacramento, representing the Knightsen Elementary School District; John E. Hendrickson, 77 Santa Barbara Road, Pleasant Hill, representing the Contra Costa County Office of Education; Alex Bowie, 4920 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, representing Liberty Union High School District; John Lynch, 4423 Pampas Court, Antioch, representing Pantages; John Gonzales, Box 369, Knightsen; Sherri Anderson, 2206 Sand Point Road. Supervisor Torlakson moved that the parties be asked to do everything they 'can to come to an agreement by Saturday, noon, and then meet with Supervisor Torlakson on Monday, and he further moved to continue the matter to May 23 , 1995 at 2 p.m. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the recommendations of the East County Regional Planning Commission on the request by Hofmann Construction Company and Edna Fallman for approval to rezone and for preliminary development plan (2963-RZ) for approximately 2 , 000 residential units, marina, lakes, park areas, a school area, a fire station area, open space areas, a commercial recreational area and other landscaped areas in the Discovery Bay area is CONTINUED to May 23, 1995, at 2 p.m. in the Board chambers . Attachment A ` P-1 FINDINGS FOR 2963-RZ(DISCOVERY BAY WEST DEVELOPMENT) -AS RECOMMENDED BY THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL.3 1995 Findinas A. With the imposition of the Conditions of Approval this-proposed development is in conformance with the General Plan and the General Plan Amendment recently approved for the site and surrounding area. B. With proper conditioning the Hofmann property development will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the nearby community. C. In accordance with required findings of the P-1 district, the County finds that the development is of a harmonious,;:innovative plan and justifies exceptions from the normal application of the code, including variances and parcel configuration and design to provide a better conformity with existing terrain features and land use limitations in the area. D. The applicant has.indicated that they intend to commence construction within two and one-half years of the effective date of the final project approval. s 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR 2963-RZ (DISCOVERY BAY WEST DEVELOPMENT) - AS RECOMMENDED BY THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 3 1995 1 . The development shall be based upon the following submitted exhibits except as modified by the conditions below. These Conditions of Approval incorporate and are in addition to all approved mitigation measures. A. Revised Preliminary Development Plan, Discovery -Bay West dated received January 11, 1995. B. Preliminary Streetscape - Bixler Road dated received January 11, 1995. C. Preliminary cross-section - Bixler Road dated received January 11, 1995. D. Typical play activity and soccer field area Discovery Bay West dated received January 11 , 1995. E. Preliminary development plan for proposed marina in Discovery Bay West - Villages III and IV dated received January 11, 1995. F. Geotechnical Investigation Report by Kleinfelder Associates dated February 1, 1990. G. Mitigation Monitoring Program as approved December 20, 1994 or as modified by further Board action. 2. Approved final development plans, in conformance with ordinance requirements, shall be required prior to any site development on this project area. 3. The maximum number of primary residences allowed for this project is 2,000. 4. The following major changes will be required in future final development plans/subdivisions for the site: A. Village I: 1) Redesign the area at the southeast corner of Bixler Road and Point of Timber Road to provide a more open design avoiding the use of a solid, continuous wall to separate the site from Point of Timber Road. There shall not be an exclusive project identification sign at this corner. 2) A day care center shall be developed in conjunction with the school in Village I subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. Alter- native locations can be considered. 3) Designate a community center site unless agreement has been reached with the Discbvery Bay community to provide one at a different site. 3 B. Village II: 1) Details of the recreation center and senior citizens housing shall be submitted prior to development of Village II or any portion of Village ll. The senior citizens housing area may have direct access to Point of Timber Road. 2) Provide a suitable emergency access road to the Pantages property at the northern end of neighborhood cluster C or subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. Provision for a suitable public road — in the area can satisfy this requirement..---- 3) equirement..-t3) Design houses near the park-lake area to take advantage of lake views. C. Villages III and IV: 1) Provide a final development plan for the proposed marina including recreational facilities. Consider a redesign marina by bringing the parking lot to east of marina and placing the marina further west into the community if acceptable to regulatory agencies and subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 2) Allow for a trail within the East Contra Costa Irrigation District property acceptable to the East Bay Regional Park District or other suitable public agency subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. 3) Consider a suitable park and ride lot in the vicinity of the main entrance to Villages III and IV if needed when area is developed. 4) Design houses near the park-lake areas and the marina to take advan- tage of the lake and marina views, respectively. D. Entire Site: 1) At least three different types of Plot Plans for Village I and at least four different types of plot plans, such as a cottage design with a garage at back of lot, victorian style homes, houses with the living area-porch brought forward with a 5 to 15 foot setback shall be submitted for each village. Cluster homes, patio homes and zero lot line homes shall also be considered. Modifications to the tentative map or development plan which do not adversely impact densities of village sub-areas can be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 2) Prior to recording the Final Map of any subdivision for the first phase of project, submit detailed accounting of total open space area per requirements of General Plan Amendment. 4 3) A community center shall be provided as part of the Discovery Bay West project. The location and size of the community center shall be determined prior to the filing of the Final Map for this development or any phase of this development. The Hofmann Company shall dedicate the site and pay 50% of the building construction cost, including landscaping and parking lot costs. The community center shall be constructed within 12 months of the issuance of the first building permit or provided Discovery Bay community secures its 50% share of the building construction costs. If the Discovery Bay community has not secured their 50% share of the building construction costs prior to the issuance of the first building permit,_the community center shall be constructed within one year of the community securing said funds. A site shall be designated in Village I. If a site is agreed upon in another area of Discovery Bay then the site may be developed subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. Proiect Phasing and Staff Costs: 5. The general phasing program for the development shall be acceptable to the Zoning Administrator and shall be submitted prior to any site development. A detailed phasing plan for each village shall be submitted prior to any development in a village subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. The applicant shall pay for all reasonable staff time involved in administering the Mitigation Program after aRy lefte of application fees have been exhausted. This may include payment of funds required for peer review of required reports review, field visits, and response comments or reports as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 6. The following actions shall take place before various phases of the project are developed or completely developed. A. The park area in Village I shall be landscaped and provided with suitable amenities. The cost of construction of the park can be applied toward required park dedication fees. The developer shall submit an acceptable phasing program for the park development. The park improvements shall be complete with the completion of the school, the 300th unit in Village I or prior to issuance of building permits for Village II, which ever occurs first. B. The recreation center may be phased subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The first phase of the center shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit in Village II. C. The adjacent park-trail area around the lake in Villages II, III and IV shall be landscaped and recreational amenities installed prior to occupancy of the residences in the vicinity of the nearby neighborhood cluster. Other recreational amenities such as trails, greenways paths shall be constructed in conjunction with the residential development in the neighborhood clusters. 5 D. Prior to recording the Final Map for any phase in Village III allow for a trail acceptable to the East Bay Regional Park District or other suitable public agency, subject to final Zoning Administrator review and approval, along the alignment of the East Contra Costa Irrigation District Canal to the Delta (Dredger Cut - Indian Slough) area. E. Dedicate development rights to the 200 acre Fallman Ranch east of Villages III and IV to Contra Costa County or another acceptable agency prior to recording the Final Map for any phase of Villages III or IV. Dedicate development rights to the 13.4 acres of wetlands at the southeast corner of the site to Contra Costa County prior to recording the Final Map for any portion of Village I. Street Addressing 7. At least 30 days prior to filing the Final Map for any portion of this development, plans shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department, Graphics Section, to obtain addresses and for street name approval (public and private). Alternate street names should be submitted in the event of duplication and to avoid similarity with existing street names. The Final Map cannot be certified by the Community Development Department without the approved street names and the assignment of street addresses. Consideration of historical local areas and pioneers in East Contra Costa County shall be used for as many street names as possible. Police Services Funding 8. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by future subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to the filing of the Final Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner. (MM 8.7 and MM 9.3) EMF Notification 9. Where a lot/parcel is located within 300 feet of a high voltage electric transmission line, the applicant shall record the following notice or other appropriate notice as approved by the Zoning Administrator: "The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause ads,erse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such hypotl'.n-sis is established. At this time no risk assessment has -jeen m je." E When a Final Subdivision Public Report issued by the California Department of Real Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of Real Estate insert the above note in the report. Farm Operation Notice 10. The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office for each parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own property in an agricultural area (MM 4.5 and MM 7.2): "This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased land near an agricultural area where you may regularly find farm equipment using local roads; farm equipment causing dust; crop dusting and spraying occurring regularly; burning associated with agricultural activities; noise associated with farm equipment and aerial crop dusting and certain animals and flies may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is, again, notification that this is part of the agricultural way of life near the open space areas of Contra Costa County and you should be fully aware of this at the time of purchase." Archaeological Concerns 11. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary and subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. (MM 1 1 .1) A. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 30 yards of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. (MM 1 1 .1 ) B. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. (MM 11 .1) 7 C. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved,catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. 0 1.1) Grading and Dust Control 13. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements (MM 4.1 and 6.2.1 .1): -- — A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be generally limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days and times may be modified by prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the subject village notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances may require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. 8 E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, all-weather access shall be provided to each lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. TDM Plan 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits for future development of the site, the applicant shall submit a detailed TDM Plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator (unless otherwise required by a TDM Ordinance). The TDM plan shall include measures to encourage commuting such as park and ride lots, and fiber optic wiring of residences. The approved TDM Plan shall be operative prior to final inspection of the first residence by the Building Inspection Department. The telecommuting facility is encouraged and may be designed as part of the recreation center or other appropriate location subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. (MM 6.2.2 and MM 6.2.4) Child Care 15. Provision of a Child Care Facility or program is required for this development as required by the County's Child Care Ordinance. The program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to the filing of the first Final Map. A suitable child care center should be developed in Village I in conjunction with the school site subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and an agreement by the school district. The child care center location can be modified subject to Zoning Administrator approval. The child care center shall be in operation prior to occupancy of residences (other than senior housing) in Village II or when the school is operational. (MM 8.2) Indemnification 16. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9,the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Wave Action from Boating and Bank Erosion 17. Prior to development of the marina the requirements regarding wave impacts from increased boating must be properly mitigated per the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. MM 1 .1 .7. 9 Project Construction 18. The project applicant will be required to comply with all necessary permits, including but not limited to, the NPDES permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity as well as applying for inclusion in the General Stormwater Permit issued by the State of California. The project applicant must also comply with all requirements of construction permits for Contra Costa County. The applicant must obtain C.W.A. Section 404 and Section 10 permits from the Army Corps of Engineers for construction in wetlands and navigable waterways for the marina as required by law. (MM 1.1.8) Ground Water Hydrology 19. The developer shall participate in the establishment, prior to development of the site, of a long term water quality management program, comparable to a program recommended by Luhdorff & Scalmanini of the degradation of ground water quality. The appropriate monitoring program will be one that identifies changes in quantity and quality of water and provides for responses to these changes in a timely fashion. This can best be accomplished by establishing a multi-aquifer monitoring network in cooperation with local agencies such as the BBID, Delta Diablo Sanitation District (Sanitation District #19) and ECCID. Means acceptable to Sanitation District #19 to finance the long term monitoring program shall be developed prior to site development. The long-term monitoring program shall include measures outlined in the Adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program acceptable to Sanitation District #19. (MM 1.2.1 .) 20. As recommended in Condition #20, above in the mitigation of the degradation of groundwater quality and in the Luhdorff & Scalmanini reports, the developer shall participate in the establishment, prior to development of the site, of a long-term monitoring plan for the aquifer (regular monitoring of water supply wells currently in Discovery Bay, water supply wells outside of the developments, and monitoring wells capable of monitoring multiple aquifers) would identify changes in the quantity of water. Aquifer capacity and renewable resources should be documented and properly managed to prevent overdraft. If recoverable storage capacity of the aquifer is insufficient, an additional water supply source shall be investigated and developed. A Means acceptable to Sanitation District #19 to finance the long term monitoring program shall be developed prior to site development. The long term monitoring plan shall include measures outlined in the mitigation monitoring program acceptable to Sanitation District #19. (MM 1.2.2) Vegetation and Wetlands 21 . The following measures are required for impacts to vegetation and wetlands. (MM 2.1 .1) 10 A. Jurisdictional wetlands lost as a result of direct impacts of the project shall be compensated by the restoration or creation of wetlands at a minimum ratio of 1:1. Loss of significant natural wetland communities should be compensated for at a higher ratio to be- determined by parties involved and the Corps of Engineers as part of the Section 404 permit process. B. Compensation should be of the same habitat type as affected wetlands (i.e., in-kind replacement) whenever feasible, or with the approval of Corps of Engineers, shall be of habitats of higher botanical and wildlife value. Mitigation areas should be on-site, if practicable, or located off-site within reasonable - - proximity to the project site. County policy requires that the mitigation site be located within Contra Costa County. C. Mitigation wetlands should be located in a large contiguous parcel with transitional zone and adjacent upland habitat to maximize the likelihood of success in creating habitat capable of maintaining viable populations of native plant and animal species. A buffer zone (preferably 50 ft. or greater in width) should be established and maintained around the edges of all wetland and terrestrial habitat used as mitigation for project impacts. 22. The following requirements are required for the mitigation of the damage to special status plant species. (MM 2.1 .2) A. The first choice in mitigation would be to alter the project plan to avoid direct impacts on both individuals and habitats of these species. If such action is to be taken, steps must also be taken to ensure that indirect impacts associated with the project throughout its life do not significantly impact these special- status plants and their habitat. Alternatively,subject to measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Program the project applicant shall establish replacement special status plant communi- ties located either on-site or off-site within reasonable proximity of the project. Advice on the mitigatioA project shall be sought from the California Department of Fish & Game. A means to fund over-site, long term shall be developed for this condition prior to development of a site containing or causing such an impact. Mosquito Abatement 23. Work with the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Abatement District staff to develop a mosquito source reduction and management plan. The developer shall cooperate with District staff in the development of a mosquito monitoring and source manage- ment plan. Applicant shall #und the;development of the plan. 11 Impacts to Special Animals 24. Impacts to Delta Smelt. (MM 2.2.5) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to Delta Smelt shall be taken. 25. Impacts to Southwestern Pond Turtle. (MM 2.2.6) " - Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps_m implement-the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to Southwestern Pond Turtle shall be taken. 26. Impacts to Swainson's Hawk. (MM 2.2.8) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to the Swainson's Hawk shall be taken. 27. Impacts to Burrowing Owls. (MM 2.2.9) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to the Burrowing Owls shall be taken. 28. Impacts to San Joaquin Kit Fox. (MM 2.2.10) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to the San Joaquin Kit Fox shall be taken. Noise Impacts 29. Noise impacts to wildlife. (MM 4.2) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to implement the provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to wildlife shall be taken. 30. Noise conflicts between proposed uses. (MM 4.8) New residences must be constructed so that interior DNL is 45 dBA or less and so that indoor noise levels due to single noise events shall not exceed a maximum of 50 dBA in the bedroom and 55 dBA in other habitable rooms. 12 Geology, Soils and Seismic Hazards 31. The excavation of soil around the marina and lakes must be rigorously observed by trained professionals to identify any loose, clean sand and silt and peat in cut slopes; these should be excavated and replaced with compacted fill that includes a buttress that has been properly keyed into native soils and sediments and that has been properly constructed with engineered fill. A soils/geotechnical professional site acceptable to the Zoning Administrator shall be employed to monitor this measure as needed. (MM 3.1) A. The proposed mitigation for preventing groundwater flow from the brackish aquifer into surface water is to actively monitor excavation of the lakes. When flow from sands is identified, the sand should be excavated and replaced with buttress fills, keyed into less permeable clay-rich formations below the sand and constructed of compacted clay-rich soils to discourage active flow from the aquifer. (MM 1.2.4) B. The proposed mitigation for the flow of loose soil into the lakes is the same as for mixing of groundwater and surface water. Excavation should be actively monitored, and sands from which groundwater flows, which may erode the loose (heaving) sands, should be excavated and replaced with buttress fills, keyed into less permeable clay-rich layers below and constructed of less permeable material to discourage flow. (MM 1.2.5) C. At least 45 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of a grading permit, or installation of improvements or utilities, submit a preliminary geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. D. The report required above shall include evaluation of the potential for liquefac- tion and seismic settlement. E. Record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller and%lir the County. F. At least 45 days prior to issuance of permits to grade and create the lakes on the site, a suitable geotechnical report shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator detailing means to stabilize the lake bank in case of earthquake and reduced possible liquefaction dangers in this area. 13 Impacts on Agricultural Lands 32. Suitable fencing shall be developed around projects perimeters to separate residential uses from surrounding agricultural lands and activities. (MM 7.3) Equitable sharing of the cost of the initial (and any subsequent) fence constructed to deter trespassing, etc., is to be arranged between the primary developer and any other developer who is active in the project area and benefits from the fencing if possible to do so. Impacts on School Districts 33. The Discovery Bay West project shall assure the provision of adequate school facilities and levels of service from school districts serving the.project, by way of the Board of Supervisors requiring that developer(s) shall execute a School Mitigation Agreement, which School Mitigation Agreement shall contain provisions and provide for payment to affected school districts in amounts acceptable to such school districts, in order to mitigate the impacts of their project on school facilities prior to any legislative approval of any development. (MM 8.1 .1 , 8._1.2, 8.1 .3) Increased Demand for Water and Sewer Systems 34. The site for Discovery Bay West shall be annexed into Contra Costa Sanitation District ##19 prior to recording the final map on any portion of the development. (MM 8.3) A. Completion of a water supply study and a water system master plan acceptable to CCCSD 19 for the area within the Urban Limit Line is required as a condition of project approval. The study must define a funding mechanism that ensures new development pays for improvements to serve it exclusively. B. In the study of water supply, include consideration of how to reclaim water and reuse it. Reclaiming water and using reclaimed water are encouraged by the County General Plan. 35. Annexation of the proposed project area into Sanitation District 19, predicated on agreement by the district and The Hofmann Company on condition for annexation and fulfillment of such conditions within an agreed-on schedule. Conditions would include determination of technical standards and design of the expansion of the existing sanitary sewer system. (MM 8.4) Police Protection 36. Measures to reduce or prevent crime incidents should be coordinated and include both physical design measures (including lighting for streets, parking areas, and entries; clear address signs; door and window security design and locks), social measures (including neighborhood crime watches, anti-violence support groups, and education programs), and legal measures (control in selected areas for selected types of water activities, e.g., swimming, jet skis, etc.). 14 Plans to accomplish the above shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department for comment prior to development of the site. (MM 8.7) Fire Protection 37. Before recording any Final Map negotiate to design, construct, and equip a fire station for service to the project area as required by the East Diablo Fire Protection District or its representatives. The construction of the fire station can either fully or partially - satisfy fire fees. tater nearby developments may be required to reimburse the developer on a pro-rata basis. The primary developer must also design streets and other features in the project area to accommodate fire and other emergency vehicles. (MM 8.8) Park and Recreation Facilities/Recreation Use 38. General Plan standards for neighborhood park acreage and facilities are to be met by the proposed project through arrangements acceptable to the Community Development Department by The Hofmann Company, such as the provision of "common area" acreage for recreational use. Suitable improvement of the public park may be used to partially meet park requirements as can up to 50% of the private outdoor recreational area if large enough and high quality enough private outdoor recreational areas are provided within the gated community. 39. Transfer of responsibility for security and management of the ECCID canal from the Irrigation District to another entity such as the East Bay Regional Park District, which has expressed an interest in the canal easement for development as a regional trail shall be pursued. If an agreement cannot be made, The Hofmann Company may need to make other arrangements with the Irrigation District, such as the addition of a suitable security fence. Removal of Any Rented Houses 40. The household of each existing residence, renting or living in the residences at the time of development, if not electing to purchase a unit when offered for sale, shall be provided with moving expense allowances equal to 150% of one month's rent for that unit and shall be provided with 60 days notice of the actual moving date. If no occupied residences exist this condition is moot. Right of Farming Ordinance 41 . If the County's right to farming ordinance has been adopted prior to the issuance of building permits on this site, the developer shall inform future owners of that ordinance informing them of the right to farm within the Contra Cosa County area. 15 Removal of Existing Water Wells/Hazardous Chemicals on Site 42. Any hazardous chemical stored on the site shall be properly removed and disposed of under County Health Services Department regulations. Any existing water wells on the site shall be properly capped under County Health Services Department regulations. A Level I hazardous waste assessment shall be conducted on the site prior to filing of any Final Map that verifies that the site does not contain any hazardous waste. Irrigation Districts -,-, 43. Prior to recording the final map for phases on this site, confirmation_shall be received from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District and East Contra Costa Irrigation District that any facilities they have on the site have been properly moved or removed as the case may be, or as an alternative a letter from the District may be submitted indicating that they have no facilities on the site that will be disturbed as a result of this development. East Bay Municipal Utility District Chlorine Facility 44. At present the East Bay Municipal Utility District stores gaseous chlorine one-half mile north of the north end of the Discovery Bay West site. There may be plans to remove the gaseous chlorine from the facility in the future. However, this has not been decided yet. If, when development starts on this site, the gaseous chlorine facility is still in place then the developer shall accomplish the following: A. Give all residents, homeowners, and renters full disclosure regarding the presence of chlorine at the EBMUD Bixler site. B. The development shall support a proportionate share of the cost of the Community Alert Network System (CAN), the emergency notification system being installed throughout the County (which will include the installation of a siren system). The system is designed to warn the residents of the develop- ment if a large scale accidental release of hazardous materials occurs. C. The development should ensure that the homes are as air tight as feasible by providing superior window seals, door seals, positive closure for fireplace dampers, etc. A periodic replacement program should be established as seals have a finite life. (To reduce indoor air pollution, the homes should be thoroughly ventilated prior to occupancy.) D. All homeowners should be provided with sufficient information regarding shelter-in-place and the actions that should be taken in the event of an accidental chemical release. If the facility is removed or the process is changed then this requirement can be deleted subject to Zoning Administrator approval after review by the Hazardous Matreials Division of the County Healt�,, Department. 16 If, upon further review by the Hazardous Materials Division of the County Health Department, it is determined by the Health Department that the chlorine facility could not have a significant effect on Village I,then the above condition can be modified subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval. 45. A homeowners association will be required in Villages 11, 111 and IV for the maintenance of the private roads, lakes, recreation areas, marina,trails and other landscaped areas. Road and Drainaae - 46. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department. A. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: The applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code which include, but are not limited to the following requirements: 1) In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to all applicable provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in these conditions of approval. The drainage, road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and are based on the Vesting Tentative Map, Final Development Plan dated March, 1995, submitted to Public Works. An exception to allow a 0.75% minimum grade is allowed subject to Public Works approval providing: a. The soil engineer recommends reduced grades and signs the improvement plans; and b. The applicant warrants the curb flow from ponding for five years following completion. 2) Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. This project necessarily involves some diversions of watershed. However, since these diversions generally discharge to tidal bodies of water with adequate cross section and capacity, these diversions may be considered appropriate, subject to review and approval of Public Works. 17 3) Conveying storm waters in an adequate storm drain system to a: duly organized Homeowner Association; Municipal Improvement District; or Reclamation District drainage facility serving the area, is acceptable, provided the applicant obtains a letter from that entity accepting the drainage. Provide appropriate drainage releases where public waters enter private facilities. 4) Diversions resulting in discharge of storm waters into the Contra Costa Canal or any other water conveyance or impounding facility for domestic water consumption is prohibited by the Ordinance Code. It is acknow- ledged that Agricultural lands presently drain to the ECCID facility. Landscaped areas, so long as they do not create diversions, may follow pre-existing drainage patterns, subject to review and approval of Public Works. 5) For anything in these conditions of approval, which is subject to the approval of Public Works, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. B. TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES: The project traffic mitigation fees will be collected at the time of the Building Permit for each residential unit of this development. No mitigation fees will be collected from non-residential construction. The project traffic mitigation fee shall consist of: The Eastern Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee (ECCSRTMF). This fee is for construction of the State Highway 4 Bypass. The East County Regional Area of Benefit fee (ECRAOB). This fee is to improve local roads identified on the Circulation Element of the County General Plan. ' The Project Traffic Mitigation Fee. This fee is $6,500 (revised annually to reflect inflation, using the State of California Construction Cost Index as published annually by Caltrans, as a reference) less the East County Regional Area of Benefit fee and is used to mitigate project impacts not covered by the above fees. The difference between the adjusted $6,500 Project Traffic Mitigation Fee and the ECRAOB fee shall be put into an interest earning Road Improvement Trust (Fund No. 819200-0800 or other project specific fund) to be used to mitigate off-site local road and intersection improvements as reasonably determined and approved by the Public Works Department, which are identified in the EIR or the Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program, and are not included in an established 1s area of benefit. These funds will not be used for on-site improvements; frontage improvements; the off-site improvement of Bixier Road from the project to State Highway 4; improvement of Point of Timber Road from Bixler Road to Byron Highway; the project's 50% share of the signal at the Bixler Road-State Highway 4 intersection; signalization of the State Highway 4- Discovery Bay Boulevard intersection; or any necessary construction traffic mitigation along the specified project construction haul routes. If, after the 500th Building Permit, the Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program determines that traffic assumptions have changed significantly and a modifica- tion to the mitigation is necessary, the adjusted $6,500 traffic mitigation contribution shall be modified at the 501 st Building Permit and/or the 1201 st Building Permit to reflect the additional mitigation not identified in the ECCSRT- MF of the ECRAOS. C. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: 1) Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program: The applicant shall work with Public Works to set up a Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program. The program shall allow the develop- ment of up to 500 units based on these conditions of approval, plus additional units subject to review of the traffic assumptions in the EIR. a. The traffic assumption review shall take the form of a letter report summarizing the observed project development trip generation/distribution and the most current roadway improve- ment assumptions in East County. This new information will be compared with the EIR assumptions and a reasonable conclusion made as to whether or not traffic assumptions have changed which could result in new, or additional, significant project impacts to the surrounding road network not already identified in the EIR. b. The Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program will review the traffic assumptions no sooner than at the 400th unit and the 1 100th unit, and shall be completed respectively by the 500th unit and the 1200th unit to determine if the traffic assumptions in the Environmental Impact Report are still valid (scheduling of implementation of the State Route 4 Bypass shall be considered). 1 . If the initial assumptions made are s-ill valid, the mitiga- tion measure will remain unchanged. and the applicant will be required to comply with the conditions of approval as stated, and continue to contribu_e $6,500 per unit (revised annually to reflect inflation, using the State of 19 California Construction Cost Index as published annually by Caltrans, as a reference) for additional off-site road improvements, after the first 500 units and the first 1200 units, respectively. - 2. if the traffic assumptions have significantly changed for the worse and there could be new, or additional, signifi- cant project impacts not identified in the EIR, the appli- cant shall perform a more detailed traffic study to deter- mine traffic impacts of the next phase of development (e.g., 501 to 1,200 or 1,200 to buildout) and recommend mitigation measures based on the new traffic assump- tions. The traffic study, and the proposed traffic mitiga- tion measures shall be subject to the review and approval of Public Works. The traffic mitigation measures, if different from those identified in the EIR, may be subject to review at a public hearing. Any significant project related traffic impact which cannot qualify for the ECRA- OB or other fee area will be the responsibility of the project applicant to mitigate on a fair share basis. Newly identified significant traffic impacts shall require mitiga- tion only if the level of service does not meet the adopted traffic level of service standard. The project applicant shall arrange for mitigation of such newly identified significant and warranted traffic impacts prior to issuance of the 650th Building Permit, and again prior to issuance of the 1350th Building Permit, if necessary. 3. Impacts which were identified in the initial EIR project list will be considered satisfied for that increment of time if the initial or subsequent traffic assumption review shows impacts are insignificant (subject to the review at a public hearing if required by law), and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. (FINDINGS FOR IMPACT #36, MMA.C.) C. The applicant shall submit a biannual Flexible Mitigation Monitor- ing Program update to review road intersections and the overall road system and to recommend potential expenditure of this project's mitigation funds commencing at the 650th Building Permit and continuing biannually with the last report issued at the 1900th Building Permit. d. The applicant shall pay for all reasonable and verifiable staff time involved in preparation of the traffic study, the Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program, the proposed traffic mitigation measures, and monitoring of the project and review of these studies, program and monitoring. 20 e. The project applicant shall pay its share of the costs of the future environmental review documentation required for: any necessary modification of the project EIR; new project traffic mitigation not identified with these project approvals; modification of the area of benefit to reflect additional projects as a result of Discovery Bay West; and modification of the County General Plan to accommodate the same purpose. The applicant shall only be required to pay a fair share of the cost of modification of the area of benefit program if projects are being added throughout the program areas. However, if the area of benefit is modified solely at the applicant's request to add mitigation measures from - this project, then the applicant shall bear all costs. 2) Construction Truck Traffic Mitigation: a. Prior to issuance of the first residential Building Permit, the applicant shall widen Bixler Road off-site to a minimum width of 28-feet from the limit of Permit 3031-91 and Subdivisions 7679 and 7881 obligations to the Phase 1 project entry. At the applicant's option, these widening improvements may be either an interim improvement or a portion of the ultimate improve- ments discussed in 3)c. below. If a 28-foot width has not been constructed from the southerly limit of the applicant's responsi- bility to State Highway 4, the applicant shall widen Bixler to a 28-foot minimum width all the way to Highway 4. Any perma- nent or "ultimate" improvement constructed by the applicant which is the obligation of the properties involved in the above noted developments shall be subject to reimbursement through reimbursement agreements administered by the County. The applicant shall direct construction related truck traffic to the site via Bixler Road from State Highway 4, restricting construction related damage essentially to only Bixler Road. (FINDING FOR IMPACT #66, MMB.c.) At the developers option, construction truck traffic may also use Point of Timber Road after it has been widened to 28 feet. Applicant shall improve plans, pay inspec- tion and plan review fees for these road improvements. The applicant may use Newport Drive for no more than one month as a construction detour while Bixler Road is under construction. In no case will Newport Drive be used as a construction haul route. In order to determine the pre-project road conditions the appli- cant shall, prior to project grading, provide a video road survey for the following roads: Balfour Road from Bixler Road to Byron Highway; Bixler Road north to Orwood Road; and Marsh Creek Road from Bixler Road to State Highway 4. 21 b. Construction Road Maintenance Agreement The applicant shall execute a bonded construction road mainte- nance agreement, assuring the County that the specified project haul route(s) will be maintained in a convenient, passable condition throughout the construction period. The bond shall consist of a cash bond of $15,000 together with additional security totaling the cost of upgrading of the specified project haul route(s). The bond shall be provided prior to the approval of the first phase subdivision improvement plan and shall remain in effect until the haul routes are improved to handle the traffic, or until upgraded construction is completed. C. Construction truck traffic monitoring: If the applicant uses non- designated streets for construction truck traffic, he shall repair the roads to the pre-project condition prior to filing the next Final Map, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. If the maintenance is not completed in a timely manner, the County will activate the Construction Road Maintenance Agreement for funds to perform the maintenance. d. Provide sufficient parking on-site for construction crews and associated personnel. The applicant shall not permit construction crews and equipment to park along currently existing public roads or interfere with neighborhood agricultural operations. e. Applicant shall indicate on all subcontracts, bulk and custom lot sales contracts, homeowners association documents, et al, that construction truck traffic shall use State Highway 4 and Bixler Road as construction access to this development, unless other routes have been specifically designated by Applicant as outlined in 2)a. above. 3. Bixler Road Frontage Improvements: a. Applicant shall construct Bixler Road pavement widening with the easterly curb face established by first assuring a minimum 5- foot clear distance from any ditches on the westerly side to the edge of any required paved shoulder and thereafter providing the required lane and shoulder widths, but not less than 32-feet from existing centerline. b. Existing Bixler Road shall be reconstructed, or overlayed if studies warrant. The pavement shall be striped to provide one 12-foot northbound lane with a 6-foot shoulder and one 12-foot wide southbound lane with a 6-foot shoulder plus necessary channelization at intersections from the southerly boundary of Village I to Balfour Road. 22 C. Bixier Road shall be a 36-foot road width (2 - 12-foot lanes and 2- 6-foot shoulders) from Balfour Road to the northerly boundary of Village IV. The easterly curb line shall be 32-feet from the existing centerline. The westerly portion of the existing roadway may be used as a separated southbound bike path/equestrian trail. However, delineation should not allow vehicle traffic to use this portion of the old roadway. d. Construct curb, 5-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), street lighting, landscaping and irrigation (EIR Mitigation RMCir-22). (FINDING FOR IMPACT #51, MMC.c.) e. The applicant shall be required to construct safety improvements along the frontage of the Evan's property. f. Pads for the proposed bus shelters, bicycle racks and/or lockers shall be clear of the sidewalk area at potential bus stops. g. Provide necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage along the east side only. h. The applicant may need to remove and replace the roadway if required by the grade, alignment analysis and determination of structural adequacy, subject to the review and approval of Public works. i. The applicant shall submit improvement plans and pay inspection and plan review fees prior to filing of the Final Map. 4) Bixler Road, Off-Site Improvements: a. Bixler Road: 1 . The applicant shall widen and overlay Bixler Road from the project site to the northerly limit of the proposed Subdivision 7679, Subdivision 7881 and Permit 3031-91 obligations to a 34-foot pavement width (FINDING FOR IMPACT #51 , MM.C.c.), and construct required modifica- tions to the ditch system to maintain existing capacity if necessary. The applicant shall bond for these off-site improvements prior to issuance of the 400th Building Permit or issuance of Building Permits in Villages III or IV and shall complete the improvements within one year thereafter. The applicant shall remove, replace and widen the roadway if required by the alignment analysis and/or determination of structural adequacy. If replacement of the pavement is not required, the applicant may be required to level, overlay and transition, subject to the 23 approval of Public Works. If the developers of Subdivi- sion 7679,Subdivision 7881 and/or Permit 3031-91 have not bonded and/or constructed Bixler Road to a 34-foot width all the way to State Highway 4 prior to issuance of the 400th Building Permit, the applicant will be responsi- ble for bonding and constructing the additional pavement to provide a 34-foot width over any deficient segment of Bixler Road. 2. If Bixler Road is reconstructed the minimum road grades will be adhered to. 3. The off-site Bixler Road improvements shall be designed, prior to filing of the Final Map for Village Il. The applicant shall submit improvement plans and pay inspection fees and plan review fees prior to filing of said Final Map. 4. The applicant shall provide additional right of way, if necessary for the roadway and portions of the ditch system conveying project storm waters, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. At applicant's request and expense, Public Works will obtain the neces- sary easements and rights of way. 5. It is understood and acknowledged that certain portions of these off-site Bixler improvements may be impossible or impractical to construct due to wetland regulation or policy requirements. If Public Works determines that such occasion should arise, the applicant may be permit- ted to reduce the shoulder requirements, but in no case shall less than 28 feet of pavement be provided. b. State Highway 4 Signal at Bixler Road and at Discovery Bay Boulevard 1 . Arrange for Signalization of the State Highway 4 inter- sections at Bixler Road prior to issuance of 200 Building Permits in this development if not already assured or completed by others at that time. Fifty percent of the signalization cost of the Bixler Road signal is reimbursable from the property owners at the northwest and northeast quadrants of this intersec- tion. One hundred percent of any widening costs for Bixler Road is reimbursable from the same parties. Submit improvement plans, pay inspection and plan review fees, and apply for a Caltrans encroachment permit prior to improving the intarsec,ion. ' 24 2. if the 8hx|or Road traffic signal has been inataUed, the applicant shall contribute 50% of the cost o( the traffic signal, prior to issuance of the 200th Building Parnmit, to aRoad Improvement Fee Trust (Fund No. 81S2D0-O80O) designated for reimbursement for its installation. 8' If the Bix|er Road traffic signal is not warranted prior to issuance of the 200th Building Perrnit, the need for the -' traffic signal at the State Highway 4 - Bixlar Road inter-- section shal( be analyzed by the Public Works Department nter'-sectionsho|| bmana}yoadbyth$PubUuVVork$D$partrnent prior to MUnQ each Fina) Map' up until the 1800th lot when the applicant shall contribute acash deposit, equal to 50% mfthe signal construction cost asdetermined bY Public Works,tmaCounty Road Improvement Trust (Fund No. 818300'0800)' Ztatel�Kq!:1 v. picant 5> Point of Timber Road, On-Site (Bix{er Road to the east): a. Bix|er Road to ''D" Street: 1. Applicant ohmU reconstruct Point of Timber Road to at least a 60-foot curb to curb pavement width within an 8O'footright ofway from B(xier Road to ^D" Street with Village 1. 2. Construct curb, 5'footG'inchsidewalks (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, landscaping and irrigation. 3. The right of vvoy line shall be located at }east lD-feet behind the curb face. 4. Provide necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage. 5. The applicant gh8U submit improvement plans and pay inspection and plan review fees prior to filing of the Final Map for this portion of Point 0fTimber with the improve- ment plans for the subdivision rnpr0»e'rn8ntp\anof0/ thesuUdivisiOn creating the 250th lot. 25 b. "D" Street to the Easterly Boundary of Village I: 1. Applicant shall install (on the south side) curb, 5-foot 6- inch sidewalk(width measured from curb face),necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, landscaping and irrigation and grade the ultimate roadway with construction of Village I improvements abutting this segment. The location of the frontage improvements shall provide for: ultimate widening of the roadway to a 40-foot pavement width; widening to at least a 56-foot width at the D Street intersections; and necessary conforms. 2. Construct curb, 5-foot 6-inch sidewalks (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, landscaping and irrigation along the north side of the roadway, with construction of Village II improvements. 3. Construct road with Village II improvements. 4. The right of way line shall be located at least 10-feet behind the curb face (30' from centerline). 5. Provide necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage. C. From the Easterly Boundary of Village I to the Easterly Boundary of Village II: 1 . Applicant shall widen Point of Timber Road: to at least a 28-foot pavement width; and provide necessary conforms at the easterly boundary of Village I and the easterly boundary of Village II as part of the improvements in Village 11. The curb face shall be located 20-feet north of the existing road centerline (east of Village I, the souther- ly widening, beyond 28-feet total width, shall be the responsibility of others). 2. Construct (on the north side) curb, 5-foot 6-inch side- walks (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, landscaping and irrigation with construction of the abutting portion of Village II. 3. The right of way line shall be located at least 10-feet behind the curb face (30' fron-, centerline). 4. Provide necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage. 26 6) Point of Timber Road, Off-Site (west of Bixler Road): a. Point of Timber Road from Bixler Road to Byron Highway: 1. Submit improvement plans, pay inspection and plan review fees prior to 200th Building Permit. 2. Prior to issuance of the 300th Building Permit, widen and reconstruct,-if necessary, Point of Timber Road to a 28- foot pavement width (two 14-foot lanes with 2-foot compacted shoulder backing and maintain ditch capaci- ties. This work is intended to divert project traffic away from Balfour Road (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-21) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #50, MM.B.c.) 3. The applicant with the cooperation and assistance of Public Works shall provide .additional right of way, if necessary, for the roadway and the ditch system, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. b. Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway/State Highway 4 Intersec- tion Modifications: 1 . Submit improvement plans, pay inspection and plan review fees and apply for a Caltrans encroachment permit prior to issuance of the 400th Building Permit. 2. Prior to the filing of the first final map for Village III, the applicant shall realign the Point of Timber Road - Byron Highway intersection and the Byron Highway - State Highway 4 intersection and traffic signal, subject to the review of Caltrans and the review and approval of Public Works (the Byron Highway improvements shall include 5- foot shoulders and channelization). 3. The County at applicant's request shall acquire all addi- tional right of way, if necessary for the roadway and the ditch system at applicant's expense. 4. One hundred percent of these intersection improvements and right of way acquisitions shall be eligible for reim- bursement from the ECRAOB. 7) Project Improvements (Village I Public Improvements): 27 a. Prior to issuance of the first Building Permit, approval of the first set of improvement plans or first Final Map, install signage along: Balfour Road, Point of Timber Road, and Marsh Creek Road westerly to State Highway 4; and along Bixler Road north of State Highway 4, to warn project traffic of farm vehicles and provide farm vehicle crossings(EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-23) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #52, MMD.c.) 8) Road Dedications and Reservations (for Public Roads): a. Bixler Road: Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer. of Dedication, the right of way necessary for at least the east half of the planned 84-foot right of way width along the frontage of Bixler Road. The eastern side of the right of way shall be increased at the project access points along Bixler Road to provide for channelization for turning movements to and from this development. The right of way line shall be located at least 10-feet from the curb face. Off-site, the applicant shall provide for adequate rights of way or easements for the proposed road improvements including the ditch systems,however,the County will conduct the acquisitions of applicant's costs if applicant requests. b. Point of Timber Road: Applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, an 80-foot right of way between Bixler Road and "D" Street. East of "D" Street, the applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, a 60-foot right of way, plus additional right.of way for left turn channelization and conforms along the project frontage, where this development fronts on both sides of the road. Where this development only fronts on one side of Point of Timber Road, the applicant shall dedicate at least a 30-foot right of way (measured from the centerline of the existing right of way) (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-32). The right of way line shall be located at least 10-feet from the curb face. Off-site, the applicant shall provide for adequate right of way or easement for the proposed road improvements including the ditch systems,however,the County will conduct the acquisitions at applicant's cost if applicant requests. C. Pantages access along west side of the lake: Applicant shall provide a 56' maximum revocable reservation for a public roadway for a possible future road along the westerly edge of the lake on the Pantages property (FINDING FOR IMPACT #61 , MM.M.c.), if the owner/developer of tthe Pantages property can demonstrate that this road cannot fe;sibly be located on the 28 Pantages property outside wetland and riparian areas within two years of applicant's filing first Final Map for Village II. The revocable reservation shall be for the purpose of allowing a future extension to the north to serve the northerly portion of the Pantages property, if this area can be proven to be feasibly developed, and all other portions of the roadway are located on the Pantages property. d. Access along the southeast side of the Fire Station/Park Pro- perty: Provide an offer of dedication for a 60-foot right of way between Newport Drive and the eastern boundary of this property along the southeast side of the "Fire Station/Park" property. The alignment shall be rough graded to approximate finish grades with Village I grading, but no road improvements need be constructed with this project. #�r#oixiq:r .io #�e aoad be€ng pprovat3,aha adjacent ptpperiY tyvrner shall�zpand the park site to:>campensate for ihe:road_right of way:take: e. The applicant shall provide right of way for future bus turnouts on the Bixler Road, Newport Drive and Point of Timber Road frontage of this property at appropriate locations in consultation with the responsible transit authority. Adequate right of way shall be provided for the bus turnouts, and the future bus shelters, bicycle racks and/or bicycle lockers. 9) Abutter's Rights of Access (Public Roads): a. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Bixler Road, Point of Timber Road and Newport Drive, including curb returns. Access shall be permitted at the access points specifically approved with this project. Access points shown on the Preliminary Develop- ment Plan and the following additional points shall be permitted: Another Bixler Road access point either north or south of the ECCID Canal at least 800-feet from the other project access points. . One or two Point of Timber Road access points each at the community center and multiple family areas. Emergency vehicular access locations, park and ride lots, pedestrian access points, and at the proposed RV storage area. b. Prohibit all single family residential driveway access onto major collector or arterial roads that provide project-wide circulation (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-29) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #58, MMJ.c.). 29 10) Sight Distance (Public Roads): a. In accordance with Caltrans standards provide for adequate corner sight distance at: • The project entrances to Bixler Road for a design speed of 55 miles per hour. * Other intersections with Newport Drive for a design speed of 40 miles per hour. * Other intersections with Point of TimberRoad for a design speed of 40 miles per hour. b. Provide adequate corner sight distance, in accordance with County standards, for the following intersections: * Village I: Newport Drive at "DDDD" Street, and at "ZZZ" Street; "AAAA Street at "RBBB" Street; "UUU" Street at "RRR" Street; and "VVV" Street at "RRR" Street. 1 1) Street Lights (Public Roads): a. Street lights shall be install on the public roads, within this subdivision and fronting this property, and the entire property annexed to County Service Area L-100 for maintenance of the street lighting. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by Public Works. Application for annexation to CSA L-100 Lighting District shall be submitted prior to filing of the Final Map. 12) Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities (Public Roads): a. The applicant shall construct 5-foot 6-inch sidewalks on Newport Drive from the southerly boundary of this property to Bixler Road. b. The applicant shall construct 6-foot 6-inch sidewalks on "D" Street from Newport Drive to Point of Timber Road. C. Construct a 6-foot meandering asphalt concrete sidewalk along the east side of Bixler Road from the project site to the sidewalk proposed in Permit 3031-91 (the Uidur property) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #51 , MMC.c.). Where the sidewalk is adjacent to a roadside ditch, it shall be located a minimum of 2-feet from the top of the roadside ditch. 30 OR, construct a new 5-foot 6-inch concrete sidewalk (width measured from back of curb, if adjacent to curb) along the west side of Newport Drive to Kellogg Creek, connecting with the proposed pathway location in Permit 3031-91. This improve- ment (either alternative) shall be constructed within six (6) months of the completion of the first commercial use in Permit 3031-91 or at request of Public Works. d. Provide bike lanes with a minimum width of 5-feet (width is included in shoulder) on the following streets: Bixler Road; Point of Timber Road from Bixler Road to the east; Newport Drive; "F" Street and "D" Street. Prohibit parking (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-36a) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #65, MMA.c.), or provide adequate additional pavement width. 13) Utilities/Undergrounding (Public Roads): a. All utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground, including the existing overhead distribution facilities along the frontage of Point of Timber Road and the easterly frontage of Bixler Road. b. Relocate and/or adjust utility distribution facilities, where necessary, for all other off-site improvements. 14) Parking (Public Roads): a. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along roads with inadequate width for parking, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. For lots with less than a 50-foot wide frontage a parking study shall be provided for all roadways where less than 1 on-street parking spaces will be provided for each residence. On street parking requirements may be satisfied by providing parking bays, supplemental on-site parking, or other reasonable alternatives subject to the review of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Adequate parking shall be provided within an acceptable distance of each residence, subject to the approval of Public works. b. Prohibit parking on all project major collector or arterial roads including "D" Street and Newport Drive, except where the road is widened to accommodate parking. On,the remaining road- ways, provide adequate paved width for necessary parking (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-26) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #55, MMG.c.) 31 C. "No Parking" signs shall be posted along the north side of "F" Street, unless the roadway is widened to at least a 40-foot curb to curb width within a 60-foot right of way. 15. Landscaping (Public Facilities): a. Prior to filing each final map, the applicant shall apply to the Public Works Department for annexation to the County Land- scaping District AD 1979-3 (LL-2) for the future maintenance of public landscaping and irrigation facilities in median islands, parkways, and other public project,areas not within the gated areas of Villages 11, 111 and IV. b. Prior to filing each final map, two sets of landscape and irrigation plans and cost estimates, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted to the Special District Section of the Public Works Department for review and recommendation and forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. Plan submittal shall include plan review and inspection fees. Types and size of plant and irrigation materials within the public right of way shall be designed using reasonable standards provided by the Grounds Service Manager of the General Services Department. All landscaping and irrigation facilities shall be maintained by the applicant until funds become available for their maintenance by the County after final inspection is cleared. C. Permanent landscaping and automatic irrigation facilities shall be installed within the public road parkway and median areas, and interim landscaping features shall be installed within the future road areas, if any. All work shall be done in accordance with the guidelines and standards of the County. Funding of, and maintenance of, the new plantings shall be guaranteed by the developer until the plants have been established and until funds are available through a landscaping district. The plants shall be maintained for 90 days after installation. 16. Transit: a. Certain bus turnouts, bus shelters, bicycle racks and/or bicycle lockers shall be constructed by the applicant if transit service is established prior to recording of the last Final Map for this development. The location of these facilities shall be determined in cooperation with the responsible transit authority. Preliminary locations along the east side of Bixler Road are: south of Newport Drive; south of Fallman Boulevard; north of Point of Timber Road; and north of the access at the boundary of Villages 32 11 and Ill. The installation of these facilities shall be assured prior to recording of the next Final Map after transit service is established to the project. The obligation to install these facilities shall terminate if public transit to the project is not assured at the time the last Final Map is recorded. Pads for the bus shelters, bicycle racks and/or lockers shall be clear of the sidewalk areas. b. Provide pedestrian connections from the transit stops to the internal project sidewalk system. Provide for installation of bus - shelters at each pullout if transit service begins (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-34a) (FINDINGS FOR IMPACT #63, MM A.c.) 17. School Access: a. Coordinate with the school district on the design of the school site to accommodate a one-way circulation pattern with a large student loading/unloading area separated from the main collector streets (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-20) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #49, MM A.c.) The applicant shall coordinate with the school district to allow for a bus loading/unloading area separ- ated from the automatic loading/unloading area. b. Extend "MMM" Street easterly to the school site if requested by the school district to provide better school access. Access to the school from "D" Street shall be designed to minimize traffic conflicts on "D" Street. D. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS: 1) Private Road Improvements (Villages II, III & IV): Applicant shall construct the private roads within this development to County private road standards in accordance with the typical sections on the Tentative Map, to serve all parcels in this proposed subdivision, except as noted as follows: a. There shall be no 28-foot wide private roadways (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-25 and 26), unless the road serves less than 14 residences, adequate parking has been assured and the street has roll curb. b. 32-foot private roadways within 37-foot private road easements with a 5-foot public utilities easement, and with roll curb, shall serve no more than 50 units. Additional off-street parking may be required where lot frontages less than 50 feet result in less than one on-street and two off-street parking spaces for each residence subject to the approval of Public Works. 33 C. 32-foot private roadways within 37-foot private road easements with a 5-foot public utilities easement, which have a standard vertical curb, shall serve no more than 24 units. Additional off- street parking may be required where lot frontages less than 50 feet result in less than one on-street and two off-street parking spaces for each residence subject to the approval of Public Works. The use of standard vertical curb may be desirable where the greater stormwater capacity is needed. d. "B" Street shall be at least a 36-foot roadway within at least a 41-foot access easement with at least a 5-foot public utilities easement. Additional public utilities easements and easement width shall be provided for required sidewalk areas. This width can be decreased at bridges. e. "A" Street and "C" Street shall not be less than 36-foot road- ways within 41-foot access easements with at least 5-foot public utility easements, and without on-street parking, subject to the approval of Public Works. The roadway may be reduced to a 34-foot roadway within a 39-foot access easement provided there is a convenient, two way bicycle path which minimizes the need for a bicycle path on one side of the roadway. Parking shall be allowed on "A" Street and "C" Street where the road is widened to allow parking. f. Divided portion of Fallman Boulevard and "I" Street shall be designed with at least 18-foot lanes in each direction. The applicant may widen all or a portion of these roadways to 30- foot roadways in each direction to provide for two lanes in each direction. g. The corner setback requirement for the "U" shaped roads, except for "JJ" Street, shall be designed with the area where no obstructions are allowed (see exhibit) based on the extrapolated distance fl.0'feet from curb face instead of the right of way line. The "JJ" Street "U" shaped roadway shall be designed with at least 30-foot minimum curb return radii. The other "U" shaped streets shall be designed with at least 25-foot minimum curb return radii. h. The applicant shall eliminate the "S" Street - "A" Street intersec- tion because of its close proximity to "H" Street and it's location on the inside of the "A" Street curve. The applicant may relocate the access to these lots opposite "R" Street, or another intersection subject to the approval of Public Works. The cul-de- sac must be limited to a maximum length of 700-feet. (The attached study by the applicant sat!sfies this requirement.) 34 i. The applicant shall eliminate the northerly "T" Street- "A" Street intersection because of its close proximity to "H" Street and it's location on the inside of the "A" Street curve. The applicant may: relocate the access to those lots opposite "AA" Street, or another intersection; or cul-de-sac "T" Street at "A" Street with an emergency vehicle access through "T" Street to "A" Street. The cul-de-sac must be limited to a maximum length of 700-feet unless emergency access is provided at the east end of "T" Street. (The attached study by the applicant satisfies this requirement.) j. The applicant shall provide adequate vehicle storage at entry gates and design provisions into the site plan to expand ingress capacity, by installing a third entry gate north or south of the ECCID Canal (FINDING FOR IMPACT #53, MM E.c.) The present design of "C" Street access to Bixler Road shown in the vicinity of Lot K is unacceptable. This intersection must be redesigned to provide adequate stacking length and enable vehicles mistakenly entering this access to turnaround. The redesign shall be subject to the approval of Public Works, OR, AS AN ALTERNATE, The applicant shall relocate this Bixler Road access to the north side of the ECCID Canal off of "A" Street near Lot "S". The design shall be subject to the review of Public works and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. However, a temporary secondary access may be allowed at "C" Street based on redesign, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. k. Provide traffic control signage at the easterly "A" Street - "G" Street intersection (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-27) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #56, MM H.c.) I. Prohibit all single family residential driveway access onto collector or arterial roads that provide project-wide circulation, subject to the approval of Public Works (Mitigation Measure RMCir-29) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #58, MMJ.c.). Single family residential driveway access will be permitted along the south side of "F" Street, provided that the north side is signed for "No Parking". M. Provide additional detail on the Fallman Boulevard entry feature, subject to Public Works review and approval. 35 n. Vertical rise garage doors with automatic garage door openers shall be installed where garages are 20-feet or less from the road easement. o. The applicant shall construct the "B" Street bridge to accommo- date potential trail uses within the ECCID Canal. 2) Sight Distance (Private Streets): a. In accordance with Caltrans standards provide for adequate stopping sight distance at: Village II: "C" Street at "I" Street and at "KKK" Street. ' Village III: "A" Street at "QQ" Street,at the relocated "T" Street, at "BB" Street, and at "FF" Street; "BB" Street at "DD" Street; and "U" Street at "T" Street. " Village IV: "A" Street at the relocated "S" Street, at "O" Street, at "M" Street, at "J" Street, and at "NN" Street. b. in accordance with Caltrans standards provide for adequate stopping sight distance along "A" Street and "C" Street for a design speed of 45 miles per hour where feasible, and not less than a 35 mile per hour design speed, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. The CC & Rs shall include specific provisions to maintain the area outside of the road easement, needed to provide this design speed, so that sight distance will not be obstructed. 3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements a. The design of community facilities, such as "park and ride" lots, clubhouses or community parks, shall provide for and encourage the use of bicycles. At a minimum this shall include bicycle racks and/or bicycle lockers at the primary gathering points in the project. The number of bicycle racks and/or lockers shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. b. Provide bike paths or lanes with a minimum width of 5-feet on "A" Street, "B" Street, "C" Street, "G" Street, Fallman Boulevard and "I" Street throughout the project. Prohibit parking on these streets to ensure adequate bike lane widths, or provide adequate additional width for on-street parking. 36 C. Construct a 10-foot pedestrian/bicycle path within sidewalk easements adjacent to "B" Street from "C" Street to "A" Street; and along "I" Street to provide for adequate bicycle and pedes- trian access. Where a 10-foot pedestrian/bicycle path is provided adjacent to "A" Street or "C" Street which are pro- posed to have a bicycle path or lane, the roadway width may be reduced from a 36-foot road width to a 34-foot road width. d. The applicant shall construct 6-foot 6-inch sidewalks on: Fallman Boulevard from Bixler Road to the easterly portion of "A" Street; and "G" Street from-the easterly portion of "A" Street to the marina. e. Two way bike/pedestrian paths shall have at least a 10-foot paved width with two foot clear zones on each side (FINDING FOR IMPACT #65, MM a.c.). f. All sidewalk shall match County standard plan widths in, ff. -. .. ax tfe time flf ng the 1=#Pai t�lfap 4) Storm Water (Private Drainage Facilities): a. All storm waters entering or originating within the subject property (including the outside slopes of the levee) shall be conveyed, within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate man-made drainage system or to a natural water- course. The pump station location and design shall be subject to the review of the Public Works Department, and the proposed maintenance entity, such as a homeowners association, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. b. Stormwater from the lake system in Villages II, III and IV shall be collected and conveyed in a private storm drainage system. Where pumping is required at high tide to discharge stormwater from the leveed area to Dredger Cut or from the outside of the levee to Dredger Cut, the pump system shall have an emergency pumping system subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, OR, the storm drainage system shall be designed as a passive weir system for gravity flow drainage which will not result in flooding of homes based on the 100-year storm. If a pump system is utilized to discharge stormwater into Dredger Cut, it shall be designed to operate considering antici- pated sedimentation of the lake system and an emergency pumping system. 37 5) Agriculture Access (From Private Roads): a. Provide at least a 12-foot private road in a 20' minimum access easement to Lot GG and Lot HH from the southerly portion of Village III and the northerly portion of Village IV (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-32). The access shall be improved as a 12-foot graveled roadway(FINDING FOR IMPACT #61,MMM M.c.). The applicant shall grant rights to the property owner to the east to allow access from Bixler Road for at least a 12-foot minimum width access road through the project site, subject to the approval of Public Works. The access shall be along feasible alignments, outside of wetland areas (e.g., along subdivision streets). 6) Lake Management (Private Facility): a. Submit a Lake Management Program prepared by a professional in the field which clearly specifies the following: the design parameters for the lake system; anticipated problems and proposed methods of maintenance. The anticipated problems shall include, but not be limited to, control of undesirable algae and plants; control of high nutrient levels; maintenance of adequate oxygen levels; need for periodic dredging; and potential need for cleaning up roadway contaminants and household contaminants which may drain into the Lake prior to discharging the stormwater into Dredger Cut. Provide a maintenance entity, such as a homeowners association, which includes provisions to assure perpetual maintenance (EIR Mitigation 4.1-7). b. The lakes shall incorporate a water circulation system capable of pumping the quantity of flow necessary to sustain water quality and accommodate the 100-year storm based on the proposed lake configuration (FINDING FOR IMPACT #1 , MM c.). C. Downstream drainage facilities shall be designed to collect and convey the stormwater flow based on the design storm. If the lakes are to function as detention basins with this development, they must be sized in accordance .with Title 9 of the Ordinance Code (FINDING FOR IMPACT #84, Mmc.)• The lake/detention basin will be maintained by a homeowners association and will not be publicly maintained. d. Provide screens on the lake circulation system and provide catch basins for run-off into the marina -o screen floating trash from entering the lakes and the Delta, and implement passive "best management practices" such as t-e labeling of storm drains to reduce dumping (EIR Mitigation M=-=sure 4.1 - 10) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #5, MM5.c.1. 38 e.::.: 'raar Lo recclydtrtg lrar;al Maps#or each of the Urtfages 11,tll ar�d ill;; ppfCitstlel �rrip}eta a bnC scaurng andrstgn St d'Y 3f; f3± Cter ilet3tS D# Tin aretlger Cut and # eitag �CrBe r� lyzlnct# t tMPacts res►�tt�r>g #rtirr► rr�arne tt2�#fiC ani lade lgrlat: i >- �e study vvti!Ie su6Ject to the rvlew antl aproua; r( esures he#�ire apravtng th>r seaad F,rtat#clap for each of the iiifages�#�.tf��tttd #V 1f �rfy 5�gr�t#sC.arat artt���ts �t�.�tl�nt�f�et� ap3t;;sh3i submat the#,rta9 grOUn w$terct�trtrfg pri �cir re�riew day a�eclarr�at�an f�tstrrct acid the revieu�r.and'.approval. �fi the���tng Atlrra��5t;i� flt'�r�ar tt� beg�nnir�g ar�y�cart�truCttrin �t�at regt�r>`��ewaierrng,tci comrr3ence 7) Marina (Private Facility): Provide catch basins for run-off to the marina to screen out floating trash (EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-10). 8) Emergency Access (Private Roads): Provide emergency access points at or near the following points in coordination with the fire district, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. The emergency access points shall be gated and locked unless they are combined with a regular project access. The emergency access roads shall be at least 20-feet wide, capable of supporting loads of at least 20 tons in all weather conditions, and, if gated and locked, the fire district shall be provided a master key (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-33). a. From Bixier Road to "C" Street near the northwest corner of Village 1( (EIR Mitigation Measure RMCir-33) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #62, MM O.c), and also near the southwest corner of Village If. b. From 6ixler Road to "A" Street at: ' The southwest comer of Village III (EIR Mitigation Mea- sure RMCir-33) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #62, MM Ox.). * The northwest corner of Village IV (EIR Mitigation Mea- sure RMCir-33) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #62, MM O.c.). 39 9) Maintenance (Private Facilities): a. Applicant shall establish covenants, conditions and restrictions for the development that clarifies the management of all lake improvements, private road, private storm drainage, levees, certain lighting, landscaping and marina facilities within the private portion of the development will be maintained, through a maintenance agreement, by the homeowners within the develop- ment via the homeowners association, or another entity, subject to the review of the Zoning Administrator. b. Prior to filing the first final map, the applicant shall provide a list of facilities proposed to be maintained by either a public or private entity. This list shall be subject to the review of Public Works. E. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1> Roads: a. Submit a preliminary sketch plan and profile and alignment analysis to Public Works for the following roads, showing the horizontal alignment and analyzing the roadway structural sections to determine the feasibility of salvaging the existing pavement. The analysis of the roadway structural section shall include appropriate cores, deflection tests, R-Value tests, and estimates of anticipated traffic with construction and ultimate development under the County General Plan. * Bixler Road from the project to State Highway 4. * Point of Timber Road from the project to State Highway 4. The sketch plan shall extend a minimum of 150-feet beyond the limits of the proposed work. If the grade at the project's frontage is unacceptable,the applicant shall level, or remove and replace the pavement, as necessary. The sketch plan shall also show that adequate sight distance will be provided. An excep- tion to allow a 0.75% minimum grade may be allowed subject to the review and approval of Public Works. b. Applicant shall provide deed notification to those parcels that abut roads that are to be extended in the future. The applicant shall install signage at the end of the roads to inform prospective property owners that the roads may be extended in the future. 40 C. Applicant shall furnish proof that legal access to the property is available from Newport Drive in Discovery Bay to the south boundary of this property. d. Submit improvement plans and pay inspection fees and plan review fees prior'to filing of the appropriate Final Map. 2) Drainage: a. Storm drainage facilities required by the Ordinance Code shall be designed and constructed in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. b. The applicant shall install within a dedicated drainage easement any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets to a natural watercourse or an adequate man-made drainage facility. C. All storm water arriving at the outside of the levee system around Villages 11, 111 and IV and the stormwater arriving at, and originating on Village I shall be collected, conveyed and directed in a storm drainage system dedicated to the County. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey stormwater from the west in accordance with the Ordinance Code (FINDING FOR IMPACT #84, MM c). The applicant shall provide additional drainage facilities (per figure 4.1-4 of the EIR) to direct all existing drainage and irrigation west of Bixler Road through and/or around the project to compensate for the obstruction of flow to surface drainage created by the project and ensure that the area west of Bixler Road is not adversely impacted (FINDING FOR IMPACT #1 , MM1 .C.2.). Prior to submitting the first Final Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed drainage plan to convey off-site drainage and irrigation west of Bixler Road through or around the project site along with supporting hydrology data subject to the approval of Public Works (EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-7) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #1). d. Conveying storm waters in an adequate storm drain to an irrigation district facility is acceptable provided: the developer obtains a letter from the irrigation district accepting the storm waters; the irrigation district owns fee title to the drainage facility from the point of discharge to the natural watercourse; and the drainage facility is shown to be adequate to handle the design storm, plus the district irrigation flows. The analysis shall consider the presence of low spots in the irrigation district canal which may affect the system's capacity. The applicant shall 41 provide substantiation that reasonable backup measures such as a diesel or gas fueled back up pumping system, are in place in case of pump failure and/or power failure. The back up pumps are only required if pumping is necessary to drain the canal flows. The applicant shall submit written confirmation that the irrigation district will accept the additional stormwater flows from this property based on ultimate development of the watershed. e. Storm drainage originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner shall be prevented from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. f. Utilize NPDES passive best management practices such as labeling the storm drains for no dumping. (EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-10) 3) Project Levees (Private Facilities): a. The applicant shall provide a plan for maintenance of the levees and identify a maintenance entity, such as a homeowners association, acceptable to the Public Works Department, which includes provisions for perpetual maintenance prior to filing a Final Map in Villages 11, 111 or IV (EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-7). b. Levees shall be elevated to at least elevation 11 .9 feet mean sea level with provision for the ability to elevate the levees to at least 12.9 feet mean sea level around Villages II, III and IV and in accordance with FEMA regulations (assuming anticipated subsidence and sea level rise). C. The proposed levee system around Villages 11, 111 & IV shall be constructed to FEMA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Zoning Administrator and County standards. The levee system shall be maintained by the homeowner association. d. Landscaping of the levees shall be subject to the review of FEMA and the entity which will accept the levee for maintenance, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. e. Provide deed notification and CC & Rs for elevation restrictions on applicable lots to prevent degradation or work which may adversely impact the levee system, and provide for raising levees. 42 f. The developer shall be aware that the levees protecting a portion of this development are subject to failure if not properly main- tained. The developer shall execute a mutually agreeable recordable document with the County which states that the developer (and the owner and the future owners of the property) will hold harmless Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the event of damage to the on-site improvements as a result of levee failure. 4) Floodplain Management: a. Finished floors in Village I shall be elevated to at least 10.90 ft. mean sea level. Villages 11, 111 and IV shall be protected by a levee constructed to at least elevation 11.9 ft. mean sea level with the ability to elevate to 12.9 feet mean sea level and elevated further in accordance with the County Floodplain Management Ordinance. Homeowners shall be advised through a deed notification of the potential sea level rise. (FINDING FOR IMPACT #4, MM4.C.1 .). 5) Creek Structure Setback: a. Applicant shall create "structure setback lines" over that portion of the site that is within the structure setback area of the watercourses traversing the northerly property line, Dredger Cut along the easterly property line, and any existing natural water- courses through this development. The structure setback area shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914- 14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks", of the Subdivision Ordinance. "Development rights" shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. b. If sections of roadways fall within the structure setback area as defined by the Ordinance Code, then the applicant shall submit a soils and geotechnical report verifying the stability of the creek bank in the vicinity of the public or private access roads. 6) Sanitation District 19 Requirements: a. Applicant shall complete and have fully operational the replace- ment for well #4 prior to issuance of the first Building Permit. b. Annex the project into Sanitation District No. 19 and execute a master service agreement calling for the applicant to provide or pay for its fair share of the expansion of facilities necessary for the additional wastewater and water facilities. (FINDING FOR • 43 IMPACT #83, MM.c.). Applicant shall comply with the require- ments of Sanitation District No. 19 Ordinance and the Central ..................... Contra Costa Sanitary District specifications prorfI(tg €# e (€Nlap C. Sewage treatment and disposal for the project shall be provided by Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 19. All sanitary sewer facilities serving the project shall be connected to the District's collection system. The applicant will be required to obtain a Sanitation District permit to discharge sewage into the sewage system. The applicant shall be required to pay for the fair share of any studies required to accommodate this project. d. Domestic water supply shall be provided by Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19. All domestic water facilities serving the property shall be connected to the District's distribution system. The applicant will be required to obtain a Contra Costa County Sanitation District 19 permit to connect to their existing well water system and comply with any District requirements relative to its fair share obligation to provide increased water supply. e. Thea applicant shall -^ ^^* r^^�•^-� �^ ^* pp n - - ; art�c�pte An Contra Costa County's Sanitation District #19 fe adept and e adptson and fi a water supply monitoring and management program (FINDING FOR C- UMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY, MM.c.). 7) Reimbursement: a. Certain required road improvements may be eligible for credit or reimbursement against Area of Benefit fees. The developer shall contactthe Public Works Department,Transportation Engineering Division, to verify the extent of any credit or reimbursement for which the applicant might be eligible. Prior to constructing any public improvements, or filing of any Final Map, the applicant shall execute a credit/reimbursement agreement with the County. No credit or reimbursement will be available for any improve- ments installed prior to execution of the credit/reimbursement agreement. Credit will only be given for monies that are programmed within the next three fiscal years. Any credit or reimbursement shall be based on the cost estimates included in the Area of Benefit Development Program Report only in proportion to each specific Area of Benefit improvement which the applicant is installing. 44 b. The applicant is also eligible for reimbursement from adjacent and nearby future developments as outlined in E.7)c. below. If the applicant requests reimbursement from the County from future development, the applicant shall be required to pay the County for administrative costs associated with these reimbursement agreements. The applicant shall pay the Public Works Depart- ment, Engineering Services Division, at least $1,000 or as necessary to cover expenses as they are incurred, whichever is greater, for administration costs for each reimbursement agreement. C. The applicant shall be eligible for the following reimbursement agreements: * Should applicant install the State Highway 4/Bixler Road signalization and channelization improvements. The costs, above the applicant's 50% obligation towards the traffic signal, are subject to reimbursement. These funds .may be deposited by property owners at the intersection. * Installation of any frontage improvements along the frontage of the Evan's or other properties fronting on public roads. * Installation of off-site road improvements not covered by an area of benefit, but covered by the Project Traffic Mitigation Fee paid by the applicant and collected by the County, may be credited toward the applicant's Project Traffic Mitigation Fee, subject to the approval of Public Works. d. The County will also cooperate with the applicant to "call" certain Deferred Improvement Agreements (DIAs) which may exist on surrounding properties to facilitate and expedite the construction of facilities whose installation is now justified. 8) Miscellaneous: a. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, with the exception of model homes, file the Final Map for Subdivision 7686. b. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the T'ansportation Engineering Division. 45 C. An encroachment permit for construction within the State right of way shall be obtained from Caltrans through the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. d. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Applicant and Permit Center for construction of driveways, or other improvements within the right of way of public roads which are to be improved with minor improvements not requiring an improvement plan. e. Applicant shall comply with the County TDM Ordinance and the Growth Management Program regulations regarding transporta- tion. TDM measures that could be used by the project applicant include the provision of maps showing available transit routes, and providing information to prospective home buyers on ride sharing and vanpool services. f. All public and private pedestrian facilities and access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, trails, driveway depressions, as well as handicap ramps. Provide a minimum clear width of 3.5 feet for all sidewalks. If a pole, utility facility, street sign or any other obstruction is located in a walkway, such that there is not a 3.5 foot clear width, then the walkway shall be widened as neces- sary. A note reflecting this condition shall appear on the typical section on the improvement plan. g. Applicant shall furnish proof of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of all temporary or permanent, road, drainage and marina improvements. h. Prior to filing of the first Final Map, the applicant shall pay the County for all Public Works and Community Development staff time for work reviewing and commenting on this project through the planning and approval process which has not been covered by the application fees previously paid by the developer for this purpose. 46 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant shall be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-118) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. B. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region 11 or Central Valley - Region V). C. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Sanitation District No. 19 Ordinances and Delta Diablo Sanitary District specifications and requirements. D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47,Yountville, California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. E. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. F. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800 and is also subject to modification in the future. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. The applicant is advised that the election process takes from 3 to 4 months and must be completed prior to recording the Final or Parcel Map. An additional tax may be required for marine patrol. G. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. H. Comply with the ordinance requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division and Hazardous Materials Division. 47 I. Comply with the ordinance requirements of the East Diablo Fire Protection District. AB/aa RZXIII/2963-RZC.AB 2/24/95 3/29/95 4/3/95 - EC (a) H.3 f, Attachment B BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF REZONING MAY 2, 1995 These findings are made by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ("Board"), California pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA°), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sem., the CEQA Guidelines,-and County regulations promulgated thereunder. These findings include this Board's Findings and determinations regarding the Discovery Bay West GeneFal Plan Amendment R##00 and Related Actions ("Project"), including the Project's impacts, mitigation measures, comments and responses, alternatives, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and other findings required by State law and the County Code. ' '#teirtdtguaeetf and r� sface alt erne findingsNw c vaautci atherwse bepttcalle td phis >•ezrtn :... I GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS A few general notes about these findings are in order: 1. Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the EIR. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Board in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 2. Nature of Findings. Any finding made by this Board shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this Board, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This Board intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole, and, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Board with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings. 3. Limitations. The Board's analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope and size of the Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible DBW\33390 29676.2 1 r' aspects of the Project will not exist. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 which states that "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis of the Project is the Board's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the County. In some instances, the Board's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas inside and outside of the political boundaries of the County. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the County's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The County must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. For instance, the ___.County acting alone cannot solve the air quality problems of the region. 4. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures..Alternatives, and other Matters. All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the EIR, the Project and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Moreover, the summaries set forth below, including, but without limitation, summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the EIR and other evidence have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the EIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. 5. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings are based on the numerous mitigation measures to be required in the implementation of the Project as recommended by the EIR or identified by the EIR as already having been incorporated into the Project. It should be noted in this regard that the Project is designed to be a self mitigating document, often incorporating the perceived best option among various alternatives. This Board is hereby adopting and incorporating into the implementation of the Project those Mitigation Measures recommended in the EIR, which have not already been incorporated into the Project, (with the exception of those Mitigation Measures that are rejected by the Board in the specific findings in Section III below). This Board finds that all the Mitigation Measures now or previously incorporated into the Project are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the Project in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 6. Specific and General Mitigations. The EIR generally identifies, for each potentially significant impact of the Project, one or more corresponding Mitigation Measures to lessen or avoid such impact. For ease of reference to the EIR, this document is organized in a similar manner. However, this Board recognizes that many of the Mitigation Measures described below or in the EIR may lessen or avoid DBW\33390 296?6.2 2 ' the identified impacts other than those for which they are specifically proposed. In light of the above, this Board finds that (a) each Mitigation Measure adopted by this Board (as set forth above) or already incorporated into the Project may avoid, or substantially lessen, potentially significant impacts other than the impact for which such Mitigation Measure is corresponded in the EIR or below, and (b) each significant impact identified by the EIR is mitigated both by its corresponding Mitigation Measures to the extent set forth in the EIR or below ("Specific Mitigation") and by other, non- corresponding Mitigation Measures adopted by this Board that were already incorporated into the Project ("General Mitigation"). These findings shall be applicable wherever supported by the evidence in the record regardless of whether a specific finding of an instance of such General Mitigation is made. However, the findings of --`Specific Mitigation made below are independent of, and-in no way depend on, the existence of any instance of General Mitigation except to the extent that a court may find any finding of Specific Mitigation to be inadequate or unsupported by the evidence in the record. 7. Mitigation Measures are Conditions. The Board hereby conditions the adoption and implementation of the Project on the implementation of the Mitigation Measures adopted below. All such adopted Mitigation Measures shall be considered conditions f o h Project"'t< :t.:::g �ct�3 t t e re cgs£...Y< .................se r o gs. A. Description of the Record For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before this Board includes, without limitation, the following: A. All applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the Project, including without limitation, applications for the General Plan Amendment, Preliminary Development Plan, Rezoning, Final Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, annexations, and other state and federal environmental permits submitted by Discovery Bay West to the County; B. The FEIR, including appendices; C. All County staff reports on the Project and the FEIR; D. All studies conducted for the Project and FEIR contained or referenced in the staff reports or FEIR, including appendices and any and all biological studies; E. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the Board and the Planning Commission; F. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings related to the Project and the FEIR before the Planning Commission and the DBW\33390 29676.2 3 Board; G. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the FEIR; H. All matters of common knowledge to the Board, including but not limited to: 1. the County's general plan and zoning and other ordinances; 2. the County's fiscal status; - - 3. County policies and regulations; 4. reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the County; and 5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research. 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY A. Project Description 1. Setting The Discovery Bay West GeReF I Plan A., ,,..d.,,., nt fl�zar rj concerns an area of approximately x;888= 5 acres located in unincorporated Contra Costa County, to the north and west of the adjacent Discovery Bay Community. The project is situated 3 miles from the eastern edge of the Contra Costa County line and approximately midway between the northern and southern boundaries. There are 34-47. separate parcels located with the rezoning area. The- naj90ty fia of these parcels are 10 acres or less but there are also several large parcels including one of more than 250 acres. The current uses of the parcels in the General ............. ... Plan Amendment rezorfr.... area are agriculture and rural residential. The land is flat :........: .. .: .. ..... .... . with an elevation near sea level. Agricultural production is limited by the poor quality 0f most of the project areas soiIs ' p t:e1s r� .lie ��:�ontng area ark o rr, Y z pd A 2 nc#, .. 2. Project Description The Project consists of a GeReF I Plan AmeAdFneRt R'e anin >for approximately 4-,G" 755acres to the north and west of the adjacent community of Discovery Bay. The Zr g:changes the existing DBW\33390 4 29676.2 DsigRa ieR to A.2.r�'; 'd.A:"�. to roni►dnn+inl ►nn►n.+�:nn.+l nnrd n4hn► +# '�7J'r-ru'i�`v' .S Planned UC11 level mQni +I Fs-raRa�s$e�TruR j Inn►J nhnn n►n ird.+niifinrl in Rnnnlutinn The Hofmann Company project, whish f9FFRS the laFgest bigsk ef paFeels, proposes to build a water-oriented residential community of 2,000 homes in four sections ("Villages"), a marina occupying a total of 12 acres jts< >a> esstarrel Y 9 ...... .....;:;:;::::.: an athletic/recreational facility occupying six acres in Village II, and associated infrastructure including 16.5 acres of space for an elementary school, park, community center and a fire station in Village 1. Village I-would have public streets while the other three Villages would be private gated communities. The first phase of the development would be Village I, encompassing approximately 97 acres and 332# housing units with a net residential density of 6 = 1 units per acre. Village I is proposed to include a school and park site, and a fire station. ertsrttes an <: nt Count:> haVillages II, III, and IV would follow the construction of Village 1. Each of the Villages, 11 through IV, would contain a lake site of a approximately 20 acres. Village II is approximately 137 acres with 519 housing units at a net residential density of 5.9 units per acre west of the lake and 4.3 units per acre east of the lake. Village III is approximately 152 acres with 601 housing units at a net residential density of 6.2 units per acre west of the lake and 4.3 units per acre east of the lake. Village IV is approximately 160 acres with 556 housing units at a residential density of 6.2 units per acre west of the lake and 4.3 units per acre east of the lake. Further, the project provides open space in the form of linear corridors along the utility easements and the Fallman canal. It also provides open space on approximately 200 acres east of Villages III and IV, at the north end of Village IV, on the areas surrounding the lakes in Villages II, III, and IV, at the southeast corner of Village I, and various other landscaped areas through out the project. The total amount of this open space is approximately 320 acres. B. Project Approvals Discovery Bay West has requested three sets of approvals from Contra Costa County to accommodate the development of the Project. a. General Plan Amendment As described above, Discovery Bay West has-applied for an amendment to the County's general plan (the "GPA"). As discussed above, the GPA applies to both the Hofmann project as well as other properties within the GPA area but not included in the Hofmann development. The East Contra Costa County Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") held a public hearing on December 5, 1994, at which time the DBW\33390 29676.2 5 Planning Commission recommended that the Board approve the Project. " i�ecerr�ber 20, "�994 the C on�ra Costa�our}ty Bnar�i of �uperv>Ssors held a pubiit heann'g at wh,ch dime:they eert�fied the f~ir3a Ei as complete and aroired the . General Pian Amendmer}t . b. Rezoning Discovery Bay West has requested the County to rezone the Project Site to the County's P-1 district (Rezoning 2963-RZ) ursuant to Contra Costa County Code Chapter 84-66 Article 84-66. art Apni 3t 'i996 the i=ast Caur�tyeg�©real P>annfn GoMmisson xecommen s e apprcvai of the reacntr g and preli ria c exelopm€er t -- .................. n Fo nal Develeament Plan The Fi nr�lll Deyelepment Plan ("FDP") shewss a single family FnnideRtinl mars t Fk r t (40 aG Delta Fes), n and U Fee t .. .. ftnma : ..I]erec eni;>�ta C�scouer r I a W s hay requ....pt the ....................o pprov$a pre[mrnar r deveiaprr#er�t...ptfbeP£ ° :: 3...> Z ptrunt tp. pntra. ost .Caurty Ctde.. hr 8 - Arttcle; 6 Th3Phaw ::asi Iartlsdertal. r (47 x Pt. :..: . . . . ... :::::::::::.::::::::: :.: ::.:::::�,3::.:..:::::::::.:Y::..:..:::.::..:..:....:.::...:.............::...........:::... ares , Pa>'keCree er ares (9fi 2 ac es , PE }IIC anc seen F� #l3C u O au x Jetta,l ecreat�Qn and e< 0 6 aoras}, anti € peri Space ( 6 2 acres ' .fie u an uses shorn oh the.PI]P�o .ef:a...... m eter�r 8 t 5 c s d. Vesting Tentative Map Discovery Bay West has requested approval of a vesting tentative parcel map (the "VTM")(Subdivision 7686), prepared pursuant to Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code. e >> <`<< gnat:>IC a eloAntei fi'Plait The Fatal Development Dian "PDP") Deveicpment Ptan 302 91 = shows s�ngte farniy anc mea farntly;rpsdehtiat ar$as, rac ante tecreatn ar$as, corner;�; l vehIcutat storages putirc and serp ptac use, anti open space Thelrban uses. shtavra o the p[-P cover a pprflxirraately 48 66 aeras DBW\33390 6 29676.2 B. The Environmental Impact Report 1. Preparation of the E1R The County prepared an initial study (the "Initial Study") to determine whether an environmental impact report should be prepared for the Project. The Initial Study indicated that the Project could have significant adverse environmental impacts, and the County accordingly determined that an environmental impact report was necessary. A notice of preparation (the "NOP") of a draft environmental impact report was prepared and circulated to various state agencies, interested organizations and to any person who had filed a written request for notices with the County. '- —" A draft environmental impact report (the "DEIR") was prepared by the County pursuant to the Initial Study and the NOP. The DER was published for public review and comment on August 9, 1994 and was filed with the State Office of Planning & Research under State Clearinghouse No. 93033031. The DER was available for review and comment by concerned citizens and public agencies for a period of 71 days. The review and comment period expired on October 14, 1994. On September 12 and October 3, 1994, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive oral testimony regarding the DEIR. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that all comments be received and responded to. The County prepared written responses to comments received during the comment period and at the Planning Commission hearing. The FEIR (which includes the DER and comments and responses) was published and made available to responding agencies in October, 1994. The FEIR was submitted to the Planning Commission with a recommendation by staff that it be recommended for certification. At a duly noticed public hearing on December 5, 1994, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of the FEIR. After considering the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission voted to recommend certification of the FEIR. 2. Certification of the FEIR In adopting these findings, the Board certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented to the Board, which reviewed and considered the information in the EIR prior to approving the Project. By these findings, the Board ratifies and adopts the findings and conclusions of the FEIR except as otherwise set forth herein. The certification of the FEIR and these findings represent the independent judgment of the Board. The FEIR concludes that many environmental impacts of the Project are significant but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, while a number of impacts will remain significant even after being substantially lessened or avoided by the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures. The Board's findings regarding DBW\33390 7 29676.2 these impacts are set forth in Section III. Further findings regarding impacts that will remain significant after mitigation are set forth in Section VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations). 3. Evidentiary Basis for Findings These findings are based on substantial evidence contained in the record before the Board, as more particularly described below. For ease and clarity of reading, specific citations to information in the record upon which each finding is based may have been omitted. In most instances, however, these findings are based on the information contained in the FEIR, as supplemented with information provided by staff reports, and reasonable Inferences drawn form such information. 4. Findings Regarding Mitigation Measures The Board hereby makes the following general findings regarding mitigation measures: a. Mitigation Measures Adopted The Board adopts the mitigation measures set forth below, which mitigation measures are based on those recommended in the FEIR. These mitigations measures will be implemented as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval adopted by this Board. b. Effect of Mitigation Measures Except as otherwise stated in these findings, this Board finds that the significant environmental impacts of the Project will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the adopted mitigation measures. III. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED BY THE INITIAL STUDY TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT SURFACE WATER Impact #1 Drainage a. Description of Impact. Runoff from portions of the project will increase approximately 100 percent due to the increase in impervious surface. Most of this runoff will drain into the project's interior lakes instead of towards the east. Total runoff during a 100-year storm event could raise the level of the interior lakes by 14 DBW\33390 29676.2 8 inches. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation incorporated into the Proiect. The project will incorporate a water ciroulation__system=capable of-pumping approximately 19 cfs. This pumping capacity is capable of removing the-tofal volume of a 1Myear storm event in 2 days. 2) Mitigation proposed in the EIR. The applicant shall provide a plan for the maintenance of the lakes, drainage facilities, and levees along with a maintenance entity acceptable to the County Department of Public Works. The applicant shall also provide additional drainage facilities (per figure 4.1-4 of the EIR) to compensate for the obstruction of flow to surface drainage created by the project and ensure that the area west of Bixler Road is not adversely impacted. (EIR page 4.1-7) d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on surface drainage. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would prevent the level of the interior lakes from reaching flood potential during a 100- year storm event and prevent project related runoff from flooding areas west of Bixler Road which reduces the impacts to a less than significant level. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing drainage system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #2 Flooding on Kellogg Creek a. Description of Impact. Kellogg Creek overflows its banks in a 100 year flood DBW\33390 29676.2 9 event. The creek would flow in sheets eastward once its banks overflowed. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because according to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the Project is located outside the Kellogg Creek "drainage area.° c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation Outside of the Project. Contra Costa County Flood Control =- a-nd Water Conservation District has prepared an engineering study Which proposes solutions to the Kellogg Creek flooding problem. The plan would form Drainage Area 109 and collect fees from development within the drainage area. The study excludes the project from DA 109. 2) Mitigation proposed in the EIR. None proposed. d. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential impacts of the project on the flooding of Kellogg Creek. Impact #3 Flood Plain a. Description of Impact. Much of the proposed project is located in the 100- year flood plain, as identified by FEMA. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. If the residential project precedes the drainage improvements, the planned site improvements must be elevated at least 1 foot above the peak water surface elevation. c. Proposed Miti ation. 1) Mitigation incorporated into the Project. The Project proposes to raise house pads in Village I so that they will be at 10.9 ft msl and there will be a levee constructed around villages 11,111, and IV which will be at 11.9 ft msl. 2) Mitigation proposed in the EIR. None proposed. DBW\33394 29676.2 10 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and which are described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the potential flood plain impacts of the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to development in the flood plain have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would either raise development above the flood plain or protect _ development in the flood plain with levees. vThis would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Project's location within the 100-year flood plain, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #4 Sea Level Rise/Subsidence a. Description of Impact. The combination of subsidence and projected sea level rise could lead to project flooding b. Findings Reciarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation proposed in the EIR. The proposed levees shall be raised to 11.9 feet and the minimum pad level in Village I should be 10.9 ft. Further, future homeowners shall be advised through a deed notification of potential sea level rise. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project from potential sea level rise. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the DHW\33390 1 1 29676.2 EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential increase in sea level have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in.subparagraph d. above, because the measures would either raise the housing pads above flood level with a projected sea level rise or block that flooding with adequate levees. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential flooding due to the projected sea level rise, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. -- _ — Impact #5 Surface Runoff Water Quality. a. Description of Impact. The runoff from the proposed project will contain grease, oil and other urban pollutants. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the water quality from the urban runoff is environmentally superior to the runoff currently flowing from the site due to the reduction in pesticides, fertilizer and other agricultural pollutants. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project provide screens on the lake circulation system and provide catch basins for runoff into the marina to screen floating trash, and implement passive °best management practices" such as the labeling of storm drains to reduce dumping. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on surface runoff water quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project on surface runoff water quality is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the degradation of DBW\33390 29676.2 12 surface runoff water quality due to the contamination by urban pollutants, as more fully ' stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #6 Water Quality Impacts from Construction. a. Description of Impact. The construction activities such as the excavation of the lakes and the necessary breaching of levees could increase the short term sedimentation of adjacent Delta waterways. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board -- .- concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact that could arise=from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that Project obtain and comply with the condition of all necessary permits related to such construction activity including but not limited to the NPDES permit for storm water discharges, a General Stormwater Permit issued by the State of California, Contra Costa County construction permits, CWA Section 404 permits and Section 10 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and a permit from Reclamation District 800 for breaching its levees if necessary. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project construction on surface water quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings_Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impact of the Project construction on surface water quality will be reduced to a less than significant level because "best practices" measures contained in the required agency permits will significantly reduce the amount of sedimentation occurring due to Project construction. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the degradation of surface water quality due to the construction of the Project, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #7 Waves and Bank Erosion. DBW\33390 29676.2 13 a. Description of Impact. The project will result in an increase in boat traffic which will increase the wave action along the banks of Kellogg Creek thereby increasing erosion of the banks. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. -Proposed Mitigation. Th-a--EIR proposes two altemative-mitigations — measures. 1) Widen and deepen the downstream end of Kellogg Creek (near Tract 5811) reducing the speed necessary to maintain steerage in the channel. This could also entail annexation of the Project into Reclamation District 800 for the purpose of levee maintenance. or 2) Relocate the project marina to a location identified in the Relocated Marina Alternative or the Modified Relocated Marina Alternative identified in the staff report and the applicant's comment to the DEIR. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the first proposed mitigation measure identified in subparagraph c is infeasible because the widening of the Kellogg Creek Channel could lead to significant environmental impacts of its own and such mitigation measure is off the project site, on property which is out of the proponents' control. The Board finds that the second mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the stability of the banks of Kellogg Creek. The Board hereby adopts the second proposed Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the increased erosion of the banks of Kellogg Creek have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because relocating the proposed marina would eliminate the increased boat traffic from the Kellogg Creek area, thus eliminating the increased wave action along the Creek. Impact #8 Boating and Water Quality. DBW\33390 29676.2 14 a. Description of Impact. The project will increase the amount of contamination of surface waters coming from boating activities. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because there will be no oil or gas service at the marina docks reducing potential contamination from those sources and contamination from normal boating operations would not be significant relative to the total amount of boating activity in the area. c. Proposed Mitigation. The board finds that no measures are necessary to _. mitigate any potential impacts to surface-water quality from boating activity. Impact #9 Hydrology (Groundwater Degradation) a. Description of Impact. The project will increase the withdrawal of groundwater for domestic supplies potentially leading to the degradation of groundwater supplies due to downward migration of low quality water. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project participate in a long term monitoring and management plan which would monitor the flow of groundwater, regularly sample water from the Tulare aquifer, define the recharge of the aquifer and identify standard well construction and maintenance practices. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on ground water quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential groundwater have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would closely monitor groundwater quality and allow for a prompt response DBW\33390 1 5 29676.2 • to a potential degradation of groundwater quality. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the degradation of ground water quality due to the. increased use of Tulare aquifer water, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #10 Hydrology (Aguifer Overdraft). a. Description of Impact. The project will increase the withdrawal of groundwater for domestic supplies potentially leading to the overdraft of the Tulare Aquifer. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project participate in a long term monitoring and management plan which would monitor the supply of water in the Tulare aquifer, identify changes in the quality and quantity of water from the Tulare aquifer, identify potential alternatives to water from the Tulare aquifer, determine, over time, aquifer extent and safe pumping yield using analytical methods or a numerical model of the aquifer, and identify optimal well locations. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on ground water supply. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts.Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential groundwater have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure. adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would closely monitor groundwater supply and allow for a prompt response to a potential overdraft of groundwater. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the groundwater supply due to the increased use of groundwater, as more fully stated in the Statement DBW\33390 29676.2 16 of Overriding Considerations. Impact #11 Hydrology (Land Subsidence). a. Description of Impact. The project will increase the withdrawal of groundwater for domestic supplies potentially leading to land subsidence. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. - - c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project should have minimum pad elevations in Village I of 10.9 ft. msl and should locate wells such that mutual pumping interference can be avoided, thus minimizing overdraft. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on potential subsidence. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential of subsidence have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would establish a minimum pad elevation and substantially avoid the risk of land subsidence due to mutual pump interference. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the groundwater supply due to the increased use of Tulare aquifer water, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #12 Surface Water Contamination from Groundwater a. Description of Impact. Because the lakes are constructed below the level of the shallow brackish groundwater aquifer, it is possible that the brackish water could contaminate the lake water. DBW\33390 29676.2 17 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the levels of the lakes will be kept at a level higher than the groundwater table causing the water gradient to flow from the lakes to the groundwater and not from the groundwater table to the lakes. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are needed to mitigate any potential contamination of the lakes with brackish groundwater after construction. Impact #13 -- -- Flow of Loose Soil into Lakes a. Description of Impact. After excavation, loose saturated soil may flow into the lakes causing siltation. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Replace loose sand soils with buttressed fills keyed into less permeable clay soils. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the potential siltation of the lakes from loose soils along the banks. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential siltation of the lakes have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would prevent soils from flowing into the lakes. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to siltation of the project lakes, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OBW\33390 -8 29676.2 Impact #14 Vegetation and Wetlands. a. Description of Impact. Project would result in the direct loss of at least 12.6 acres of wetlands presently on the site. b. Findings Regarding arding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project restore or create replacement wetland habitat at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with the replacement acreage located either on site or off-site within a reasonable proximity of the project. The replacement habitat should be a large contiguous parcel surrounded by a 50 ft buffer. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on wetlands habitat loss. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the loss of alkali wetland habitat have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide replacement habitat of such an amount that the standards of both the Contra Costa General Plan and the Corps. of Engineers would be met and there would be no net loss of wetland habitat. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the loss of alkali wetland habitat, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #15 Damage to Special status Plant Species. a. Description of Impact. Project would cause indirect impacts from increased boating activity which could result in the loss of Mason's Lilaeposis, California hibiscus and Suisun marsh aster all of which are special status plants. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33390 29676.2 19 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project create replacement special status plant communities located either on site or off-site within a reasonable proximity of the project. Advice on the mitigation sites and techniques should be sought from the California Department of Fish and Game. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on special species plant loss. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation_. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the loss special status species plants has been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would provide replacement habitat such that the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game would be satisfied that there would be no net loss of special status species plants. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the loss of special status species plants, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #16 Native Wildlife a. Description of Impact. The project will result in the loss of some habitat for a variety of native species. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the loss of habitat is insignificant relative to the total amount of habitat available for those native species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for native species. DBW\33390 29676.2 20 Impact #17 Fisheries a. Description of Impact. The construction activity from the project and potential chemical contamination from the projects lakes could have adverse effects on the Delta fisheries. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the water quality from the project runoff is superior than that currently running off the site. c. Proposed Mitigation. Insure adequate main-channel mixing to dilute any runoff. d. Findings Regarding Pr000sed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on fisheries. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project to fisheries is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the damage to fisheries, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #18 Mosquito Production. a. Description of Impact. Project lakes, channels and created or restored wetlands would increase mosquito breeding activities. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the applicant should aid the DBW\33390 2 1 29676.2 Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District in developing a source reduction and management plan which would include the reduction of shallow water environments and natural biological mosquito control: d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on mosquito production. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project`relating to the production of mosquitos have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would actively control mosquito populations and reduce mosquito breeding habitat. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the production of mosquitos, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #19 Impacts to Delta Smelt. a. Description of Impact. Project construction activity could lead to increased sedimentation which in turn could lead to the loss of Delta Smelt which is a special status species. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project is not within the critical habitat area of the Delta Smelt and because the sedimentation would be short in duration. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes to minimize construction activity which could lead to sedimentation during the period of December to July which is the spawning and migration period for the smelt. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Delta Smelt. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. DSW\33390 2 2 29676.2 e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project the Delta Smelt is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Delta Smelt, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. -Impact #20 Impacts to Southwest Pond Turtle. a. Description of Impact. The Project may indirectly impact the Southwest Pond Turtle because the increased boat activity may disrupt their aquatic habitat. The Southwest Pond Turtle, while still a candidate for the Endangered Species List, has recently been denied full listing status by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because the project could potentially reduce the population of the Southwest Pond Turtle a special status species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the County enact and enforce a boat speed limit of at least 20 mph or less along Dredger Cut. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Southwest Pond Turtle. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially- Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the Southwest Pond Turtle have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures will reduce high speed boat traffic, especially that associated with water skiing, will reduce impacts caused by wave generated erosion, noise, and physical disturbance which most effect the breeding population of the Southwest Pond Turtle. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Southwest Pond DBW\33390 2 3 29676.2 Turtle, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #21 Impacts to Aleutian Canada Goose. a. Description of Impact. The Project is in the general vicinity of the Aleutian Canada Goose's wintering area may reduce the Goose's potential winter foraging habitat b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced -- impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the available information indicates that the project site is not an important wintering foraging site for the Aleutian Canada Goose. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR suggests that the Project consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife`Service regarding the necessity of providing replacement foraging habitat such as corn fields. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is not necessary or appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Aleutian Canada Goose because all available studies performed to date indicate that the project site is not an important winter foraging ground. The Board hereby rejects such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project the Aleutian Canada Goose is less than significant without the proposed mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Aleutian Canada Goose, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #22 Impacts to Swainson's Hawk. a. Description of Impact. The Project will remove up to 240 acres of Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat and construction activity may disturb nesting pairs of Swainson's Hawk. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33390 2 4 29676.2 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because the project could potentially reduce the habitat of the Swainson's Hawk a State listed threatened species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project replace the amount of foraging habitat pursuant to the following methodology described in more detail in the EIR (pages 4.2-29 and 4.2-30). Following evaluation according to the above referenced protocol and based on the CDFG 1994 survey of Swainson's hawks, if any of the project site is within a 7 mile radius of an active Hawk nest and also contains highly preferred foraging habitat or less preferred foraging habitat, it shall be replaced with lands of highly preferred foraging habitat at a 1:1 ratio for a loss of highly preferred habitat and 0.5:1 for a loss of less preferred habitat. Replacement habitat should be on-site if possible. In addition, the EIR proposes that construction activity on the project, within 1,300 feet of Hawk nesting activity, be suspended between March 1 and September 15. Also, any existing tree within 50 ft of a Delta waterway, which could be a potential nesting site which is removed should be replaced by three native oak or cottonwood saplings. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Swainson's Hawk. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to, the Swainson's Hawk have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would cause any lost Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat and nesting sites to be replaced and would prevent any disturbance to nesting Hawks. (2) Remaining_Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Swainson's Hawk, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #23 Impacts to Burrowing Owl. a. Description of Impact. The Project will directly impact the Burrowing Owl because it will eliminate Owl habitat. DBW\33390 2 5 29676.2 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because the project could potentially reduce the population of the Burrowing Owl a special status species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes to conduct a pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owl dens. Existing dens that can be incorporated into planned open space will be so incorporated as long as 6.5 adjoining acres can be maintained as foraging space. Where incorporation into exiting open space is not used, passive relocation techniques should be used to relocate individual pairs to suitable off-site habitat which would include a 2:1 burrow ratio. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the Burrowing Owl. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the Burrowing Owl have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would either preserve or replace Burrowing Owl dens located on the project site and prevent the disturbance of Owl nesting. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Burrowing Owl, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #24 Impacts to San Joaquin Kit Fox. a. Description of Impact. The Project may eliminate 376 acres of potential foraging habitat of the San Joaquin Kit Fox a special status species as well as subject them to potential vehicle hits. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because the project could potentially reduce the population of the San Joaquin Kit Fox a special status species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The applicant should consult with the FWS to determine the extent of actual habitat loss, and the amount of mitigation habitat, if any, DBW\33390 2 6 29676.2 is required by the Federal Endangered Species Act. The EIR also proposes to conduct a pre-construction survey to locate existing Kit Fox dens and if any are located to: 1) avoid known den sites during construction, 2) impose speed limits on access and project roads, 3) cover open pits and trenches during construction, 4) impose pet regulations such as fencing of dogs, and 5) impose restrictions of the use of pesticides and rodenticides. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the San Joaquin Kit Fox. The Board hereby - _ adopts such Mitigation_Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the San Joaquin Kit Fox have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would replace any actual loss of Kit Fox foraging habitat and reduce the disturbance and loss of Kit Fox dens on the project site. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the San Joaquin Kit Fox, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SOILS, GEOLOGY, and SEISMIC HAZARD Impact #25 Soils, Geology, and Seismic Hazard. a. Description of Impact. The slopes cut in native soil around the marina and lakes could be subject to instability. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Excavation of soil around the marina and lakes should be observed and any loose or unstable soil types should be replaced with compacted fill that includes a buttress that has been properly keyed into native soil. DBW\33390 2 7 29676.2 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on constructed fill. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential geologic hazards of constructed fill have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. _above, because the measures would repair any fills-subject to instability. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the geologic hazards of constructed fill, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #26 Conversion of Farmlands. a. Description of Impact. 382 acres of the project site could be classified as prime and the project would result in the conversion of those acres to urban uses. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because agricultural capacity and quality of the land in question is severely limited by the presence of Boron and salinity in the soil. This limitation on the productive capacity of the land as well as its designation by the County as being outside the "Agricultural Core" reduces the conversion of such land to a level of insignificance. c. Proposed Mitigation. None proposed. Impact #27 Slope and Soil_ Instability. a. Description of Impact. Structures constructed on graded slopes of 15% or greater within the project would be unstable and subject to landslides. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because there are no structures to be constructed on slopes of 15% or greater. DBW\33390 2 8 29676.2 c. Proposed Mitigation. None proposed. Impact #28 Mass Grading Impacts. a. Description of Impact. Mass grading on the site including compaction, over- covering, displacement and disruptions to the soil, and changes in topography and ground surface relief will impact soil resources. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact_.that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. None proposed. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mass grading on the site is unavoidable and unmitigable. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any impacts relating to the mass grading of the site, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. NOISE Impact #29 Noise Impacts on Wildlife-Construction Noise. a. Description of Impact. Construction noise may disturb the breeding and foraging of special status species. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Swainson's Hawk: no new disturbance within one quarter mile around an active nest; 2) Burrowing Owl: fence off active dens with a minimum radius of 100 ft; 3) San Joaquin Kit Fox: avoid active den sites during DBW\33390 2 9 29676.2 construction through exclusion zones. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of construction noise on wildlife. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the - - project relating to the construction noise on wildlife have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, adequate buffer zones and time restrictions on construction activity have been established and will minimize disturbance to special status species. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to construction noise on wildlife, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #30 . Construction Noise and Adjacent Uses. a. Description of Impact. Construction activities may create noise levels which will disturb adjacent land uses including residential property. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that construction take place during normal working hours in areas which are noise sensitive to adjacent land uses. Further, stationary noise sources are to be located away from noise sensitive adjacent land uses and adequate muffling and enclosures are to be used when appropriate and possible. All vehicle traffic is to obey traffic regulations with regard to speed and noise suppression and should operate only during normal work hours. Construction vehicle routes should also avoid schools and other especially sensitive land uses where possible. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the noise impacts to project residences. The Board hereby adopts such DBW\33390 3 O 29676.2 Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the projected noise levels have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would decrease the projected outdoor noise to acceptable levels as defined by the County General Plan, (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts to adjacent land uses related to construction activity, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #31 Noise Conflict Between Agricultural Activities and Adjacent Residential Uses. a. Description of Impact. Noise generated by adjacent agricultural activities may negatively impact the project's residential activities. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project locate residential uses at least 100 feet away from adjacent agricultural operations. Project residences should be constructed with sound reducing techniques such that the interior sound level in the residences will conform to County General Plan DNL levels. Further, sound walls or berms and landscaping should be used to reduce noise and excessive DNL. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the construction noise impacts to residences from adjacent agricultural uses. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: DHW\33390 9676.2 3 1 (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the projected agricultural noise levels have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would reduce the audible agricultural noise to an average level consistent with County General Plan DNL levels. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to adjacent agricultural uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #32 - Residential Noise Impacts to Wildlife. -- - _ a. Description of Impact. Noise generated by residential development within the project could disturb wildlife. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant impact because noise levels will not be high enough to cause a loss in special status species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the residential perimeter be landscaped with vegetation or constructed with sound walls. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the noise impacts from residences on wildlife. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project related to residential noise on wildlife is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to residential uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #33 Noise Impact on Off-Site Residents Due to Additional Water Craft. a. Description of Impact. Noise generated by additional water craft will DHW\3339-0 3 2 29676.2 negatively impact adjacent residents in the vicinity of Kellogg Creek. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project marina be relocated to another part of the project to the north of its planned location. The location identified in the staff report or the applicant's comment letter is satisfactory. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that-the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the water craft noise impacts to residences near Kellogg Creek. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the noise impacts from watercraft on residence near Kellogg have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the watercraft activity would be eliminated in that area. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to watercraft activity near off-site residences, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #34 Recreational Noise Impacts to Wildlife. a. Description of Impact. Noise generated by increased boating activity generated by the project could disturb wildlife. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant impact because noise levels will not be high enough to cause a loss in special status species. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that boat speed limits be posted and enforced through channel waterways and existing channel berms be allowed to remain DBW\33390 3 3 29676.2 when possible and appropriate to reduce noise impacts. d. Findinas Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the recreational noise impacts to residences on wildlife. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Imoact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project related to recreational noise on wildlife is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to adjacent agricultural uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #35 Noise level Conflict Between Proposed Uses. a. Description of Impact. Noise generated by activities in the marina adjacent to residences may negatively impact the Project's residential activities. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that new residences must be constructed so that interior DNL is 45 dBA or less and so that indoor noise levels due to single noise events shall not exceed a maximum of 50 dBA in the bedroom and 55 dBA in other habitable rooms. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the noise impacts to residences in the project associated with activities in the juxtaposed marina. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the DBW\33390 3 4 29676.2 project relating to the projected noise from the juxtaposed marina and associate activities have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would reduce the audible noise to an average level consistent with County General Plan DNL levels. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining noise impacts relating to adjacent uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. TRAFFIC and CIRCULATION 1. Project Traffic Impacts -Year 2000 Impact #36 A. Potentially Significant Impact Cir-1. a. Description of Impact. Traffic projections are based on worst case assumptions modeled by East County traffic model. This model may not be consistent with measurements of actual traffic generation factors and may under or over-state Project related traffic. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation Adopt a mitigation monitoring program which allows for an adjustment of the mitigation measures to correct for inaccurate traffic generation rates and road network assumptions. The program shall include a provision that after the issuance of the 500th building permit, the project applicant will fund a review of the assumptions made in the project EIR traffic study. If the assumptions are still valid, the mitigation measures will remain unchanged. If some or all of the assumptions are invalid, then further review of the intersections studied in the EIR shall be performed, the project's impacts reevaluated and appropriately mitigated. Road improvements which are covered by the East County Regional Area of Benefit (ECRAOB) area wide traffic mitigation fees or funded by other sources shall be considered mitigated. The project applicant shall pay its share of the costs of the environmental review document and general plan amendment fee (if any) precedent to revising said traffic mitigation fee(s). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to DBW\33390 3 5 29676.2 mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would allow for an accurate continuing assessment of project traffic impacts, which reduces the impacts to a less than significant level. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #37 B. Significant Impact Cir-1. a. Description of Impact. The Discovery Bay/SR4 , Newport Drive /SR4, Bixler Road/SR4 and Fairview Avenue/Balfour Road intersections all operate at unsatisfactory levels of service with the project. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute to the signalization of the Discovery Bay/SR4 , Newport Drive /SR4, and Fairview Avenue/Balfour Road intersections in proportion to its contribution to traffic volume (through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impact fees). The project applicant shall contribute to 50% of the Bixler Road signalization improvements. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: DBW\33390 3 6 29676.2 (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would increase the projected Level of Service at the at the Discovery Bay/SR4 , Newport Drive /SR4, Bixler Road/SR4 and Fairview Avenue/Balfour Road intersections to levels acceptable under the County General Plan, which reduces the impact to a less than significant level. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. --- Impact #38 C. Significant Impact Cir-2. a. Description of Impact. The Vasco Road/Camino Diablo and Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersections would operate at LOS "F" with or without the project. However, additional traffic flow to and from the project during both the AM and PM peaks may negatively impact intersection performance. b. Findings Regarding_Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute to an improved lane configuration at the Vasco Road/Camino Diablo intersection in proportion to its contribution to traffic volume (through payment of the State Route 4 Bypass Fee which at this time is only 50% funded through developer fees). The project applicant shall contribute to an improved lane configuration at the Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersection in proportion to its contribution to traffic volume through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable fees. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Lessened but Remain Significant an Unmitigable. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been lessened DBW\33390 3,7 29676.2 by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, however, the Levels of Service at both the Vasco Road/Camino Diablo and Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersections will remain at LOS F which is an unacceptable LOS under the County General Plan. The impact is therefore significant and unmitigable. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the Vasco Road/Camino Diablo and Byron Highway/Camino Diablo intersections, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #39 D. Significant Impact Cir-3. _ a. Description of Impact. The SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road would operate at LOS "E" during the PM peak hour with or without the project. However, additional traffic flow to and from the project during the PM peak may negatively impact intersection performance. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute to the lane reconfiguration of the SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road intersection #hrWgh th$ payment 0f :tf�et # ott 4 Bypass 1=ee whacb at this tinnysniy 5 � funder!' . ........: through deveJopr fees' ' . d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would increase the operation of the SR 4 Bypass/Marsh Creek Road intersection to acceptable levels as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other DBW\33390 3 8 29676.2 benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #40 E. Significant Impact Cir-4. a. Description of Impact. The Traffic on the SR4 Bypass will exceed capacity with or without the project. The intersections at Balfour Road, Sand Creek Road and Lone Tree Road will all operate at LOS "F." However, additional traffic flow to and from the project during both the AM and PM peaks may negatively impact both the road segment and intersection performance. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs_ with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Contribute to the construction of the Phase I SR 4 Bypass project to include a four-lane cross section from the SR 4 junction south of Balfour Road and provide 2 southbound left-turn lanes (through payment of the State Route 4 Bypass Fee which at this time is only 50% funded through developer fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would cause the SR 4 Bypass segment and its Balfour Road, Sand Creek Road, and Lone Tree Way intersections to operate at acceptable levels as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #41 f. Significant Impact Cir-5. DBW\33390 29676.2 3 9 a. Description of Impact. The Byron Highway (north), Sellers Road and Balfour Road intersections with SR 4 will have unacceptable Levels of Service with the project. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute to the signalization of the Byron Highway (north), Sellers Road, Balfour Road inter-sections with SR 4 in proportion to its contribution to traffic volume (through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impact fees)•. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: .(1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would increase the projected Level of Service at the at the Byron Highway (north), Sellers Road and Balfour Road intersections with SR 4 to acceptable levels which reduces the impact to a less than significant level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #42 g. Significant Impact Cir-6. a. Description of Impact. The Byron Highway/Point of Timber Road and Byron Highway (north)/SR 4 intersections are located in close proximity to each other. Signalization of the Byron Highway(north)/SR 4 intersection together with added project traffic at Point of Timber Road will result in unacceptable operational performance. DBW\33390 29676.2 4 0 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project applicant should contribute 100 % to the signalization of the Byron Highway/Point of Timber Road intersection and interconnect the signal with the Byron Highway (north)/SR 4 intersection (through the payment of a $6,500 per .unit fee which includes all applicable impacts fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation__ measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the existing circulation system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the existing circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure aaopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would increase the projected Level of Service at the at the Byron Highway/Point of Timber Road and Byron Highway/ SR 4 Bypass intersections to acceptable levels which reduces the impact to a less than significant level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the existing circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Project Traffic Impacts Year -2010 Impact #43 a. Significant Impact Cir-1. a. Description of Impact. The intersections at Bixler Road/Point of Timber, Byron Highway/Balfour Road, Byron Highway(south)/Sr 4 and Sellers Road/Balfour Road will all operate at LOS "F" with year 2010 project traffic. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation DBW\33390 4 1 29676.2 measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes the following mitigation. 1) provide an all-way STOP at the Bixler Road/Point of Timber Road intersection with two lanes at each approach, 2) provide an all-way STOP at the Bixler Road/Balfour Road intersection with two lanes at each approach, 3) pay the fair share of a signal at the Byron Highway/Balfour Road intersection and left turn and shared right turn lanes at each approach, 4) pay the fair share of a second northbound to westbound left tum lane at the Byron Highway(south) /SR 4 intersection, 5) pay the fair share of a signal and left turn and shared right turn lanes at the Sellers Road/Balfour intersection. The project's fair share of improvements noted in 3, 4, and 5 above should be made through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impact — fees. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on air quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the year 2010 traffic generation have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would improve the level of operations at each of the intersections to an acceptable level (LOS "D" or better) as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the year 2010 project generated traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #44 b. Significant Impact Cir-2. a. Description of Impact. The proposed design for SR 4 Bypass provides insufficient capacity through the Balfour Road and Sand Creek Road intersections (LOS 'F). b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. DBW\33390 4 2 29676.2 c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes to extend the freeway section of SR 4 Bypass south to Balfour Road. The project should pay its allotted share of this project (through the payment of the State Route 4 Bypass Fee which at this time is only 50% funded through developer fees). d. Findings Re acarrding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the operation of SR 4 Bypass. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of-the project relating to the year 2010 traffic generation have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would improve the level of operations of the segment of SR 4 Bypass and each of the intersections to an acceptable level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the year 2010 project generated traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #45 c. Significant Impact Cir-3. a. Description of Impact. The O'Hara Avenue/Sand Creek Road intersection has an inadequate lane configuration and would deteriorate to an inadequate operational level (LOS "F"). b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project should pay its fair share toward providing additional turn capacity at the O'Hara Avenue/Sand Creek Road intersection (through payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impact fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to DHW\33390 29676.2 4 3 mitigate the impacts of the project on the operation of the O'Hara Road/Sand Creek Road intersection. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the year 2010 traffic generation have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would improve the level of operation at the O'Hara Road/Sand Creek Road intersection to an acceptable level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the O'Hara Road/Sand Creek Road intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #46 d. Significant Impact Cir-3. a. Description of Impact. The Empire Avenue/ Lone Tree Way intersection has an inadequate lane configuration. Project traffic with cumulative traffic will cause the intersection to operate at LOS "F." b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project pay its fair share of a lane reconfiguration of the Empire Avenue/ Lone Tree Way intersection (through the payment of a $6,500 per unit fee which includes all applicable impact fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the operation of the Empire Road/ Lone Tree Way intersection. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the inadequate operation of the Empire Road/Lone Tree Way DBW\33390 4 4 29676.2 intersection have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would improve the level of operations of the Empire Road/ Lone Tree Way intersection to an acceptable level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the year 2010 project generated traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #47 e. Significant Impact Cir-4. a. Description of Impact. The proposed design for the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection provides insufficient turn capacity to/from SR 4 Bypass. The project would cause further deterioration in operating conditions that are already at LOS "F". b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project pay its fair share of improvements to provide additional turn capacity at the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection (through the payment of the State Route 4 Bypass fee which is only 50% funded through developer fees). d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the operation of the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findincis Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the Walnut Avenue/ SR 4 Bypass intersection operational difficulties have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would improve the level of operation of the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection to an acceptable level as defined by the County General Plan. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other DBW\33390 4 5 29676.2 benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the operation of the Walnut Avenue/SR 4 Bypass intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #48 f. Significant Impact Cir-5. a. Description of Impact. The project will contribute to the inadequate level of service (LOS "F") along the Vasco Road and Byron Highway (south of Camino Diablo Road) road segments. -b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior--te-It/Iitigation. The Board- concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is an unavoidable significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Miti ation. There is no feasible mitigation of the impact described above in subparagraph a which will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that there are no mitigation measures which are reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the operation of Vasco Road and Byron Highway (south of Camino Diablo Road) because the Tri-Valley area has a preliminary policy which states that Vasco Road shall remain a two lane facility through North Livermore to the Isabel Extension. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Significant and Unavoidable. The impacts of the project relating to the inadequate level of service along Vasco Road and Byron Highway (south of Camino Diablo Road) are significant and unavoidable, because no measures that would improve the level of operations of the segments are feasible under Tri- Valley policies. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the.operational characteristics of Vasco Road and Byron Highway (south of Camino Diablo Road), as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 3. Project Access. Circulation and Parking. Impact #49 DBW\33390 4 6 29676.2 A. School Related Traffic Impacts a. Description of Impact. Provisions for local school related traffic circulation are not identified. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. ........................... ......... c. Proposed Mitigation. The-project shoulcbdef�e rio....�a..t <a one-way-- circulation pattern with a large loading/unloading area adjacent to the school site but separate-from the school parking lot and off of the main collector streets. d. Findings Reciarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on school related traffic. The Board hereby adopts .such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the school related impacts have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would assure smooth traffic flows to and around the school site. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential school related traffic impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #50 B. Inadequate design of Bixler Road, Balfour Road and Point of Timber Road. a. Description of Impact. The roads approaching the project (Balfour Road, Point of Timber Road and Bixler Road) do not meet the minimum width requirements for collector roads. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board_ concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation DHW\33390 4 7 29676.2 of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should improve Balfour Road between Bixler Avenue and Sellers Avenue, Point of Timber Road between Bixler Road and Byron Highway, and Bixler Road between Marsh Creek Road and the northern edge of the y a, spec H 'a... the ........ft"" a_. project site to Gellee-ter r standards d-' Alternatively, the project could restrict traffic access to Balfour Road eliminating the need to upgrade the road te Gelleet9F Read standaFdS. d.--Findings-Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that either of the— mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. by themselves are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on the below standard collector roads. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that, (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to inadequate collector roads have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would improve the inadequate collector roads to County standards. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to inadequate collector roads, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #51 C. Impacts to Bixler Road a. Description of Impact. Project will contribute 4,000 daily trips to Bixler Road overwhelming its capacity. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Project applicant shall install full frontage improvements along Bixler Road. Between the Project and the Albers and Byron 78 project obligations, the Project applicant shall improve Bixler Road and install a n:: w s pedestrian path. AlteM aty . Iy ,",th... li*:: t:,:*::*: *:,:" I 'd ve a t.*e** .. DBW\33390 29676.2 4 8 Ne ►port flmre het vPe� fhe projept ani the path cor�sfr "ted b�the�rh rc;ak .............. de Preio risen t ............... d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on Bixler Road. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided-car-Subbstantially--f_essened.—The impacts of the --v project relating to theBixler Road design fiave been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measure adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate project traffic. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the impacts to Bixler Road, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #52 D. Farm Vehicle Residential Vehicle Conflicts a. Description of Impact. Project traffic and farm vehicle traffic will both use Balfour and Point of Timber Road leading to safety concerns. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should provide shoulders on Balfour and Point of Timber Roads, install signage to warn project traffic of farm vehicles and provide farm vehicle crossings. Alternatively, the project could restrict traffic access to Balfour Road eliminating the need to upgrade the road to Collector Road standards. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on school related traffic. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. DBW\33390 29676.2 4 9 e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential conflicts between project traffic and farm traffic have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide sufficient traffic separation and warning to prevent significant safety hazards. (2) Remaining impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential project traffic conflict with4_arm-traffic, as more fully statedAn the Statement of Overriding-----�-. -- Considerations. Impact #53 E. Entry Gate Deficiency a. Description of Imoact. Project access points at Balfour Road and Point of Timber Road may have inadequate capacity. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should maximize vehicle storage at entry gates and design provisions into the site plan to expand ingress capacity, either by installing a third entry gate or providing additional ingress lanes at the two existing gates. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project ingress and egress. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential project entry gate traffic impacts have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would assure smooth traffic flows into the project site. DSW\33380 S O '9676.2 (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential entry gate impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #54 F. Cul de Sac design Deficiencies a. Description of Impact. project cul de sacs are to narrow and too long as designed and have inadequate access for emergency vehicles and inadequate vehicle circulation. - _.— b. Findings Regarding Significance of Imoact Prior to Mitiction. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project cul de sacs should be designed so that they are no longer than 700 feet in length and capable of supporting 20 tons of weight. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project's inadequately designed cul de sacs. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Imnact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the cui de sacs have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would assure adequate emergency vehicle access, adequate traffic circulation and because they conform to County standards. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the cul de sacs, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #55 G. Off Street Parking Impacts a. Description of Impact. Because there is no off-site guest parking, resident's guests will be forced to park on-street limiting circulation and visibility. DBW\33390 5 1 29676.2 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation.. The project should prohibit parking on all project collector/arterial roads except where the road is widened for parking. ReStFiGl pa" C?n other roads provide �deauat� paved wsdth for r3ecessery parkrng d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board-finds that the mitigation. measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to on street guest parking. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to on-street guest parking have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would eliminate on-street parking where such parking could cause significant impacts. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential on- street parking impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #56 H. Closely Spaced Intersections Between Village III and IV. a. Description of Impact. Closely spaced intersections between Village III and Village IV restricts traffic flow and causes right of way confusion. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should provide traffic control devices at all approaches to these intersections. DHW\33390 29676.2 52 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to closely spaced intersections between Village III and Village IV. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to closely spaced intersections between Village III and Village IV have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in - subparagraph d. above, because the measures would control access at these intersections thereby improving traffic flow and reducing right of way confusion. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the impacts due to closely spaced intersections between Village III and Village IV, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #57 I. Inadequately Designed Turns on "E" and "G" Streets a. Description of Impact. The "knuckle" turns on "E" and "G" streets in the vicinity of the marina do not appear to meet collector road standards. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should redesign the turns on °G" and "E" streets to meet County standards. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the inadequately designed turns on "E" and "G" streets. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the inadequately designed turns on "E" and "G" streets have been DBW\33390 29676.2 3 avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measure would require the project to redesign the turns to meet County requirements. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the inadequately designed turns on °E" and °G" streets, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #58 J. Curb Cuts onto Collector/Arterial Roads a. Description of Impact. Some lots appear to have drive access onto collector/arterial roads, this causes severe safety problems. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. ................ c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should prohibit all access onto M` collector/arterial roads that have project wide circulation. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to curb cuts onto major collector or arterial roads. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to curb cuts onto collector/arterial roads have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would eliminate all curb cuts onto collector arterial roads with project wide circulation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential impacts from curb cuts onto collector arterial roads, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #59 DBW\33390 5 4 29676.2 K. Traffic Circle Design a. Description of Impact. The design of the traffic circle at Balfour Road restricts capacity and the traffic circle at Point of Timber Road could promote illegal movements. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should either remove traffic circles or redesign them to ensure safe traffic circulation. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to inadequately designed traffic circles. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. . e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to inadequately designed traffic circles have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would eliminate the traffic circles or redesign them to prevent congestion and discourage illegal turning movements. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the inadequate design of the Balfour Road and Point of Timber Road traffic circles, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #60 L. Inadequate Marina Parking a. Description of Impact. Marina Parking may be inadequate to accommodate peak summer periods and poses safety problems. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation DBW\33390 5 5 29676.2 measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the parking areas be re- designed to relocate access away from street intersections and consolidate driveways. The EIR proposes to relocate the marina to mitigate other significant impacts. This mitigation may eliminate the need for some or all of these mitigations, however, the relocated marina should be designed to conform to these design guidelines. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to on street guest parking. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures -.. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to marina parking have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the relocated marina would be designed to conform to the principals set out in the proposed mitigation which would eliminate the potential parking shortage and reduce associated traffic hazards. (2).Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential marina parking impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #61 M. Restriction of Agricultural Access a. Description of Impact. The gated community limits accessibility to all agricultural land east of the Hofmann project site including Fallman. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should provide agricultural access between the project site and land east of the site. Access shall be improved as a 12 foot gravel roadway. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation DBW\33390 5 6 29676.2 measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of limiting access to agricultural land to the east of the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the restriction of access to agricultural land east of the project site have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide access to the land east of the project site. - (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the restriction of access to the agricultural land east of the project site, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #62 O. Emergency Access a. Description of Impact. Emergency access is limited to two access points. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should provide additional emergency access at Bixler Road onto "J" Street at the north end of the project, Bixler Road at "R" Street just north of the ECCID canal, and Bixler Road onto "S" Street just south of the ECCID canal, or at other locations in consultation with the Fire District. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Miti aq tion. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project due to on street guest parking. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to emergency access have been avoided or substantially lessened by DBW\33390 29676.2 5 7 the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide emergency access acceptable to the Fire District. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the emergency access impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. Transit. Impact #63 A. Bus Service a. Description of Impact. Transit stops are separated too far apart, there is no stop at the proposed school, and the circulation-system is not compatible with transit service. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Provide bus pullouts at all project access points along Bixler Road, provide pedestrian connections from transit stops to the internal sidewalk system, and provide bus shelters at each pullout once transit service begins. Consider locating all residential lots within 1,400 ft of a collector or arterial road. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on transit accessibility. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1') Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential inaccessibility of transit service have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would substantially increase transit accessibility and service. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the inaccessibility of transit service, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. DBW\33390 5 8 29676.2 Impact #64 B. Regional Transit Demand a. Description of Impact. Regional Transit service is inadequate in this area of the County. The project will add to the demand for this type of service. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Require the developer to study the feasibility of a implementing BART shuttle bus or other type of regional transit. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the .project on regional transit demand. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the potential inaccessibility of transit service have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures could lead to substantially increased transit accessibility and service. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the inaccessibility of transit service, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts. Impact #65 A. Bicycle Facilities a. Description of Impact. The bicycle/pedestrian circulation system is discontinuous in several areas, requiring users to share the road with automobiles. Corridor widths are also undefined. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33390 29676.2 59 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Design all two-way bike/pedestrian paths to 8-�-10feet wide and one-way bike paths on streets within curb to curb shall be 5 ft wide, minimize mid-block crossings, provide signage per County requirements, and make the following additions to the bicycle/pedestrian circulation system: 1. Extend the diagonal corridor in Village IV southwest to Bixier Road/Balfour Road intersection. - -- 2. Provide a corridor from Balfour Road through the project entrance to the lake. 3. provide a corridor in Village III adjacent to the ECCID canal. 4. Provide a corridor along Bixler Road from the north end of the project to Marsh Creek Road, or Newport Drive. 5. Provide a corridor from Village li to Village I via the entrance to Village Ii. 6. Provide a corridor from Bixler Road to the southeast corner of the project. 7. Provide a corridor to the school/park area. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that, with the additional mitigation of relocating the marina, the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on bicycle/pedestrian circulation. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the Bicycle/pedestrian circulation system have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would create a continuous, safe and complete internal bicycle/pedestrian circulation system. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to bicycle/pedestrian circulation system, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #66 B. Impacts to Bicyclists and Pedestrians from Outside the Project. a. Description of Impact. Bicyclists and pedestrians will be attracted to the project's park and school and will have no safe means of access. DBW\33390 6 O 29676.2 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Provide a corridor connecting to the project site along Bixler Road to Marsh Creek Road and install bike racks or lockers at on site common areas such as the marina, park, school and recreation areas. An alternative to the Bixler Road corridor is a planned corridor connecting Newport Drive to the Byron 78 and Albers projects. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on out of project bicyclists and pedestrians. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to out of project bicyclists and pedestrians have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would create a safe means of bicycle and pedestrian access to the site. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to out of project bicyclists and pedestrians, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 6. Construction Impacts. Impact #67 A. On-Street Parking a. Description of Impact. On-street parking along Bixler Road is inadequate to accommodate construction crews. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. DBW\33390 29676.2 6 1 c. Proposed Mitigation. Provide sufficient parking on-site for all construction crews and associated personnel. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of construction related on-street parking. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: -- (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the impacts of construction related on-street parking have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide sufficient on-site parking eliminating the demand for on-street parking. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the demand for on- street construction parking, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #68 B. Construction related Road Damage a. Descrigtion of Impact. Construction equipment may damage roads approaching the project site. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Monitor road conditions and repair roads. Direct construction related traffic to the site via Bixler Road restricting damage potential to that road Newp4d day b:'a*:': .sed �nrhJ1e ;Bixie;r R0"a d. is being widenl. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of construction related road damage. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the DBW\33390 6 2 29676.2 EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the impacts of construction related road damage have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would restrict construction traffic to one road and provide for adequate repair of any damage which may occur on that roadway. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential road damage due to construction traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. - - - - -- -- - CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY Impact #69 Effects on Microclimate. a. Description of Impact. The additional 85 acres of open water will increase the evaporative loss of water by 15 to 30 percent leading to a potential increase in ground fog during the winter and the increased in paved spaces will increase summer temperatures. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the increase in both the water and paved surface area is so small that fog and increased temperature effects would be extremely localized. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate effects of the project on microclimate changes. Impact #70 Potential Long Term Sole Source Violation of Ambient Air Quality Standards. a. Description of Impact. Traffic generated by the project would generate air pollutants on both a microscale and mesoscale. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because projected air pollutant emissions are not projected to violate Federal or State air quality standards. DBW\33390 29676.2 6 3 c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no mitigation is necessary to mitigate sole source violations of Federal or State air quality standards. Impact #71 Potential Short Term Sole Source Violation of Ambient Air Quality Standards. a. Description of Impact. Project construction would generate particulate air pollutants on both a microscale and mesoscale. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with-the reasoning stated-in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. All project construction should follow "best management practices" for dust control. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of construction air quality impacts. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the construction related air quality have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would substantially reduce the amount of construction dust released into the air. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the potential construction related air quality impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #72 Potential Contribution to the Degradation of Air Quality. a. Description of Impact. Emissions of pollutants, especially CO and NOx, by project traffic will contribute to the degradation of air quality in the region. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33390 6 4 29676.2 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because Discovery Bay West is located in a "non-attainment" air quality region and projected emission of CO and NOx will exceed BAAQMD thresholds by the year 2010. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project implement strong TDM/TSM measures such as the provision of cable or optic wiring for telecommuting, improved transit service, and ride sharing capabilities. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c., are both reasonably feasible and appropriate ---to mitigate the impacts of the project on air quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts are significant and unavoidable. The impacts of the project relating to the contribution to the long term degradation of air quality are significant and unavoidable because even with a reduction in project generated trips, Discovery Bay West will still contribute to the continuing ozone pollution in this no-attainment area. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the contribution to long term air quality impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #73 Potential Exposure of Sensitive Populations to Air Pollution. a. Description of Impact. Microscale emissions of pollutants, especially CO, by project traffic will contribute to the degradation of air quality in the region which will subject sensitive populations, such as people with respiratory problems, to serious health hazards. Mesoscale air quality impacts will adversely effect sensitive populations to a greater extent than the general population. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because projected emission of CO is below criteria values. The Board also finds that the Project's contribution to mesoscale air pollution as described above in Impact #72 will adversely effect sensitive populations to a greater extent than it will adversely effect the general population. DBW\33390 6 5 29676.2 c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no mitigation is necessary to mitigate microscale air quality impacts on sensitive populations. The Board also finds that there is no mitigation other than that proposed in Impact #72 that will reduce the mesoscale air pollution impacts to sensitive receptors. (2) Remaining_Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the exposure of sensitive populations to long term mesoscale air quality impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #74 -- — -- - —= Potential Long Term Violation of BAAQMD Criteria for Significance. a. Description of Impact. Emissions of pollutants, especially Total Organic Gases and NOx, by project traffic exceed BAAQMD's Criteria for Significance. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact because Discovery Bay West is located in a "non-attainment" air quality region and projected emission of Total Organic Gases and NOx will exceed BAAQMD thresholds by the year 2010. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that the project implement strong TDM/TSM measures such as the provision of cable optic wiring for telecommuting, improved transit service, and ride sharing capabilities. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c.,.are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on air quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1') Impacts are significant and unavoidable. The impacts of the project relating to the contribution to the long term degradation of air quality are significant and unavoidable because even with a reduction in project generated trips, Discovery Bay West will still exceed the BAAQMD Criteria for Significance in this non-attainment area. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the contribution to long term air quality impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding DBW\33390 6 6 29676.2 Considerations. LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact #75 Conversion of Agricultural Land. a. Description of Impact. The project would convert 921 acres of Agricultural Lands to non-agricultural designations. =- - - - -b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Boded - concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project is inside the County's Urban Limit Line, the agricultural land within the project contains high levels of boron and salinity making it low in productivity. c. Proposed Mitigation. The board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate any effects of a potential conversion of Agricultural Lands to suburban uses because of the poor quality and productive capacity of the land within the Project area. Impact #76 Adjacent Use Impacts on Prime Agricultural Lands a. Description of Impact. The land uses in the project could disrupt the viable use of adjacent agricultural land. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that appropriate fences and barriers be constructed between the residential uses and grazing uses. Further, homeowners should be informed of the potential agricultural practices that they will be adjacent to in the form of deed notices. Finally, there should be a buffer between residential and intensive agricultural uses. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c., are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on agricultural land uses. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. DBW\33390 29676.2 67 e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: 1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the project relating to the conflict between adjacent agricultural uses and project residences have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d. above, because the measures would provide sufficient separation and buffering between the uses to minimize any conflict. Further, homeowners would be notified about potential agricultural practices. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts-relating to the conflict between agricultural and residential land uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #77 Conflict with Adopted Plans or Goals a. Description of Impact. The General Plan Amendment would allow development elsewhere than the locations specified in the General Plan for the East County Area (Oakley and Bethal Island). b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project is located within an Urban Limit Line, the project is within the County's 65/35 growth management policy, and the project would improve the housing diversity while remaining compatible with surrounding communities in accordance with General Plan policies. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential incompatibilities with planning policies or goals. Impact #78 Substantial Growth or Concentration of Population a. Description of Impact. The General Plan Amendment would allow growth or concentration of population in the project area by allowing approximately 2,135 residences (housing approximately 6,234 persons) by the year 2010. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project will account for only about 8% of the projected population growth in east Contra Costa County and DBW\33390 29676.2 68 will occur over 15 years. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential population growth or concentration because the Project represents a relatively small increment of the total projected growth of the east Contra Costa County area. Impact #79 Effects on Housing Demand a. Description of Impact. The General Plan Amendment could generate a demand for additional housing. — - - ---- b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the project would not permit land uses which generate an increase in the demand for housing and in fact would supply housing to accommodate workers attracted to job producing land uses in the east Contra Costa County area. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential increase in the demand for housing. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES Impact #80 School Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the number of school children in the Knightsen School District by 216 students, in the Byron Union School District by 636 students, and in the Liberty Union High School District by 422 students. All three of these districts would be impacted by the increased demand for services. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. [Substattta6 Ftt�ns ?eirtedarnpijrrit? the tP m .. the agreement v�i;ith fCnjghtsen Scllaot :istnc andaerty Un�art # gf Schtot t �5tot ar yi d at through the dcspute resatutjon process Further, fulfill the contractual agreement between the Hofmann Company and the Byron Union School District to OBW\33390 6 9 29676.2 construct or pay for the construction of additional school facilities (classrooms and core facilities). Finally, the developer must also make additional arrangements for the provision of facilities with the Liberty Union School District. Project applicant shall execute a School Mitigation Agreement which shall contain provision which provide for payment to affected school districts in amounts acceptable to such school districts, in order to mitigate the impacts of the project on school facilities. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate =- to mitigate the school impacts-from-the project. The Board--hereby adopts such-- Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the impacts to schools will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because project would construct or pay for the construction of additional school facilities sufficient to accommodate the additional students generated by the project. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining school impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #81 Impacts to Child Care Services. a. Description of Impact. The proposed ml"r GeAeFal RaR AffleRdfflelll would increase the number of pre-school aged children will increase by 130 and the number of school aged children (aged 6-12) by 202. This increase in the number of children will increase the demand for child care services. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Utilize the project's planned elementary school facility for before and after school child care and provide for any additional pre-school child care facilities per the Contra Costa County child care ordinance. DHW\33390 70 2%76.2 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the child care impacts from the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the project's child care impacts will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because project would provide for pre- school child care facilities _ pursuant to the County childcare ordinance and would promote the usage of-the project's planned elementary school facilities for before and after school child care. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining child care impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #82 Water Supply Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project will cause an additional daily demand for water in the amount of 1,560 gpm. Water studies indicate that aquifer capacity will accommodate the additional demand but long term aquifer overdraft is still possible. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Annex the project into Sanitary District 19 and participate in a water supply study. d. Findings Regarding_Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the water supply impacts of the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the water supply impacts of the project will reduce those impacts to less DBW\33390 7 1 29676.2 than significant level because annexation to Sanitary District #19 and participation in the water supply study will allow for the development of contingency plans to prepare for the unlikely event of an aquifer overdraft. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining water supply impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #83 Sanitary Sewer Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project willrequire sewage conveyance and treatment facilities capable of accommodating .72 mgd of average sewage flow. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Annex the project into Sanitary District #19 and provide or pay for the expansion of facilities necessary for the additional the sewage treatment capacity and additional conveyance facilities. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the sewage treatment system. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the sewage treatment and conveyance capacity of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because annexation to Sanitary District #19 and the necessary financing of facilities expansion will accommodate the additional effluent flows from the project. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on sewage treatment capacity, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #84 Flood Control and Storm Drainage Impacts. DBW\33390 7 2 29676,2 a. Description of Impact. Residential development as proposed in the project would increase run-off due to greater area with impervious surface. Further, The adoption of the project would alter the 100-year flood plain and require the construction of a storm drainage system. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. - c Proposed Mitigation. Construct project levees and pads to 11.904= sl and - -�- - 10.90 ft msl respectively. Provide for the construction and maintenance of drainage facilities to protect areas located to the west of the project site from the effects of the project. Meet applicable requirements of Title 9 for detention basins. Investigate the geotechnical impacts of construction on Dredger Cut and Kellogg Creek Levees. Provide for perpetual maintenance of drainage facilities by creating an entity with fund- raising powers. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the flood control and drainage systems. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the storm drainage and flood control systems of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because proper levee and pad construction will protect structures from flooding, construction of drainage facilities will protect areas west of the site from flooding, proper construction and maintenance of drainage basins and storm drainage facilities by an entity with the power to raise funds will insure an adequately functioning storm drainage system, and investigation of prime flood control levees will insure primary flood control. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on the storm drainage and flood control systems, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #85 Mosquito Abatement Services Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project could cause an increase mosquito DBW\33390 73 29676.2 abatement workload which could overload current staff. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Seek advice from Mosquito and Vector Abatement District staff about implementing anti-mosquito practices during construction. Cooperate with Abatement District staff in the development of a Mosquito monitoring -- - and source management plan. Consult with-the District-with regard to off-setting District staffing needs due to any necessary additional wetlands inspections. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the mosquito abatement services. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the mosquito abatement services impact of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because the implementation of design and management practices will reduce the need for additional mosquito abatement inspections and consultation and cooperation with staff will mitigate those impacts which remain. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on mosquito abatement services, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #86 Police Protection and Marine Services Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project will require a significant increase in the need for police and marine patrol services. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. DSW\33390 7 4 29676.2 c. Proposed Mitigation. The project would be required to create and fund, at $200 per unit per year in accordance with the existing formula, a police district to provide higher funding to augment current levels of police and marine patrol services. The project should also coordinate design measures (lighting and security designed structures), social organization measures (crime watches and educationprograms) and legal measures (posted speed limits and recreational use restrictions) which will reduce the need for additional staffing. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the police and marine patrol services. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. - -- e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the - EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the increased need for police and marine patrol services impact of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because the implementation of a police district with its additional funding levels and design and management coordination will bring response times up to County General Plan standards and will reduce the number of incidents occurring on the project site. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on police and marine patrol services, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #87 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Response Services Impacts. a. Description of Impact. The project will generate an increased need for increased fire and emergency medical service in order for adequate response times to maintained. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation proposed in the project - The project proposes to dedicate approximately 1 acre of the public/semi-public land for a fire station. DBW\33390 75 29676.2 2) Mitigation proposed in the EIR - The primary developer must design, build and equip its fair share of a station as negotiated with East Diablo Fire Protection District. The cost of the new station should be apportioned among those developments benefited by the increased service. Further, streets and other features in the project area should be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. d, Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts on the fire protection and emergency medical response services. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. - - - e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation— Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to fire protection and emergency medical response services impact of the project will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because the construction of a new fire station will ensure response times within County General Plan standards. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts on fire protection and emergency response services, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #88 Effect of Development on Utility Easements. a. Description of Impact. Development could cause disturbances of utility easements. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because all utility easements within the project area are designated for open spaces uses. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential impacts to utility easements. RECREATION Impact #89 Increased Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities. DBW\33390 76 29676.2 a. Description of Impact. The lands within the project dedicated for park use may be insufficient to meet the acreage required under the County General Plan. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should meet Contra Costa County General Plan park standards. Other arrangements, acceptable to the County Planning Department may be made such as a substitution of "common area° recreational acreage for active recreational use The protect shall receiue a©Jo 4reag� oreditgr private parr fackitt tamer #had aor� whtbi #aa�recraiiQral _,... Men d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to park facilities. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the increased demands for park and recreation facilities will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because sufficient park acreage will be provided to meet Planning Department and General Plan requirements. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining parks impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #90 Increased Unauthorized Use of the ECCID Canal. a. Description of Impact. The development in the project will add population to areas immediately adjacent to the ECCID Canal property which will increase the incidence of trespass on the ECCID canal. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation DBW\33390 .7 7 29676.2 measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Responsibility of the easement should either be transferred to an entity such as the East Bay Regional Park District which is capable of managing access and accepting liability for trespass or the Hofmann Company should make arrangements with ECCID to provide additional security such as added fencing along the Project's common boundary line. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to the ECCID canal property. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. - e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the increased trespass on the ECCID canal property will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because either trespass will be managed by an entity which will convert the property into a public trail or the applicant will provided sufficient security to minimize incidents of trespass. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts to the ECCID canal property, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #91 Increased Boating Activity on Kellogg Creek. a. Description of Impact. The project marina will generate increased boat traffic (255-420 additional weekly boat trips) along the narrow portion of Kellogg Creek leading to public safety hazards. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project marina should be relocated to the Fallman property north of its originally proposed location in an area geratly ncf�cated as P tential 1p.=,k n bn the rei�mm ary de�relr pn ent plan=.which is also the facat on; . ...... . . .... generally indicated in the staff report or the applicant's revised relocated marina alternative (as discussed on pages 7 through 10 of the Hofmann letter in the FEIR). DBW\33390 7 8 29676.2 d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to the Kellogg Creek channel. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the increased boating activity on Kellogg Creek will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because all marina related boat traffic will be removed from the Kellogg Creek area. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts to the Kellogg Creek area, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #92 Increased Boating Activity within the Project Vicinity but outside Kellogg Creek. a. Description of Impact. The aevelopment of the project will lead to an increase of approximately 400-650 boat trips per week. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the increased boating activities (515 to 525 additional boats) would be dispersed along the waterways of Indian Slough, Old River and Werner Dredger Cut all of which are large enough to accommodate substantial boat traffic. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate any potential impacts of increased boating activity within the project vicinity because the waterways in the vicinity have the capacity to accommodate the additional boat traffic. VISUAL IMPACTS Impact #93 Effect on Views from Adjacent Residential Areas. a. Description of Impact. The Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment project would be visible from adjacent Discovery Bay Residential areas that are already developed or under construction. DBW\33390_ 7 9 29676.2 b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact the new development would be visible from the middle ground perspective with views of Mt. Diablo not adversely effected. Further, visual contrasts would be low. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures would be necessary to mitigate potential visual impacts to adjacent residences. Impact #94 Effect of Open Space Elements of Views from Project Residences. a. Description of Imoact. The lakes, parks and other opens space elements in the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment project would be visible from project residences. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the open space elements will be aesthetically beneficial to the environment. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures would be necessary to mitigate potential visual impacts of the project's open space elements. Impact #95 Effect on Views in Kellogg Creek Area from Increased BoatingActivity. a. Description of Impact. The 330 slip marina proposed in the project would generate boat traffic which would visually impact adjacent residences in Discovery Bay. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The proposed 330 slip marina should be relocated to the Fallman property north of the marina's originally proposed location. The new location should be consistent with the staff report or the applicant's Revised Relocated Marina Alternative as discussed on pages 7 through 10 of the Hofmann letter in the FEIR, and as generally proposed in the preliminary development plan. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation DSW\33390 8 O 29676.2 measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the visual impacts to the Kellogg Creek channel area. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measure relating to the visual on the Kellogg Creek area will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because all marina related boat traffic will be removed from the Kellogg Creek area thereby eliminating those visual impacts. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining visual impacts to the Kellogg Creek area, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #96 Effects of Wall Along Bixier Road. a. Description of Impact. The wall along Bixler Road proposed in the project would create a visual barrier to drivers along Bixler Road. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation incorporated into the proiect - The wall is proposed to be constructed as alternating segments of solid sections and wrought iron fence sections. Further, trees would be planted in front of the wall to soften its appearance d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the visual impacts of the wall along Bixler Road. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the visual impacts of the wall along Bixler Road, will reduce those impacts DBW\33390 8 1 29676.2 to less than significant level because measures will break up the continuous nature of the wall and the plantings would distract from the any monotonous uninteresting and repetitive appearance of the wall. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining visual impacts of the wall along Bixler Road, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact #97 Disruption of Potentially Historic Structures - - a. Description of Impact. The project would result in the demolition of four potentially historic structures. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the structures slated for demolition are not identified on any local or state inventory of historic properties and are not associated with any significant historic person or event. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that a qualified professional historian examine, record and photo-document these structures prior to demolition. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both unnecessary and inappropriate to mitigate the impacts to cultural resources on the site because none of the effected structures are identified on any historic inventory or are associated with historic events or persons. The Board hereby rejects such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project on potential historic resources is less than significant without the proposed mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the disturbance of potential historic resources, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impact #98 DBW\33390 8 2 29676.2 Potential Disruption of Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Site a. Description of Impact. The project could result in the disturbance to historic and/or prehistoric archaeological sites. b. Findinas Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation._ The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because no historic or prehistoric resources were identified in the project site and evidence suggests that the probability is low that any sites would be found upon excavation of the site. c. Proposed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that in the event significant historic or prehistoric resources are discovered during construction of the project, a qualified archaeologist identify and evaluate the situation, offering recommendations for the protection and preservation of significant finds. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to cultural resources on the site. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the project on potential historic or prehistoric resources is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the disturbance of potential historic or prehistoric resources, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS Impact #99 Potential Health Hazards resulting from Power Lines Crossing the Site. a. Description of Impact. Persons residing within the Future Discovery Bay West Residential area on lots immediately adjacent to the RoW might experience exposures to magnetic fields in the 2-mG range. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33390 29676.2 8 3 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the conclusion that magnetic fields associated with power frequency (60Hz) can cause adverse health effects in humans. c. Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate potential impacts to residents of the project from exposure to the EMF radiation from power lines crossing the site. Impact #100 Direct or Indirect effects of EMF radiation on Proiect Residents. a. Description of Impact. Persons residing within the Future Discovery Bay West Residential area may be adversely effected by EMF radiation conducted to project residences. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because no homes are planned to be constructed close enough to the power lines to be subject to stray voltage nor are the power lines old enough to cause concern that large amounts of stray voltage will be conducted to the ground. c. Proposed Mitigation. Construct project residences to comply with the current electrical code. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts to cultural resources on the site. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Less than Significant Prior to Mitigation. The impact of the potential EMF radiation effects on project residents is less than significant without the proposed mitigation and is further reduced with the adopted mitigation. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to potential effects of EMF radiation on project residents, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. RELOCATED MARINA MITIGATION D13W\33390 8 4 29676.2 Impact #101 a. Description of Impact. Relocating the project marina from its location in the proposed project to a location on the Fallman property to the north, and construction of a canal to access the relocated marina from Warner Dredger Cut, will cause a potential loss in wetlands, a potential decrease in surface water quality due to loose soil and sand washing off the canal walls, potentially impact special status plant species, and increase the noise levels on the Fallman property. b. Findinas Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project should construct the relocated marina and connecting channel such that areas with loose sandy soil would be replaced with buttressed fills keyed into less permeable clays. PtbCillri shoul ;re €ew. applicant's stgdy of rnartna11ef scQung d eros�ar� tpe a#�prpraate m:ittgat€on measuFe.s,.� arty. Further, wetlands lost because of the construction of the relocated marina should be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Finally, impacted special status species plants should be transplanted pursuant to appropriate CDFG guidelines. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the impacts of relocating the project marina. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to relocating the project marina, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because measures will prevent substantial siltation resulting from the erosion of marina and connecting channel banks. Measures will also require off-site replacement of wetlands according to County General Plan and Corps of Engineer requirements. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to the relocation of the project's marina, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IV FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS DBW133390 85 29676.2 As required by CEQA, the EIR evaluates the growth inducing impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(g)) and the cumulative effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). These growth inducing and cumulative impacts, together with appropriate Mitigation Measures are set forth below. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The growth-inducing potential of a project is generally considered to have a significant impact if the project has the potential to either induce growth or create the capacity for growth above and beyond the levels permitted by public planning policies or anticipated by public or independent projections. However, a project's growth inducing potential does-not automatically result in growth. Growth at the local level is fundamentally controlled by the land use policies of local jurisdictions. Accordingly, the growth pressure is transformed into actual growth only by the actions of local elected decision makers. Under CEQA, growth inducement may not be considered necessarily an adverse, beneficial or insignificant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(g)). Induced growth is considered a "per se° significant impact if it is substantial or leads to a concentration of population (CEQA Appendix G (k)). Growth inducement can lead to additional significant impacts if it directly (or indirectly) effects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth in some other way significantly effects the environment. 1. Population and Housing Growth Inducement a. Description of Impact. Development of the project will add approximately 2,135 households to the East Contra Costa County area. This could stimulate further residential and commercial development in the project area including pressure to convert agricultural land. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Mitigation. The Contra Costa General Plan Growth Management Element establishes policies which would control growth pressures caused by the project. The polices include an established urban limit line, adopted service standards, and agricultural preservation measures. Those policies should be fully implemented. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to DBW\33390 8 6 29676.2 mitigate the growth inducing impacts of additional population and housing. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Lessened The growth inducing impacts of the increase in housing and population will be lessened by implementation of the Contra Costa Growth Management Element because growth would be prohibited in areas not designated for growth or not capable of accommodating growth. However, the Board also finds that significant growth inducing impacts remain and cannot be mitigated. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining growth inducing impacts relating to the increase in population and housing, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 1. Inducement of Commercial Growth a. Description of Impact. Development of the project will increase the demand for retail and commercial services. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the record and finds that the above referenced impact is a less than significant environmental impact because the Discovery Bay contains significant under-developed retail and commercial service space. The buildout of the Project will generate a critical mass of demand to allow the commercial development in Discovery Bay to be viable. c. Mitigation. The Board finds that no measures are necessary to mitigate any growth inducing impacts the Project may have on commercial development. 3. Growth Inducing Impact of the Expansion of Utilities a. Description of Impact. The expansion of water, sewer and other public utility infrastructure will induce growth in the vicinity of the project area. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. DBW\33390 8 7 29676.2 C. Mitigation. 1. Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Proiect. Water and sewer facilities are to be sized only to accommodate the potential projects within the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment area. Further, sewage treatment capacity will also only be enough to accommodate the needs of potential projects within the GPA area. 2. Mitigation outside the scope of the proiect. The Contra Costa General Plan Growth Management Element establishes policies which would control growth pressures caused by the project. Those policies should be fully implemented. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the growth inducing impacts caused by the expansion of utility infrastructure in the project area. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Substantially Reduced But Significant Impacts Remain. The growth inducing impact of the project due to the extension of utilities in the project are substantially reduced because restrictions in the sizing and capacity of the Project's utility infrastructure will inhibit future growth which would rely on these services. In addition, the County's Growth Management polices will inhibit growth in the area by requiring future development to independently meet infrastructure service standards. However, The project's infrastructure may be sized to accommodate other potential development projects within the GPA area and hence may facilitate some limited growth. (2), Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts relating to growth inducing potential of the project's utility extensions, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The EIR describes the cumulative impacts of the project in relatively general terms. Such general analysis is anticipated and permitted under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) states that "the discussion [of cumulative impacts) need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness." Moreover, EIRs considering general plans and general plan amendments are not required to provide the level of detail required of site specific DBW\33390 8 g 29676.2 project EIRs. CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 states that "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR... An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed.... than an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan... because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy... An EIR on... the adoption... of a local general plan... need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." Similarly, CEQA recognizes that the mitigation of cumulative impacts may also be broadly drafted. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(c) states that °[w]ith some projects, the only,feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption ordinances:or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project project basis.° The EIR's cumulative impact analysis considers the impacts of cumulative projects approved within the Discovery Bay Region. These projects include the Albers General Plan Amendment, which include 379 single family units, and 1.3 acres of parks, and the Byron 78 General Plan Amendment, which includes 176,000 sq ft of retail space, 80,000 sq ft of. office space, an 44 acres of light industrial space. For traffic impacts, the EIR considered a larger geographical area with additional projects because it was determined that the regional impacts of the projects traffic impacts required such a discussion. A number of the environmental impacts evaluated in Section III above are cumulative in nature. The Transportation impacts in particular, consider the cumulative impacts of the project in combination with the projects assumed in the East Contra Costa County Traffic model. The EIR has considered each of these impacts and devised mitigation measures, where appropriate, to mitigate this project's impact on an individual as well as regional basis. Cumulative Impacts on Agriculture a. Description of Impact. The project in conjunction with the Albers and Byron 78 general Plan Amendments will convert 1,073 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Policies designed to minimize the loss of prime agricultural land such as the urban limit line and policies related to the Agricultural DBW\33390 29676.2 89 Core, which are incorporated into the Contra Costa General Plan, as well as the County's proposed Right-to-Farm ordinance, should be fully implemented. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative impacts of the loss of agricultural land. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: Impacts Avoided or SubstaatReduced. the mitigation-measures relating to the cumulative impacts of the loss of agricultural land, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because measures will keep development within defined urban areas, will limit development to 35% of the total area, will prohibit urban development within the Agricultural Core, and will limit the conflicts between urban and rural land use activity. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining cumulative impacts of the loss of agricultural lands, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Cumulative Impacts on Recreational Opportunities a. Description of Impact. There will be a area-wide shortage of park space and increased demand for boating access. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation incorporated into the project - The project will add more than 23 acres of active and passive parks space and will provide additional RV and Boat storage and access to the Delta. It will also provide more than 50 acres of lakes which can be used for recreational activity. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative impacts on recreational opportunities. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. DBW\33390 9 O 29676.2 e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the cumulative impacts to recreational opportunities, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because measures add significant amounts of park and recreational acreage in excess of County standards as well as increased boating opportunities. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining cumulative impacts on recreational opportunities, as more fully stated in the Statement-of Overriding Considerations. - Cumulative Impacts on Boat Traffic a. Description of Impact. The project in combination with the Albers and Byron 78 General Plan Amendments would generate additional boat traffic on Delta waterways. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. The project will contribute to the formation of a P- District which should increase the level of marine patrol enforcement. Further, the homeowners association should inform marina users to use caution in operating their watercraft. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Miticiation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative boat traffic impacts. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Substantially Reduced but Still Significant. The mitigation measures relating to the cumulative increase in boat traffic, will substantially reduce those impacts but remaining impacts will still be significant because while the measures will reduce the incidents of boating accidents the overall increase in traffic will still have significant adverse impacts. DBW\33390 29676.2 91 (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining impacts due to the cumulative increase in boat traffic, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Cumulative Traffic Impacts a. Description of Impact. The project in conjunction with other projected development in the East Contra Costa County Region will cause several intersections to perform at unsatisfactory levels by the year 2020. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board - concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR--and finds that-.the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Measures proposed in findings on impacts #36 and #42 through #47 are designed to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts in the year 2020. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts of the project. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the cumulative traffic impacts, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because measures will improve the impacted intersections and road segments such that none will operate at a LOS of E or worse in violation of the County Growth Management Element. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining cumulative traffic impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Cumulative Impacts on Water Supply and Quality a. Description of Impact. The project and the Albers and Byron 78 General Plan Amendments cumulatively will require an expansion of Sanitary District #19 which could eventually lead to an overdraft and infiltration of the project's aquifer. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33390 29676.2 92 concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and feasible mitigation measures. c. Proposed Mitigation. Sanitary District #19 should adopt and implement a water supply management program. d. Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation measure described in subparagraph c. is both reasonably feasible and appropriate to mitigate the cumulative impacts to the projects water supply. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The mitigation measures relating to the cumulative water supply impacts, will reduce those impacts to less than significant level because the measure will allow Sanitary District #19 to ensure that the water supply will be preserved in the long term. (2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any remaining cumulative water supply, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Cumulative Impacts on Fish and Wildlife a. Description of Impact. The development of the project, Albers and Bryon 78 could lead to a'cumulative loss of special species habitat and wetlands as well as a fragmentation of alkali wetland habitat. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIR and finds that the above referenced impact is a significant, unavoidable an umitigable environmental impact that could arise from the implementation of the project. c. Proposed Mitigation. The board finds that no measures are available that will mitigate the cumulative loss of special species habitat and alkali wetlands habitat. d. Findings Regarding Significance of impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (2) Unmitigated Significant Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the project override any unmitigated cumulative loss of DBW\33390 29676.2 9 3 wildlife habitat, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Findings Related to the Relationship between Local Short Term Uses of Man's Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity. Based on the EIR and entire administrative record before this board, this Board makes the following findings with respect to the to the Project's balancing of local short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity: 1) The Project would convert agricultural land into a residential recreation oriented community. This would remove this land from agricultural production for the foreseeable future. However, it should be noted that the agricultural potential of the project site is naturally limited by the relatively poor quality of its soil. 2) The project would develop a suburban land use where there currently is open space. The open space with its incumbent regional value would be lost for the foreseeable future. However, the much of the environmentally valuable open space on the site, most of the wetlands, would largely be preserved as open space. B. Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible Impacts Based on the EIR and the entire administrative record before the Board, this board finds as follows with respect to Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible effects: 1) The project would result in certain Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible impacts which are more fully discussed in Sections III and IV above. 2) Specifically, the EIR identifies the following as Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible Impacts: a) Increased boating activity generated by the project would cause some erosion of the banks and levees of the Delta water system. b) Construction of the project and its mitigated marina could cause the loss of on-site wetlands. c) The construction of the project would require mass grading which would change the natural topography of the site. d) The project will contribute to the unacceptable and unmitigable Level DBW\33390 29676.2 94 of Service on the Vasco Road corridor and the Byron Highway corridor south of the Camino Diablo corridor. e) The project will contribute to the incremental increase in air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region which does not meet Federal and State air quality standards. 3. In addition to the impacts identified above and specifically discussed in Sections III and IV. this Board acknowledges that the project would result in construction activities which would entail the commitment of natural resources, energy resources and human resources. This represents an irreversible commitment of these resources. — -- - --- _ 4. This Board finds that the Significant Unavoidable and Irreversible Impacts of this Project are overridden by the environmental , economic, fiscal, social, land-use or other benefits of the Project as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. VI. ALTERNATIVES CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR "(d]escribe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project..." (CEQA Guidelines 15126(d). As the phrasing and the use of the word "or" implies, an off-site alternative analysis is not required in every EIR. This approach was endorsed by the California Supreme Court in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, (1990) 52 Cal. 553. The Court emphasized that an EIR need only review a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which(1) "offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal ; and (2) may be feasibly accomplished' ... " (cites omitted) Goleta at 566. The EIR evaluates and compares several feasible alternatives to the Project, and this Board's findings regarding these alternatives are set forth below. The FEIR includes an analysis of an off-site alternative but determined that it was infeasible as defined by CEQA. The Board concurs with the alternative site analysis contained in the EIR. General This Board finds that the EIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project so as to foster an informed public participation and decision making and to permit a reason choice. This Board finds that the EIR adequately discusses and evaluates the relative merits of each of the alternatives. 1. Mitigated Project - Relocated Marina DBW\33390 29676.2 95 Brief Descriotion - The Mitigated Project-Relocated Marina Alternative (as discussed on pages 8-2 through 8-5 of the EIR) would relocate the marina to the Fallman property north of its location in the Project. The location is similar to that proposed as mitigation in the EIR. The maximum allowable number of units increases to 2,178. Concerning Areas 1, 2, and 3 in the project, Area 3 would remain the same as the project. Areas 1 and 2 would be changed from single family high density to single family medium density. Further, there are two areas of multifamily residential low density, one area surrounding the relocated marina and one area next to the proposed school site. Finally, there is an area in the northwest corner of the site, which would be designated single family low density. - Findings - This Board finds that the Mitigated Project Relocated Marina _ Alternative isinfeasiblePro ject and rejects the Mitigated Project-Relocated Marina Alternative for the following reasons: a) The higher density multi-family housing units would be unmarketable and hence could not be sold without loss. b) The fiscal effects of the Alternative would less desirable because of the unmarketability of the higher density multi-family units. c) The alternative would not meet the project objective of successfully creating a marketable development project. d) The alternative would result in increased destruction of tidal zone habitat. 2. Reduced Density Brief Description- The Reduced Density Alternative (discussed on pages 8-5 through 8-7 of the DEIR) would reduce the proposed number of residential units by 604 to 1,530. All of the Project site would be changed from Single Family High Density to Single Family Medium density except the southwest corner of Area 1 which remains Single Family High Density. Findings - This Board finds that the Reduced Density Alternative is less desirable than the Project and rejects the Reduced Density Alternative for the following reasons: a) The marina would have severe unmitigable noise, visual and recreational impacts on residents along the Kellogg Creek Channel. b) The Reduced Density Alternative would have greater wetlands impacts than the Project because the alternative marina site has more alkali wetlands than does the Project as mitigated. DHW\33390 9 6 29676.2 c) The Reduced Density Alternative would be less likely to be able to finance necessary public facilities and mitigation measures. 3. No Marina Brief Description- The No Marina Alternative (discussed on pages 8-7 through 8-8 of the DEIR) is the same as the Reduced Density Alternative except that the marina site is replaced with Single Family Residential Medium Density. Area 1 would replace the Project's Single Family Residential -High Density with Single Family Residential - Medium Density except for the Southwest comer which would remain Single Family Residential -High Density. Findings - This Board finds that the No Marina Alternative isifeast.q and .....:......:...:...... rejects the No Marina Alternative for the following reasons: a) The No Marina Alternative would not meet the project objective of a connection with and orientation towards the Delta. b) The No Marina Alternative would be less likely to be able to finance necessary public facilities and mitigation measures. c) The No-Marina Alternative would be far less marketable than the project. 4. Revised Relocated Marina Brief Description - The Revised Relocated Marina Alternative (discussed on pages 7 through 10 of the Hofmann Letter in the FEIR) is exactly the same as the project as mitigated in the EIR. Findin s - The Board adopts the Revised Relocated Marina as it is identical to the Project as mitigated in the EIR. ,.....:::.::•i:.:il.:ii:.iii:':..:::....ii::+i:::'.ii:•:i::::""':•iii:'ii};}iii}iii?ilii:?i'.::.i:::i::::.::::.::.::':!.?::.:i:.�is+}i"iii: :::::.iiiii?ii::.:::...:+•.::':::iii:ii?i}iiiY'{;:+ii?iii' .i:'ilii:!'ii::..........................:; er Ored Pt3in €:::tit'<Tb :.r..iIternat� ebecase �t:rS<rfat« Idp>'.r:. 2n . ::..:......::::::.... . :. :...:::::::::::::..............:::. _ ::::....:.:::::.........:...:.:;...:...:::: . ....:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ....... 5. Lagoon Site Plan Brief Description - The Lagoon Site Plan Alternative (discussed on pages 11 through 13 of the Hofmann Letter in the FEIR) would utilize 283 fewer acres than the Project and contain 1,400 units, 600 fewer than the Project. The project would construct an extensive lagoon system, similar to that of the existing Discovery Bay development. Further the Lagoon Site Plan Alterative would construct an 18 hole golf course. Findings - This Board finds that the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative isF ` s and rejects the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative for the following reasons: DBW\33390 9729676.2 a) The Lagoon Site Plan Alternative would not meet a major screening criteria because it would not meet U.S. Army Corp of Engineers approval due to loss of jurisdictional wetlands. b) The Lagoon Site Plan Alternative would impact rare, endangered and threatened species to a much greater extent than the project. c) The construction of an extensive lagoon system as well as the irrigation of a large golf course would degrade the surface water quality to a greater extent than the project. 6. Discovery Bay East _ Brief Description - The Discovery Bay East Alternative (Discussed on pages 13 through 16 of the Hofmann Letter in the FEIR) would utilize land east of the existing Discovery Bay Project. The alternative is an "off-site" alternative as defined in CEQA and endorsed in Citizens of Goleta Valley V. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, (1990) 52 Cal. 553. The alternative would have extensive lagoons and waterways like the existing Discovery Bay development and the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative. The alternative would have between 1,500 and 2,500 units. Findings - This Board finds that the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative is infeasible and rejects the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative for the following reasons: a) The Discovery Bay East Alternative is not feasible as defined by CEQA because the alternative would require that the entire site be excavated at least 12 feet and the peat soil removed to another location. b) The Discovery Bay East Alternative is unfeasible as defined by CEQA because the site is below the 100-year flood plain and would need to be elevated in excess of 40 feet from the bottom of the lagoon to meet engineering and FEMA requirements. c) The Discovery Bay East Alternative would have more impacts relating to boating activity because the alternative would be more oriented to boating activities than the Project. 7. No Project Brief Description - As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2), a No Project Alternative was evaluated as a project option. The No Project Alternative (as discussed on pages 8-9 through 8-10 of the DER) would involve continuing development in accordance with the current General Plan land use designations, zoning and other relevant policies. Under the No Project scenario, the site would DHW\33390 29676.2 98 continue its agricultural uses. The No Project Alternative would represent a decreased level of impact in all areas measured on a quantitative basis when compared with the project. However, under the No Project Alternative any environmentally questionable agricultural practices would continue. Findings - This Board finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and rejects the No Project Alternative for the following reasons: a) Mitigation Measures incorporated into the Project, or otherwise adopted by this board, will substantially lessen or avoid most of the environmental effects of the Project thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or impact avoiding benefits of adopting the No Project Alternative_ - b) The No Project Alternative would achieve only one of the project objectives; minimizing impacts to wetlands. c) The No Project Alternative would force the existing Discovery Bay development to shoulder more of the fixed costs of necessary area-wide infrastructure improvements such as drinking water quality improvements, contrary to project objectives. d) The No Project Alternative would provide few if any of the environmental, fiscal, social, economic, land use or other benefits derived from the project, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. VII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. Introduction The Board has carefully balanced the benefits of the Project against any adverse impacts identified in the EIR that could not be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. In addition, the EIR describes certain impacts which, although lessened, are potentially not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Notwithstanding the identification and analysis of impacts which are identified in the EIR as being significant and potentially significant which have not been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance, the Board acting pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, hereby determines that the benefits inuring to the Project outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and that the GPA should be approved. This Statement of Overriding Considerations applies specifically to those impacts found to be significant and unavoidable in Section 111, IV, and V above. The Board also finds and determines that the mitigation measures which were discussed in the EIR, public comments, County responses, or other portions of the administrative record but are not adopted or will not be incorporated into the project as determined in DBW\33390 29676.2 99 these findings are infeasible given the project's overriding benefits. Each of the specific project benefits discussed below are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Each of the matters set forth below, independent of the other matters, constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project despite each and every impact that will remain significant. B. Specific Findings 1. Protect Benefits Outweigh Unavoidable Impacts. The remaining unavoidable and irreversible impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of the economic, fiscal, social, environmental, land-use and/or other considerations set forth herein because the benefits of the Project outweigh any significant and unavoidable or irreversible adverse environmental impacts of the project. 2. Balance of Competing Goals. The Board finds it is imperative to balance competing goals in approving the Project and the environmental documentation for the Project. Not every policy or environmental concern has been fully satisfied because of the need to satisfy competing concerns to a certain extent. Accordingly, in some instances the Board has chosen to accept certain environmental impacts because to eliminate them would unduly compromise some other important economic, social, environmental, fiscal, or other type of goal. C. Overriding Considerations Specifically, this Board finds that the following social, economic, environmental, fiscal and/or other project benefits warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding any significant impacts of the Project which are not mitigated to a level of insignificance. a) Provision of Housing. The Project would provide approximately 2,135 housing units for the area and region. The Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") has projected an increase of approximately 58,500 households in Contra Costa County between 1990 and the year 2000. Of these, approximately 6,600 are projected to settle in the rural East County region. The project would accommodate approximately 32% of these new households. b) Master Planned Community. The Project has been carefully planned in conjunction with the existing Discovery Bay master planned community. The two projects taken together provide both cohesion and economic and planning synergy to each other. By providing comprehensive master planning to accommodate projected housing needs for the DBW\33390 29676.2 100 more rural portion of the East County, the Project can successfully provide the infrastructure and amenities required to support carefully planned residential and commercial development. The alternative to a master planned community to accommodate projected housing needs is often piecemeal and uncoordinated planning which taxes county resources and infrastructure. c) Provision of Recreational Amenities. The Project will provide an additional marina, boating facilities and additional lakes. These water related amenities will enhance the community and the East County. In addition, they will make the Delta more accessible. d) Provision of Long Term Jobs._ The Project in combination with the existing Discovery Bay Community, together with the amenities that each project provides, helps to create an attractive base for potential new employment generators and the creation of new jobs. With traffic congestion continuing to impede commute patterns and with the advent of new technology such as fiber optics, telecommunications and the information highway, increasingly master planned communities such as Discovery Bay and Discovery Bay West will attract new industries oriented towards telecommunications and information transmission. The Project will also provide housing for employees of any new industries attracted to the area. e) Public Revenues The project will substantially increase the assessed valuation of the Project Site and will beneficially impact property values in the vicinity, thereby creating additional property tax revenue for the County on a long-term basis. Additional sales tax revenues will also be generated for the County by Project residents and by contractors during construction of the Project. The Project will also generate additional fees towards local and regional agencies for solutions to public services and facility needs. f) Provision of Long and Short Term.Jobs. During construction the project will provide significant numbers of construction related jobs to County residents as well as the long term service jobs which will be generated to support the needs of the project residents. g) Project support of Local Retail The commercial demand from the Project's residents will make the commercial space located in the Discovery Bay and Byron 78 projects more viable, causing both an efficient land-use pattern and a reduction in trips for out of the area shopping. DBW\33390 29676.2 101 VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Based on the EIR and the entire administrative record before the Board, the Board finds as follows with respect to Mitigation Monitoring: 1. Time lines and long term responsibility with respect to monitoring Mitigation Measures will be assigned at the completion of the project approval process pursuant to a Board approved Mitigation Monitoring program. This Mitigation Monitoring Program will be finalized prior to final project approval. 2. The interest of the Mitigation Monitoring Program is to ensure the draft Mitigation Measures are tracked and that timing of mitigation is appropriately conducted. If a Mitigation Measure were to fail, the County would then use its police power to enforce appropriate changes which would bring the failed Mitigation Measure into compliance with the original intent or change the Mitigation Measure where the original Mitigation Measure proves to be infeasible. 3. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is in full compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. 4. The Board hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. IX FINDINGS REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Based on the entire administrative record before the Board, the Board finds as follows with respect to the Discovery Bay West GeneFal Plan Amendment Rezoning: The G nlPi n Amendmentis a eemnreh nee lenn_4e Fm deewmen+ speeifleally the DiseeveFy Bay i e] The Gene►nl Plan Amenelmen♦ sw;sistenfand-ir eensinten4 Pursuant to ovemment Code secttor 6 809, the isoQue�r day l st reztx rng �s can5istent h**the p 1 C es of the Conga Costa 6@r_xt PIS as a.n r e :........:...::..... by the O�sovery3ay"1Nester�era# Plar; Arrtendrrtent of fecember1994 � Tt�@ �?IsoQvery day West rezoning.w�tl oon�trtuie a �eaider�t�al e�utrQr►m >o sustained des�rab�t�t�r and wilt be r� harmony;with the charact>wr�f the nearby comrr�unit DBW\33390 29676.2 102 3 In acc€�rtiance".with the requirerhents necessary for adoptjon of P dstdb zorningIt:the ward #tnds that the development rs of a harrrtonio�ts, �rtrtova Tve plan ani J.-Olff the exceptions froM the narrnal appi�cat�an of the zan�ng code, tncl ding vanances and parcel can#�gura..... d esrgnF to provide ;a #getter cori#arm►ty uvitl exjsting terrain features and land use timitatlons m the area 4 The pr©tact applicant k�as indicated that they J n t d tpomme.nce: construct,on w�thu twQ.and one hatf years of the of#iE t' date of the #tnai rolect ........... .::.. . ..:.... .. .... . ........... ... .. a pr val .:.; DBW\33390 lo� 29676.2 H.. .3 iDDENDUR to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DISCOVERY BAY WEST April 23, 1995 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The Discovery Bay West project was originally -submitted,to-the Cone Co&ta County=Planning Department i 1998 _ The required project applications consisted of a General Plan Amendment, a rezoning request (2963 RZ) , and a Development Plan (3025-91) and a subdivision (7686) . A draft Environmental impact Report (°EIR") was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ) and circulated for public comment on August 10, 1994 . In response to public comments, a final EIR was prepared in November of 1994. On December 20, 1994 the Contra Costa County Board of supervisors, as Lead Agency, certified the final EIR as complete with regard to the General Plan Amendment, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21151 and approved the proposed General Plan Amendment with some changes. Proposed Changes &g the Discovary, any Nest -Proiect._ The original Discovery Bay West project preliminary development plan proposed to construct an approximately 330 slip marina on a portion of the project site on the southern portion of the project adjacent to Kellogg Creek. Pursuant to the changes in the General Plan Amendment made by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 1994, the project preliminary development plan now proposes to rezone that portion of the project to accommodate the preservation of the alkali wetlands open space and eliminate certain impacts associated with boat traffic along Kellogg Creek. Further, the marina has been relocated to the Fallman property near the center of the project. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Purpose of this Addendum. Under CEQA guidelines section 15162, after an EIR is has been prepared, a subsequent or supplemental EIR may not be required unless: 1. Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIA due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous ESR on the project; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken . . . which will require important revisions in the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in the previous EIR; or Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 2 3. New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available, and A. the information was not known and could not have -:been known at the time the previous MR was=cerVif tem ate_== - - complete, and B. the new information shows any of the following: (a) The project EIR will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; (c) Mitigation Measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the EIR would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. Staff has considered whether any of foregoing criteria have boon met since the original EIR was certified as complete and concluded that, using these criteria, a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR is not appropriate. However, section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a lead agency to prepare and Addendum to an EIR if: 1) none of the conditions described in section 15162 have occurred, 2) only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA, and 3) changes to the EIR made in the addendum do. not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. Therefore the purpose of this Addendum is to set forth the basis for the conclusion that the minor changes in the project description do not require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. Although the conclusion of this Addendum indicates that no new mitigation measures should be imposed to address project impacts, staff may recommend the imposition of new conditions of approval to insure that the project as amended complies with applicable County ordinances, policies and regulations. These conditions are not mitigation DBN\W90 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay Pest Page 3 measures per se because they do not relate to significant environmental impacts. II. PROJECT IMPACTS - SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT COULD BE REDUCED -TO A LEVEL-=0F INSIGNIFICANCE _ -- s Staff's review of the project focused on whether the changes Proposed in the project require EIR "revisions due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts, whether substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being_ undertaken, and whether previously unavailable and important new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15162 has become available. The discussions immediately following are for those impacts that were either found to be less-than-significant, or that were found to be significant but could be mitigated to a level of less than significance by changes to the project. Each section has the objective of explaining why the proposed project changes would not result in additional significant impacts, or exacerbate existing impacts to the point where additional mitigation would be necessary. A. SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER The EIR analyzed the project's potential impacts related to drainage, flood potential, surface water quality, stream bank erosion and groundwater quantity and quality. The EIR concluded that the portion of the project related to the marina could have significant effects on stream bank erosion in the -vicinity of Kellogg Creek. The changes to the project will eliminate the potential increase in stream bank erosion along Kellogg Creek by eliminating the potential for significantly increased boat traffic along Kellogg Creek. Further, examination of the plan by a hydrologist indicates that the new location of the marina will not generate any significant new impacts in the nature of current changes, erosion or flooding. (see attached letter) B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 08W\33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 4 The EIR analyzed the project's potential impacts of the marina -location on the biological resources in the project. The EIR concluded that• the additional boat traffic could disturb the : habitat of the Southwest Pond Turtle as well as increase the erosion. of _the .habitat3of-the- Masonts lilaeopsisr California hibiscus and Suisun marsh aster. The EIR also noted that construction of levees and channels could result in the short term degradation of aquatic habitat. The EIR concluded that the marina would not directly result in the loss of any other special _ species habitat. The changes in the project will eliminate the potential disturbance to Southwest Pond Turtle habitat in the Kellogg Creek area but may cause disturbance to Pond Turtle habitat in the area of the new marina. Staff concludes that the changes in the project will not add any new unmitigated impacts to the Southwestern Pond Turtle because the mitigation discussed in the 81R would mitigate the loss of the habitat equally well in either location. Further, staff concludes that both the original and the relocated marina could cause the loss of Mason's lilasopsis, California hibiscus and Suisun marsh aster habitat. However, staff concludes that the changes to the project will not exacerbate these impacts because the mitigation measures discussed in the ETR will mitigate these impacts squally well in either marina location. C. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMIC HAZARD The EIR analyzed the potential impact of seismic activity, soil instability and topography change on the project and the environment. The EIR concluded that construction of the levees including those required for the marina could result in unstable slopes especially during seismic activity. The EIR proposed slope engineering techniques as mitigation. Staff concludes that the changes to the project will not substantially effect any of the noted geologic impacts because the overall grading and construction activity with regard to the marina will not change. D. NOISE The EIR analyzed the project's potential noise impacts on surrounding land uses as well as the project's susceptibility to noise impacts from surrounding land uses. The EIR concluded that the project's contribution to the ambient noise level after D9u\33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Say West Page 5 construction was significant especially with regard to projected levels along Kellogg Creek. The changes in the project will substantially reduce the ambient noise levels along Kellogg Creek by eliminating the projected increase in boat traffic. The changes will result in increased noise levels along the proposed connection to Dredger Out through the Fallman property, however, that property is much less sensitive to increased noise levels. Therefore staff concludes that no new significant impacts will be caused by the change in the project and no additional mitigation is necessary. E. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The EIR examined the impact of the marina location on traffic levels and on circulation patterns. It was concluded that the marina would not significantly add to cumulative traffic levels or disturb interior circulation. The changes to the project will not effect the overall level of traffic and while there is a change in the internal circulation pattern staff concludes that the relocation of the marina will not cause any new substantial circulation impacts. F. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE The EIR analyzed the project's potential impact on air quality and climate as it relates to the location of the marina. The EIR concluded that there would be a slight change in the microclimats near the marina due to the presence of surface water. The changes to the project will cause changes in the microclimate of the area where the marina is to be relocated but will eliminate the change in the location where the marina was originally proposed. Staff concludes that this will not add any new substantial impacts. G. LAND USE AND PLANNING The EIR analyzed the project's potentially significant impacts on land use and planning. The EIR concluded that the project would have potentially significant conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses. The original location of the marina was not in the vicinity of any neighboring agricultural uses. UWU3390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Say nest Page 6 The new location of the marina is in the interior of the project and staff concludes that in its new location the marina will not Conflict with any adjacent agricultural uses or generate any now significant impacts. H. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES The EIR analysed the project's impact on public utilities and services and concluded the project would increase the consumption ------ -of -water and sewage treatment service, increase- sohool --and child pare enrollment, increase the demand for police and fire service and increase the need for mosquito abatement and flood control protection. The relocation of the marina will not effect the projects demand for schoolsand child care or the demand for sewage treatment or water consumption (see attached letter regarding water consumption through the lake system) . The changes to the project gill also not effect the severity of potential flooding (see attached letter) or the project's demand for fire or police protection. As such, staff concludes that no addition mitigation a required because of the changes to the project. I. RECREATION The EIR analyzed the impacts the project would have on the demand for recreational facilities and also the impacts the project's _proposed recreational facilities would have on the public. The EIR concluded that mitigation would be required to reduce the project lack of parks facilities to a less than significant level and also to protect the public from hazardous trespass along the ECCID canal easement. The EIR also concluded that the marina in its original location would have significant impacts on the homeowners along Kellogg Creek. The changes to the project will not effect its .supply of or demand for park facilities or the likelihood or risks associated with trespass along the ECCID canal easement. The changes will, however, reduce the impacts of boat traffic on the homeowners along Kellogg Creek by shifting the boat traffic to Dredger Cut and the new proposed access to the relocated marina. There are no existing or proposed homes along the proposed access channel to the new marina location. Further, Dredger Cut is sufficiently wide and well used that the additional boat trips will not have DBW\M90 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 7 significant impacts on adjacent uses. Staff concludes that the changes to the project will reduce the existing impacts on recreation in the Discovery Bay area near Kellogg Creek and will not add any new significant impacts elsewhere. J. VISUAL RESOURCES The SIR examined the visual impact of converting the project area from agricultural use to suburban development. The SIR 'concluded that given, the relatively flat terrain, no scenic vistas would be disturbed. However, the BIR did conclude that the original location of the marina would have a significant -negative impact on the homeowners opposite it along Kellogg Creek. The Changes to the project will not affect any of the studied vistas except that the relocation of the marina will cause the view of the homeowners along Kellogg creek to remain unchanged as natural wetlands. This will eliminate the significant visual impact the original project had on them. staff therefore concludes that the modifications to the project will reduce the visual impacts projected in the EIR and will not add any new significant impacts. K. CULTURAL RESOURCES The EIR examined the project's effect on potential historic and prehistoric resources located within the project area. With respect to the location of the marina, the EIR noted that there were no potential historic or prehistoric resources. The new location of the marina is not within .any area identified in the EIR as likely to contain historic or prehistoric resources. Therefore staff concludes the proposed relocation of the marina will not effect historic or prehistoric resources within the project area and will not require addition mitigation measures. L. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS The EIR analyzed the impact of the high voltage electric lines located on the project site on the proposed project. The EIR concluded that the high voltage electric lines would have no significant effect on any intense land use located near the power lines. a8A33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page S The modifications to the project do effect the exposure to residential or other intense land uses to electromagnetic fields. Staff concludes that no new. EMF impacts will be generated by the changes to the project and therefore no additional mitigation is necessary. . - III. PROJECT IMPACTS - SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE UNAVOIDABLE The following discussion addresses those impacts that were found to be significant in the SIR and that Could not be mitigated to a level of less-than-significance. Each section -has the objective of assessing whether the proposed changes to the project will result in new or exacerbated significant environmental impacts. A. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMIC HAZARDS The EIR analyzed the impact of the mass grading required by the project and concluded it was significant and unavoidable. The changes to the project do not significantly change the amount of grading required for completion of the project. staff therefore concludes that the significant and unavoidable mass grading impacts will not be exacerbated by the changes to the project. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The EIR examined the project's effect on loss of woodland habitat and concluded that the development of original marina site would result in the permanent and unmitigable loss of 12 acres of alkali wetland habitat. The changes in the project will preserve this alkali woodland habitat but may result in the loss of an equal or lesser amount of wetlands of a lesser quality. As such, staff concludes that the impacts to wetlands will be reduced by the changes to the project but will remain significant. C. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The EIR analyzed the traffic impacts of the project on the Vasco Road and Byron Highway corridors. The EIR concluded that the project would contribute to the unacceptable and unmitigable Level of Service along those corridors south of the Camino Diablo corridor. 08"3390 4905.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 9 The modifications to the project would not effect the overall amount of traffic generated by the project and therefore will not- effect the Levels of Service along the Vasco Road and Byron Highway corridors. Staff therefore concludes that the _- modifications to the_vrolec� ill---not-exacerbate a - of the unavoidable traffic impacts _ --widentified in the EIR. D. AIR QUALITY The EIR analyzed the project's impact on regional air quality and concluded that the project will contribute to the incremental increase in air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area, an area which does not neet Federal and State air quality standards. The EIR concluded that mitigation will not reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The changes to the project will not effect the amount of air pollution which will be emitted from project generated traffic. Therefore, staff concludes that the impacts to regional air quality will not be effected by the changes to the project. i D. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The EIR discussed several growth inducing impacts of the project. The EIR identified the precedential effect of the General Plan Amendment and rezoning, the extension of sewage treatment service and public water supply, and the inducement of commercial development as the most important growth inducing aspects of the project. The EIR discussed mitigation measures but concluded that no mitigation could reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The modifications to the project would not effect the overall . scope of the development or the need for utility expansion or the market for new commercial development. Staff therefore concludes that the changes to the project will have no effect on the growth inducing nature of the project. E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The EIR analyzed the project's cumulative impacts on the environment when taken into account in conjunction with the other planned or approved development projects within the Discovery Bay area (Albers and Byron 78 projects) . The EIR concluded that the oeu33390 49455.1 A Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 10 project cumulatively would increase the loss of agricultural land and open space, , inerease traffic congestion, increase the regional ambient noise level and decrease the regional air quality, add to` the reduction in valuable biotic habitat, add to the visual -conversion of open space vistas to suburban development, increase the number of people subject to geologic hazards and add to the strain on public utilities and other public services. The EIR concluded that these cumulative impacts were unavoidable. The changes to the project will not changes the project's contribution to all of the above cumulative impacts. Staff concludes that the modification to the project will not exacerbate the already projected cumulative impacts. IV. CONCLUSION OF THIS ADDENDUM The circumstances that would justify the preparation of a Subsequent or supplemental EIR for this project are not present. There are no changes in the project or changes in the attendant eiroumstances or previously unavailable new information which would suggest that the project will have substantially new or substantially more severe significant impacts than predicted in the original EIR. Further, there is no evidence which would suggest that new mitigation measures or alternatives would substantially lessen the project's significant impacts. This should not be taken to imply that additional or amended Conditions of Approval for this projeot should not be considered for items of concern that may be raised by Planning Staff, the Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors. osu\33390 69L55.1 3 H. 3 3 0 0 s d CJ1 - - n O �1 by SCO � t� :hz zr b ►C � z O z d z y WA �.�- v r* .! 051 aq 1:0 Co CV ., ., G• cv a 00 r. w � ,G O CO cooN °' s r► 45. C7 Cor p � � y O "A to � �. .^ %a O �+ G• p � G ,,,,,• N f�t'i co '�,'� r+ � � Qy � paG cn pGr,� G cn •-+; G �`� �: tG"� aG--• +„'� r'� cp tCI D C) go P, ps '� or N f�4 O G 1G N c-, r n' 0, G �' O G a t`A 0 tit TO •'R••• tD a .. G r G O 0 Grp W. O co rr �:I. I G n rn � G ^ "� '' •'� .. '� G is �; co WA , o ,, a .ten y' '� © +•C 0. 0- corp ` cl cu cD cu a as •p �. ro ,�, (Va C)co , i G �d��� � b'� dn� dn� d � d SOY'• to O n © nnao1�3 o a •+ 000 a toO-'.� co CIO aa Iwo Co r• �,• r* °� r• 't3 G C� to tm, O o � r• a• ..• m co n � w a a � x d 0 c CID oQ � c .. a C- 0-4 3 O O > z z o 3 z r� a c •v •a -n•o a -+ y a•v fD 5 � °' a � c o b co CL CD so a CD co c9 e g g ., py o c, � •v �•v a O CU 5'OQ w w 3 U' a 3 � 5'�' w ? o z 'o w a co y w °' �' �e oQ �' 'd a H n w °�' on � O ° °7 ?r G. =r y is rs %< v`,' ° n' ur pa a f9 ncao c G� O _ r•,- c O co c w co c w c = b C) rA ' m0 ctao o a = a C6 �°v a c y c Co a o CR CD e F ^ nw CrJ d4 w CDO0 a c9 ?oQ ? w C ctio y ,O � —0. d v N Co 10 ro o co ?; ce ° co o ►C O O O G in G C �' n "a `� 'C7 p O w a c �• C w L C wpo _ c a s rrl a (D' n :7 w ti b C ((v D OQ R (D' °_ H• C OQ co y io Cr1 "' n ^ 3 °n IQ -w, "' =r ct Sr CD a a � CT7 o ^o o v c _ y M o c o c o c O m b C) v • a • a • z rri C6 Co ,^ b b n w ro fl ^-� n w v °o^ z a OQ w Oq a yCjQ cc, = C Co 10 0 z -non -ni-1 nonr1 -non � o a o n - , A 2R m O 7° moo• =• o b C_ G a °' O " r' z v = � O c d 3 z cr co' ^ c com o o z .. co to e o :r c��o °c c5, c• mid 7coo- ? � 3 c a O — � y P7 y y CC W Im b `° ,0. o Cl) oyCDa d aCl) c co w � < a ac o- 3 (7 y .- o w w w O .. w w ^ c C W n'�f C ^;,yyyy0 to -ft rA to to ^�bCO co < < .GCO �. d .7» < N < 11 CA sy < Cba,�11 C T �• '• fD � y. co c� 9 c c °• � c�i� o to co > z o•v o _ m o a f0 @ co 0 y w � a O ° 0, v Cz7 z ^ o c `3 o S a o s - < •O 0o y R M z v � n 0 n nn c c ti Q. �' O ✓ r � 9 o Z 0 to bo ct co r � G ,r :S "'j °•O yy � f� � '^ N .:1 N. R �. R g "" fir"• 4, p ,�� two � t ^ � •� O N � O R � G,. G• N ¢' r GC N ^ t~'o D .Ri O Q p^. p• R iii d ,.n f� G R R '.• � ►� n �^..'O '�' .'r N cpy W '� 7 .1 ✓ A• �„ .D Gy •!'3v'•. .^•"!' � "^,. ^ a' A n G 4 7 ^ GN � A G ''0+ A R �° •'�/ r N C. � .✓. r � O J A 'p :+ '4 p N O�d n U ° O O O. N N G O ^ n ° D �' O• ° 7 ^ A R a «, ,, v o. to 003.� we it 4 j �, � �; � R cG'o3 $ `r» coG�, � o wa°'a :; a mo �eoRc°^o� RR�- o `� �•ocdo e 7r C� n R n O C s R O G '� r �n c^o D TJ.. .+ O n G � •4 ^ � R G i CY n O• G cto � O O n � +•' R ^ "'' V O ^ � N R Os G tR9 '� ti � � R q• O' rt K t'i R G ~ � d G 9% fr L'1 �' uR, app G.r N 7C O✓'a '*l °•n .R•�+ W fi r* :1 Q:• .+ n CR, ^ �^ p P:, tr9 tG"f R o� .•� N .< O O Q' ^^ v' C� RR � G r• �' ^ pO � O R O .R•. :'n n v •t � � ,R.� `n � 0 y � u' ',(�i � � ..i N N �. ►fy' r � R � G R ••DRi '�". � � G � � R �,. �,. t?• 7t'3, <p ^+ pn. 3ro �DA' ^ '' � �^ '" � � =.:. -• nen N� ..'°� �, '= O =. °' � ^ ° ,' 9 G°'• ye c<o 9 ^o ��� O �. E 4 ¢ � ^° cdo a° �� .Rr. R ►�y/ CD W () W co R ✓ •,• N co '`i► .N+ t9 G�- G d v. '::'7�' ^.•bq R R R '�' N A Nom+' R < R ^'' G N �.� f=9 l•� R y•,�-. O �'� 7S• C �• ~ a N N t9 ° �. ¢:^'C H •ty "'� G G C%l D 'D" R .. p R n do O � ty G. G (� N D% N R G R p ,0 ^ ^,S w 3 d y R A ?.. O R R 9> < p "' ^ ^ R ti 'C7 r O (� n,9 � � � 'Y.' a• < D ,..` ryR' ..+; n n a p °"?c o Q Rte» 9' ° ; ° ° •a N o d a Oc�o '' �c^o to co cin b i""•<' G p 'co � G a " °c � °+ ? p R �' w m. coo r .� o p cdo y O R r 3 rl a � ^ VO �• o R co .. o ci 104 Iz "'n O (•1 1 O n ✓ � f1 � G 00 o � R, y ct` v o n ~ Q z CD � = ai a � � to� r' c: •• � � w ,Q,� d uCt• hop �� � r,� CD CD (y a ce _ H G. • C9 M r co a c o n a w O w = G p cm's C/1 1 d y• N ..Tco O con � co � o °' opn, ytf to o y < Co > VJ •y W C7 'r "' "' 7-, v C rM 'O C m O G b > C-• y � a rz a � z 3 C c • • • ^ n = " jnnCZ c C N N o g G c o c CD o' o°o `pC- "-ft e— 3 ° a o z 0 w a � ,,c. w �• CTJ �' g oe o ;v c aoo ti � Q. - O Q =, co O ee w < w o ^' � a c�i C)' 0° 3 �_ c_ _� e_ c`� nC y `� o C °c 5'c 7. 3 ^ C) s w Q ° 00. CrQ gyp' vi p� f=Y ,3 f9 � l77 CD w ..C� ^ G w co w cD C y d O. O O io iy co _ ar (� p C O w w .j c o w ce 0 C 3 y y ~ c=) c w °^ rA co o -c C) may �w 1-4p �_ ° ^ co 0 N 0 w^ Ct G-o b G C (p C, W n' y -J' G. vii N "�'1 •p'7• R �cr �1 G . ,0 °0 3 �. . cgo v �, ct o� ao c a°o o`Da o' d p b f9 y -. rn O n F "'� aD O co co`�' w 7 rr '� Oo CD w Oo w .O w <Ct ? C „f D, ry ,n a. c w COC', w , ^ vQ, m -C ti O v p' CD w p ^ d O o °= Gow w j= '2ao � aofD ovDe0 � 3O C . w e c m y a .d wW O 0 = —CD 5 v y Cr1 ^ w Cb w b w •, rn w fD .y.. y C� 'n w C N fD G 7 v N OQ C. O^ of 9i = � C r� CD w aro r' D w = aD _ aD 0 iD v w aD w G G w w O O F w fs b rn 0 O ° d ° -moo w w CA 5 a G Hco -3 O y `D w = Ct o. O eD c D w O ° G O ce o G 0' ft 3 CD Sr CD co CA w tv Crl w CD CD •M 0 co to co to c -v Y ar ar CDco a b a ^ a da "� z w 0 CD �•0o C0 7 .q = — o 00 � c c a n .0 �'b R 3 Ct7 o < 3 w ° � � ` � GQ z �c n O w W pwq c � O n (D fD - < < cr ^ tD cD �. trc o O 0 13, oo. co 0 rr iol- o" t:r 'm c -0 CD tp Lp O CD I..........''I ............. a 0 r `3, t"p gg aoN G%• CJ �c a , v rd �� oi �..,o•a^' �.c � 3 X33 � � .• ao.- � 0 I G 7 r rr�•+ (�9 t'A' i.N a .�, �%j p Ga A� � � r• � G °. 40 p ^, o a o ro e�nQ °• c�oG' y°ob 'iC�� ouQ" C� "dG a' °° or�'9N "' tl�o �,'•• o a� `�O G,prt p `n ♦� 4.ro o c oC a„ °'o, 10,,,,. "oa S. a NN `" N O�' � ^ � % i'G `N cin vi '`• G . � p 4i� '' O �,tiy O p• ��' � ! Q, A,y fl' G6+, 3 O „•.c�� �. O G 6 to ¢ i G �• � �„r r �,� � dp N Cn �rS.�.,, r a y � oo N„ -� c„ o °�• g o C. o 04 N N N 10 y g a � cr N NG r• N r :• .•• N C � qGa � V Q+ � R.y a h a r C ��• y '� a;� Q. ✓ Rye � � i N N r N N � '�, 7✓., N H0'+ ro v� G p� cc N W � r m a a y � � Y Q z 0 `•3 CD eb CD r G C b n y A o• H ? Cct C. 2 a ^ O CG a acs o d c C. �p d N = 0-4 _ r CD O CD �• o � 3 y id CD 0 a =oa c oa Cr! a O y �• • C17 CD 5. CD _ ? 9c aCDCt CD C" � b d o• z v ct � y • CD z ct f— � -� 3 c f7 � a n r N r � Q c�oE �� � G7 0.0 cl a o o 7 C Zra O n p � CQS O, � � H �• G A r c0v+ p• ? w o p KS co a v� A o 00 ._ °:. °'or' � ten.,� N• �o � �' o �' •v °» co °c •� a o � � o: y • c000 � G .¢ ;r Y, co ^ .0 ocp � p •o � � a cu a. 'a to 3 Gig G7 c w Q. coo C� c � eo Z co co C2S r r•r•1 ISO � r r tS r CD cv o tz OS. ar tz ^ o t r• • C ti, to ct to G Cy O :r 4 a too K 0 C r) 0 "o ct C6 -0 cr PT, b vo E: a 9 Or. = w -0 P. z 0� 0 cr , — 6^ -0 ju (T -- 0 ?A am cu w q Co CA LO ;rz =' - = VI. " 0 8 Z. 1'.'- - R. Ir cr C G 0 r_ L" 0 = . 0 0 .0 CA -- Q. �; A '7 F)o tr OQ 0 (AC, 0 W Ct W to CD M. 02 CL 0 r; 0 te, F, 0 W to 4m 8 W (D I QQ to c.. 5 ct Im to (A CrJ " 9 5 VDcm O w o m w 00 rjQ to CD ft O t^oN, lWt 5 Wo 8 0 it 5? — CIS Im cv G. C6 w ar t, 43 = 0 n C- 0 co C, .4 W IV CT C) 0 P-2 (-j r-, K > cr. > F. N • N w � v•� rr t;1 S a cr z 0 z =: o ... .., g n = fro G d a • a. R G R ° Oir G CO '• ti '.T d OUV N M Ufl •1 i {!• N � �^s•' ^ cil 06 w w �•- .,,i tnr. (v `.G O C w0, ~ ti ° V3 co g $' 0C G Z to sp tJ .w. G. to:rcO �. ° cr It w aa tv to N A O ^.CA w N — N ww C ? �' wi O O w G' 7C Ci ° 7r C) O G R ^U Cr n Q N ^1, 0 N H f O O O ff. y d O .� =�e a � a '^ c7 w ^. v� o O c �,' 3 f. v W G sr s�1 w q Cp G, r. n�► ' in w w tao C] G H ro o. H w ? x amu^, to V `a Q O •O» ^� n d � w O N " � �fD O � tG•7 � O C ry �. .�-. '°y n �. 3 � � vi n � C` R .�. � N v. ? u w G '. .� o f^! ,a•+ �... tRI'i L1. C. .�+ � � N G.. ct b � � b o ° to Z .. .Q o o ° > o z z A z G J r l I 1 6.! r 4i zr 000 s" :03 0• 0 S 14 TV, 5; (R� % 9� t6 vg vc,. !r 1}r-0 va C, 6 "00 r � k � > � k � � O . � 2 - k It k mottle 7 d %7 �• - I � O 141 � « § � � f � $ �- \ if r� a N h 7 r 0 a r- a d z 6 A i^ N Q..G^ i•'�4 ^ G.t G -Ola al '�•� '� L HO G i• `7^ y. v b p N..• G i n ar i s QO �', G A rte' a' aN O 4- .• G .> ^ R ".t K• i' :+ Q -6s. • N• N (0 n �' ° :+ •� a' N G�+'� �' O v t9 i vG" a 9+ .� .i � r f+ d .. O G L t 0' �•_-��. Fl � ��O'' �•rJ C� "i b ^' f''i• ^ �6 �. G• r' Q p '4 C' "^• � Q i r Q v O O y a w ^ ? y G w b r cs4 b ° r ' G G O n - roc �.� :; 0. �' v d a � tacoaG ^, 2 �• :� �''-r' o+ C� 3 n � co v �' O v G °r N N :� i`V% .� r' R e G Q. ti R �+ L' h � � w•, n G a ti 9� ;y� Pa^' q�Np.¢°� 'l�mD yf bia� ^i r:G� G�..0• pN y �..%+OW q wr.GtC� G+ 0.,,,G�a gr 0* G tO0+ ^w ..�+C no � b .,• r N G as N a o; N � R 6 ., Q a � v �' v v co o p w �, m y R N r w ;� •• `�, ;+ r,3 N N � N f4 i wry �• '�G O ar.. O•a N a,.. � �'OG �9 � � p. �., n n f�D r� 7 y r a N R w G w ^ �. ' Sr ry eco A ° G o" p Q '` O R 3 �✓ a� N fG ,� co N ? ••' p � ti. R. i• v 7p' � .yG `'� Rr f� i• R, �.. ,.l G 9 vr,,, 6'^ p �•fr.'w C4jG ."'^ry G '.7' � ,�i�+ N .+ i• N G a t0 to Q .r «� .a G R .•, : R "' > ° y ^ l' r i�G � �'�^ ^O 7 ro w ° o °',' fl, � f: � v O �„•, r, G� `''moi iy ^ .Q C, R � o .'• Cy � t!� �' °'3 f. iv �' G '.. 'b' R c: `" � {Ri 0 p, N O y G � :-'• sGs � tis a ORR,� O G G r ` G Vp. � '?^ a � o +^G a •Y O O r i a 2 r- Q G G f• O ,.i v G Q r co G 9 G i Q J r r/ O Ir G c 7 •� rr N z. .p G".h+ O d' nr.• A tJ� R O 9z ^^ n 7 n U� n N � n S R rn ;, tin G � G tri i C+ 0= e r tJ CT vs R co Fr. 3 0 cr 0, VTf -K4 MA S '. zA 2t—,—t 1,.� A: = Z sr E g CS K J2 i; nt 0 S El ca 0 65 QQ ft 0 — 5 S C t, V- 52 C6 CD A 0A w sc M 0 m 'n co 0c * m c -0 0 tv C) a On Cr Iw- 24. C t4 C9 to Q ct co C) CA cl im = 0a c Jr. "et E_ rr Co 00 r— ct * Ca. 0-6 rA 0 r, cm .1 —= v to = 4 Z'. , w w CD kv riQ , w 7 = f-. a- H 2L 0 CD n rb a aro n ct w ; C) ct 7R CA ct N N OQ 3 F R °o O C = f: � L t' O lD v CLQ O , 'O O' -_- - _ � 3 �- .^. - _ " ° ..�. c ry coo• � ^� n ? � p 3 '$ co a.w• d .. _ ;t7 n to �+ � p -• C1 7 O .. Q z Fr F S <'.fl to 5. o < c o c H o w ���pp. s Rm :e • °° rD o o=o = E G tv w7rCD Fr^ � wQ` ti N C4. IM "." �1 A b 0 to 0 R ti. N S c N . Cc /r y C fjQ NnxCm- a , N< • d = , j; O .7 Ccv 7 ,GO 7 - n , A fxi l: .Q `< ^ y R C p 12 w -0 cvw y �n a C y c *<cr =w F w c cqa C16 n tro v f9, ^ ^n n t4CD opst cnv �- co c �. d w R G cw^9 •p (.I O do ca? ° R rii co N v' `b' = a R O — Bao c p CD c �' o "Cob H .y C9 R w C fa ti N � w ^ N CT H C. R• C. �;' f9 O •� ^• CD .n w o ac oo n F �` g• o c a vo o c R w ° w ao is p R ^ ' 3 `O -TI pr = fDW. � `< w y C ^ m an z m a C — R .7 ^ ^ a R a !;Fo 3 Cri v ? ao z L 'l C li: n • ^ � c " _am c � O or �• � coo N G� - '��' S �8 '•" .dt d 0/� +•'. Q'f �••� G .,,� i�. N Q� ^ .70, G 6 , uj G O� '�• '„ ^ i• i ^ n /` f N .dn R a f y fa �. d a y N hhn i °3 �•. n0 .+.�_D C ti dIr,. O' .^ h N D. y a w ;f O1 Ca , O ^ G• d as is v �.+� C G i d n 7 tlo ✓ O °W O N fG x rh9 .G G G `, N .Ni ? U n ! n O n. �..GQ : n N 0,o*w On 0e C6, h �0..N hLl ?,j h to v y:G r^ N n r N N Q D. G v d N r .O y �0 i tt vi nd v rn v so -O •O d co f9 j. �' �,.'� V' aG.+G,y d N N % �• G w .Q ? O i• 'i• N `tZ. N p4 'G• O �, N 'S O• A. hn i• .y Qp+ Cf n Rte"•• 'G,,, n G O �. ✓� ^ss G p..< G, ^ y ✓aa3o—r � t�"o 7 ^ G.' 0- d''., R t9 W, v N cv co . damN ✓ G. d '.� i• ^ G' G G �.�^ d Off, N h to ."• `N„ �' G .► ? G 0 0 i O.n '•� O. a " a D f. d "' O c% O G d h w G p N so coQ � Q.d-% C y O �. W 'G.n C R r t�'o G• f�-n 04 N v 4 ,h G d k rrt9 R n it A'•, a G Q N N :. .;y d N .y Gi :ate.,,, d � :dna,+ ."G •o OR s G / G; �, Das G O •Y h i C P r r f ✓ G i, r i• r .i � c � d z ss .. •, H6, iso a9U � .cn a � � �, � "a a; obi c ^��—. 3 �_ !9 �..• � °: coo � °= R `n o,: = cs c re � < h ga, es B •a a c a c, w c �, a ::. a ?, o mai O o �" Q. G a G C m _ ca OQ � �• �''^„ � °, � � 3 Cin•, ccs o � n � �' ro n oCo ^°'a 3 �• .i N; v � � �" W e ter . H a w.og, c o a H •a c y _. �. ;, •• E .c 'nao a coo n � ., ac .. w ., n a c Cc g9 e c °o c _ et cc cr vs°O •a 3 •v c a ri x y w y sro °, =° ? =� cos R °- G -3 � �. ;, rt a-0 waFr a, c. tcis cr,cr. v S. ..p o ^ C f~•. :,; H a !" m ^ co .? �'1 +"C .5, G .r �, .^ '�' to -CQ 10 fp H G. w 'O a "r" M C1 n G ° 7� co no CT .�. w C y m 7 7C M .. n y "C 4�0 H ? d O O tz co c. cs ^^ �, n n w a o m a a '� `� n to ,• w 5 p y P4 nc 0 co z N C- R' y ry G r G n c r 9 J w, y+ i• u, � �' � � ••. '�s is .G co �, a o„ � `G .•, f r�J n £ C° T n :� •" cCs �+ ,"j� D G O .O w ^! ,.. w � , <•ow,s co Cl ? n wLn mow w •tee v� v ?: © o cl to v ', mow' o6 cq u r o u. w °.�"..°r:• a *+ �• R, 7 @ G C• ?. � [f9 G.0,. r C .G ~.,y' .,�� t9 w �,.G N 9 u� t9 M1 N tla w :a ..f /' G N 4• t► D G R n Cl. o': co w R 'T', fr r "� G •J '•� OC► Gn '� wry. f� GLnJ te i• r n _ ?• r .! n G r G � r r, = a CL 201" oru= 0. 'A Al cr no 0 c r w CIL 00 a C) et Co ci 60 ca 0 0 m C2, -nm Ir 0 0 :01 CarCL Ga n Cl) n 9:6 w D) QQ W 0 n R cr !V w a+ `" cr Ct n sa a 52 tA w -C 0 r— CD 0 , w pr 2 c OQ co Sct to w + w 0 0 > E cr A ;- g 0 P N CD tQ cr 5 ts q 0 ct sm w 1% , A cr n V. co vo "C =ID ro > cm, R.-Z -e g n ta C) 0 -4 pr to CD CD sr 0 n z an > > -0 Pa "a co -TI ITI a vwOC 10 ft N !J G V1 O D 3 � A a � - a x Z � b tr O z n n is V "o R 'AGS a '-r A yr O . OQ p H ?: y < ~ ~ C: p. ^ f Cco d io O w H p ods 'C ❑ .• u, g n ct G. G ? Q X. ? C C a G o cr R O^ y�Sf 0 a C7 c cm C z > N 0 > A y � ` 3et •C o c z 7> O 'a z 3 A > 0 Z z 3. � O= Z= Smr sale E folfpl-, Is,- *. r,- "R C) v. o R o C, 2— 5 " —. , = — to �a I =- ;; .0 W R F 5- 0 0 00 ct f- > C ft ?r (v c to ct otv a w n p V tV %q = = pr - R r. .0 F CD ctCD w Or-, va Cc" w ro- ct =. to tr w rj R a CA or > -q CO rA ca (M CO C-. m Co cm (A ID ro C- ft to > En < > P > z > M 45 Z4 Z4 f Cl tn0 O G ON ©Q ljf i ,,.. '� 4 � n L' y O_ f � . G c: t .• O i N G � N G.p i• H r r. rG�� 9a.�?G y �• d i 7 O ���+, �. G i• VIA k O :. t � •O co c. � S ce r c 3 H rot �o v r•G O• N r � � � r 9� 3 r0 i C' R q zk J 0 ! rG' ray �ij O G %• ' O 7� C- ^^" � R '3 : J we! S, re O Irk .00 Vp S. oGc«*o map 04 Soo C, m Va- all S.�: 5 4- -� la A A 04 g. 110 On ig . s % 0 tp W. Wo S 9 t.r op G O vo no- 15 4C. all - -4 0 100 Vol 4 11-1 0 sk th o" lar 10, s .0 sat 0 Sl A A N • °z y O 3 z R GA O L7 "•••'. c 06 ti SO O •"n O n• 1 �• �• Q v. G O 7C ,f9, f ? n w c ^ c d n c oo O cs -n M R a c 7i cis °; = "a a d Z H o a o=o o�+ -- o _ 3cM. Co CD O n ry G y y 06 N O 7' c9 C R l J N C w B ,� 3 y ,� o0 0 -*. w , coos �' �• c. nc �' � � oo' � a � S _a• c^�a � O w y a ao cc O G co f9 Q 7 G G t/: O F y �O w '� fo to O• 'J y ^e- cois (7 ? w ^ co do cs r w w CD po maA } !'Y D• O. O_ c �• y v N �' �- Cil Cl, c: R c w:; Cr ao o ado ado � c� mis m cs w _ a C" cs Z 0 a En E. a .� c _ 411 3 y a o0 o c ct Sr N � O 3 z O cc - Con °_' G � �_ _� a cD v H O N = 00 cL coev n 3 °' E c a < o y C, c b o 0 w = o' d c - ... a C _ D G U n 0 3 cn co d y G c co m C) vyto � n 'U Z cC c' .0 u C, tor. " 'a °c .o O ^ H � cmc � Gd Co f7 � L7 O � ►.0 Z s y y cs = O r. F y oam ti CO ° tD ct G1 Cr) c v o a n Z rri ct • • ♦ • (1 ^ n hn � �• CD. .P b� � � z rr w w O � _ G O � H � G• "sw r c cr ft c to CL Qn cy 2 w 7 7 OC G ^ ^7 - - cmc w O � ` w y —• n O. O ro• = p Z - a w 'a K cooaa aq R. CFQ CO T as ... ro 67 O• ! G .� G f O M G m �} wtv 0 t7l CV cz w R .0 ". G G w 3N W tr«g1 two �".. '.'1 Y �' �_ tz IM+ n C ^ At fo 0 • P+ t ^ C to " in m Q, R. n CL w R m L 1 m z an a � > n � w • ;,� O :� •� 7 n ter'. 'O 8. .rp •e o Z O 'C C r' O • 'v � • Z rt c rD Ci rD l/ V 72 n r � Tr N A r. o• 7 o On � � 3 e,N o N w Op i Q n O O j0 y N O \ i N 01 i N N � CS n w ° 1 as N i a Z ^ N o r � C. R G o� n :L 00 r f t" i` ✓ � o u 7 a yam. � rL� R p Lt ' O y 7� o a4 co :• ic 'y G °' co `v D N c• to %. tin oz o•. ,^ o � '•d i l' G Y C: I `J C7 �' O J a 0 e0 tt o- o 30 cu 0 9 go 9-0. � ct G. to (0 r• A o � 3;va CA 0o d V,4 c, ... � o' •, a �' -� � � "• 3 .- n LTA o t 2 :� � tea `•" cr rct co �. p'o• o � 9 N A •-. o r y o' D w o � 7 q z �G b v d w a N M :a d it 7 D � Cy•4 .+ f�D A "�+. <�: ,�, � y o• C7 � iC? �;�o o.� � o• 07 9 r co -� y .L+ fV N O •v c r w 3 w c• 3 y t7 E, Z C? Z t�0f20 O, Ca O O �Y G n}v � � 1��9 n - t� a. 'D a 'U O< .► O O O'er 7 -- ?/t� ►G.+��� 211 tv A tv fA y d >Ea; o c: ; ri aGa a IV tr: Z o. pl y a ce o ci Cr7 u 3 000 L � C r C ft Com. Z N N. Q .4 L' rt W O. CI O to vi o n� �a �'' GZ VO to T 70 d Ln C9 co UG lE c^n, CD .7 W � fJ n ato_ a `n co O o z .r ro c < CO m C sv o m n a 0 ^ COr 9» -- ro v y�y f°0 0 G z^ cl O s, �p 0 O A n O — ? a � ^. y H p G C+ a O CO3 w' wO m C 07 ' a cit F' ct •. ^ co rA G n5L pct 2 G J+ O C A m a w o' < y o co n r� co co tio u � co to n co CPO to N ¢Ry ;ry 9 t coCD Gco3 �' —n0 G3 > QiSt �,: V� rA 4 y y "I^�r M rr ° l+l co co ct W Ln ct " A. y o' z y c �> b ,� rn "" w to ..: fD� O � =. ti C9 G v c r xw m � c 0 azo z En ...E fA V� � � � '• O < < a�• � t`n o m ?� ` 0 •� rA tc x' •Q C7 w O G} is v VJ CD O cin rocn a y H N• CO cc Z vn m m a• Z ::()v n; ra r. Tv C y fi w V J N TV G Z o+ O Z 5. m ws W c w o n Ln fA r y firo z h r O to ca v o c ak1 N c: On fs C'a "7 r+ in p v t o� n D O 00 CA cr :3 CI V q (A to > CCU ct" cr 0 co Co CD 8 — UQ 0, 0 r) ct Ct m n =r 0'0 cr cl n co va=r Fr a = — — 1, 0 "rA — ow ai 00 :r CL cr = C . F; w = * gr ct cr 0 06 0. 44 .4 09 n o C6 CO n e3 W 0 to a G7 I< 0 C', 0 00 > > 0 n Irl CD Ct j"L fit "a ^-3 Alu'9 -2. N• �' r�9 00 co ev ns � a a o � a "� :::,{'�#;:�,'.:,� v��'pp �y "� t��oqq a .� � •p to O D fD G. '"" ary >.x►+ - " CA C w ;� t4 O00 p �S N Ln p' � 00 II wCA co < to rA w G -, " 037 a ° ro w A � y y o ro cn o- ,; v tz to w ,�A :::!'1:;.. •O R � '.�:i��' to "^3 to an _ z G ct co = _ 5 A O y` LnX ,co y c z G .. .. y ° ct t�7 • -, r4 a� a N n � E � � � � o c - U Vs A A N � N ' y N QD 6s t7 n ^ �o z V Cr d CO - •� 7 C "'j � '� d � Q Q - cm _931, : ct 4 _ goo G' d Dst Qtwit n a • � o' ° In K -, rn a CL � rn b z I _ c) r c ° _ � r a tv M rn _ � c z 5• O .► A O ' a a; .oma o %. S 114 Ay n r- w � G fr;.N r• N � � N O ) m \2 Q• p, y, � ,,Ly 1.3 0,0 co ,.• 'o � 5• � 0 O � O o° G N. O d, r A Q' n A A is � G 3 � rhh m _ n z O 2 r. eo r N w QO O �4 i W c A N o. O Cr1 Z .�u A r A ° a z ° A � G r � � cr mrjQ r c 3 n A 3 v, 3 is t0 Oro' � d En � n CL z N � a h CD F'�tiy t y f9 � ?: � < ;t7 N � O ? <CA 0 0 °' Q y C CD Cil 1 y Q � �•i b C z a •� a s � � r o CD Z a may m CD -,. .0 CD z (� �y O n G S C' a f. A P s a c i. i3 0 a O O n• o tP goo � G COO .G r � � 2 .. T 'c ?• y 92r 3 UO c 3 o ?, o a 1 j d _ c CA = N e C R J -1 fl CA CT n y A 77 O r� Ln p� rn p •t, r, rn z 01 �• N ^. A n CO n y G c O OG O V1'm Q. :.�cm H 3 ? COcaa o o' o 1 O d oCo �' ' ani• H ° m v, y mr --. ;; , co n X g CJ O OQ C1 C �OQ O A 7 y G �' Q �- t o 0' d CD CD co O F• N d "�p p @ 'O y f9 rb (rig � 'T1 p � .� .p. �• '� ? to Q Ct y O a 7 c y o io a; 't7 ti Cil to O H ^ H �, o Cf' c Z w• � o o eco n •o a Y p n v Q a -, a c oo H c Co Z C C7 c n ry Fr n p Op P7 rD C _tto o� r. a 00 00 cn UQ ;Z* to CO L1. rr C67 cr CD CA en (A CFO rQ* U" cv A ro r. w rA Ln (V 4r." IZ (A CL CO zr GQ cz. =rp m- -Z 0 3 to r�i,• N � O o z 3 0 f$< o 'o o a a a 3 o pr _-- to ti n C d d 0. z m .-0 o 9UQ c 5 Cm -, a t9 _ o rri W c a C) m z a •� a Y =. 3 `~ ^ "d moo' Z 0 a a: R a = m 3 ro ao z c n o. =c10 V U C � N o � to C G Co n O � z 0 z u. ry n f4 i O th th L d Z to 3 P7 �. 4 R A w «h iw Co CD *G • c y. co < 0 m Z ? � n `o f a rb Va0 z Q v r R S R v+ N r d Ya r oo ^ 3 3 00 ca. p °u Cl A O co •C7 O r �' (/7 �O O ^.• p ¢' .fir ,.,.i 1 N O Oy � p ^ OBD_"'' .1 '"'• . 4a .D• 4 v' � �r r*t � G•� o G c� � .. m roCDn g c ter. C" •cs O O w W-1; m z � r •"rte' ^O �• O Vo c � n ry cv D r, N• O r tv m w N G: Q , Vt to W W r o cc,• - y�', Z O 3 o -' < ti oc' aero C F c 7J - c oo. is to =r E C— �� �" � G � e�9 J' p�j w M � e77" X• _ ^� ��y rA C t5 p cn OQ G w ° A@i N to "• co eta a `o c` c ro a o Fr °vu r. ca vu a c ro y c y w to w co id co cr KT`d o c �G ^� m z m m x ct _. � ^ v v L 0 v3 O w W a° V1 � D � G 3 � c lri7 2 to O rho w �' a � n ro scam R eere 0 - lz co < p o; 10 iv n � m r. � � cin VQ cr ro p G 0 a u, o ro o d H 70 a p wto co a• a: - o c co -, ro M00 a• UQ C y d .z cp G api Q7 p At<;Ca>: to O "1 W C. ty CL mo ron. C R G A =r K V? m `c as a• �' �• °• � � o `e � t/1 co N' a t4 Cl ro Cn on � n Z ro a •c pro t'" o a; 1•r R rC� 0 Z C O P y 0 M V ro u U c y a n r.r a z N �y O �•�c a. w, -d �p Z ro . { � 7, m < 1> c c C cr d G. ry G"a Z 2 > 0 "0 A —� m r� v r v Q. ti •v c w .P. N a z a s i n01 O n L Q. p a co — - � � � an E. i4i �O to o n i7 a o c'o m py � :' O �, rri c co .o H` �` o w �G x o ° tz c � coo o a � p, o� nao H � � 3. ° a Ca � co Y C/1 O Z tv zs a > 0 d.. a n � o � y p. Vo w n ol a �f• � � O � r/� 3 L I z d �y r `:, •c '' � ?. � � �. o ? oro A 2 O 7 y NRig O G 9 d vo co ,+ d O ?• �, r D 7 N d, °• o ad'°. ro io o � i oo � � oa d .o 4 •+ o � _ o 0 O � d N n C +� C"' n Q •S h N cr Qo �•� ©�O N � r"a o g 2 � =� fl,� •Z, fA A A /r J C' •o � d R c -c c o •w b F En W r) O CL z co r7l cn C) rri M < 0 w v � 4 a � M M � r G rl a � o z 0 z oo aro _ tw Oa f W 7C' p7 t,�y ^ C)O G W M rz h a G �n C) Z G �G 7 N n G b v o , m h a z r. 0 a C � V H v ro n r. r. i,n 00 Ci 3to C) > O O eo z 06 co co -3 Bn F. n IQ 91 tV fb 3 -0 2L 0 O rfl C4 fD C) m 7 ct, "90 . > a > CD "0 CD > a C) =3 w VW O � O 0 Rr 00 z r' Oa b =� QO O = D 3 O A ►� O a tz 9 O ti su G m tJa n z bn m 0 > r 2 f r a a. ao a # w 7 � / k � 2 [ � a p 2 . � O � E C6 3 O _ p va _ . ■ O ( § 9 — ELn % / k \ g � � O � / e � § � k � + � / 9 3 C) � m . 2 � n m > E 0 / > � ƒ 2 . � � K7 S 3 k 9 � @ � � \ 2 3. _ & a ƒuo � w K7 � � ƒ � � O � � WOO k � % � ■ . � _ ■ G k � R § m $ k. $ m � � � Z r > k & g � � � \ \ , w w � N W th G. r.r � Y o n z M C} z C ° eb fe cs n+ ry 3 c ro "- o G7 AW a c(o Co 06 LU co > rri w C N /+� H y, [+i z o ^ •p � as z w c� 3 C1 c = c uc Rp. A w i a o a Q Z .. - ? to o„O y .A ,.. � •d 076 n N f3� O .• G N t9 d Q• N to G O R' Q 3 o `� a c a o N O w Z o �S 1' r v J C i' r f f s_ o "•cri J t4 W r. O` S: 0 0 ao ry to la�UQ -0 0- cr •0 0 0 q to rA 0 cr (.0) Ct En ro > • 4. Va -j 0 in P6 Cc, em, eb CL is Q G t9 12 CL tr C, *t m :ti ro- t y c ar F- 0 co ao "Oll -4 Z) c ri CA cr C, - to Cl Vo 0 o ft.0 0 S. a <O 2 52 = Ct 0 n C- > > Ci N C9 r r� R s is Ea' Z O m 'O �' 3 � O n �•G �G �• �' r G G O O ego Z w a ^^ co I.Ir oaf 4 O y - O. - 0 .�•'..�_ - Di 77 za jr P)5. f4 �}• y tI1 �y C?iw ^. o co O.. t9 '� r. N 'O N O• 5 -h n O co Cc, y 0 N �' G ev �j B1 w V .y ly N f i ^' G• O .n.. O3 O L� � °: to90 7C• �. f .•+ t0 y O C9 .► N 9 O O .•n O 2 •p '�O ►.•^. to a. n. O :• r ro � Z t:3 + u+ � c: n y � •o w f. Q' O� o � ,3 0 - w fD w Ln M. = a � o z 3 0 _ c Q CCD C� Q� S ^ n G. G O p fL O ..� d x - =. nom R m � X. d' <. 5 co -ten _ rA d CD d C Ce �' O. tp w d A 07 CT W O w O O y n O t—y G H CA iC r z� C9 w Co O = d 7' C N CV w o co o o <' -•, H = G co a a W O G ^� ... �^ ? 0 co 0 O (Sl = O�• Go=o -t Co C9 •p 0 < QCG C Q M '+ y d O R cz ccoo ct an 00 m z d W w bo m ft F5 C-. ° — w w wc w w n a N N N V y y a Nc, w w w w w w a = n 0 c 0 — c c C. CD CD C<s C<o r C°<, < fl C<9 O< _ a Ca s' z a W CA w w w ,z 'O o m C ° D z Z N N �•V C O � � I� w �J C C Q co' K O m °< < < ° ^ °• CCs CO z C9 C-. Z7 f7 rj cr 0 Z r 3 3 do a — O •� a 0 z 0 o• � � a eo Co• ;v � 3 a z ° � o ° c O z:�? C � 5 .:C Off,. F � .► O Q �' T. O co m 06. rA :4 to CtC`r• �• ?`!'�D::'b C. AM, CD a,9 0 �Go w � � �• S � O a a y rL y �' 0 co CD cr 1--t C y A .--:. a o0 00 O rri n • n • rz o 0 o �`_ o 9 CD � v_ a � � or , -0 co 0 0 z 0 a Z �. C 1 � V OG A J C is W C n t: K G LO) o z a c rr 000 N N W N tZ dR 5 PO { •.�•i• ►�. 7c g A •C7 � pr .. o � OD3 � •; a cr � � cb C6 d cr 0 Q oc W5 CA O C 0 co c� • o c. o 2 ra ct Z r. r. J £ / � � � a E ° � CD . Q � m O CL 2 ■ \ C 2 k g .... . _�� R � ) 0 7 E _ o ƒ � § § 9 § � k � k » � ) � f � m m a . � . rim ron m � \ � k 2 \ o k / Z ° 3 m 0 \\' § k § / / [ n / \ ' ƒ\ cn O N � O y � G 0 z _ o d 512: z L 7 a m ^ O 06 w — <^r: co cs � a c y 3 " 0 0 00 "C7 w: � � y' c � C1: Cb ^• � m r� Coco Cc, OQ u. NO NO 'D�: f9 7 ►r cr. 'C y a 0. co c a: : cco *' i o G a:�:: ` m 0co CD o O M z CD - o ;o:::-• o �n a a cD C" a O a � c � v ren o - °n •�, � z F5 m 'l. r: I1 t w J W 3 N N 7 ` ^i a � y o O i Y � O rw O �7 § y QO OQ O m ►Oy f9 O 2 �? c y - coo 00 CD fA f9• A 00 A O y' 3 y� O 'A �' mfo C b =" d = I� �. C_ C 0� .... yy E: .C+ > w. N p: go = 3 C) oh3m � c ° f ° O '"' ." a. G c �o H � 'o c o o Hrfl o. c y M z T r � _• to O� 0 a � • M • n c � n ao y A u. c n c: y � o r. J A t:. 0 Z, cl A cc� 7P C: go %02 t,- to q 0, zf V. S 14 co 4 co vo F. S Vol ir, On 0 . O19t 0 -0 G N ct, ct �Cl. A a� N .D V1 O co 0 ol R r Q o r'n G• N � �' E v .fi D G, co a p IS 1% qt w_o a '�• y N to 'A r N ,C, ,4 �Z < cv go co r G � 5 coo .. .• ao N to o Cs.• e9 H 4 �. vo r g C' •~— vCJ C i ^ ^o c w c. N °' f4 C1 fl CA a oo N fl Z L � � Q w 0 QD /r cr a �; As_� � ^, p V � 'C 4 cdC � � n D :+ "t � GC• O '� y".ti.{ Coy 'O Od n tin tD h SZ+ I/v� .�-+ � p �'F N M ,"a d �" a �, o c o0 o G. cooDa � = ..,"; cr a y°� > �' = o o r °y cao a x7 o � .,� c ^. 00. 3 °•� � 'd coo "� � coo ? o n+ v crc Haa� °i- ? �ri. ro ° dr�o � � � � � C7 +C to 06 cc PC °.moo b �' � � yp@i N 5 a G ^ `fie � `�^ VQ c p y co c w C o C6 o -"UQ �. a G G �yyrj , CD a co Al tom' ti A h h o- le S =rto O. �. vi � N �y .00 C. rh ;' to • �' C RG.► �' G y ^ a Win+ rV ♦ • � r1 � N ?� C ' t5 a 9 o n rr C) c o Z a n ^ ' 'o a U a z A �n f069 tGti fr9 n 7 IOD n . R1 •+ <• G 0 t9 n O� �p O� Cj co t++ am 00,O y a t4 N r O Nni y "nilC1' le- r O Y� `ts' N m b o �' c Ecco C" m -n 9CA 0 b 'G r. h r• wQ C 9� M1 J a 6 ac 00 00 `b x on p y C v S O ^ CD co Co CD FJ v fD A' A N y Q 0 3 CD N O' r)91. r'+ IM aa a Hio � � noN eD 0.00 - 0 o. C1 O CO a vw, m 8 w �, ao N =, w w ., Co �' n o' c _: a d M. w N as d p $ A o A w e as S o cD• " N o' ° H O p y A p C < w N A ? B 5 ^ro y ° CD a w Q G. CD N ..� l9 �+ Q: lD S N Q O c0 y Oo !/) CA t A N crft w /�+ ri CO CD ~'+o0 0 0' ° fix' n p' W -, cD c n a Pr' r C) -* o A o cD A f9 r o C1 :Ea c - v ° c H o• W A a ° y p a Npa a o f 9 c°—° C7 co = ^ � F Gn1� = p N w N CD cc r co `G Q CD ba _ mn CD � co co C) rri b0 0 O + O `O O > > N .. .�A-. C R 'C a > ? > a CD a ccu y • < _na • � -na p m H o w °: O w °' ry Cri o � 10 C� C ti C N G n u t 10 r N ' •^G � c. GZ ti" Q �• r m � IPA VP Op Nf Q y M ^ r• p � N.•�j D 0 Ln � i� C°<, 2r C•1 z• O w 0 {� ,.c xgsd� E�' � �.• .�• eo CSS •tt tv r' �Z. ao fl. to .� J G � b w o� w a 7 = OO a SL 104 tr cr N r' � •••• r d Q �_r' 3 � G• �' ca� D r r'D ty r N •"� r' � p � G fj � t9 n " "rt' C O a n.. C4 � G1'� .�•y�' rn N n, O n O v. po C. O O .•,y .+ pt q c9 q r AN v n ^ +O"+ Cy w C cv~ ea to t9 O G r •C3 '•� O. v. Q � � '�' ..,4 � �i •'^ ^� .n+ ��' r�t tip CfO"t n c� c+ -^ v O .r •.t do Q. r � s m � r ... (D .�.. G if1 O '�' riii r J •d °•, o � 'Z ° � y G. r 1 4 r � n � N b n m ^__r ►--'�'r•-""'moo N w 2 y Ir ? � r (gyp N 7 0,0 00 to � o..,.� a cs' cs �'.a :• ,. r K p n/. O, ins n G• p Com„ eS' �' ty "�' � � y' � O p � � O O- Cj �C,,,,y �• J' (/3 co cu s UQ 1 J � 00 °• o. �i r .,� T 9 �. � � � o .Cc rl• C't1 n G J_ J A ti IA N ct o 7z co, SP 0A C.S, cl ;; ar VP S S 0 <9 IP W - 60 S , . S- n 1-0 ell Cn *04 l5p; % 0c; So 0 10 -d 0cv - S -.11Cn sr S: It i:: - �1 Ir S, vr '30 .0 t"t UQ -3p Cel co cli r— Co CID W ct > CD -- m :03 Rb V cc, co fo = 0 0 " m Co co Apa 0 Z CSID 5. w roo co co =6 :3 a cm So cr C2, 0 t3 Ct co w 121. '00 cr CA co co cl E co co CD co "OW 0 0 M6 c 0 CD C) > co ct 2 a —=. CO ctl > cp "0 0 Fri E3 3 , co coaCD d a z 1 -� c a Z Y s z 0 a 0 a 3 3 z Cc,W. ce a ?. CD o ao'go S° .v co co H co co OQCL c c 7C co m 14 eb n a.a 3 fD w a O p w 7L �•tT0 �Cy y 0 ry <' p �'' O < ° w y o •-3 b O n o O co CD r°, _ cy co a o o C ►-• co g' 3 c f° o co3 C1 a o. Qp y "p f9 co O _ Cl H 2. 7 uyi C OO Oo 7 CD �O O Cy co 3 ' ~ Fr to ctO C co y 'd ro pa ^^y y r �.�y G N ° a w �•1 �' IBJ CD OQ o co O rm o- o ° c ° m h o • '•v • z .. n rrl '.�►.'»a n � � b n ? C'7 a co co a cD a o CD c o _ r a Z < Cft CD 72 v r_ z _ a 00 3 °t to am CD 3 y c y CD 0 a O z CD co cm QQ o s ° B. y' co H 3 to ccs n w A a m c •��. n co rrr���yyy y D „ 2. ap' ^ co b N 6-4 ct W3 N c c. -1 a, co •f 9+ 3 (� � > C) Y0w °c y O H n O H ,,, a oq w co G R m CD a tz• o _ c co ^+ e H co' wa ? Y l'aC c :- � a a' q ro rt CA ct a � p '•w G. CA 0q �. C-31 p 'H co A' CI) s' a � - a - a c -o 0' �' -o o' C" Co = a'. o a a -rl > -v •a o ? n � v� o' y � � Z 3 ° o c. o � c o 7co 000 c o C7 -•, c t`o' coo 000CD Z —3 CD c r. Q P ao tv ro eo 9 M O z w`�" awyiY.p, O!7 'fy w y ao.'3 o O C o'b a — f0 = o rL 06 y a 0 0 * t6 ro C i7` o p rG, ro go A• H m —1cco El G. = Q C:6 CO c cr aCO � C G y G 63 a , ea oo � �•� .tet � G . � a � � ? o ��• � N � v�p �• O GO n C2. O O n• fC9 'd G 06co in H "G Vj G y 00CL N N tz az C to C ~' �'� W =r Of s y y u 7 G K CY crtA 0 OR CO 00 � -. y o cc VQ o y y a r)ft s ro n * cni � n 0 p w C O, O c �' - - Gco . y io OG Q n O Ir. ^ a 3 > �• "t7 < cri ^n �• � 'Z f9 0 nz "V Qo c " o r: nr o c v b d n ao 00 � o0 o ya• o'. o 3 a � O O z w aGZ ".7 SO Q OQto �: c •o �. a a o H 'let Xe Inv c`ton a� co o o ren c sl o t° G a. to f9 3 civ o rCr.�� coo 1 Cs. S cif W co CO sl Co �y CO f9 �yry 4 _ = y co t r � o y0 A 0 A E: BL a 4 .ti -ri p b -n 9 'C > ^ v Z 0 0 yn on ° n CD .71 c c a ° p a d n W .� -o v' n o � '• a ° '2 ^ N 9N N G r G On O v+ O rO% 4 n ' N ''• z e G oxo �co `G 3 o cl s o � a s � m o, o � •o c a ff n n G � G •.",jay r co � � •.e o C G, Sr o aesoco -- � �., � � � moo'.- �`e �• •' "0 t!) co {t .r• N tp. :� ?j D C� +G iy Qo AN W i OCD C r O n � to IP L > a •O J r• 7 G to .•t ""' �".� n oz, b C" O � O D ;y G �•, •� d O f: G O crys QO G n as h r • • C� n 'r?, .moi r d d a 4 t!� o. CZ �. c• 3 aA o Ir . 'Z y O � :a Z3 a N a f9 N G �' G• ..• (9 :,ori?; W C1 .� � ym � ° ° ,• a• o av ?dry � � :: Z. G n � �• N �' ""',.h. �• d N .' .- t+' "�;` c° 'fir`' 300 a�.wN'^ � N �do+ nA15 y, is O �• �+� 7' O O � �+• .°r, h 'O .y 1n o Ira 3 a Apco Qa N C .'�' �p +'fi+ R• .ri Nti�y !. Q H "•p � ° CD r p�� .+ .•+ N rC �^• w.n N b '+ r• n p �t7 OS fA ^y C�Y v'.• O ;:y O Q ito .+ ° O O C O d ✓. :c.. Iry co to v, 4 ',e•'' '� ��. ':"3< •.• `to � V� d ., 3 crtj O• Cf '' d°7'• Nt O f9 �, Orgy 7 O n0 tY O, ... y -, �qqm VO cv 9 � a Z 4 'O 4 r IF C: n �•a4 D '2 P o d a 105. tg co 0 co 10 CL fb 0 m 9 M :s T cu S 2. =6 Rco W �e 0 CD aCD Qa 0 co 'nryap ` ro ~ o 0 m in= n—" fr., 0 OQ OQ CO CD as 0 r- co CL 0 a OFF qQ Co — C) 9 0. (42 tp PV* ty, 0 Pr n co M7 CD 2 > > > 0 CD z EL a Ic 0 O � r• ✓ �•• t'� iOr rr� f9 �+ r _ �^.• � o � g o to r• Sy N r D W �°' '� O►, N Ov, rC .4 �, � rv+ o• L"ri .y � N •" ori o�'.o o � �• 'Z, G n � � N ti R w r v co N ° .ys A 0 z a mCAI n D Qa Sv w n Z-1 ..� WK w ? � P N C C,' y' °' O ° H CD ° A N �•N C9 .9 Vi to COD scot o a°or ^ vN c9 c testi r. _, o f9 ^Af CD ° � .fin G ^• «� �":�.•4 fp C �" c Coy 2 vo, a A C+� ,o. :3 o � 70 r. V. (7 Q aa u c r a cp O rri M z rri > w Attachment D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: April 10, 1995 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: J. Michael Walford,Public Works Director SUBJECT: Discovery Bay West-Rezoning 2963RZ-Report to the Board of Supervisors On December 20, 1994, the Board of Supervisors while approving the EIR and General Plan Amendment for Discovery Bay West, requested the Public Works Department meet with the Knightsen, Byron, and Discovery Bay MACs to discuss and review the processes for traffic mitigation, fee collection, project prioritization, analysis of traffic needs, traffic patterns, and community involvement. The attached reports identify the topics discussed and the recommendations of the thru Municipal Advisory Council's. Report 1 Knightsen MAC January 24, 1995 Report 2 Byron MAC January 26, 1995 Report 3 Discovery Bay MAC February 15, 1995 In addition the Board of Supervisors requested the Public Works Department to work with Sanitary District 19 and the Delta Diablo Sanitary District to work on water master plan issues for supply, the need for State water permits, for fire fighting capabilities, and for the ground water backup system, etc. Public Works staff worked with Paul Causey, General Manager of Delta Diablo, and staff to County Sanitary District 19(SD 19)to develop conditions of approval for Discovery Bay West which reflect the issues which SD19 will need to resolve. The attached Water System Conditions and Waste Water Conditions are conditions of approval Discovery Bay West will have to satisfy in order to annex to SD19 for water and sewer service. The project applicant shall enter into a service agreement prior to approval of any final map. The SD19 conditions are attached as Report 4. RECOMMENDATION Form a Far East County Traffic Advisory Committee consisting of five members with one from each of the Knightsen,Byron and Discovery Bay MACs and two members from east county at large. This committee would assist in developing the priority list of projects when funding is available through collection of east county traffic mitigation fees. RVF.'ntw g:lengsvctrvPdbrpdbw,t4 cc: M.Shin,DeputyPub/ir 144orks Director S.Epperly,Special District Coordinator J.Bueren,Transportation Engineering AMC's Sanitary District#19 Delta Diablo Sanitary District Hofinann and Company REPORT 1 KNIGHTSEN MAC Discovery Bay West (DBW) January 24, 1995 Transportation-Concerns Bob Faraone PWD 1. REVIEW PROCESS FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION The committee supports review of traffic impacts prior to 501st building permit.They wanted all the roads through Knightsen analyzed. They also wanted traffic counts to be done over a seven-day period (including weekends) and to include summer traffic. The Knightsen MAC would like to comment on the results of the traffic study and potential mitigations analyzed prior to the 501st building permit. 2. COLLECTION OF FEES They supported the$6500/unit fee recommended by Public Works,which is in addition to the Highway 4 Bypass fee. The fees will be collected at the time of building permit. 3. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS They are familiar with the process. They have indicated that they are in the process of forming a regional traffic advisory committee with one member from each of the existing MAC's which include Knightsen, Oakley, Byron,Disco Bay and Bethel Island. This committee will look at each of the projects and with the help of Public Works set priorities. 4. ANALYSIS OF NEEDS The biggest concern was the narrow roads with no shoulders and no place for their children to walk and ride bikes. With the pending shortfall in school funding,the busing program will be ending and more children will be walking along the roads. With the predominance of heavy fog in the area and the speeding cars on the narrow roads, pedestrian and vehicular safety is the primary issue. The second issue is to limit the traffic through downtown Knightsen. They are concerned that traffic from the east using the back roads to bypass the gridlock on Highway 4 will increase the traffic on Byron Highway,Knightsen Road, Delta Road and Eden Plains Road. 5. TRAFFIC PATTERNS With the pending approval of many new developments in east county and the lagging of road infrastructure to handle the traffic, the Knightsen MAC endorses a north-south route east of Highway 4. That route is Byron Highway from Point of Timber Road north to Cypress Road. 6. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT With the establishment of the Knightsen MAC,the community feels it now has a voice. With the pending formation of a committee comprised of one member each from the Oakley,Byron, Knightson,Disco Bay and Bethel Island MAC's,a regional involvement will be possible. The Knightson MAC is looking toward Supervisor Torlakson for the continued political leadership needed to address transportation and development issues in the east county. 7. PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE With Bethel Island development and Cypress Lakes Development approvals, the right of way and only %right of way from Cypress Lakes (55' wide) is pretty much assured. The section of Byron Highway from Highway 4/Point of Timber Road north to Rock Slough and construction of a bridge over Rock Slough has been included into the East County AOB project list and is fully fundable with collection of AOB fees. The applicant will be widening the shoulders on Point of Timber Road and Bixler Road south to State Route 4. g:/cngsvc/nT/kni ghtsn.t4 REPORT 2 BYRON MAC Discovery Bay West (DBW) January 26, 1995 Transportation Concerns Bob Faraone PWD I. REVIEW PROCESS FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION The committee had no comment. Development applications in the area have been sparse. The fact that someone was at their meeting requesting their input regarding this application raised their level of confidence in the process that traffic mitigation is being addressed. 2. COLLECTION OF FEES The collection of fees at issuance of the building permit was addressed. The committee was informed that a traffic mitigation fee of$6500 plus the Highway 4 Bypass fees would be assessed against all residential development in DBW. 3. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS Since there are very few development applications in this area there are presently only two MAC members on the East County AOB Committee. This committee supported the idea that one member from each East County MAC might staff a new traffic advisory committee to determine east county project priority based on DBW's traffic mitigation fees collected. 4. ANALYSIS OF NEEDS The committee felt that with the sand quarried along Camino Diablo that there would be a lot of truck traffic through the Town of Byron. Since all grading and soil needed for the DBW project will come from within the project site there should be little construction impact on Byron. With the amount of farm equipment in the area the committee recommended additional agricultural signing. It was felt that road circulation could be enhanced if Armstrong Road was extended easterly to connect to Discovery Bay Boulevard at State Route 4. 5. TRAFFIC PATTERNS The committee felt that there should be truck turnouts on Camino Diablo; a Signal at Point of Timber Road/Byron Highway/State Route 4, and a signal at Camino Diablo and Byron Highway. It was suggested that any traffic analysis should consider impacts at 4:30am and 7:00pm. The other MAC's requested seven day counts. 6. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT At this time there is not too much community involvement because there are not many development applications or related issues. 7. PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE The extention of Armstrong Road east past the new airport and connecting to Bixler Road or Discovery Bay Boulevard is being reviewed. DBW has very little impact on this alternative. "Slow Farm Equipment"signs will be installed by DBW. There are no plans to install a signal at Camino Diablo and Byron Highway because of not meeting signal warrents and Railroad conflicts. Traffic analysis will include early morning and late night hours and seven day counts. g:/en2s%,c/MMYR0N.t4 REPORT 3 DISCOVERY BAY MAC Discovery Bay West February 15, 1995 Transportation Concerns Bob Faraone PWD 1. REVIEW PROCESS FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION The committee felt that the Discovery Bay Blvd./State Route 4 signal should be installed before the first building permit is issued in this project. They felt the traffic generation figures are too low because most households in Discovery Bay are two incomes resulting a higher "peak hour generation rate figure" creating more peak hour traffic than what is anticipated. 2. COLLECTION OF FEES It was felt the fees should be paid before recording the final map so that the road improvements could be constructed before project traffic congestion becomes a problem. — 3. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS The selection and prioritization of the projects should be left up to the MACs. The issues and project selection should be kept in front of the public at all times. 4. ANALYSIS OF NEEDS 1. With the current construction at SR4/Bixler, the intersection is very dangerous. The intersection should be widened now to allow truck traffic to negotiate the turns. 2. SR4 from Disco Bay Blvd. to Byron Highway should be widened to four lanes now then extend the widening to Marsh Creek Road as future phase two. The Committee indicated that commute traffic is at a stand still on SR4 between Disco Bay Blvd. and Byron Highway. 3. Marsh Creek Road shoulders should be widened from Bixler Road to Byron Highway. 4. Byron Highway shoulders should be widened from Sunset Drive north to Cypress Road. 5. All traffic analysis and counts should be over a 24-hour period for seven consecutive days 5. TRAFFIC PATTERNS Currently the roadways are not wide enough to handle existing traffic much less new traffic. There is tremendous construction truck traffic backup on Bixler Road now with the Centex construction. School traffic turns south on Bixler Road from SR4 to get to Byron Elementary School. Because of the backup on State Route 4 existing traffic uses Marsh Creek Road between Bixler Road and Byron Highway as a bypass to get to Byron Highway. 6. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT There is a high community involvement at these MAC meetings. The committee felt that the formation of an east county traffic advisory committee with one representative from each of the East County MAC's was a good idea. 7. PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE The project applicant will install a signal at SR4/Discovery Bay Boulevard one year after issuance of the first building permit. If the work is not completed by other fronting development the applicant will also widen Bixler Road at SR4 prior to issuance of the first building permit. The widening of Byron Highway and Marsh Creek Road is included in the proposed east county AOB. The applicant will be widening the shoulders of Point of Timber Road and Bixler Road. L:/cns�s�c/nf%discomac.t4 REPORT 4 SANITATION DISTRICT No. 19 DISCOVERY BAY WEST PROTECT WATER AND WASTEWATER CONDITIONS A. Water System Conditions 1. Applicant to complete and have fully operational the replacement for Well No. Four prior to processing the application for annexation to the District. 2. Applicant shall deposit with the District the necessary funds to develop a Groundwater Assurance Plan that is intended to define the availability of groundwater in the local area and to assure that the development will not detrimentally affect the existing users of the District service area prior to the District's authorization for annexation. 3. Applicant to deposit sufficient funds to allow District staff to review and evaluate master planning efforts for the ultimate District service area prior to the District's authorization for annexation. 4. Applicant to fund the development of a Groundwater Management Plan for the full Discovery Bay service area prior to the issuance of any permits in the proposed Discover Bay West Project. 5. Prior to the issuance of any connection permits for Villages I1, III or IV, Applicant shall complete the construction of a 12-inch waterline to intertie the Discovery Bay West water distribution system with the existing Discovery Bay water distribution system. 6. Applicant shall provide a Water Distribution System Development Plan acceptable to the District for all proposed transmission and mainline service facilities for the entire development prior to the issuance of any permits for any tract or village. 7. Applicant shall submit specific distribution system plans for review and approval for each tract of homes prior to the issuance of any permits for that tract. 8. Applicant to submit a Water Supply Plan acceptable to the District for the entire development prior to the issuance of any permits. These plans shall be reviewed and revised based upon actual tract maps and no connection permits will be issued for any tract without concurrence that the Water Supply Plan is still appropriate and that no further conditions or modifications to the plan are necessary. 9. Applicant to install water meters for each water service and shall provide the District with an automatic meter reading system prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the first tract. 10. All water system facilities and improvements shall conform to District standards and be subject to full review, inspection and acceptance prior to dedication to the District. 11. All water facilities required by the District shall conform to District design and construction standards in affect at the time of review, approval or construction of improvement plans. 12. Applicant shall fund their share of the development of an Emergency Water Supply Plan for the service area prior to the issuance of any construction permits. 13. Applicant shall participate in the development of storage or water quality treatment plans resulting from expanded or changed regulatory requirements. 14. Applicant to dedicate all necessary easements, right of way or required properties in fee title and at no charge to the District necessary for the placement of any facilities to be dedicated for District maintenance. 15. Applicant shall provide water supply wells or surface water supplies consistent with the development of each village and shall have approval of the form of supply before the issuance of any permits for any village. 16. Applicant shall pay all connection fees required by the District at the time of request for connection permits and prior to the issuance of the permits. 17. Applicant shall dedicate in fee, and at no cost to the District, all sites to be used for water system facilities such as wells, storage reservoirs, pump stations or the like. These sites shall be based upon the District's advanced approval of the proposed sites. 18. Applicant shall pay fees for oversizing of water facilities built by others that will provide service for this development. These fees shall be established in a form approved by the District. 19. Applicant shall oversize facilities that may provide service to other properties that may be served by the District in the future and have been identified and included in the District's Water Master Pian. B. Wastewater System Conditions 1. Applicant shall deposit sufficient funds for the District to prepare a Wastewater Master Plan for treatment and conveyance of sewage for the ultimate service area boundary. 2. Applicant shall fund a Wastewater Development Plan prepared and approved by the District for the full Discovery Bay West Development prior to the issuance of any permits which shall outline the various alternatives for handling all wastewater treatment and conveyance based upon the Applicant's proposed construction schedule. 3. Applicant shall pay appropriate connection fees or fund the construction of specific elements of the wastewater treatment and conveyance system as required by the District. 4. Applicant shall submit specific plans for all sewer collection system facilities for each tract or village of the development for review and approval by the District before the issuance of any permits for connection. 5. All wastewater facilities required by the District shall conform to District design and construction standards in affect at the time of review and approval of specific tract or village improvement plans. 6. Applicant to dedicate all necessary easements and rights of way at no cost to the District for property required by the wastewater service needs of the development. 7. Applicant to execute a Master Service Agreement for all wastewater facilities prior to the issuance of any connection permits. 8. Applicant shall reimburse District for all expenses of review and comment on the project by District staff from the date of the draft environmental impact report through the completion of all planning phases leading to annexation and initiation of reviews for the actual construction. Funds to be available to the District 30 days following approval of the tentative map. In addition, Applicant to deposit $25,000.00 with the Delta Diablo Sanitation District to be used for necessary reviews and approval associated with the development. District to provide regular accounting of the funds submitted and the expenses charged against the deposit. Applicant to replenish this deposit when remaining balance falls to $5,000.00 based upon a written request from the District. These funds will be used to assure that the District is fully reimbursed for costs of pursuing and approving the proposed development. RVF:pe:m�v g:1EngSvc\R VF\Sanl)is19A4 April 17,1995 Hv 3 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADi, WELEs & GIANNoNE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE ALEXANDER BOWIE* NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 AREA CODE 714 JOAN C.ARNESON TELEPHONE 851.1300 WILLIAM J.KADI FAX(714)851-2014 WENDY H.WILES PATRICIA B.GIANNONE RW OURFU ROBERT E ANSLOW ERIC R.DOERING 11047.11 KEdNM S.LEVY ARTO J.NUUrINEN February 3, 1995 JANET L MUELLER KIMBERLY A.McMURRAY •A PROFESSMAL CORPORATION Via Facsimile and FedEx East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa 65i Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553-1229 �? Re: County File # 2963-RZ - Hofmann Construction Co./Edna M. Fallman Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: This law firm represents the Liberty Union High School District ("District") and is providing this letter in response to the significant school facilities impacts which the above- referenced project ("Project") will have on the District, and the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. These issues were previously raised with the East County Regional Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa ("County") when the General Plan for the Project was considered. We understood the assurances of the applicant to be that a Mitigation Agreement would be executed prior to approval of the Specific Plan for the Project. It is requested that this matter be continued for a period of thirty (30) days so that a Mitigation Agreement can be executed and the District may refrain from requesting denial of the Project. A draft Mitigation Agreement was forwarded by overnight delivery to the legal counsel of the Hofmann Construction Company on December 22, 1994. As there has been no response the District desires to insure a future level playing field for all future development which provides for the availability of grade 9-12 school facilities ("School Facilities") as development occurs. Hence, Section 2.4 is included in the Mitigation Agreement to reduce prospectively the financial contribution of this Project if other substantially more favorable agreements are ever entered into by the District. We invite the staff of the County to participate in a meeting with the District and Hofmann Construction Company to agree upon the specific terms of a mutually acceptable agreement of proposed uniform applicability to future development within the County and incorporated areas of the District. BAKW&G/APN/16914 BowIE, ARNEsoN, KADi, WELEs & GiANNoNE East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa February 3, 1995 Page 2 The District requests that the County require-the Project applicant to execute the herein enclosed Mitigation Agreement with the District to mitigate the impacts of the Project on the School Facilities of the District prior to approval of the Project by the Planning Commission, as required by the County General Plan, and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and other applicable law.. Absent such an executed Mitigation Agreement, the District objects to the approval of the Project on the basis that such impacts are at present unmitigated. Also, the District would object on the basis that approval of the Project is inconsistent with the general plan ("General Plan") of the County, in the absence of an executed Mitigation Agreement, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program which was incorporated as part of the conditions of approval relative to the General Plan Amendment for the Project which was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on December 20, 1994, by way of Resolution No. 94/626. The District previously submitted its comments regarding the significant adverse environmental impacts on the school district by way of correspondence dated December 19, 1994. In this regard the District submits the following specific comments relative to the approval of the Project. The staff report for the Project indicates that the project applicants are requesting approval for a rezoning, and for a preliminary development plan on approximately 756.194 acres of land, for the development of approximately 2,000 residential units. The staff report further references that a "project EIR has been prepared for this site as well as the surrounding General Plan Amendment area. The Board has certified the EIR for the General Plan for the site." In this regard the District previously submitted its comments relative to the EIR for the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment, by way of correspondence dated December 19, 1994. The EIR for the Discovery Bay West General Plan, upon which staff apparently relies for the environmental review of the Project, indicates that the land use designations proposed by the Project anticipates the development of 2,135 residences in the Project area (EIR page 4.8-12), which represents only a portion of an estimated 14,737 future residential units proposed within the District's boundaries. In this regard the EIR concludes that the Project "could result in an increased number of children requiring school services", which the EIR estimates at 422 new children within the District at the time of Project buildout (EIR pages 4.8-13, 4.8-15, and Table 4.8-7). The ' EIR goes on to state the following as representing the "Mitigation Required" as a result of BAKWBG/ARi/16914 BowIE, ARNESON, KADi, WiLEs & GIANNONE East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa February 3, 1995 Page 3 approval of the Project and anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts (EIR pages 4.8-15, 4.8-16): "Accommodation must be made of the additional enrollment of students that may be added in the Liberty Union High School District due to the changes that would be allowed by the General Plan Amendment. This can be accomplished by several arrangements or combinations thereof, such as payment of school impact fees plus other contribution from the developer, provision of new facilities, or formation of a funding mechanism such as a Mello-Roos District. Payment of school impact fees alone would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level because such fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of constructing new facilities. The contribution from the developer could take the form of portable classrooms, construction of facilities, or an additional fee, as is satisfactory to the Liberty Union High School District" [emphasis added]. In this regard the District wishes to emphasize the necessity to condition the approval of the Project upon full mitigation of the significant adverse environmental effects which will result if the District's school facilities requirements are not met in time to meet the need from the addition of new students from buildout of the Project, particularly when the EIR's conclusions are based upon projections which do not fully recognize the potential student generation from the Project. It should be noted that the District's present student generation factors (SGF) are significantly higher than existing projections considered in the EIR, which appear to be based on projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and 1990 U.S. Census figures [EIR page 4.8-13 and Table 4.8-7]. Moreover, the most current information available to the District reveals that the cost per residential dwelling unit DU averages $4,725 to house the additional students needed to serve the Project. This figure is based upon the average square footage of 1,550 square feet per DU (which falls under Land Use Class 10 in the most current "Rate and Method of Apportionment for Liberty Union High School District Community Facilities District No. 95- 1" 51" (the "RMA") prepared on behalf of the District by David Taussig & Associates, Inc., multiplied by the District's current residential school fee of $0.52/square foot, plus $3,919 per DU, representing the amount of the "Supplemental Prepayment of One-Time Special Taxes" for Land Use Class 10 of the RMA, the sum of which amounts totals $4,725 [i.e. BAKW&G/AJN/16914 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WmEs & GIANNONE East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa February 3, 1995 Page 4 $0.52/square ft./DU x 1550 square ft./DU = $806; $806 + $3919/DU = $4,725/DU]'. Based upon a projected 2,135 DUs from buildout of the Project [the specific number of DUs referenced in the EIR], the School Facilities impact to the District from the Project equals $10,087,875 [i.e. $4,725/ DU x 2,135 DUs = $10,087,875]. The revenues and the resulting financial shortfall absent execution of the proposed Mitigation Agreement by the developer are estimated as follows: On the basis of a projected 2,135 residential DUs, and using an average of 1,550 square feet per DU and the District's current share of $0.52/square foot of the residential school fee of$1.72 per square foot per DU, the Project would generate $1,720,810 in school fees (2,135 DUs x 1,550 sq.ft./DU x $0.52/sq.ft. = $1,720,810). In other words, the Project would generate $1,720,810 in school fees from residential development (if the District were to assess such fees on development within the Project), or less than 18% of the total cost of schools required for the Project from residential development alone (which the District estimates as equalling $10,087,875, or $4,725/DU x 2,135 DUs = $10,087,875), not including the number of students to be generated from commercial-industrial development. This supports the conclusion on page 4.8-16 of the EIR that "[p]ayment of school impact fees alone would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level because such fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of constructing new facilities." Specifically, based on the information available to the District, the deficiency in meeting the requirements of the General Plan including the Growth Management and Community Facilities elements, the significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project on the grade 9-12 school facilities of the District is $10,087,875 less $1,720,810, or a difference of $8,367,065. Therefore, absent a condition at the time of Project approval requiring the developer or project proponent to enter into a Mitigation Agreement with the District, the mitigation conditions set forth in the EIR are not supported by adequate evidence that such conditions will reduce the level of impacts to the District to a level of insignificance. However, the "Required Mitigation" of District impacts (i.e. "several arrangements or combinations...such as payment of school impact fees plus other contribution from the developer, provision of new facilities, or formation of a funding mechanism such as a Mello- Roos District", pages 4.8-15 and 4.8-16), does not specifically analyze how the cost of school facilities can be assured in order to reduce the adverse impacts to the District can be 'There is also an annual special tax per DU set forth in the RMA. BABW&G/AIN/16916 Bow1E, ARNEsoN, Kiwi, WiLEs & G1ANNoNE East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa February 3, 1995 Page 5 mitigated to a level of less than significant. Nevertheless, subsequent to December 20, 1994, the following language was included in the conditional approval of the General Plan Amendment for the Project, which action was taken by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 19942: "Accommodation must be made of the additional enrollment of students that may be added in the Liberty Union High School District due to the changes that would be allowed by the General Plan Amendment. . This can be accomplished by several arrangements or combinations thereof, such as payment of school impact fees plus other contribution from the developer, provision of new facilities, or formation of a funding mechanism such as a Mello-Roos District. Payment of school impact fees alone would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level because such fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of constructing new facilities. The contribution from the developer could take the form of portable classrooms, construction of facilities, or an additional fee, as is satisfactory to the Liberty Union High School District." As a result, the District was not provided an opportunity in advance of the December 20, 1994 approval of the General Plan Amendment to review or comment upon the acceptability of this language as part of the conditions of approval of the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment (although the District provided comments relative to this language as set forth in the EIR), as the District had been advised that the specific conditions of approval relative to school facilities would not be presented to the Board of Supervisors until they were finalized, and that such final conditions of approval were not anticipated to be finalized and incorporated until the Specific Plan for the Project would be presented for approval by the County. As of this date the District has also been advised by the staff of the County that the final conditions of approval relative to the Project have not been finalized and therefore would not be presented for consideration until such time as the Final Development Plan and tentative subdivision map are presented for consideration, which the applicant has requested occur on March 6, 1995. In order to permit adequate consideration of the draft conditions of 2Source: "Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment and Other Actions", Contra Costa County, December, 1994. BAKW&G/AJN/16914 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WII ES & GIANNONE East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa February 3, 1995 Page 6 approval for the Project the District would concur with staff's recommendation that the approval of the Project, including the rezoning (RZ912963) and preliminary development plan, be continued along with the public hearing-until March 6, 1995. The District, however, has been provided copies of the draft conditions of approval relative to mitigation of impacts on school districts by staff. Among these is Condition No. 34, which reads as follows: "Prior to recording the Final Map for any phase of the development within a school district, the developer shall fully mitigate impacts on that school district. Will serve letters from the Byron Union School District, Knightsen School District, and the Liberty Union High School District shall be submitted prior to recording a final map within the school districts boundary. (MM 8.1.1., 8.1.2., 8.1.3)." The District concurs with the recommendation that the conditions of approval include a requirement for full mitigation of impacts. However, Condition No. 34 also includes a reference to the submittal of a "will serve" letter, notwithstanding that school districts do not have any statutory authority to issue will-serve letters. In this regard the District has requested consideration of the following language as part of the conditions of approval of new development within the County "The Developer(s) shall execute a School Mitigation Agreement, which School Mitigation Agreement shall contain provisions and provide for payment to the Liberty Union High School District in amounts acceptable to the Liberty Union High School District in the Liberty Union High School District's Board of Trustees' reasonable exercise of discretion, to mitigate the impacts of their project on School Facilities prior to submittal by the Developers of any application for approval of a tentative map for the Project." The District has also been provided additional findings relative to the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment: "Impact #80 c. Proposed Mitigation. Either pay school impact fees plus any contribution as negotiated with the Knightsen School District or arrange for the additional students to be included in the Byron Union School District. Further, fulfill the BAKW&G/A1N/169I4 Bow1E, ARNEsoN, KADI, Wum & GIANNoNE East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa February 3, 1995 Page 7 contractual agreement between the Hofmann Company and the Byron Union School District to construct or pay for the construction of additional school facilities (classrooms and core facilities). Finally, the developer must also make additional arrangements for the provision of facilities with the Liberty Union School District. The project shall be required to fully mitigate the impacts on primary and secondary schools." It is unclear to the District whether this has actually been adopted or is simply proposed as draft language. The District's inability to obtain direct information regarding what in fact are the actual conditions of approval relative to the Discovery Bay West General Plan Amendment and the Project continues to be a source of concern to the District. Therefore, it is the District's request that any approval relating to the Project, especially such actions as approvals of zone changes and specific plan amendments, be consistent with the existing approved policy of the County requiring full mitigation of the adverse environmental impacts of the project. Specifically, the District would respectfully request that the Planning Commission include among its recommendations a condition of approval which, in addition to requiring full mitigation of impacts on an affected school district (as the draft condition of approval currently states), also contains an obligation that is definite and certain, rather than an ambiguous reference to "additional arrangements", or a legally insufficient reference to a "will serve" letter. Such condition should require execution of a Mitigation Agreement to the satisfaction of the District (and any other affected school district) and executed at least prior to approval of a final map for the Project. Otherwise, there is no assurance that the adequate school facilities will be available in time to meet the needs of the students to be generated from the Project. Furthermore, the suggestion in the current staff report that project is consistent with existing County policies on the basis that the Project "proposes potential school site of approximately 10 acres" is misleading in the absence of a condition requiring the Project applicant to enter into a mitigation agreement with the District to provide for the funding of the school facilities impacts from the Project, prior to any approval by the County Board of Supervisors. This is, because although the District anticipates constructing the initial phases of a high school with the proceeds of General Obligation bonds, such increase in capacity is already expected by the District to be used in order to accommodate students generated from previously approved development within the County. As noted on pages 4.8-3 and 4.8-15 of the EIR, existing facilities of the District already exceed their capacity, and the District needs new facilities in order to accommodate additional students anticipated from existing enrollment. Therefore, eexweciNwn6914 BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI9 WELES & GIANNONE East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa February 3, 1995 Page 8 any new development within the County adds further to the already severe overcrowding of the District's facilities. Any new development within the County adds further to the already overcrowded District facilities. State funding to make up for the shortfall is unlikely. In the past, the State has provided funding for the shortfall after fees are collected. However, the State has clearly delineated its position with respect to the future of state funding, having indicated repeatedly that it intends to have schools increasingly built through local funding mechanisms, as demonstrated by the Governor's veto messages relative to SB 97 and AB 2580 of the 1994 Legislative Session. Furthermore, the school bond measure on this year's June ballot failed to receive voter approval, and there were no school bond measures on the November 1994 statewide ballot. While the District certainly intends to pursue State funds, the District cannot safely embark on its planning with the assumption that such funds will be forthcoming, as state funding as anticipated by AB 2926 is, at best, not likely. Under these circumstances it would not be appropriate or prudent for the District to assume receipt of any state funds. Moreover, it is currently estimated that there is a backlog of four billion dollars in unfunded school facilities needs state-wide. All of the money from past state-wide school facilities bond measures has been allocated. There is currently no additional state-wide bond measure scheduled to be placed on the ballot. Accordingly, the State is not a reliable source of alternate funding for the school facilities needs of the District. With respect to alternative funding sources such as general obligation bond measures, Proposition 170, which was on the ballot in November of 1993, would have lowered the vote required to pass a school district general obligation bond measure from two-thirds to a simple majority. However, Proposition 170 failed, and a two-thirds majority is still required in order to pass a general obligation bond measure within the District. Therefore, the District cannot rely on the passage of a general obligation bond measure to make-up the shortfall in school facilities needs resulting from these Projects and other projects within the District. In the absence of available State funds the District must seek local funding sources in order to address the fiscal liability for existing and future residents who would otherwise face the prospect of their children attending overcrowded, substandard schools. Accordingly, unless the applicant enters into a Mitigation Agreement with the District, school impacts will not be mitigated and will remain significant. Otherwise, the impacts to the District will not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, and, as provided below, because the County has the authority and is in fact required to mitigate the school impacts on the BAKW&G/AJN/16914 BOw>E, ARNESON, KADh WrLEs & G><ANNONE East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa February 3, 1995 Page 9 District prior to the approval of the Project, the County can not legally justify the approval of the Project, unless the applicant enters into a Mitigation Agreement with the District which will ensure the availability of school facilities to house the students to be generated by the Project and at time of General Plan buildout. The District's responsibility is to educate the children within its jurisdiction. If new housing is to be approved without school capacity as necessitated by such development, the entire existing community is degraded. The County has the ability to consider the adequacy of school facilities when approving legislative developments such as zone changes, specific plans and general plan amendments based on the following Court of Appeal decisions: Mira Development Com. v City of San Diego, (1988) 252 Cal. Rptr. 825, William S. Hart Union High School District v Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 277 Cal. Rptr. 645, and Murrieta Valley Unified School District v County of Riverside, (1991) 279 Cal. Rptr. 421 (collectively the "Mira Decisions"). In addition, based on the Murrieta decision, the County is required to consider the adequacy of school facilities under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Also enclosed is a recent (unpublished) appellate court ruling on this issue, which leaves little doubt as to the inability of the Planning Commission to approve the Project absent a mitigation agreement. It can be clearly seen that the Project will have a significant impact on the District's school facilities. Pursuant to CEQA, significant impacts must be mitigated to a level of insignificance prior to approval of a project by the County. On the basis of the Mira Decisions, the County has the authority to require more than the statutory school fee from new legislative development to ensure that school facilities are adequately mitigated. Accordingly, we are requesting that the County require the applicant to enter into a Mitigation Agreement with the District to provide for the funding of the school facilities impacts from the Project, prior to any approval by the County. Additionally, it should be noted that Government Code Section 65300.5, requires a finding of consistency between a specific plan (such as the Project) and the County's General Plan. In this regard General Plan School Policy of the County requires General Plan Amendments and rezonings to be required to fully mitigate impacts on school facilities. In order to fully mitigate the impacts from the Project the District requests that the County condition any approval of the Project by requiring that the project applicant and BAKW&G/AIN/16914 BOw1E, ARNEsm, KADI, WII,ES & G ANNONE East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa February 3, 1995 Page 10 developers enter into Mitigation Agreements mutually acceptable to the District which fully mitigate the impacts to be incurred by the District as set forth above. We would be pleased to provide you with any additional information you may require. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI, WILES & GIANNONE By: l Alexander Bowie Enclosure cc: Dan Smith Tom Torlakson Val Alexeeff James Cutler Art Beresford Victor Westman Greg Lyall Dan Cox George Cardinale Laird Neuhart David Taussig BAM&GiAwn6914 1 � PINNELL & KINGSLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 601 UNIVERSITY AVENUE.SUITE 265 ' JAMES D.PINNELL SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95825-6706 TELEPHONE ROBERT E KINGSLEY (916)567.9400 WENDI L.ROSS TELECOPIER(FAX): SONIA A.HEHIR (916)567-9420 PAUL N.BOYLAN GREGORY T.LYALL April 7, 1995 c a VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST-CLASS MAILc -v-_ o M. David T. Lennon m� Vice President, Land Development o The Hofmann Company P.O. Box 907 Concord, CA 94522 RE: Knightsen Elementary School District Developer Agreement Dear Mr. Lennon: I appreciated your statement, at the April 3 meeting of the Eastern Contra Costa Planning Commission, that the Hofmann Company was committed to mitigating the impact of Discovery Bay West on the affected school districts. Based upon the comments made by Commissioners, I believe that this was a significant factor in the Commission's decision to send the rezoning recommendation to the Board of Supervisors with the modified form of Condition 33 (i.e.,that no legislative act be taken until developer agreements are in place between Hofmann Company and each affected school district). As you know, on behalf of the Knightsen Elementary School District, I sent a proposed Developer Agreement to the Hofmann Company on March 30, 1995. On April 3, you indicated that you felt this was a "good starting point" and that you had sent it off for review by appropriate persons in your organization. I await your comments. If a good faith effort is to be made toward reaching a developer agreement prior to the time the County Supervisors is required to act on 2963-RZ, time is of the essence. Nothing would please me more than being able to approach the county Board of Supervisors regarding 2963-RZ and announce that the Knightsen District wholeheartedly supports it because a developer agreement has been reached between Hofmann Company and the District. File: B:Kwown 000 La mn.w MINELL &EINGSLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW David T. Lennon ` April 7, 1995 Page 2 On the other hand, as I stated to you and the Planning Commissioners on April 3, I cannot permit actions to occur which will disadvantage the rights of my client. I firmly believe that if we put our best efforts toward finding a solution, we will be successful. I look forward to receiving your comments on the District's proposal for a developer agreement. Very truly yours, PINNELL & KINGS Y ROBERT E. GSL REK:pmh c: Vickey Rinehart, Superintendent Knightsen Elementary School District Alexander Bowie Art Beresford Eastern Contra Costa Planning Commission File: 8:KnKlmen 010795 Leman W ►°"S�yoo Xibert W ?t. h Sc6ol District m � zo Oak Strezt 71 Trcdwod, CA 9493 �WC �—`--3 96nr-(SIO)634-2166,}ox(SIO)634-1687 ISHED May 1, 1995 East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Re: # 3025-91 / 91-7686 - Hofmann Construction Company Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: The Liberty Union High School District ("District"), the Knightsen Elementary School District, and the other elementary school districts within the District have participated in numerous meetings and have expended many hours in the mediation process to seek to resolve the issue of fair and equitable assured timing of funding for school facilities required by new development in incorporated and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County ("County"). Hopefully, an understanding can be reached and implemented in the near future. Hence, the District requests that the Planning Commission continue the consideration of the above-referenced project (the "Project") for an additional thirty (30) days. Otherwise, the impacts of the Project to the District will not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. As noted in previous correspondence, the County of Contra Costa has the authority and is in fact required to mitigate the school impacts on the District prior to the approval of the Project. Until the remaining issues between the District and Hofmann are resolved, the County cannot legally approve the Project, unless the applicant enters into a Mitigation Agreement with the District which will ensure the availability of school facilities to house the students to be generated by the Project and at time of General Plan buildout. We also wish to inform the Planning Commission that pursuant to its request that the District and the other school districts have been working towards a coordinated and cooperative approach regarding school mitigation issues. The District, the Knightsen Elementary School District, and the Brentwood Elementary School District have entered into a joint powers agreement, which has resulted in the establishment of the East Contra Costa School Facilities AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Financing Authority (the "Authority"). Subsequent to the establishment of the Authority, the other two elementary school districts offered their comments relative to the wording of the agreement establishing the Authority. We understand these suggested wording clarifications have been resolved and that the execution by all of the school districts of a "First Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating the East Contra Costa School Facilities Financing Authority" will occur in the near future. This information is provided to demonstrate the good faith efforts of the District and the other school districts to implement the Planning Commission's helpful and valued request and recommendation in this regard. We would be pleased to provide you with any additional information you may require. Very truly yours, Daniel M. Smith Superintendent DMS:dd cc: Vickey Rinehart Supervisor Tom Torlakson Val Alexeeff James Cutler Art Beresford Victor Westman Alexander Bowie Robert Kingsley Greg Lyall Dan Cox George Cardinale Laird Neuhart David Taussig letter\esstenty.81 Agenda Item # $' Community Development Contra Costa County EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY. APRIL 3. 1995 - 7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION HOFMANN CONSTRUCTION CO. (Aoolicant)-HOFMANN CONSTRUCTION CO. AND --- — =--_ EDNA M. FALLMAN (Owners), County File x2963.-RZ IR291.2963):--The applicant = = requests approval to rezone and for a preliminary development plan on approximately 756.194 acres of land from General Agricultural District (A-2) and Heavy Agricultural District (A-3) to Planned Unit District (P-1) for approximately 2,000 residential units, marina, lakes, park areas, a school area, a fire station area, open space areas, a commercial recreational area and other landscaped areas. The subject property fronts on the east side of Sixler Road from one-half mile north of Balfour Road thence south to .57 miles south of Point of Timber Road in the Discovery Say area. The site will also have access to the Discovery Bay community via Newport Drive. (A-2) (ZA: M. 28m, M-28, N-28) (CT 3040.00) (Parcel #x011-220-023, -024, -025, -026, -027; #x011-230-010, -011, -012, -013, -014, -015, -015, -017, -018; #f011-240-001; #015-150-001, -002). The East County Regional Planning Commission has heard RZ912963 on December 5, 1994, February 6, 1995 and March 6, 1995. 11. RECOMMENDATION Staff at this time recommends that the East County Regional Planning Commission take testimony on the rezoning/preliminary development plan application concerning its design, intensity of use, proposed types of uses, the attached Conditions of Approval and close the hearing. The Commission should then vote to adopt a resolution giving their recommendations to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to certify the Final EIR for the project and approve RZ91263 subject to attached Conditions of approval. Ill. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The site is presently designated Single Family Residential-High and Medium Density, Parks & Recreation, Public and Semi-Public, and Delta Resources & Recreation. The General Plan'Amendment (No 4.93-EC) which was a request to change the designation on this site as well as surrounding areas to urban types of designations such as Single Family Residential-High and Medium Density, parks and open space, public and semi-public and Delta Recreation and Resource was approved and adopted by the Board of Super- visors on December 20, 1994. i 2 B. Zoning: The site is presently zoned General Agriculture District (A-2) and Heavy Agriculture District (A-3). The proposed rezoning is to rezone the entire site to P-1, the Planned Unit District. C. CEQA Status: A project EIR has been prepared for this site as well as the surrounding General Plan Amendment area. The Board has certified the EIR for the General Plan for the site. D. Environs The project is located in the unincorporated Byron/Discovery Bay area. Bixler Road via State Route 4 gives regional access to the site. _The site-is approximately 30 miles east of Concord and 20 miles west of Stockton. The nearest incorporated city is Brentwood; about 4 to 5 miles west of the site. The site-vicinity consists of flat terrain sloping gently down toward the Delta. The eastern portion of the site borders on the Werner Dredger Cut, the most westerly slough of the Delta in this area. The surrounding area is a mix of agricultural uses consisting of a mix of field crop land, pastures, rural ranchettes often with pasture or crop land on them and the Delta. The Discovery Bay community is located south/southeast and easterly of this project. A gas line crosses the northern portion of the site, high tension power lines cross the southwesterly corner of the site and the main canal for the East Contra Costa Irrigation District crosses the center of the project. E. Existing Use of the Site: Over half of the site is used fo► pasture. The rest of the site is used for cultivated crops or is unfarmed. A few homes and barns are located on the site. F. Other Development Proposals in the Site Vicinity: At this time there are no other pending development proposals in the area. Property owners to the east of the site have expressed interest in developing their land but have, to date, not made any formal applications. There is an approximately 363 unit development under construction at the northwest corner of State Highway 4 and Bixler Road. There is an approved development plan for a shopping center at the northeast corner of State Highway 4 and Bixler Road. G. it : Soils on the northern portion of the site (north of the East Contra Costa Irrigation District Canal) are capay clay-wet a class II soil. East of that are Marcuse Clay-wet soils, a class IV soil. The southern portion of the site is a mix of Brentwood clay loam-wet class 11 soils and more capay clay and Marcuse , 3 clay. The extreme eastern portion of the site, north of the East Contra Costa Irrigation District Canal is generally Sacramento clay-alkalk a class IV soil and small areas of Pescadero Sandy clay loam, a class VI soil. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Discovery Bay Municioal Advisory Council: See attached letters. B. Discovery Bay Property Owners Association: See attached tetter. The - Association's letter was written before the project was revised to 2,000 units and before the EIR was prepared. C. Archaeological Resources: The proposed project area has a possibility of containing archaeological resources. A study was recommended. This study has been conducted under the auspices of the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the site and any approval of this should take into account the mitigation measures spelled out in the Environmental Impact Report in regards to archaeological and historic resources. See attached letters. D. Fire Prevention Office: The fire station shall be constructed and fully equipped by developer to East Diablo Fire Protection District specifications prior to any residential construction on the site. See attached memoranda. E. Liberty Union High School District: See attached letters. F. pelta-Diablo Sanitation District: See attached letter. G. East Bay Regional Park District: See attached letter. H. Byron Union School District: See attached letter. I. Kniahtsen School District: See attached letters. J. East Contra Costa Irrigation District: See attached letter. K. Oakley Municipal Advisory Council: Additional 600 homes will increase traffic to unacceptable levels. (This was in response to the applicant's request to change the application from 1,400 to 2,000 residences.) S-chool's do not have the capacity at present. L. Department of Transportation: See attached letter. M. Pacific Gas & Electric Comoany: See attached letter. i 4 N. plealth Services Department. Environmental Health Division: Comments received prior to preparation of EIR. They recommend a complete hydrological evaluation of this area to ensure that the development will not deplete existing ground water supply. Reports from well drillers and local residences indicating that the current rate of water use may be lowering the water levels in existing wells. In December the Hazardous Materials Division forwarded comments concerning chlorine storage on EBMUD property near the Orwood Resort. Their memoran- dum is attached. - O. East Bay Municipal Utility District: Letter responding to staff's request ,...concerning chlorine storage at their facility north of the site_ P. East Bay Municipal Utility District: Project site is outside the jurisdiction of the District's service area. There are no comments related to the water service. See related attached comments concerning existing District's facilities. See attached letter. Q. Byron Advisory Council: See attached letter. R. Sheriff-Coroner Department: See attached letter. S. City of Brentwood: See attached letter. T. AF : See attached letter. U. Letter from Joan Seaver reoardino boating on Indian Slough. V. Letters from Hofmann Co. W. Letters from Liberty Hioh School and Kniohtsen School District school districts attorneys. V. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT A. General Plan Amendment: As the Commission is aware, the Board has approved the General Plan Amendment for the site and surrounding area. That General Plan Amendment, as approved, contains several policies in regards to this P-1 development proposal. For instance, the General Plan Amendment proposes a 100 foot wide buffer along the westerly side of the site north of the East Contra Costa Irrigation District Canal measuring from the center line of Sixler Road. The General Plan has the following policies in regards the Discovery Bay West development: 5 Conservation and Ogen Soace 1. The Discovery Bay West project shall provide open space as part of the land use concept to ensure compliance with the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. For this purpose, the project shall include dedication of development rights to the 200:t acre Fallman Ranch in the northeast portion of the GPA area. Additionally, it shall provide a minimum of 120 acres of open forms of-land use within the project, including but not limited to, lakes,park, utility easement,Fallman Canal, _- wetland (in southeast portion of project), pocket parks,=landscaped areas, and trails. Staff Comments The recommended Conditions of Approval fc., RZ912963 require that development rights for the Fallman Ranch be dedicated to the County or some other suitable agency thus holding that area open that is within the Open Space of the project per the General Plan Amendment. Staff has also recommended that before approval of any Final Develop- ment on the site, a detailed accounting be provided on total open space area in the rest of project per General Plan Amendment policy. 2. The development concept of the Discovery Bay West project shall provide improved functional integration between the water element, other parks and recreation facilities and the residential project. Public access to the easterly portion of the site should be explored. Staff Comments The proposed plans and recommended conditions require that there be suitable recreational facilities around the lakes. Also, residences near the lakes are to be oriented toward the lake. The recommended conditions of approval call for the development of a trail along the Irrigation District which could be used for public access. 3. The Discovery Bay West project shall provide a buffer of at least 100 feet in width, between the residential lots and the center line of Bixler Road for the portion of the site north of the East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) Canal Staff Comments The revised plan provides the required buffer for Villages III and IV. 6 4. Jurisdictional wetland areas planned for open space uses shall have development rights for these areas dedicated to the County prior to construction of any portion of the project that is north of the ECCID Canal. Staff Comments See Policy-#F. Land Use 1. The land use plan map for Discovery Bay West should be interpreted flexibly in terms of the location and configuration of the takes and marina. Staff Comments The revised preliminary development plan for the site reflects this policy as does the condition to modify the location of the marina. 2. A maximum of 2,000 dwelling units shall be allowed within the Discovery Bay West project area. Staff Comments The recommended Conditions of Approval limit development to a maximum of 2,000 dwelling units. 3. A community center shall be provided as part of the Discovery Bay West project. The location of the community center shall be in the Discovery Bay West GPA area or the existing community of Discovery Bay. The Hofmann Company is to dedicate the site, preferably in the existing Discovery Bay community, and to pay 50 percent of the building construction costs. Site selection shall be determined by the County, Discovery Bay MAC and developer of Discovery Bay West. Staff Comments The recommended Conditions require the developer to dedicate a site for the community center and developer funding of 50% of the building construction cost. 4. The Discovery Bay West project shall be designed as a mixed density residential project which shall include both attached and detached units in differing density to serve a broader range of housing needs. Property generally east of the lakes is to be designated Single Family Residential- Medium Density. The remaining residential lands are to be designated 7 Single Family Residential-High Density. The design shall allow for internal project amenities such as recreational areas, community focal points and the like. Senior housing projects shall be encouraged. Staff Comments The revised plan addresses most of these concerns. No information has yet been provided which identifies the location of the attached housing a I. The senior component ot tin-V. e housing should be planned as attached housing* in addition, the area in the vicinity of the redesigned marina should be designed to have an attached or semi-attached housing component. 5. Establishment of a senior housing project in the vicinity of Point of Timber Road shall be encouraged. Staff Comments The revised plan includes a 63 53 unit senior housing project. Public Services 6. The Discovery Bay West project shall consider alternative water systems for the provision of domestic water, including preparation of a formal contingency plan for use of surface waters. Staff Comments The recommended Conditions of Approval require the development of such a plan. 7. The Discovery Say West project shall include provision for a ground water monitoring program to quantify the effect of additional use of the aquifer (i.e., quality and drawn-down). If the monitoring programs show that the performance standards are not being met, no new units may be added. Staff Comments The recommended Conditions of Approval require the establishment of a ground water monitoring program. 8. The developer of Discovery Say West along with representatives of the Byron and Knightsen Elemintary School Districts shall meet to resolve issues pertaining to school district boundaries. 8 Staff Comments This policy is outside the powers of the County to effect the Conditions of Approval do require mitigation of school impacts. Transportation S. Discovery Bay West shall remain in the East County Regional Area of Benefit. Staff Comments The Conditions of Approval require this. 10. Discovery Bay West shall pay the Eastern Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee in effect at the time building permits are issued. Staff Comments The Conditions of Approval require this. 11. Discovery Say shall participate in a flexible implementation program for mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report. Staff Comments The Conditions of Approval require this. 12. After issuance of the 500th building permit for the Discovery Bay project, the Discovery Bay West developer shall fund a traffic study to determine if the trip distribution and road network assumptions in the EIR have substantially changed. If substantial changes have occurred, mitigation and possibly subsequent environmental documentation will be required. The cost of the additional traffic studies and environmental documentation will be the responsibility of the developer. Additional traffic mitigation will be subject to the requirements of a flexible monitoring program. Staff Comments The Conditions of Approval require this. 13. The circulation and transportation concept shall provide a road connec- tion to the Discovery Bay community in the southern portion of the GPA area. 9 Staff Comments The revised plan shows a road connection between the project and the Discovery Bay community. 14. The Discovery Bay West project shall be reviewed to consider adequate access and internal circulation to adjacent properties within the plan amendment area. Staff Comments The revised plan and recommended Conditions of Approval require additional road connections to the properties east of the project site. 15. The Discovery Bay West project shall provide emergency vehicle access near the northwest corner of the Pantages property. Staff Comments The recommended Conditions of Approval require this. 16. Discovery Bay West GPA projects shall provide an efficient internal circulation system, with adequate on-street parking. Staff Comments The recommended Conditions of Approval require this. 17. To reduce vehicle trip generation, consideration should be given to establishing a small scale telecommuting center in the community center. Equipping residential units with telecommunication capabilities should be encouraged. Staff Comments The recommended Conditions of Approval require this. Other policies of the General Plan require (1) that at least 44% of the area remain in permanent open space, (2) that the site more fully integrate the project with the proposed lakes and Delta waters, (3) that a community center area be designated, (4) that there be a suitable mix of housing types, and (5) that redesign of the project be considered in regards to the creation of alley ways and a design that provides for better connection between residences and the proposed lakes within the site. 10 VI. PROPOSED PROJECT A. Physical Improvements: The proposed project would develop the area to the east of Bixler Road on both sides of the East Contra Costa Irrigation District Main Canal. Development is to start in the south and proceed toward the north with the area being developed as a series of villages. The most southerly village, Village 1, would be serviced by public streets and would be the site for the proposed school, a 6.5 acre park/fire station area, 324 single family residences, park and ride lot, and possible recreational vehicle storage area _ underneath the existing high tension lines. Village 1 would run from the north end of Discovery Bay, at the northern terminus of Newport Drive and thence north to Point of Timber Road. Villages 11-J-1l'ind IV would be,villages located around the park and lakes near the center of the villages. Villages III and IV would also include a marina located at the easterly side of the proposed Villages III and IV. Villages 11, 111 and IV would be serviced by private roads and would be generally developed for single family residential 1-urposes. Village 11 wewld includes an area for senior citizen housing along the north side of Point of Timber Road and a commercial/recreational facility located on the northeast corner of Bixler and Point of Timber Roads. Village 11 would have 519 units including 64 53 senior citizen multiple units. Village 11 is to have 601 single family residences. Village IV will have a total of 556 single family residences. B. Internal Circulation: As mentioned above, Village I would be serviced by a public road with the primary access to the site being either through Newport Drive or Point of Timber Road. Villages 11, 111 and IV would gain access off of Bixler Road and, in the case of Village 11, off of Point of Timber Road. The applicant is proposing a connection between Villages II and III across the East Contra Costa Irrigation District Canal. The private roads within the Villages 11, III and IV would be of various widths and would generally be narrower than what would be required for public roads. There weld will be emergency vehicle access points along Bixler Road for Villages 11, 111 and IV. Villages 11 and III would gain their primary access off of Bixler Road at the Balfour Road intersection. Villages 11, 111 and IV would be gated communities. C. Proposed Utility Services: The water and sewer service for this site is to be provided by the Contra Costa Sanitation District#19. The storm drain facilities will be provided by Contra Costa County in the case of drainage of public areas and streets and by a homeowners association in the case of the private streets and lakes within the development. The fire protection for this site will be provided by the East Diablo Fire Protection District; gas and electricity will be provided by the Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; and the telephone will be provided by Pacific Bell and/or the Hofmann Co. The schools for this site will be 11 provided, in the case of the high school by the Liberty Union High School District. Elementary schools in the case of Villages I, Il and III by the Byron School District. Village IV is within the Knightsen School District and would have service provided by the Knightsen School District when that site develops. D. Planned Course of Development: The developers are proposing that the site be developed from the south to the north. Thus, Village I would be the first village constructed and that would be followed by Villages II,III and IV. The developer plans final build-up for this development sometime around the year 2010. Because of the limitations on approval of final maps it may be required that further approvals be granted.for this site-in the future. E. House Types: The developer proposes one type of housing on three different sized lots. Many of the lots are 42 feet X 100 feet for an area of approximately 4,200 square feet. The next larger lot is 55 feet X 100 feet for an area of. approximately 5,500 square feet, and the largest lots p►oposed for the site are generally 65 feet X 100 feet for an area of approximately 6,500 square feet. There are some cul-de-sac lots that would no doubt be larger, and because of the curved streets, etc. some of the lots would be slightly larger than 6,500 square feet. The developer also proposes a low density senior type of housing at the south end of the proposed lake in Village II. This is planned to be a multi-family type of development for senior citizens to be developed in the future after the construction of Village I. F. Homeowners Association: Discovery Bay West Villages II, III and IV, will require that a homeowners association be set up for the maintenance of the streets, entry gates, payment of guards at the entry gates, storm drainage maintenance, landscaping including perimeter fencing, and landscaping within private road area,maintenance of water channels,lakes and maintenance of the landscaped area around the various lakes on the site and recreation areas. VII. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION The attached recommended conditions of approval based upon the March, 1995 Vesting Tentative Map, Final Development Plan, 1994 Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Grading Plan map include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of: the County Subdivision Ordinance, "Title 9." including Division 914, "Drainage;" and Division 1006, "Road Dedication and Setback," as they pertain to this development. This is a large residential project located in an area of inadequate infrastructure improvements. Development of this property, at this time, requires consideration of the following issues: 12 A. MITIGATION OF AREAWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACTS (FLEXIBLE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM): The applicant shall develop a Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program with the County to monitor areawide road impacts and to determine a road development program to implement construction of improvements,including those identified in the EIR,in a timely manner. The applicant, prior to the issuance of the 501 st and 1201st Building permits, shall review the traffic generation assumptions made in the EIR. If the assumptions made are still valid,the mitigation measure will remain unchanged. If some or all of the assumptions are shown to be significantly invalid, then further review of the subject intersections studied in the EIR ii4ll-be performed, the project's-impacts reevaluated and significant— impacts appropriately mitigated. The applicant will also be responsible for the timely construction, channelization and signalization of the State Highway 4-Byron Highway/Point of Timber-Road------- intersection which will be a ECRAOS reimbursable expense. Any widening, improvement, or reconstruction of Bixler Road which is constructed by the applicant, and which is also required by the conditions of approval and/or frontage improvement obligations for the properties covered by Subdivision 7679, Subdivision 7881 or Permit 3031-91, shall be subject to reimbursement to the applicant by the above property owners/developers through reimbursement agreements administered by Contra Costa County. B. MITIGATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The Environmental impact Report(EIR)for this project addresses a large number of projects which this development must partially mitigate and others for which the project would be totally responsible. Many of the environmental impacts can be satisfied through payment of Area of Benefit fees. Public Works recommends that at the issuance of each Building Permit the applicant be required to pay: 1. the State Route 4 Bypass fee (ECCSRTMF), 2. the East County Regional Area of Benefit fee (ECRA06), and 3. an Environmental Mitigation fee of $6,500 less the ECRAOB fee. In addition to the above fees the applicant shall also: construct all on-site improvements: widen and improve and reconstruct, Bixler Road along the project's frontage and southerly to the northerly limits of the Bixler Road obligation of Subdivision 7679, Subdivision 7881 and Permit 3031-91; fund 50% of the signal at the State Highway 4- Bixler Road intersection; and widen or reconstruct Point of Timber Road between Bixler Road and State Highway 4; and signalize the State Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard intersection. 13 C. ROAD CIRCULATION TO THE NORTHWEST AND THROUGH KNIGHTSEN: Traffic from this development destined for the Oakley area and the Central County area may need better road circulation to provide a safer route for the increased traffic volume from this development. Trip diversion to and from the Knightsen area shall be considered.This may require temporary turn restrictions on Balfour Road and Bixler Road north of the project. The Area of Benefit will widen and extend Byron Highway north to Cypress Road. The applicant shall be required to reconstruct Point of Timber Road to a 28-foot pavement width. Consideration shall be given to cul-de-sacing, or otherwise restricting access to Balfour Road, or widening Balfour Road with development of Villages III or IV, should the Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program identify the need. D. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MITIGATION: ' The applicant shall provide adequate construction traffic mitigation by widening and maintaining the haul routes. Bixler Road and possibly Point of Timber Road from State Highway 4 have been designated as haul routes for construc- tion materials. The selected construction haul route shall be widened to 28 feet prior to issuance of the first Building Permit. E. IMPROVE ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT EASTERLY PROPERTIES: The applicant shall provide: 1. Adequate public access(revocable reservation)to the Pantages property from the north side of the lake on the Pantages property to the south side of the lake through applicant's property. Pantages will have two years from filing of applicant's first Final Map in Village II to acquire necessary rights through applicant's property. The intent of this reservation is to allow for extension of a public roadway serving this northerly triangle through non-wetland and non-riparian portions of the westerly edge of the applicant's property adjacent to the westerly edge of the lake located on the Pantages property, if construction of the road segment on the Pantages property proves infeasible. The Pantages property owner shall be solely responsible for the construction of this improvement. 2. Future access to the Open Space parcels north and south of the proposed marina. 3. A 60-foot right of way for future potential access to the Armstrong, Schuler and Storer property along the southeast side of the Fire Station/Park to Newport Drive in addition to "F" Street. 14 F. ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE: The following schedule is based on Public Works estimate for safety and operation at various levels of project development. 1. Widen the construction routes (Bixler Road and possibly Point of Timber Road) to 28 feet prior to issuance of the first Building Permit. 2. Construct the State Highway 4/Bixler Road traffic signal improvement by the issuance of the 200th Building Permit. 3. Construct the State Highway 4/Discovery Bay Boulevard traffic signal improvement prior to issuance of the 200th Building Permit. 4. Bond and arrange for widening of Point .of Timber Road to.,34 feet between Bixler Road and Byron Highway by the issuance of the 200th Building Permit and construct this improvement by the issuance of the 300th Building Permit. 5. Construct the State Highway 4/Byron Highway /Point of Timber Road intersection prior to the issuance of the Building Permits in Villages III or IV. The applicant shall make application to Caltrans for preliminary design of this improvement not later than the issuance of the 500th Building Permit. 6. Bond and arrange for construction of Bixler Road to 34 feet from the project to State Highway 4 prior to issuance of the 400th Building Permit. 7. Reevaluate project traffic impacts prior to the issuance of the 501st Building Permit and establish a mitigation program for significant impacts (if any) prior to recording the Final Maps for Village III or Village IV. 8. Reevaluate project traffic impacts prior to issuance of 1201st building permit and establish a mitigation program for significant impacts (if any) prior to recording a Final Map for Village IV. 9. Any widening, improvement, or reconstruction of Bixler Road and/or State Highway 4 at Bixler Road which is constructed by the applicant, and which is also required by the conditions of approval and/or frontage improvement obligations for the properties covered by Subdivision 7679, Subdivision 7881 or Permit 3031-91, shall be subject to reimbursement to the Applicant by the above property own- ers/developers through reimbursement agreements administered by Contra Costa County. 15 G. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS: All improvements located in Villages II, III and IV are currently considered to be private and shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The improvements consist of, but are not limited to, roads, landscaping, lighting, bicycle paths, the marina, levees and the lakes. H. PRIVATE ROAD DESIGN: Design the loop roads serving substantial numbers of homes around the lakes used on approximately a 45 mile per hour stopping sight distance whece-__�_-_ feasible (a reduction to a 35 mile per hour design speed at specific locations-is appriopriate). Road widths shall be dependent on safe lane widths,. bicycle and pedestrian needs and parking. Roads with no parking or parking limited to one side of the street shall provide adequate additional parking on, or off, street, as necessary. All collector and arterial roads shall have bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Sidewalks (or bicycle/pedestrian paths) shall be provided along one side of all roads. I. LAKE MANAGEMENT: The applicant shall provide a Lake Management Program prepared by a lake management professional to determine the design parameters for the lakes; anticipate problems and proposed methods of maintenance. VII. SCHOOL ISSUES As the Commission is no doubt aware, there has been much discussion over school issues in regards the Discovery Bay West development. Staff is Was recommending approval of 2963-RZ subject to Condition 1133 as pfesently shown below. The condition, as outlined below, is a near verbatim copy of the Condition of Approval imposed by the Board on the CBM development in Oakley last January. The.condition.feed as tolloWs: 33. Accommodation must be made of the additional enrollment of students that may be added to the Liberty Union High School District, the Byron Union Elementary School District and the Knightsen School District due to the changes that would be allowed by the site rezoning. This can be accomplished by several arrangements or combinations thereof,.such as payment of school impact fees plus other contributions from the developer, provision of new facilities, or formation of a funding mechanism such as a Mello-Roos District. Payment of School Impact Fees alone would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level because such fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of constructing new facilities. The contribution from the developer could take the form of portable classrooms, construction of facilities, or an additional fee, as 16 is satisfactory to the Liberty Union High School District, the Byron Union Elementary School District, and the Knightsen School District that has been agreed upon with the development community. This shall be accomplished prior to recording the final map for the project or any phase of the project. The Liberty Union High School District has also recommended a condition of approval for 2963-RZ. The following condition isthe School District's recommended condition: "Discovery Bay West project shall-assure the provision of adequate school facilities and levels of service from school districts serving the project, by way of the Board of _ Supervisors requiring that developer(s).shall execute a School Mitigation Agreement, which School Mitigation Agreement shall contain provisions and provide for payment._ to affected school districts in amounts acceptable to such school districts, in order to mitigate the impacts of their project on school facilities prior to any legislative approval of any development and/or prior to any application for a tentative map approval." The effect of this condition would be to require that a mitigation agreement be reached with the three districts prior to the approval of the P-1 rezoning of the site and approval of any tentative maps. The developer has also suggested a Condition of Approval for school facilities. Their condition reads as follows: Discovery Bay West School Facility Condition of Aoorovel: Liberty Union High School District: The project shall fully mitigate its facilities impacts on Liberty Union High School District by payment of a fee at building permit. This mitigation fee may exceed the State allowed fee limit for development projects, however, mitigation fees shall only be sufficient to pay the project's proportionate share of the unfunded costs for necessary land acquisition, interim facilities and new school construction in order to mitigate the project's impacts. At the developer's option, the fee may be paid in advance through a Mello-Roos district. Kniahtsen School District: The project shall fully mitigate its facilities impacts on Knightsen School District by payment of a fee at building permit. This mitigation fee may exceed the State allowed fee limit for development projects, however, mitigation fees shall only be sufficient to pay the project's proportionate share of the unfunded costs for necessary land acquisition, interim facilities and new school construction in order to mitigate the project's impacts. At the developer's option, the fee may, be paid in advance through a Mello-Roos district. E 17 In lieu of the above, the developer may construct a school within or near the project, in accordance with Knightsen School District's reasonable specifications. The school shall be constructed in time to accommodate the project's students unless they can be accommodated at other district facilities. Byron Union School District: The applicant shall fulfill his agreement with the Byron Union School District. The effect of this condition would be to time the school developers to the building permit stage. Staff FOeGFRMeAdS that Genditien of AppFeV81 #34 Om9pesed 'R the at Appfeval-. jAt the March fi 995 rnai:ting, e'; Commission ppted..f..6.f..-.t'he condition recommended y ahe Liberty:Llnior f•l�ghchcotistr�ct, as modifiedy staff, shown above. That bo�dit�or :�s now.Gpnditifln;f;f33. IX. DISCUSSION AND STAFF EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL It should be noted at this time that this is Preliminary Development Plan for a planned unit development for the project. Staff at this time will not be addressing every minor detail of the project as there will be additional review as the final development plans and/or subdivisions come in for this project. Staff's primary concern here is that when the planned unit development is approved that it conforms with the policies for the General Plan and the policies placed on development in this area by the Board of Supervisors and overall that the development makes a cohesive whole that will lead to a superior community with proper amenities, public facilities and service, and proper vehicle circulation so that the future citizens of this area can hope to have a superior community to live in. As the Commission knows, an Environmental Impact Report has been certified for this project by the Board of Supervisors. The Board has adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program for this development. A copy of the Mitigation Monitoring Program as approved by the Board of Supervisors was enclosed in the packet given to the Commission on February 6, 1995. The mitigation monitoring report will inform the Commission of the various mitigation measures that need to betaken if this site is to be developed. A number of the conditions recommended by staff for this approval come from the mitigation measures required by the certified EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this development. These conditions, of course, will continue to apply for future final development plans and subdivisions filed on this site and will be seen again in Conditions of Approval for the variousluture requests for development on this site. 18 As the Commission knows, the original proposal for this site was for a marina to be located at the southeast corner of Village I. However, because of concerns of neighbors as well as concerns over the wetlands in the area,the applicant has moved the marina to the vicinities of Villages 111 and IV. Thus, the layout of the project, as proposed generally conforms with the Alternative #1 mitigated project with the relocated marina found in the alternative section of the Environmental Impact Report for this site as well as for the larger General Plan Amendment in the area. The marina has been moved to the areas of Villages III and IV and internal circulation for Villages 11, 111 and IV has been changed to give proper separation of residences from farm land to the west. The overall development is a dense, small lot residential proposal. The proposed residential units will be very close to each other. There is little diversity in the size, design or shape of lots. There is little break-up in the row type of housing proposed. Most of the residences are not tied to the Delta via water connection, nor to the proposed lakes via water connections. Staff recommends that a condition of approval be considered to require that the fire station be constructed prior to the building of residential structures on the site. The park area needs to be suitably landscaped and integrated with the wetlands and the school district site to provide a more useable and larger area of park siting. This park should be suitably landscaped in place prior to the occupancy of the last residence in Village 1. The suitable landscaping of the park can be applied toward reduction of the usual requirement to pay park dedication fees for the project. The need here is to get a usable park in as soon as possible during the development process. Staff recommends that an area be set aside for a telecommuting center that could be used by citizea''5 of-Discovery Bay. This center could be developed in connection with the proposedlA&424y center. The telecommuting center would provide a site for people who wish to telecommute but need to come to a building that would be equipped with computers, faxes, modums, etc. which they may not have at their residence. Also people may need an office due to the fact that their residence is occupied by other members of the family during work hours. 6184#kJF!heF Feeemmends that eendifieAs be developed feF!his site 11218t SfFeamliicie the site. Staff recommends that a park-and-ride lot be developed along the extension of Newport Drive in the area near its intersection with Bixler Road. This would allow for an area for people in the Discovery Bay area to park their cars while they form car pools to commute to various jobs sites 'in the area. The park and ride lot can be located under the high tension lines if the holder of those easements is agreeable. The revised plans for the final development plan and subdivision show this. A second park and ride lot should be established in Villages III and IV. 19 Staff is of the opinion that the relocation of the marina is a positive change from the original proposal. This is will take marina traffic away from the so-called Kellogg Creek area and create a situation where the boat traffic that is entering the Delta will come out on to Dredger Cut and be able to go to the north or the south and thence east on Indian Slough and into the further reaches of the Delta. Staff recommends that the marina be brought west toward the residences in Villages III and IV. The parking can then be placed north and east of the marina. Houses in this area can then be oriented toward the marina. -_ The redesign of the project providesjor an additional point of access to the Armstrong, Shuller, Storer and the Pantages properties. A loop type road system can be developed into those areas using proposed G Street and the Point of Timber Road. An additional road alignment should be developed along the park-fire station area on Lot E (wetlands) to serve as access to properties east of the site. Staff recommends that a day care center be established within the area prior to the occupancy of resic:ances for Phase II of this project or when the school is constructed. Staff recommends that the day care center be located in or adjacent to the school subject to the Zoning Administrator review and approval. Staff recommends that one or two areas be set aside for a significant senior citizen housing development. The revised plan shows this. Also, the area south of Point of Timber Road and east of Bixler Road needs to be developed in a manner so that the south side of Point of Timber Road is not walled. That area should be developed as cluster housing, or as a boulevard situation that allows for increased open space along the road. Staff has no objections to the creation of the private streets within the site with the strong proviso that the proposed B Street that connects Villages II and 111 is critical and needs to be established. If for some reason B Street cannot be established, then a major redesign of the project could be required for the Villages II, 111 and IV that would necessitate a new planned unit development filing, final development plan approval and, of course, subdivision approvals. An additional point of access could be developed at the southeast corner of Village Ill. The proposed recreational areas as shown within Villages 11, III, and IV are generally acceptable. However,staff recommends that additional recreation facilities be created in areas such as near the marina as well as the creation of some additional recreational facilities (tot lots) in the higher density areas of the project. Staff recommends that consideration be given for an equestrian center be set up on the open space area north of the marina. This would provide some additional outdoor recreational uses and perhaps allow for the movement and preservation of some of the barns on the site. zo As a minor design concern,staff recommends that at least one of the bridges connecti- ng the island in the lake within Village IV be designed so that small boats can pass underneath the bridge. Staff recommends that in the vicinity of the lakes where the road loops come towards the lake that at least some of the areas have small parking bays installed to provide for some additional parking for property owners that live some distance from the lakes and want or need to drive to the park area around each lake. Previous Hearings _ - ---As the Commission may recall,-staff submitted a report that listed a number of-__ concerns regarding the project at their hearing on December 5, 1994. Some of these concerns have been addressed by the applicant, notably the buffering along Sixler Road for Villages III and IV, as well es for that matter for Village 11. The lakes have been slightly redesigned to allow for more recreational sites along the.various lakes proposed for Villages 11, 111 and IV. The plan has been redesigned to show an area for low density multi-family residential development that would be developed as a senior citizens housing area in Village Il. The overall layout of the road circulation within the internal areas of the site have been improved. pesion Concerns Staff still has concerns concerning the orientation of the residential units to water elements, the fact that only one style of housing is basically being proposed and that there seems to be no alternative designs either as to cluster housing or to various plot plans for the residential development proposed within this site. The location of the community center is at present being reviewed by the Discovery Bay MAC and the developer and at this time no decision has been reached as to the location of the proposed community center for the Discovery Bay area. Staff has some concerns on this and does feel that before the Board of Supervisors makes a decision on this project, that the location of the community center has to have been decided upon. The development as presently laid out divides itself up into approximately six sub- villages not counting proposed Village I. The lakes basically divide Villages 11, 111 and IV into two separate villages. With proper design and layout these villages could be made to become cohesive whole villages. The villages could be laid out by variation in the design of the structures (i.e., craftsmen style homes in one village, mediterra- nean stucco/tile roof village in another, a victorian village, perhaps a bungalow village (with the garages located at the back of the lots rather than at the front) to create separate identities for each village. Lesser setbacks could be developed for some of these lots (i.e., 15 feet), trees could be planted in the private street right of ways to give additional landscaping and slow traffic within some of the private street areas for the project. All of these concerns needs to be addressed before approval of the final development plans and tentative maps for this site. 21 Staff recommends in the areas west of the lakes that lot layout be developed so that some of the residences would have a view of the lakes. Lots and residences should be reoriented so that some of them face towards the lake to provide the frontyard view of the lakes. As mentioned in our December 5, 1994 report to the Commission, staff has concerns over the sameness of the design of much of this project. It seems that it is basically three standard sized lots with a very standard building footprint, two-car garage out front, with very little on-street parking. Therefore, staff recommends that as a requirement for final development plans for this site that some additional styles of housing be developed for each of the various villages and sub-villages as proposed on the revised plan for 2963-RZ, received on January 11, 1995. Staff recommends that a greater range of housing types be required. Some of this can simply be done by proper design of the various plot plan proposals in the area. It should be noted that the Board called for a greater ran3e of housing types then that proposed in the original development heard by them during the General Plan Amendment review. Staff recommends that the area to the soutiteast of the corner of Bixler Road and Point of Timber Road be developed in a manner different from that proposed by the applicant. (The revised Final Development 'Plan shows!this:) The need to wall the south side of Point of Timber Road needs to be illwmiRated iR thiS SFea revised to give a more open appearance to the major entrance to the site. Staff recommends that this area either be developed as an additional area of senior citizen housing in a multi-family type of development or perhaps as a clustered or patio home type development. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed road reservation along the southerly side of the proposed park area be located entirely outside the designated park area on the proposed wetlands area and that area be mitigated when and if that road is needed. This would have the effect of leaving the park area as presently proposed and not reducing it further. It should be noted that a development of this size would normally have approximately 15.6 acres of park land. The site has a good amount of open space area around the lakes. However, this is private area and it is not opened to the general public, as is the park at the proposed location in Village I. East Bay Municipal Utility District Facility At the Board of Supervisors hearing concern was also expressed over the fact that the East Bay Municipal Utility District has a chlorine treatment plant to the north of the site in the vicinity of the Orowood Resort. Staff has contacted the East Bay Municipal Utility District and has received a letter from them which is attached to this staff report outlining the fact that they do have a chlorine storage facility at that area and that they are reviewing a plan to possibly change the treatment of the water from gaseous chlorine to a safer material which is called Sodium Hypochlorite. The East Bay Municipal Utility District has informed staff that the decision on whether or not to convert to the safer treatment would be made prior to the end of 1995. They would anticipate that the conversion would be completed by approximately the end of 1997. zz Obviously staff's main concern in this area is centered on Villages III and IV and to lesser extent Villages I and 11. It should be noted that Villages I and 11 are not any nearer than the northern portions of the existing Discovery Say community to the chlorine treatment facility. Staff has also received recommended conditions from the Hazardous Materials Division of the Health Services Department and recommends that these be applied to development in the area at least until the danger of release of gaseous chlorine has been eliminated. Future Considerations It should be noted that further approval for final development plan and subdivisions will be required for this project. At that time staff would expect that we would find more detailed plans for ' , 9FB8s, detailed ARM imp;I4, development._of tthe site. Lake Maintenance Staff had brought forth to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission expressed concern over the maintenance of the various lakes within the Villages 11, 111 and IV for this project. The applicant is proposing that these lakes be maintained by a homeowners association. At the P-1 level the consideration can be given to requirement that the lakes be maintained in some other manner than through a homeowners association if that is the wish of the East County Regional Planning Commission. Growth Management The project is consistent with County policy regarding growth management standards and the provisions of central community services by installing necessary infrastructure to serve the project. The project is also consistent with the Urban Limit Line Policies because of development area is within the Urban Limit Line. The project will meet County Growth Management Standards and Policies by providing internal circulations system with a LOS of D or lower, and construction of outside circulation improvements. The project will dedicate land for a fire station and construct the station. The project will provide a 6.5 acre park plus additional land within the private gated communities for recreational use. Further as recommended by staff, conditions will require the improvement of the 6.5 acre park area. The development will have to receive approval to be serviced by the Sanitation District#19 for both water and sewage treatment as well as conducting studies to determine if any additional sources of water need to be developed for the project in the general Discovery Bay area. The project will also have to fully mitigate the impacts that it has upon the local school districts as it develops. These mitigation measures will have to be established upon prior to the construction of residences within the various phases of this project within each school district. 23 The public facilities service element policies related to this project pertain to growth management standards for water, sanitary and sewer, drainage, flood control, public protection, fire protection, solid waste management, schools, and child care. The key policies include: A. Encourage water service agencies and LAFCO to annex lands planned for urban development by the General Plan into their service area (Policy 7-19). B. At the project approval stage,the applicant will be required to demonstrate that adequate water quality and quantity can be provided (Policy 7-21). C. At the project approval stage, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate that waste water treatment capacity can be provided (Policy 7-33). D. New development will be required to finance its Ipgal share of the full cost of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate projected peak flows due to the project (Policy 7-44). E. Maintain Sheriff's facility standards of 155 sq. ft. of station area per 1,000 population (Policy 7-57). F. Locate fire station within one and one-half miles of development (Policy 7-62). G. New development shall pay its fair share of cost for new fire protection facility and services (Policy 7-64). H. The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the ability of areas of schools to serve development (Policy 7-140). 1. Proposed development projects shall be required to provide for child care facilities in accordance with the General Plan (Policy 7-153). The project is consistent with the above policies for the following reasons: A. The water analysis contained in the EIR identifies an adequate available source of water from underground aquifers and does require that further studies to determine, if needed, how additional supplies can be developed. B. The applicant will have to receive "will serve letters" from Sanitation District #19 to indicate that adequate water capacity and adequate sewage capacity is available to serve the development. C. The project will construct on-site drainage facilities (lakes, channels) to protect property and provide public safety by accommodating 100-year storm event. D. The applicant is being required to create a police service district to pay toward the Sheriff's needs in the area including additional policy services taxes to pay for a marine patrol services within the Discovery Bay area. 24 E. The applicant is dedicating land for a fire protection facility and is to construct the facility and donate equipment. F. The project proposes potential school site of approximately 10 acres. G. The project will be required to provide a day care center either on-site or within the Discovery Bay area community. Conservation Element The policies contained within- the Conservation Element for this project primarily pertains to the preservation, conservation of the County's vegetation, wildlife and water resources. The project is consistent with these policies contained in the element by properly mitigating the effects that this development may have on any special status species of plants and/or wildlife. The requirement that land be set aside to preserve existing wetlands on site and to mitigate at a ratio of 3:1 for any significant loss'of significant wetlands is to be met. Ogen Soace Element The project is consistent with the Open Space element of the General Plan by providing a 6.5:t acre park site, by providing a significant amount of space within the development for open space areas and landscaped trails,landscaping around the lakes, recreational facilities around the proposed lakes,the development of a marina, and the preservation of open space lands north of the East Contra Costa Irrigation District Canal. This includes dedication of development rights for the 200 acre open space north, east and south of the proposed marina and east of Villages III and IV. Safety Element The key policies contained in the Safety Element which pertains to this project primarily address the need for appropriate geotechnical analysis and erosion control measures. The EIR contains a thorough evaluation of geologic and seismic, and soils conditions and risk on the site. Moreover, the EIR proposes satisfactory mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts on potential liquefaction and other soils impacts identified. The Conditions of Approval for the project require that measures*be taken to protect future residences of this site in the case of any accidental release of chlorine from the East Bay Municipal Utility District facility approximately one-half mile north of the site. It should be noted that the East Bay Municipal Utility District is undergoing a study on the site and may in the future eliminate the storage of gaseous chlorine in the area. 25 Noise Element The Noise Element set forth noise standards for various land uses. The noise standard for single family residential use is a CNEL of 60 dB or less. The project along with its Mitigation would be consistent with the County's policy because noise levels on the project site would be within normally accepted levels. X. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the East County Regional Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve 2963-RZ subject to - the attached Conditions of Approval. The East County Regional Planning Commission should also recommend that the Board of Supervisors recertify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the rezoning project, 2963-RZ. AS/sa RZXVII/2963-RZ.AB 11128/94 2/1/95 2/28/95 3/28/95 s 3/27/95 DISCOVERY BAY WEST - DENSITY ANALYSIS GEN'L PLAN GROSS USE DESIGNATION ACREAGE DENSITY VILLAGE I School (PS) 10 AC - Park/Fire Station (PR) 6. 5 AC - Open Space (DR) 13. 4 AC - - RV Storage/ (DR) 4. 9 AC - Park & Ride 324 Res. Units (SH) 61. 6 AC 5. 25 Unita/AC 96. 5 AC 3. 35 Units/AC VILLAGE II 201 East Side Res. Units (SM) 55. 6 AC 3. 61 Units/AC 318 West Side Res, Units (SH) 59. 9 AC 5. 30 Units/AC Lake b Recr. (PR) 19. 8 AC - 135. 3 AC 3. 83 Units/AC VILLAGES III & IV 479 East Side Units (SM) 133. 4 AC 3. 59 Units/AC 678 West Side Units (SH) 138. 5 AC 4. 90 Unita/AC Lake 8 Recr. (PR) 53. 5 AC - Open Space (DR) 200. 0 AC 525. 40 2. 20 Units/AC SUMMARY (PS) 10 AC (PR) 79. 8 AC (DR) 218. 3 AC (SH) 1320 units 260. 1 AC 5. 07 Units/AC (SM) 680 units 189 AC 3. 60 Units/AC 757. 2 AC 2. 64 Units/AC Ree -immended Land U •e = 11111 . I I � III 1111 ••• m ,1,1,,,1 .•. Balfour Road 1'1'111'1 : 1'1'111'1 1'1'1'1'1 ,11111 11111 I�lil�l�l i II1' Pout of Timber Road LIM&of 111111111 ROW lil t Marsh Deet Road =, C 4 4 LEGEND Single Family-Medium Density Parks S Recreation Single Family-High Density <'' Public!Semi-Public , Agtidutural Lads Delta Racmation Exhibit 1 I hereby certify that this amend- Z hereby certify that this amend- sent to the Contra Costa County went to the Contra Costa County General Plan was Approved' General Plan vas Adopted by the by the Board of Supervisors on Board of Supervisors on December 20, 1994. December 20, 1994. Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board Of Supervisors and County (� tr r �Harvey 1. Bragdon Admi Director of Con-unit Development By: c Deputy CCCHSD HP MAT Fax*510-646-2073 Mar 29 '95 8:50 P.03/04 r Attachment E MEMORANDUM TO Art Beresf Cu er, Darwin Moyers FROM : Lewis G. P d Laura Brown DATE : March 29, 1 RE General Plan dment GPA #4-93-EC -Northwest Discovery Bay - Revised C Dennis Barry, Elinor Blake, Randy Sawyer, Dr. Walker It has come to the attention of Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Environmental Division (Ha2Mat) that a general plan amendment is being considered for the Northwest Discovery Bay area. Specifically the area cast of Bixler road is to be rezoned from agricultural to single family residential. Our department would like to take this opportunity to advise the planning and community development department that East Bay Municipal Utilities District(EBMUD)owns and operates a water treatment site that handles acutely hazardous materials at the corner of Bixler and Orwood Roads. The EBMUD Bixler facility stores and handles about 60,000 pounds of chlorine at any one time. The chlorine is handled in one ton containers with a total of 8,000 pounds of chlorine on-line. Chlorine is a dense, greenish-yellow gas with a pungent, irritating odor. Chlorine is nearly 21/2 times heavier than air, therefore chlorine vapors will tend to hug the ground when released. Chlorine can be a severe eye, nose,throat and lung irritant. Exposure to low concentrations can cause headaches,and stinging in the eyes, nose,and throat. Exposure to high concentrations can cause respiratory distress, coughing, and may result in suffocation. The proposed new housing will be subjected to potential risks of impacts that may be experienced if an accidental release of chlorine were to occur. In the event that houses are sited near the EBMUD Bixler location, the Health Services Department recommends the following conditions of approval: (1) All residents,homeowners,and renters should receive full disclosure regarding the presence of chlorine at the EBMUD Bixler site; (2) The development should support a proportionate share of the cost of the Community Alert Network System (CAN), the emergency notification system being installed throughout the county(which will include the installation of a siren CCCHSD HPOWT Fax:510-646-2073 Mar 29 '95 8:50 P.04/04 system). The system is designed to warn the residents of the development if a large scale accidental release of hazardous materials occurs; (3) The development should ensure that the homes are as air tight as feasible by providing superior window seals, door seals, positive closure for fireplace dampers,etc. A periodic replacement program should be established as seals have a finite life. (To reduce indoor air pollution, the homes should be thoroughly ventilated prior to occupancy.); and (4) All homeowners should be provided with sufficient information regarding shelter- in-place and the actions that should be taken in the event of an accidental chemical release. If you have questions regarding this information, please call myself or Laura Brown of my staff at 646-2286. t CCCHSD HAZMAT Fax:510-646-2073 Apr 3 '95 7:20 P.02iO3 MEMORANDUM TO Art Beresfo FROM : Lewis G. Pasta r.•and Laura Brown DATE : April 3, 1995 RE General Plan Amendment GPA*4-93-EC - Northwest Discovery Bay C Dennis Barry, Elinor Blake, Randy Sawyer, Dr. Walker As mentioned in our previous correspondence, the Koffman Construction Company housing development proposed for the area near Bixler and Balfour Roads,could be subjected to potential risks of impacts that may be experienced if an accidental release of chlorine were to occur from the East Bay Municipal Utilities.District, Bixler facility. The Hoffman Construction Company has recently requested that the conditions of approval recommended by our office and the community development staff be removed for Villages I and 11 of the development. The protective action isopleth zones (at a concentration of 20 ppm of chlorine) postulated in the EBMUD Bixler facility Risk Management and Prevention Program, encompass the northern most portion of Village II. In addition, a vast portion of the recreational area for the development are within the protective action Zone. Wherefore, our office recommends that the conditions of approval from our March 29, 1995 correspondence be included for all four villages of the development. If you have questions regarding this information, please call myself or Laura Brown of my staff at 646-2286. CCCHSD HRZMAT Fax:51 -646-2073 Apr 3 195 7:20 P.03/0-3 9Z-£ co O Ic it on • � w.w«aa C 06 ' '. .. .. •:'.._... _..:� _ .,.•• Er .. .`,fi�'' _ :it' •.i-iii,• •••�„' •.,� 'T' :i_ _ .. '•i - _ _ .. �'L. r:�„�,' .' _ _ _- •STC Cl) Z. o m in - w i �� EAST SAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT GARY L.HUNT ASSISTANT GOAeAL MANAGER OPERATIONS. f VNING.A AINTENAI5F January 13 , 1995 mcg 70" ry r A Art Beresford . m=� -v o Contra Costa County Community Development Department 3 Ln County Administration Building o-= CIO v 651 Pine Street - 4th Floor, North wing F Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Beresford: RE: CONVERSION PLANS FOR THE BIXLER CHLORINATION FACILITY This is in response to your January 11, 1995 request for information regarding the East Bay Municipal Utility District (District) Bixler Chlorination Facility, located at Orwood and Bixler Drives in Bixler. The purpose of this facility is to provide interim disinfection to water from the Mokelumne Aqueduct before it is delivered to the downstream Water Treatment Facilities. Since chlorine is handled onsite (eight 1-ton chlorine containers at any one time) at levels over the Acutely Hazardous Materials Threshold Planning Quantity, the District is currently preparing a Risk Management & Prevention Program for the Contra Costa County Health Services Department . However, given the regulatory requirements and risks associated with handling gaseous chlorine, the District is strongly considering converting to a less hazardous disinfectant, sodium hypochlorite . It is anticipated that a decision will be made on this proposed conversion prior to the end of 1995 . Should the District decide to convert to sodium hypochlorite, it is anticipated that the conversion would be completed by approximately the end of 1997 . If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me again at (510) 287-0327. Sincerely, -- SU J. SU KI, P. Senior Environmental mpliance Specialist SJS :prb Cc: Richard G. Sykes Alexander R. Coate Brian Marler EC95019-1025.3 375 ELEVENTH STREET. OAKLAND. CA 90607.4240. (5701 287.0444 P.O.BOX 24055 . OAKLAND. CA 94623.7055 BOARD OF DIRECTORS ANDREW COHEN. JOHN A.COLEMAN. STUART FLASHMAN JOHN M.GIOIA. KATHERINE MCKENNEY. NANCY J.NADEL . KENNETH H.SIMMONS l L Attachment F t�'�Tc' 14• -3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1i„ f _9 AM 11: 19 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DF=VELV �_��T DEPT DATE: May 4, 1995 TO: Art Beresford, Senior Planning, Communi elopment-Current Planning FROM: Skip Epperly, Special Districts Coordinator___ SUBJECT: Open Space and Street Lighting; Tract 7686,Discovery Bay West OUR FILE: 0650-4500-5010 This memorandum addresses two issues that have arisen during the review process of the Discovery Bay West Project. Those issues are open space and street light maintenance. Background: WETLANDS The applicant is requesting that the County assume title to,and maintain,two wetland areas shown as Lots E and F on the tentative map. The funding mechanism for the maintenance is proposed to be the Countywide Landscape District through the formation and annexation of a separate Discovery Bay West subzone. The County has generally,as a matter of policy,not taken title to or maintained open space or wetland areas. These types of areas have in the past been owned and maintained by either a'homeowners' association or the developer. Although the County General Plan establishes a framework for the preservation of open space lands, it does not suggest that the County assume the liability and the risk associated with ownership and maintenance of such areas. Recommendation: WETLANDS Staff recognizes that there are certain situations where the County could consider accepting wetlands and open space areas offered for dedication. These areas would need to be contiguous with the public right of way,have very low or no maintenance requirements and present minimal risk and liability to the County. The areas shown on the tentative map as Lots E and F are contiguous with Newport Drive which will be a County maintained road. These areas are wetlands and, if properly fenced and noticed,would present minimal risk and liability with respect to fire hazard or personal injury and cost to publicly maintain._ The area shown as Lot GG on the tentative map is contiguous only with the private gated portions of the development and are not accessible to the public. The applicant has elected to retain the operation and maintenance of this section of the open space. Background: STREET LIGHTING The applicant has requested that all the street lighting within the development be maintained by the Countywide Street Light Program (County Service Area L-100). The only publicly maintained streets in this development,however,will be the streets located in Village No. 1, Bixler Road and Point of Timber Road. The streets in Villages II,III,and IV will be private and access to them will be controlled by security gates. The County has had a long standing policy to accept and maintain only those street lights within the public road right of way, located on County maintained streets. County access into gated communities and along private roads to maintain street lights raises issues of liability and rights of access. Usually, in gated communities the light standards are more elaborate and require a higher degree of maintenance. Additionally, PG&E maintains the light fixtures for the county and their ability to access the lights will require separate private agreements with the homeowners or homeowners' associations. It is County policy to annex all new developed property(public and private)into the County lighting district. The reason is that people who live on private roads still enjoy the benefits of lighting on the public streets on which they drive. The fact that they pay for lights,but don't have any lights on their subdivision street, or the fact they have to pay twice, once for public lights and the other for the cost of the private lights on their street, is the result of the added amenities they gain by buying a home on a private road. Another example that is similar to street lighting is street maintenance. The homeowner who lives on a u lic subdivision street pays for the maintenance of the public streets through the tax on gasoline and the half-cent sales tax(Measure Q. The homeowner who lives on a gnv to street pays for maintenance of the public streets through the gas tax and sales tax, and pays for maintenance of the private road through homeowner dues. Recommendation: STREET LIGHTING Pursuant to County policy, staff recommends that only those street lights located on publicly maintained streets be maintained by the County. The private street lights located in Villages II,III, and IV should be maintained by the homeowners' association. If you should have any questions or need further information,please call me at 313-2253. SE:pe g:\EngSvc\SpDist\DiscoBa2.t5 cc: C.Hansen,Deputy-Administration M.Shiu,Deputy-Transportation M.Avalon,Engineering Services B.Faraone,Engineering Services D.Lennon,Hofmann Company