Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06061995 - D4 DA The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California Adopted this Order on_June 6, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Decision Continued on Discovery Bay West Project, 2963-RZ The Board on May 23, 1995, closed the public hearing and fixed this day to consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR), adopt findings and the mitigation monitoring program, and adopt Ordinance No. 95-28 giving effect to rezoning 2963-RZ, and approve preliminary Development Plan with conditions for approximately 2,000 residential units, marina, lakes, park areas, a school area, a fire station, open space areas, a commercial recreational area and other landscaped areas for the Discovery Bay West Project, Hofmann Construction Company(applicant)and Hofmann Construction Company and Edna M. Fallman (owners), Discovery Bay area. Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that decision on this matter is CONTINUED to June 13, 1995, at 11 a.m. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: _June 6, 1995 PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By, �� ,Deputy Clerk CC: Director,CDD County Counsel Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' Costa `s County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ar DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' � b F hQ•`' yt SrA`C U2i'C"1'G7" _ DATE: June 6, 1995 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 RECOMMENDATION-(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. - Accept-as adequate and incompliance-with CEQA the previously -certified Final Environmental- Impact Report and Addendum. -"- - - 2. Approve Rezoning #2963-RZ along with the preliminary -� development plan, subject to conditions as recommended by the - _h -" --- East "bounty- Regional ;'Planning -Commission and as---amended - —----_- _ (Attachment A) . J. Adopt the Final EIR and Addendum and CEQA Findings (Attachment B) and approve the related Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C) . 4. Adopt the East County Regional Planning Commission's Findings as set forth in Resolution 114-1995 as basis for the Board's determination for this action.. - 5. Adopt the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning. 6. Direct Staff to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research for the above actions. FISCAL IMPACT Covered by developer fees. � f CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES - SIGNATURE �,,,�� (�("1 _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER- SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE`BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Art Beresford 646-2031 ATTESTED cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Judy Coons, Auditor-Controller THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAO AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR David Joslin, CDD SEE PAGE TWO FOR ADDITIONAL CC'S BY , DEPUTY AB:df r PAGE TWO BACKGROUND/REASCNS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On May 23, 1995,, the Board closed the hearing on 2963-RZ (Discovery Bay West) and directed staff to prepare final documentation for the rezoning project. The Developer apd the interested school districts were to provide documentation that suitable school mitigation agreements had been reached. The Board is to then approve the project with revised conditions (Attachment A) and adopt the Final CEQA Findings and the EIR Addendum (Attachment B) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C) . cc: Hofmann Company - County Counsel Sheriff-Coroner Public Works Department ---Discovery Bay MAC Byron MAC Knightsen Town Council East Bay Municipal Utility District Health Services Department Hazardous Materials Division East County Regional Planning Commission East Contra Costa Irrigation District Byron-Bethany Irrigation District East Bay Regional Park District I r I ORDINANCE.NO, 95-28 O �' (Re-Zoning Land in the Byron Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: M-28,N-28 SECTION I: Pages M-28m of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by re- zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s)attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No. 2963-RZ ) �J - A-2 General Agriculture FROM: Land Use District A-3 j Heavy Agriculture 1 TO: Land Use District P-1 j Planned Unit Development 1 and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec.84.2.003. SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the ,a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on by the following vote: Supervisor A)m 1Q Absent Biu 1. J.Rogers O O O ( ) 2. J.Smith O O O ( ) 3. G.Bishop ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. M.DeSaulnier ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. T.Torlakson ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: Phil Batchelor,County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chairman of the Board By Dep. (SEAL) oRDINANCE NO. 95-28 2963-RZ Hofmann Construction Co. Page 1 of 3 :1 VA.rwRRD ::•!:Y'+Nti• ..........W:YMYM; A-3 �:C•: }j:: ...... A•4 A-4o A•2 P•1 V. Page M-28 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 2963 -RZ POINT OF TiMBER RD 1i4 i A•3 p �fi F Ic A-40 X. P•1 1' A•3 A2K RD f —� P1 i Page N-28 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 2963-RZ Page 2 of 3 2963-RZ Hofmann Const. A•3 \� A- err nuc i A'2 l � . ORWOOD .... RD / A-4 A3 t A•4 A.40 � 1 � A-3 l Page M-28m of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 2963 - RZ 2963-RZ Hofmann Const. Page 3 of 3 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 Findings 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-confoemity 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. f 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 1 1 , 1995. B. Preliminary Streetscape - Bixler Road dated received January 1 1 , 1995. C. Preliminary cross-sec-tion - Bixler Road dated received January 1 1 , 1995. D. Typical play activity and soccer field area Discovery Bay West dated received January 1 1 , 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 Discovery 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 11 or any portion of Village II. 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 nei.ghborhood cluster C or subject to Zoning Administrator review and-approval. Pr-ovisio.n-jor a-suitable public road -= - - in the area can-satisfy this requirement: 3) Design houses near th&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-P..Iara s..f_or�!/.ifla.ge, I,_andtat least four �4, 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 a building construction costs. If the Discovery: Bay community has not - - secured their 50% share of the building construction-costs-prior tothe - -_ 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 sit-&--r-a-y be-develop.ed-subj:e.ct-_t-o-Zoning----- Administrator review and approval. Project 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 any lefteve-r 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 11, 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. i 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 1-. 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) ....... ...s..h....a.........n...ctu.d...e. nd dRdlintial:;Ieaxei:>: f:: olEe: ::>tax di:str ':::: P ::::::....:::::::.:.::::::::.. . f�radr of . SlaGe.. are1_in-the prtl�eCt,ar :a„ VBr.,,�nd 4z�F4Si.: d � rntial leef f 5200 per parcet normall�r aplzed to the vesting tentative rriap approval r`.,..i is ivc ;n";: > ::: ...Q ....�s.dtlf..ak.:��bd......s�o....a�:::::�he. a�d�c1 )�uel::offi n augi€nente�i marine patroi::s riiices, espec�ail to r f:vtcement gf aaC pe d I"� ..s trt the : .en : ht: he Sfi #Biterm�ns t0ubvertt.;fih :€:WStS. f>;ttat;rl >: dfiel€ :riit'> ::::::. ................ :;<:............;: .;:.;.::< .;:.;:.;;;.;;;::<:.;::.;:.;:.;;; the f it g'ofi:a f n t ma:p, hijsqui..... fir tf e:>a'dd tt rxa) $. :CtO..shal:[.. e.null ......:......................::...:.....:::......::::::::::::............:::............:....:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::.:;:.;:.;:.;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;::::::.::::::::::._:::::::::::::.::::::::::.;;a.t7. :...... vQic(:: 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: 6 "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 adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such an hypothesis is established. At this time no risk assessment has been made-." - -When-a Final Subdivision Public Report issued by the California-Department of Real -- - -_ --Estate-is-required,-the applicant-shall also request that the Depar-tment of--Real._Estate_ insert the above note in the report. Farm Operation Notice z . 1'U ' ==`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 -1 1: —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 ) 7 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 1 1 .1 ) 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. (1 1 .1 ) Grading and Dust Control "'Comply witI th0 following construction, noise, !dust and litter control requirements---- (MM 4.1 and 6:2.1 .1 ): - A. Noise generat=ing 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. 8 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. 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 shallsubmit._a.-.d.etailed__TDM .Plan for--re-view and approval by. the Zoning _ Administrator (unless otherwise required 'by.a' TD'M 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 tirne 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. 9 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. Proiect 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 atso`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 #19, 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 a . 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) 10 Vegetation and. Wetlands 21 . The following measures are required for impacts to vegetation and wetlands. (MM 2.1 .1) 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.proc--ess. - B:--- Compensation should be of the same- habitat-type-as-affected wetlands (i.e., r 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<}Gounty 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 mitigation 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. 11 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 fund the development of the plan. 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--impl•em-ent the- provisions of the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program in regards to DeltaSmelt shall be taken. 25. Impacts to Southwestern Pond Turtle. (MM 2.2.6) Prior to site development in any phase of project proper steps to 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. 12 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. 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`(or. the County. ` ` ` l-3 F. At least 45 days prior to issuance of permits to grade and create the lakes on the site, aauiteb|e geotechnical report shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator detailing means to stabilize the lake bank \ncase nfearthquake and reduced possible liquefaction dangers inthis area. Impacts on Agricultural Lands -32. Suitable fencing shall be developed around projects perimeters toseparate 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 ieactive inthe project areaanUbenefitsfrnrnthefenoingifposoib|oto do so. Impacts on School Districts - 33, The [}iGo0v*ry Bay West project shall assure the provision of adequate school facilities and levels of service from school districts serving the project, by way ofthe B*aaF*d ef School K4i i Agreement, which School Mitigation Agreement shall contain provisions and provide forpayment-to-affected school districts in amounts — ^ Mitigate the impacts of their project on school facilities. pFlE)F to a" legislative . _,,�- _ of any _ . Increased Demand for Water.and Sewer Systems 34. The site for Discovery Bay West shall be annexed into Contra Costa Sanitation District #18 prior t0recording the final map on any portion of the development. (MM 8.3) A. COnop|odonofavvate,supply study and avvotersyytornnnasterplan acceptable - toCCCS[) 1Sfor the area within the Urban Limit Line iSrequired asacondition of project approval. The study must define a funding mechanism that ensures new development pays for improvements toserve 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 ofsuch conditions within anagreed-on schedule. Conditions would include determination of technical standards and design of the expansion of the existing sanitary sewer system. <MKX 8.4> ` 14 Police Protection 38. Measures to reduce or prevent orinn8 incidents should be coordinated and include both physical design rneuauneo (including lighting for streets, parking areas. and entries; clear address signs; door and vvindnvv security design and }noks>' social measures (including neighborhood crime watches, anti-violence support groups, and education programs), and ksgo| measures (control in selected areas for selected types of water activities, e.g.-, swimming, 'et skis-, otol . Plans tnaccomplish the abVvBoha||besubmitted tothe Contra Costa County Sheriff's -- �— Daportnent�or-tornnnentphor'tn4evehop*nentofthe site. (K4&4 8`-7) ' Fire Protection - 37. BeforeYecording any Final Map negotiate to design, construct, and equip a fire station = —~ fora8rvice`to-the project area�as�e 'ired­bythe East Diablo Fire Protection,'District-or -- its re,pren8ntVtives. The eons1T-ontinn of- the fire station nen either fully or partially satisfy fire fees. Later nearby developments may be required to reimburse the developer ona pro-rata basis. '21 The primary developer must also design streets and other features in the project area tnaccommodate fire and other emergency vehicles. (MM 8-8) - - 38. General Plan standards for neighborhood park acreage and facilities are to be met by the proposed project througharrangarnantsanooptnb|ntVtheConnrnunityDeve|oprnent Department by The Hofrnann Company, such as the provision of "common area" acreage for recreational use. Suitable improvement nfthe public park may beused tO partially meet park requirements as can up to 5096 of the private outdoor recreational area iflarge 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 ECC|D canal from the Irrigation District toanother entity such aythe East Bay Regional Park District, which has expressed oninterest inthe canal easement for development asa regional trail shall bapursued. |fanagreement cannot bemade, The Hofmann Company may need to make other arrangements with the Irrigation District, such as the addition of e 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 deve\opnnant, if not electing to purchase n unit when offered for sale, shall be provided with moving expense allowances equal to 150% of one month's rent for that unit and nhnU be provided with 50 days notice of the actual moving date. If no occupied residences exist this condition is moot, Vit:, v 15 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 Costa County area. Removal of Existing Water Wells/Hazardous Chemicals on Site 42. Any hazardous chemical stored on theasite shall be properly rem-aved and disposed of under County Health Services Departmentregulations.---Any:-existing water wells on the-site shall be properly ca.pped-under-Covnty Health=Services:Department-regulations. - -- A Level I hazardous waste assessment shall be conducted onithe 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:nor, 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 prior ao r theiss .0 nce oif #3e First Final Burldrng Permit f,or this prole,ct; 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 sheHld shall: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.) 16 D. All homeowners should .s If be provided with sufficient information regarding shelter-in-place and the actions that should be taken in the event of an accidental chemical release. These [rtstructional materials:shall be written n plain language, and w►[I be dvelppetl .n wrtFt the Hazardous Mater+tills Drv�s►on o1 the County Health ervices D,eaprtment, subject to the review and approval of the Zona g Ad:mihistra;tor If the facility is removed or the process-is-changed then this requirement can be deleted subject to Zoning= Admitristrator clop,oval---after--r-eview-- by the -Y Hazardous Matreials Division of the County Health Department. If, upon further review by the Hazardous .Materials Division of the County Health Department, it is.determined:.by-the_:H.e.alth.D.ep.artment that the chlorine facility could not have a significai teffect on ViHage=l then the above condition can be modified subject to Zoning-Administrato'r'-review and approval. 45. A homeowners association will be required in Villages ll, III and IV-for the maintenance of the private roads, lakes, recreation-areas, marina, trails and other landscaped areas. Road and Drainage 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% minimurn grade is allowed subject to Public Works approval providing: a. The soil engineer recommends reduced grades and signs the improvement plans; and 17 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 sect`ion-and capacitythese:- diversions may be considered appropriate, subject. to review - and: approval of Public Works. - --- _ _ 3) Conveying storm waters in an adequate storm drain system to a: duly organized Homeowner Association; Municipal Improvement Distr.i.ct or -- .-..-- -. Reclamation District drainage facility serving the area, is acceptable, provided the applicant obtains a letter frorn 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,domes.tic 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. 18 * 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 reason-ably deterrruned--a-nd-- w--- - -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 area :of -benefit. These funds will not be used for on-site improvements; - ------- --frontage-=improvements; the off-site -improvement of Bixler Road-#�orr� rythe � - p(oject 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 ECRAOB. C. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: 1) Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program: The applicant shall work with Public Works to set up a Flexible Mitigation Monitoring Program. The prograrn shall allow the develop- �_; -rent=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. 19 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 still 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 contribute 56:,500 per unit (revised annually to reflect inflation, using the State of -- 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- eter- mine-traffic-impacts of the next phase of development (e.g., 5.0-14o_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.) 20 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:-they-project: and•-:revie.w_ of these-studies, program and monitoring. e. The,project applicant shall pay its share of the costs of the future _.__envir_onm.ental_review.documentation-re quired 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..n.ot 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 #68, MMB.c.) At the developers option, construction 21 truck traffic may also use Point of Timber Road after it has been ...................................................... widened to 28 feet. Applicant shall impree�esubrr3 �rnprouement plans, pay inspection 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 & construction haul route. - _7 In order-to determine the pre-project-road` conditions the appli- cant shall, prior to project grading,-provide-a:vi.deo. 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. - 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 1009together- 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. 22 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 shallbe 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. - c. Bixler Road shall be a 36-foot road width (2 - 12-footdanes-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. 23 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 nd-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 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 II. 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. + 24 5. itisunderstood and acknowledged that certain portions of these off-site 8ix|er 'improvements may be impossible or impractical tnconstruct due to wetland regulation or policy requirements. If Public VVn/ko 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 beprovided. b. State Highway 4 Signal at Bix\er Road and at Discovery Boy ` Boulevard for Signa|izetion of the State Highway 4 inter section at Bix|8, Road prior toissuance of 200 Building ` ' �-Permits in this development- if not already assured or nnnnp|ated by others at that time. Fifty percent of the— ' - - - -- nigna|ization cost of the Bix|er Road signal is reimbursable - -^ -- ' from the property owners at the northwest and northeast quadrants of this intersection. One hundred percent of anywidening costs for 8ix|e/ Rood is reimbursable from the same parties. Submit improvement plans, pay inspection and plan - '�evievv fees, and apply for a Caltrans encroachment permit prior to improving the1nterseotiOn. 2. if the Bix|or Road traffic signal has been installed, the applicant shall contribute 50% ofthe cost nfthe traffic signal, prior to issuance of the 200th Building Porrnit, to a Road Improvement Fee Trust (Fund NO. 818200'0800) designated for reimbursement for its installation. 3. If the B{xler Road traffic signal is not warranted prior to of the 200th Building Pernnit, the need for the traffic signal at the State Highway 4 Bix|er Road inter- -section shall be analyzed by the.Public Works Department nter°seut)ooshoUbaana|yzadbythePuh|ioVVorks [}epartnnont prior to filing each Final Map, up until the 1800th lot when the applicant shall contribute ncash deposit, equal ` to 5096 of the signal construction cost as determined by Public Works, toaCounty Road Improvement Trust (Fund No. 818200-0800). 4. The applicant shall bond for the State Highway 4-Discov- ery Bay Boulevard traffic signal prior to filing of the first Final Map. The traffic signal shall be installed and operational one year following the issuance of the first building pert-nit, exclusive of model homes. If the traffic signal is not operational within the one year period, no further building permits will be issued. 25 5) Point of Timber Road, On-Site (Bixler Road to the east): a. Bixler Road to "D" Street: 1 . Applicant shall reconstruct Point of Timber Road to at least a 60-foot curb to curb pavement width within an 80-foot right of way from Bixler Road to "D" Street with Village I. 2. Construct curb, 5-f.00t 6-inch sidewalks (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, landscaping and irrigation. 3. The right of way line-shall be located at least 104eet .behind the curb face. 4. Provide necessa'rylongitudinal and transverse drainage. 5. The applicant shall submit improvernent plans and pay inspection and plan review fees prior to filing of the Final Map for this portion of Point of Timber with the improve- ment plans for the subdivision•creating the 250th .lot. 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 11 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. A." 26 C. From the Easterly Boundary ofVillage | tothe Easterly Boundary of Village U. 1Applicant shall widen Point of Timber Road: to etleast 8 28'footpavement width; and provide necessary conforms at the easterly boundary of Village | and the easterly boundary of Village U as part of the improvements in — NiUVge U. The curb face shall be |ncated2O'feetnDrth of the existing road centerline (east OfViUage.[ the souther- ly widening, beyond 28-feet totel xvidth. 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' ,inigebon vvith-'oonatroctihn of the ` abutting portion of Village U. - ^ ' ~ 3. The right of vvey line shall be located at least 10-feet behind the curb face (30' from oente/|ine). 4. provide necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage. tB Point of Timber Road' Off-Site (west of Bix|nr Road): - a. Point of Timber Road from Bix|er Road to Byron Highway: 1Submit improvement plans, pay inspection and plan review fn8o prior to 200th Building Pert-nit. 2. Prior tVissuance of the 300th Building Permit, widen and reconstruct, if necessary, Point VfTimber Road to 28- fVnt pavement width (two 14-foot.-lanes with 2-foot compacted shoulder backing and maintain ditch oapac\- ties. This work is intended todivert-project traffic away fronn Balfour Road (BR Mitigation K4edsbre RK4Cir'21) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #50. K4M.B.oJ 3. The applicant with the cooperation and assistance of Public Works shall provide additional right of vvey' 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: nterSeo'tionK4odifiCations: 27 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-J'6stall a 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 r- _ ,. .. .. ... . . 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): - - 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 systerns, however, the County will conduct the acquisitions of applicant's costs if applicant requests. 28 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 improve ments---jncluding._the ditch systems, hoWever,the County will conduct-the acquisitions - =r 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 the Pantages property can r demonstrate that this road cannot feasibly be located on the Pantages property outside wetland and riparian areas within two years of applicant's filing t first Final Map for Village IL .cul prior to filing the first f[nal snap fpr. itge 11, tt :ap(ianlhll: rnil to fhb C�wr}B Qf fhB l'anaearopsrfYrY.rooEp cWrtsf[ed :rrial' a notice.thatCh:<:::: . ..:::..::::::.: :::::..::: _:::: vy .;.:yaxs:ro;.; ete. m:�n h ►w n7uoh, �f any, e3f tho rear�ra �on rs rBtl;:;fjt. G;iiSSt Tho not[cp shill die renewed by Pnbi�ctttor..Tfs:::prlor tobeng_ ta.;;et .;c of and C�7f}y.c thy; rtl pled r-b- � and re :0 .0 t�o�i� all..:be::subm ted to Publ e marks prsor to fi[tng the final'rn<al :Ts The revocable reservation shall be for the purpose of allowing a _future extension to e northerly the north to serve th portion of the.- Pantages he 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. Prior to the road being approved, the adjacent property owner shall expand the park site to compensate for the road right of way take. 29 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 permitte6at 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. * Emerg"ency 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.). 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 Timber Road for a design speed of 40 miles per hour. b. Provide adequate corner sight distance, in accordance with County standards, for the following intersections: 30 * Village I: Newport Drive at "DDDD" Street, and at "ZZZ" Street; "AAAA Street at "BBBB" 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. 1 2) 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 Ujdur property) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #51 , MMC.c.). Where the sidewalk is adjacent to a roadside ditch, it shall be located a minimurn of 2-feet from the top of the roadside ditch. 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. 31 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.) 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 II, III and IV. b. Prior to filing each final reap, 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 ` 32 forwarded tothe 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 (]anero\ Services Department. All landscaping and irrigation facilities ' shall bemaintained bythe applicant until funds become available for their maintenance by the County after final inspection in 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, ifany. All work shall bedone inaccordance with the dmUnaS and standards of the County. Funding of gu� ' and maintenance of, the new plantings ahaUbe^guanantendbythe developer until the plants have been established and until funds are available through a landscaping district. The plants xheU be maintained for SOdays after installation. MAC - - - 16. Transit: a. Certain bus 1urnouto, bus she|tora, bicycle racks and/or bicycle lockers shall he constructed by the applicant iftransit service is established prior to recording of the last Final Map for this development. The location ofthese facilities shall bedetermined _ incooperation with the responsible transit authority. Preliminary locations along the east side of B\x|e/ Road are: south of Newport Drive; south of FaUnnan Boulevard; north of Pont of Timber Road; and north ofthe access atthe boundary ofVillages Uand Ui The installation ofthese facilities shall beassured prior to recording of the next Final Mop 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. Peds for the bun yhn|ters, bicycle racks and/or lockers shall be clear of the sidewalk areas. b. Provide pedestrian connections frorn the transit stops to the internal project sidewalk syatonn. provide for installation of bus oha|1o/s at each pullout if transit service begins <BRMitigation Measu/eRK8Ci/'34a> (FINDINGS FOR IMPACT #53' MK4Arj 33 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-autematie automobile 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. "PR'FVATE IMPROVEMENTS: 1) Private Road Improvements (Villages II, 111 & 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. 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. 34 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 of 10 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 satisfies this requirement.) 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. 35 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 Bixier-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 ternporary secondary access maybe 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. n. Vertical rise garage doors with autornatic garage door openers shall be installed where garages are 20-feet or less from the road easernent. o. The applicant shall construct the "B" Street bridge to accommo- date potential trail uses within the ECCID Canal. 36 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. 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 frorn a 36-foot road width to a 34-foot road width. . ' 37 dThe applicant shall construct 6-foot 6-inch eidavvo|ks on: FnUnnunBoulevard from Bix|erRoad tothe easterly portion nf "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'font paved width with two foot clear zones on each side (FINDING FOR IMPACT #G5. MM a.c.). ' f. All sidewalk shall match Countyatandard plan widths in effect ` . atthe time of filing the Final Map_ 4) Storm Water (Private Drainage Facilities): - a. All storm waters entering or originating within the subject property (including the outside s|Op*S of the levee) shall be � '~ r­-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 besubject to the review of the Public Works Department, and the proposed maintenance entity, such usahomeowners association, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. b. Storhnvvaterfrono the lake syoten}in Villages U' U| and IV shall be collected and conveyed in n private ntnnn drainage system. Where punn0ing is required at high tide todischarge sto,rnvvater from the leveed area to Dredger Cut or from the outside of the levee toDredger Cut, the punnpsystem shall have anemergency pumping oyst8nn Suhi8ot 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 inflooding ofhonnenbased on the 100'year ' storm. If pump system is utilized to discharge otornovvaterinto Dredger Cut, it shall be designed tooperate considering antici- pated sedimentation of the lake oyatenn and on enno/gonoy punnping system. 5) Agriculture Access (From Private Roads): a. Provide at least a 12'foot private road in a 20' nnininnunn access easement to Lot GG and Lot HH from the southerly portion of Village U| and the northerly portion of Village |V (BR Mitigation Measure RMCir'32). The access shall be improved as 12'foot graveled roadway (FINDING FOR IMPACT #61 , K4K4K4 K4.o]. The applicant shall grant rights to the property owner tothe east to 38 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-to,-screen floating trash from entering the lakes and the Delta, and implement passive "best management practices" such as the labeling of storm drains to reduce dumping (EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1 - 10) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #5, MM5.c.). e. Prior to recording Final Maps for each of the Villages II, III and IV, the applicant shall complete a bank scouring and erosion study of impacted segments of Dredger Cut and Kellogg Creek analyzing project impacts resulting from marine traffic and lake circulation. The study will be subject to the review and approval of Public Works. The applicant shall implement corrective measures before approving the second Final Map for each of the Villages II, 111 and IV if any significant impacts are identified. ` . 39 f. The applicant shall submit the final groundwater monitoring plan for novimvv by a Reelamatien Disticiet and the Feview and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to beginning any construction that require dewatering to commence. 7> Marina (Private Facility): Provide catch basins for run-off to the marina to screen out floating trash (BRMitigation Measure 4.1-1O). ' - - 8} Emergency Access (Private-Roads):- Provide emergency access pointS at or near the following points in ` coordination with the fire district, subject tathe review and approval of , Pub|icVVOrka_The emergency access pnintsnhoU'bo gated.and locked _ unless they are combined with a regular-project access. The emergency - access roads shall be at least 20'foat vvide' 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 (BR Mitigation Measure RK8Cir'33). a. FrOrn Bix|or Road to ,C" Street near the, northwest corner Of Village U (BR Mitigation K4eoeure 'RMCir-33) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #62' MM O.o)' and also near the southwest corner of Village U. b. From Bix|e/ Road to ^A^ Street at: , The southwest corner of Village U| (BM Mitigation Mea- sure Rk4Cir'33) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #62' K4K4 O.oj. ° The northwest corner of Village |V (BH Mitigation Mea- sure RN4Cir-33) (FINDING FOR IMPACT #62' MM O.ol � 9) Maintenance (Private Facilities): a. Applicant ahmU establish covenants, conditions and restrictions for the development that clarifies the onanugannont of all lake innprVvenoanta, 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 honneovvnaro within the deve|op' nnmnt via the homeowners association, or another entity' subject to the review of the Zoning Administrator. 40 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 t - 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-cons'truction-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 1 50-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. 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. 41 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 II, III 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 r-- _ 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 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 storrnwater 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. 42 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'll, III or IV (EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-7). b. Levees shall be elevated to at least elevation 1 1 .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 ll, III and IV and in accordance ..with --FEMA regulations (assuming anticipated subsidence and sea level rise). C. The proposed levee system around Villages ll, III & 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 wil[ 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. 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 r 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 improvernents as a result of levee failure. 4) Floodplain Management:1 a. Finished floors in Village I shall be elevated to at least 10.90 ft. mean sea level. Villages II, 111 and IV shall be protected by a levee constructed to at least elevation 1 1 .9 ft. mean sea level with the ability to elevate to 12.9 feet mean sea level and 43 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 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 prior to filing the Final Map. 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 systern. The applicant will be required to obtain a Contra Costa County 44 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. The applicant shall participate in Contra Costa County's Sanita- tion District #19 adoption and implementation of 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 ma.y.be eligible for credit or reimbursement against Area of Benefit fees. The developer shall contact the 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. b. The applicant is also eligible for reimbursement frorn 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 ,00. 0 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. 45 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 subr-nitted 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 Transportation Engineering Division. 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 Prograrn 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. 46 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. 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. 90-1 18) 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 II 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. ^ . 47 D. This project nnaybaaubjecttntherequ\rornentsnftheDe4artrnentofFiShandGarne. |tiothe 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 tothe requirements of the Army Corps Of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers tOdetermine ifa permit iSrequired, and ifitcan be obtained. F. ` The app|iCantiSadvised that the tax for the police services district iocurrently set by - the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future ' Th | ao f isubjecttOrnodif\cat\nnby CVDmurnerPrine |nd8x [CP\] adjustments). � �nnua S the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election \S$O0O and is also subject to modification in the futur8. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of- voting. The applicant in advised that the election procmns'takesfrorn 3 to months and must be completed prior to ' recording the Final orParcel Map. Anadditional tax may berequired for marine patrol. G. Comply with the requirements ofthe Building Inspection Department. Building 08rrnitS 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. | Comply with the ordinance requirements of the East Diablo Fire Protection District. AB/aa RZ>(U|/2963'RZC.AB 2/24/S5 3/28/05 4/3/95 - EC (a) 5/31/B5 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"), Public7--Resources Code-Section .2-1000 otlgg.,-.�:-4t�4-CEOA-:GuidelinLxg-,-!---a.nd=Gounty regulations promulgated thereunder. -These-findings include this--Board's Findings and determinations regarding the Discovery-Bay West GeneFal Plam AmeRdment 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 Count ..:Code.:: f d ' <sp d fle "ok!. .... 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 thi&-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 ornot-army.,-panicular,.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 � 7 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 alon&-cannot.solve°lhe-air-qualm-problems of the region. 4. Summaries-of. Facts. Impacts,..Mitigation Measures, Alternatives, and other Matters. All summaries-of information Jn-the findings to follow are-based on the EIR, the-Project--dn-dfo-r-other-evidence-irr_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 IIT 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 2 29676.2 t 1 the identified impacts other than those for which1hey 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 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 • :i'`'% S''";:;;;:;i:::.:::::;";:s:::;'>:;;::;<'::::;;:;:::i::.....:::::::::;:::.>:.;::>:::i::;::;;::;y:::i«.:':':;::;:::>:.:;::::i':;::i::i<::':.::::."':::::::Y2::' '•:;::::i'::::%:::`:'.i:%:.:;.;..i:::::::':;:s::; conditions of the Pro ect +:ah3<:8rff<th ::>a ;rc tta :: : <t :: ..;:::h: 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. AIF'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 r r ' I I 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 Germ.., Pian,Amendment riconcerns an area of approximatelyacres 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 a4-47 separate parcels located with the rezoning area. TheFnajer+tY t 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. f" Plan Amendmenti* tng area are agriculture and rurat=--r'esidential: -The' land is flat . ...... .. . .: with an elevation near sea level. Agricultural production is limited by the poor quality of m f h soils.. :;.,«, >;;:>`oeis>i ti'b �e»,>::»_<»°°". > ;:. `°>< <.;r.' ti most o the project areas so s The Saar toopt aria act cur. ............................:................................ 2. Project Description The Project consists of a Gee eFal Dlan AmeRdmenttenor ing #or approximately 4-;9&8 766»acres to the north and west of the adjacent community of Discovery Bay. F The GeReal Plan AFgeR dmnnt Rezantr'*g changes the existing DBW\33390 4 29676.2 DesigllatkwH-e !7' '":G�n "A' " n to renirinnFinl rnnrnn}inn•+1 �+nrl nFhnr uses w' .....................................: hi land use 'nhnnges nrn irinn4ifirrJ' I a' ::.: Vb. o 4994 The Hofmann Company project,WhiGh feFFnsthe !crgect b!eek of .,�a,oels, proposes to build a water-oriented residential community of 2,000 homes in four sections ("Villages"), a marina occupying a total of 12 acres bus:< tanl an athletic/recreational facility occupying six acres in Village ll, and associated infrastructure including 16.5 acres of-space: for an elementary school, park, community center and a fire station in-Village 1. Villages) .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 3 housing.-units with a net residential density of 61- `1 units per acre. Village-I is proposed to include a school and park site, and a fire station. ( ensttes antlJn�t Cort5 Changed artf 'ararl leaange Villages II, IIT, and IV would follow the construction of Village I. Each of the Villages, II through IV, would contain a lake site of a approximately 20 acres. Village II is approximately 1.37 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 ll, 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 fromContra 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 DSW\33390 29676.2 5 c t Y Planning Commission recommended that the Board approve the Project.,:.:;0r.... r m.....ker..::21 fb : .: hte.: otr..a.: slaun .:::Brd. f ::>::::::. :: :::::::: :1ta ......................... ................ ............ . ..... :.: ..:... ..................... ,..... .. ... inn :W..h.. ; E a. l e ::: er# ied:thy.:Bina# .: .:as:. o .::ate.:and .: .ra�e.d.:fie C ...,. .:. ..::::.::. ...... ;..:..... .....:. ........... .:::......::::.. 00 tircl #�!{ t „ rtdrttnt b. Rezoning: and DrnllmwnaFV Qevnl'gymen 114anr. Discovery Bay West has requested the County to rezone the Project Site to the _ County's P-1 district (Rezoning 2963-RZ) a PFelimiRaFy develepment pl6n - - — (the "DDIZ")(Devnlopmnnt Plan 3025-94'nursuant to Contra Costa County Code_ ::;::;:: :;: :'<::>:»...:..:..:...:;:::..>:.;:.:>::>::;:>:::> >: ..................... >- ---Cha ter 4- _ :::: g » ::e:::East::Ooriaraf>II; ilr -- - - p 8 66 Article 84 66. .E :.;} , ' t ::::::::: . --- . . ::.: :;.. .» :.. ..: : .. .. : r. l the »:vela est sonetxterdr�rat .Vie. rernq ...:.:::::::::::::::::: e. Fenal, De 44an Thr, Cinnl -M + Dl�n /° -DP”) shews a sinnle_faMily rne.ideRtial area T„i -�, mel ent (474.66 ,, AGTecJ), Delta ReMatien and ReseWee (303.5 nn s), aR d Open Space (36.2 nMs) The YFban uses shown on the F—_P newer nnnre XiFn telly 48 66 nnre s _; - <r$� a >::: eu c :: h :>:Iotrt:: ;<:t :::;a rore:> ..................:....._:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ty.:::.::::::::PP.:::::: .::.:.:.:..:.:...............:..-. a . dt ;I ::rnrt:<: :;::.:tI3. ::.::.:P3I .::.:::.: 9f :<.:f ..: :::: su..int.:t ::ro.:. .:....................... ....... ...................... ................::::::::::::.:::::: ..:::::::::::::: .: .::::::::.........:.L :.p..:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::- .............. :....:..:::::::::::: ::::: ::.::::::: ::::::::::::..........:: :: .::::::::::::::::.:.:::.::::....:...........................................:.:.,.::::._:::::::..:.:::::::::..::.:: ::::::::.:.:::::.::::::::.... ter:<: .. .:::::.:> ii ».. .... .::::>;:»::: .:::> > 3 »::::: s.:. ::a� . fie::#sl.« esertal::: ::: f > > .T :Delta:> ::; d'. Vest gi Tenfati:Ve' Mann Discovery Bay-West has requested approval of a vesting tentative parcel map (the WTM")(Subdivision. 7686), prepared; pursuant to Section 92-2.006 of,the County Ordinance Coder > > stat lac 6EQ men :Pla>r . . �: ::..::.:a. ;::;......:' r. ::;:.. .:.. ar�.;:..::::FDt :;::: Detrefo tnert:t:<: far�::::302 -:9:1:> <:S:ows T :::Frfal:::; #etl r frttt.::1I......... ......... x ::::::: :::: .::......:::: .::::: : : :::::::.::::::: .:::: :. ::::) .: ::::::::::p......:::......::::::::...... ::::::::::::: :::::?.: ::::::::::.:_:: . :: <:<cortera S. >1 - t;. ::A � ..�I ...�as�de�tiTeas A.-d>�ec�.0 3..."A . ., : ....... ................... .:a ..1 :::..nd.: ujtt.:::am . ........ _:: .:: >. .:::::::::::::: .: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:Y::.::::::::::. gel t cults :€Mora a«;<ublfC",and ser tt: . L It nse.<>; nd:4.:....: : .. .... . ..:.:::...........ade­_�iii�ii7 iii .. _........ r:.:.::: :::::: .::. f p 1 .:: .. ... shown cin tf to FDP Dover apprt ern qt ly 484 6 acres DBW\33390 .6 29676.2 ' "R rd( B. The Environmental Impact Report 1. Preparation of the EIR 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 4 O 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 DEIR was published for public review and comment on August 9, 1994 and was filed with the State Office of Planning & Research under State Clearinghouse Nd."9303303T.-TheD;EI.R--was availabfe 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 DEIR 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. EIR.2. Certification of the FEIR -- . In adopting these findings; the Board certifies that -the FEAR 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 29676.2 7 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 FEI R, as supplemented with information-provided- - by-staff reports, nd reasonable=inferences-drawn_form such information:=F= = -- 4. Findings Regarding Mitigation Measures - he_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 Reciardinq, 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 incoporate_a_ water circulation--system capable of pumping approximately-19=cfs.--This-p-urapirig-_._ - - - - -`-capacity-is capable of removing the total volume-of-a 100-year 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.m. jntpan-ce entity acceptable to the County Department of Public Works.. The app licant_sball:clso. 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 _-- �Auringla 1;00-;year storm event and prevent project related runoff 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. 1j-Mitigation Outside of the Project. -Contra Costa County Flood Control .,and 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:lmpact 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 Siqnificance 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_leasl_foot above the peak water surface elevation. c. Proposed Mitigation. 1) Mitigation incorporated into the Project. The Project proposes to raise house flade- € kftiin 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 msf. 2) Mitigation proposed in the EIR. None proposed. DBW\33390 1 0 29676.2 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 Weasures 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. This 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 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 EIR. The proposed levees shall be raised to 11.9 feet and the minimum I >level in Village I should be 10.9 ft. 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 DBW\33390 11. 29676.2 • + r 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,--___ . - �;s'Considerations. ._. Impact #5_. r �w Surface Runoff Water Quality. _ = _.. _._.=a. Description of Impact. The runoff from the proposed project will contain_.-.-,.,,., grease,�oil and other urban pollutants. X, 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- --- w 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.,thel marina toi, 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!find'si that, the mitigation, measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably, f'easibl'e, and! appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project on surface, runoff water, quality: They Board! hereby adopts-8uch Mitigation Measures. . e�. Findings Regarding Signifibance, of Impact. After. Mitigation. Based on the EIA" 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 1 2 29676.2 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 an&--finds_hat,_:th abs iaE=mfie. l 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. Prosed Mitigation. The EIR proposes that Projegt_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. 4 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 ie.ss Ahan 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. DHW\33390 13 29676.2 • z 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:-:ProDosed=Mitigation. -The EIR=proposes two alternative mitigations measures. 1) Widen -and deepen the downstream end of Kellogg Creek (near Tract 5811) reducing---ttre-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 Regardinq Proposed Mitigation.ion. 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-Ahe 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 1 4 29676.2 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 waterquality-from-boating activity. _. : . Impact #9 - -- - Hydrology-JGrouridwater Degradationl---- --- 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-statecl-in-the-ElR -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 29676.2 15 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 (Aquifer 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 ythe-above--referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that could arise from the implementation Y 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 HEIR 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 1 6 29676.2 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 t u €l% t r<elevations in Village.)6t-<10.9-'ft.-msl. d-thou Id-locatewells 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--Ahe project override any remaining impacts.relatin_ g 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 • z 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 DHW\33390 1 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 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 Re arding 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 ado-pts such Mitigation Measure. 5.:Findings'Refarding Sig Based-;.bh -thd-* - � Significance= Impact After Miti gation 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 20 29676.2 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 thanthat currently Jg off-the site. - c. Proposed Mitigation: -Insure adequate-main-channel mixing to dilute any runoff. a. A. . --� d. Findinq_ssepardina Proposed Mitigati6n,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 _ ElR-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 --rn- asureb--would--actively controlTmsguito-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. 1. . . - 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. DBW\33390 29676.2 22 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 _. . Tu,rtletecause the increased boatactivity may disrupt their a4uatic:habitat. The .Southwest Pond Turtle, while stiLa 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 EI Rand-,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.`Prop- -Mitigation:;:.Tho-EIR suggests that the..Project consult with the tr1 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 29676.2 2 G 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 theproject, 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 r - - 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 29676.2 25 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 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-.--ation.--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 Measu"res.­__..__ -�- - -- 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 subparagrapl,+ 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 Overri'dingi Considerations. Impact #24 Impacts to San. Joaguin Kit Fox. a. Description of Impact.- The Project_may-eliminate 376.acres of potential foraging habitat of the San Joaquin Kit Fox a spedial 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 29676.2 26 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--ot-the-project-on the San Joaquin Kit Fox. The Board hereby- — — -- — adopts such Mitigation Measures-.--- e. easures.--e. F..indings 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 Re-aq rding Siqnificance 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 Reciarding 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 InstaW!tk 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 29676.2 2 8 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. Finding s-'Re.aq rding 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-the1mplementation- ^-- - -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 lmpact 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 . roject relating to the construction noise on wildlife have-been avoided or:substantially- a -- --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 0 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 Miti ation:. 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. ProposedMitigation. 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-:use-d.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 off Impact After Mitigation. Based' on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: DBW\33390 29676.2 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 DBW\33390 29676.2 32 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 = r 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. h 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 inr 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 29676.2 33 when possible and appropriate to reduce noise impacts. 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 recreational noise impacts to 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-recreatibnal-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-ovetr:ide-.any remaining noise impacts relating to adjacent _TM agricultural uses, as rnoreJully 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 Regardinq 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 29676.2 34 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 x -- .A;.Potentially Significant Impact-Cir-t. - 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 ofappropriate 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 Bixier Road signalization and *RteFseMieR improvements. d. Findings Regarding. Proposed Mitigation. The Boardi finds that the mitigatiort measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably, feasible ands 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 29676.2 3 6 (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. Findincis 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 Dir-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 _ .�_.._.<:�r.traffic flow to and from the project during the PM peak mays negatively impact_: : P�.�: 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 (tW. '>€ p : ri :: .::f .; Ia .:.# ofe::>#::::B: as :: ee<w .... .. . ......:.:::.:::::::::::::::::..................:::::::::::::::::::::::::...... .........................:.....:#1 C 3:::5t::th l��s: 1# 1 ':::1�::; 111::>:�:';: x>::f 1t1£1. ..:::::::: .......... thou* > fettp ' e ;E ' 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 29676.2 3 8 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 3 9 29676.2 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-(nbr-th), Sellefs_-Raad, Balfour Road--intersections 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 Re aq rding ProposedMitigation. 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-Cons iderations. 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. DHW\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). a = 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. Ke.,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/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 29676.2 4 1 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 turn lane at the Byron Highway(south) /SR 4 intersection, 5) pay the fair share of-a signal and left turn-and shared right turh,-Ianes 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 impactsaof--,the project on air quality. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Siqnificance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: - (1)Y 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, socialand 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. s _ 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 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 SR 4 Bypass. The Board hereby adopts such Mitigation Measure. e: Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After=Mitigation: _Based=on the - -ElR�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 orsubstantially -- - -tiessened-by the Mitigation-Measures adopted -in subparag-raph-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 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 DBW\33390 29676.2 43 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 Regardinci Proposed Miticiation. 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 29676.2 44 intersection have been avoided or substantially lessened by the Mitigation Measures adopted in subparagraph d, above, because the measures would) improve the� lever 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; Miti aq tion. The Board concurs with the reasoning stated in the EIReand finds that the above referenced impact is a significant environmental impact that couldi arise from the implementation of the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate andi 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. 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 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. _Z Prior--.to-Mitigation: Board -b. Findings Regarding-Sionif icance--bf-Ampact matiog concurs with the reasoning stated in the--EI.R-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 Mitigation. 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. Findin-gs 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 riValley 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 29676.2 46 A. School Related Traffic Impacts a. Description of Impact. Provisions for local school related traffic circulation are not identified. 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: The project should a ac ata one-way —= circulation--pattern with a-large-loading/u nloading area adjacent to the school site but ---- - separate from the school parking lot and off of the main-collector streets. 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 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 DBW\33390 29676.2 47 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 .. ........ ................ -a project site to GelleGw F standards t &.Vt.: Alternatively,, the project could restrict traffic access to Balfour Road eliminating the need to upgrade the road to GelleeteF Read standaFds. I P I d.-Findings Regarding i 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 Blixier 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 Bixier Road. Between the Project and the Albers and Byron 78 project obligations, the Project applicant shall improve Bixler Road and install a pedestrian path. tmeapplicant p an. ns- V "e'Siaf t. dd' D13W\33390 29676.2 4 8 Newport lnvatveen ti >w prcfsbt end the path:ocnstrcted.by #ti :cQmercat deveto m.ht 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 or.Substantially Lessened.==-The-impacts of the project relating to the Bixler Road design have,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. ProposedMitigation. The project should provide shoulders on Balfour and s ,. 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 4 9 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 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 with-farm traffic,as more-fully-stated-in1he-Statement of-Overriding — - Considerations. Impact #53 E. Entry Gate Deficiency a. Description of Impact. 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 -=-. tb mitigate the impacts of the project ingress-and egress: The:Board_he.reby�adopt's ; 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. DBW\33390 29676.2 so (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 Impact--Prior to Mitigation. The Board - concurs with the reasoning stated in the-EfR-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. Findinqs 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 Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EI R 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 cul 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 29676.2 5 1 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. ReStFiet pak4pq C1r} other roads pr �rtde adpua paved width for oeceserr..palir�g 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 heEIR 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 flowand 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 5 2 29676.2 J b. Findings Reaarding Siqnificance 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. ReStFiet .,nrliinn 0.6; h" ...:::.::: ; uat .;:pavc.;: +rh ............................:::::::: :.:..:::.::..::.... 9.. d._ Findings Re arding 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. Findin s�Regarding Siqnificance 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. DBW\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 5 3 29676.2 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 Miti aq tion: 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 Miti ation. The project should prohibit all access onto j 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 EI-9 and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: (1) Impacts Avoided or Substantially Lessened. The impacts of the wproject:.relating to curb=cuts onto collector/arterial roads have..been avDidecoc� < t: r 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 29676.2 54 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 Siqnificance 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 29676.2 55 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. Finding egarding 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 alk 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 DHW\33390 29676.2 56 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 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 emergency access have been avoided or substantially lessened by DBW\33390 29676.2 57 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 3 stop at the proposed school, and the circulation system is not compatible-with transit service. b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation.tion. 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 1A00 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 t.ErIR 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 29676.2 5 8 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 yEIR 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 'M" ag �iorfi:-The Board finds that the mitigation----- measure itigation----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 Siqnificance 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 5 9 29676.2 concurs with the reasoning stated in the El R,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 ; 1feet 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. ExtendAhe diagonal corridor-in Village IV southwest to Bixler 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 MarsFi Creek Road; .or Newport Drive: . 5. Provide a corridor from Village II 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. FindingsRe 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 syst-erm- (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 29676.2 6 0 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 Siqnificance of Impact Prior to Miti_ation. 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 51 R,and#inds that the above-referenced - impact is a significant environmentalimpact,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 constrLiction related air quality impacts, as more fully stated 1n the'Statdrnbnt 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 lmpact Prior to Mitigation. The Board DBW\33390 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 z Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the EIR=-"d-the-entire-record before--t-he-Beard, 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 Polfutiom a. Description of Impact. Microscale emissions, of pollutants, especiallyy 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. MesoscaW 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 project4raffi„--a;ceed-_BAAQMD's-Gritsria-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 29676.2 66 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 Board concurs with the reasoning stated�in-the-EIR and finds that the above referenced impact.isa 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 ysalinfty-snaking it love-ire 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 om 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 :y X c • t. "'Irl.. 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 DHW\33390 6 8 29676.2 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' -irnpact`is a less-_than7significant environmental-impact because the-projectfwould=Aot--" m 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 - - Schoollmpacts. 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` Regardin "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. r Poo Mitigation. c sed > < <> > <»<`>«<>«<`:>:; ,<.>::;:>: > :, Proposed _ Ccrrpft vv�tf the terrrts of t} e <.< a. reerent< ril`h>:fri tse :::: cct: 3r�ct:::: >. .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::9.:::::::::: : : .# E► ray; n H :.Si o4 i si r..lot :::: :;:.:.............................. d at.th ugh the dispute resolution pro€ ss11 ; Further, fulfill the contractual agreement between the Hofmann Company and the Byron Union School District to DBW\33390 29676.2 69 construct or pay for the construction of additional school facilities (classrooms and core facilities). Pinally, the devele0bo must al6b*„`..,. fasit+tles- 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 dopts such ---=Mitigation Measures. e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based on the --EIR arrdlhe--entire-record-befor'e'-Vhe-Boardthe Board finds that-7 (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 Plal; "^R^^dFneAt 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. DBW\33390 29676.2 70 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 - y 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 child :care-ordinance=and would promote the usage of the----- = project's planned,-elementary school facilities:-for-before and after school child care.,-- 7:(2) are.,-(2) Remaining Impacts. The environmental, economic, social and other 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 will require sewage conveyance arid - _ - - - 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 finis that the above referenced' .-_y 7 '-7-­"--- 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 sewagetreatment 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. DHW\33390 .72 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. ti b. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact Prior to Mitigation.t 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_.90 ft.msl 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- -- geolechn-ical-impacts of construction on Dredger Cut and-Kellpgg-C°eek-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_f,lo_od 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)-lmpacts-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. DBW\33390 29676.2 74 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 education programs) and legal measures (posted speed limits and recreational use restrictions) which will reduce the need for additional staffing. d. Findings Re aq rding Proposed Mitigation. The Board finds that the mitigation .measures described in subparagraph c. are both reasonably feasible and appropriate _ �to:mitigafe the impacts on the police and marine patrol services::- The Board hereby == adopts such Mitigation Measures. 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 29676.2 75 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 Tare-: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.; ' QGa(Iiu ° p ;q ......................... :i........................... ..... }i ::4:;i::i':I::F:4}iii :{ i:::::v::::i:. tll#tom.:: - 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 ,77 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 p - 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 tol.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 ther 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-,--Finding s 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 northo its originally proposed location in an area : ae#BI.;' °i s i �tecl? S'; :i..iii::"4ii?i�):.L:'.........:::.;'.�.::.::is ii::if'::::iY.j'iii::::':.:;'i::: iii:Sj:.:; ;i ii:4i ..i.. .... .V......, ton: he: .refu � :a derr P.......................:.......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. ....................... ..........:.: >.(a ::w> h :atsa :: .i::::::::............................................:: .::::::::::. :P _.: . tk e::joca tin. gererlI 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 29676.2 7 8 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 . -r-elating 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 Consideratiorrs---� - --- - Impact #92 Increased Boating Activity within the Project Vicinity but outside Kellogg Creek. a. Description of Impact. The development 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 29676.2 79 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 Impact. 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 Boating Activity. 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 ariseJromAhe 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 DBW\33390 29676.2 8 0 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 projectoverride-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 Bigler 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 project - 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. r 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. h b. Find'in s Regarding Significance of Impact Prior ,o 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 29676.2 8 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. 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 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- rprehistoric-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 Crossinq 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-Project Residents. _ a. Description of Impact. Person s'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 Miti ation. 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 DBW\33390 29676.2 84 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. 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 = bf the project in the absence of the adoption of appropriate and-feasible mitigation measures. . =z 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. >rtrtre; u 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 wfll�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 DBW\33390 29676.2 8 5 • L As required by CEQA, the EIR evaluates the growth inducing impacts of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(g)) andthe 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 by4he-4and use policies of local jurisdictions. Accordingly, `the growth pressure is transformed into actual growth only by the actions of local - _ -w .-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 Imgact 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 ther 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 ._iFGrowth 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 Siqnificance 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. DHW\33390 29676.2 8 7 c. Mitigation. 1. Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Protect. 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 project. The Contra Costa General Plan Growth Management Element establishes policies which would control growth pressures caused by the project. --T-hose_-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 iri the project area. 7t e= 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 29676.2 88 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 = - of ordinances or regulations rather than--the imposition of conditions-on-a-project by -- project basis." - - - The EIR's cumulative impact analysis considers the impacts of cumulative projeets.appf6ved-within the Discovery-Bay Region. These projects inolude`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 4 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: - - - _ _ :(1)_Impacts Avoided or Substantially Reduced. The-mitigation measure.%.- _ _ =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 .� def inedurban areas, will limit development to 35% of the total area, will-prohibit urban - devalopmefit within the Agricultural Core, and will limit the contlids between urban-andL.4 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.�3Proposed 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 29676.2 9 0 e. Findings Regarding Significance of Impact After Mitigation. Based and the EIR and the entire record before the Board, the Board finds that: v (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, sociakand 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 corribination.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 Mitigation. 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. x 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 9 1 29676.2 (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) Remainirc Jmpacts. 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 • I 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.ation. 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 Re aq rdino Significance of Impact-AfterNitigation. 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 ensurezthat 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 :,irnpaot is.,a significant,=unavoidable an umitigable environmental impact thattzould-,___ 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 9 3 29676.2 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 t[Ta Project's balancing of-tocal short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity: 1) The Project would convert agricultural land1nto &-residential recreation - oriented community. This would remove this. land from agricultural production for the foreseeable future.-,-,However, it should be noted that��he agricultu dool5antoaf-bf the - ..� project site is naturally limited by the relatively poor quality of its.soih= := 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 4 >. 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 tl7at,the Significant Unavoidable,and Irreversible Impacts-of this Project are overridden by the environmental , economic, fiscal, social, land-use or other benefitsof the Project as rris3r ftally.stated in the_S afe.�nent 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_ Ll 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 DHW\33390 9 5 29676.2 Brief Description - 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. M IL1 - -__ Findings - This Board finds thatAhe Mitigated Project-Relocated Marina-- - - _ :Alternative isinfeasible::Project and rejects the Mitigated Project-Relocated Marina Alternative for the following reasons: ~ a)_The_higher density multi-family-housing units would be unm-mrkeMVef artd-- 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. DBW\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 darner which would-remain Single Family Residential -High Density. ........................... Findings - This Board finds that the No Marina Alternative is ji';�fii and ...:..::::::..:....:....::. rejects the No Marina Alternative for the following reasons: -- - a) The No Marina Alternative would not mcret the_project objective-of a w 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. 'Findings, - The Board adopts the Revised Relocated Marina as it is identical to the Project as mitigated in the EIR. X ; , :. �. .<:>:: . :::`:: : > > >':. ::>nem . . Ttrrte .:..:.r..o.<.::::.. ::: Itert�: (.. ::.::ble:.:It:.ts.: Q .: tlde .::in. .r..ezt3rt :.. ....... ......:......:.............:.:....:::..::::::::::::::::::::::. _:.............:.......:.:.:: . ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................::::::::::::::.::::::.:.:..... 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 is ..............:..: ...:. and rejects the Lagoon Site Plan Alternative for the following reasons: DBW\33390 29676.2 97 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 onpages 13 through 16 of the Hofmann Letter in the FEIR) would utilize land east of1he existing _ -Discovery Bay Project. The alternative is-an "Off=site'-alternava�­as defan-ad_rra.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 k. and waterways like the existing Discovery Bay development and the LagoonSite 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) easons!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 jmpact&relating._Io 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 DBW\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 derivecHrom-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.ElR.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 III, 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 II 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. Project 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 tobalance__` 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 1 1 29676.2 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 General Plan Amendment Rezoning: I The .+!Plan Amendment's ties n nmm�rnh siva Innn_teRn deewmeFt �eR ee�en�-n-vvmpr�rreR , speeiffeally a DiseeiveFy Bay eemmuRity, an G lifnrni Plannini; nninn Law, /eyemmnnt Gede Coming 6`5300 e! uvrrrr g d 7 m , — 2 e eneraan Amendment intent eensistent and us nnnsistnavnt ThGl PlanAdt illy wy�a BratiIaeAr �i � f "<:> t��.2. b>::>�ft��>��sv ::<�a:':«West ; eo...:.......................... ............................................................. ,....:..........:: ' `'> i ct't :>: >:::Tbe::€ tsoov ::.:<:: a.:::West..re �s. t#�ti ..a.. esrll ........ Y:::.::.::::. .;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.::_::.;;:::.;:.;:.;:.;;;;;;:.;.;:.::r.::.:............... susta�r:e ::>dedt:>be:.:rn;:h rr�d.:.:. �����er:::�f::t �:: ea�.::::: ................................ c r r�� ..... : .. DBW\33390 1 2 29676.2 € d ::.::or�:;:of:::> >:<dre : ::::. ..........::........ :. :. ...i:::: trt::an It>:: :: I :r� r _:: <: >: <:harrr� .... ........... rt.................:.:............ A.i:ii:::•.�:1i:v:J:iii +}}y}iii}}}ii}iii:iiiiiii.::•:vry:v.:l::::.::iitt?4i:hi:': ::.:.�:.:.:.:..iQiirani+aii4 ..........,........... :.. :. . :.i.:;::::::.:.::::::::::..::::::::::.....:::::::::::::::::.:::.:.:iii:.i:.i:.i>i:........ .iiii:.iii:i>iiii:. }is.i:.ii:'.):v::::::::::::.....::.:::::..::::::::::::::::.:�::::N.::v?i:i•i iiiiil :iiii:+fLJ+li::v4:vi:^i:ii:'.i:v::.iiiiii:..SC•ii::'..<.:::::.::i::.:::..:::::::.: ::. >::>::>:<:>:<:>::»::>::>::>::>::;::;;:;:;.::i::::;.ii:.:iiiii::iii:.ii:.:ii:.i::.ii::.i:.ii:.iii::.::;;>;;::is.iiii:.i:.i>................................................................................................................................... .............................. DBW\33390 1�3 29676.2 1DDENDUM to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DISCOVERY BAY WEST April 23, 1995 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Background., The Discovery Bay West project was originally -submitted to the Contrw-Cem County Fla=LP4- Department in 3993. 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 Hoard 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 tg tbg Discovery Hay West _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 bout 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 EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR 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 t 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--previou-s--BIR--was certified-as 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 projeot; 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 been met since the original EIR was certified as complete and concluded that, using these criteria, a Supplemental or Subsequent LIR 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 stake 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 met 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 neer 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 DBtI\33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West 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 LEVELS-OF INSiaNirICANCE y 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 inoxease 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 oeu\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 s_=_ _.erosion of the habitat of the Mason's lilaeopsis l�Ca Ifornia - - - 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 tIR 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 lilaeopsis, 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 EIR will mitigate these impacts equally 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 IDeu\33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay 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 wil2_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 microclimate near the marina due to the presence of surface water. The changes to the project will cause changes in the microolimato 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 projectfs 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. OBA33390 49455.1 Addendum to the. Final EIR Discovery Bay West 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 new significant impacts. H. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES The EIR analyzed the project's impact on public utilities and services and concluded the project would increase the consumption of water and sewage treatment service, increase school and child care 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 schools and 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 will also not effect the severity of potential flooding (see attached letter) or the project's demand for fire or police protection. As such, staff. eoncludes that no addition mitigation is 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 o8W=90 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 EIR 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 effect 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. OBA33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay West Page 6 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. PRWECT IMPACTS - SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE UNAVOIDABLE The following discussion addresses those impacts that were found to be significant in the EIR 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. 00"3390 49455.1 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 project will not exacerbate any- of the -- unavoidable traffic impacts identified 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 meet Federal and State air quality standards. The SIR 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. 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 OEW\33390 49455.1 Addendum to the Final EIR Discovery Bay west Page 10 project cumulatively would increase the loss of agricultural land and open space, increase traffic congestion, increase the regional ambient noise level and decrease the regional stir 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 circumstances 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 project should not be considered for items of concern that may be raised by Planning Staff, the Planning Commission or the County Board of Supervisors. D W\33390 49455.1 c ;a o �c A coo ;: co vimcv , '` . j,'j cs• o Ks °, G CD G 7 co co ..s o o ico t co r o co w0 0 o G✓ r»CrS a .-� Pq pD CD co fD N n O O ✓� 9? r0 co D 'i 1;� O :► � •f°o � � va coco o SO, opCO ,. p ✓� O• O .� ,.• Vl vq r rN,, y r C9 Sy G� too W, IA CO O G � � `� ✓• v' co r*, cD o� �, G O �q � v� �S-�"7t' v,� ..z o ' ? G°.► ,� coo o %►i° G o. ° �Gtt _." UQ O• ?,."�G ra �Co G p To CD fo A+ N' �' t�D cin co,�,.UQ zw CO tt co tv p o• a' �• r •t 0 co 9 d G luC9. VD 0 CO rt CD •fl : 0 o N co � � G o• r' � co co '� a- G r o' 'v, tp V4 CD CD cv C, CID va "d... a' cD � n' n cn d 0. vo o COD O•c' G �(rDGti, � C}• � '.} r+ '.Y3 r• O +�' v� •O �. O �•••O � "';�•�t; L'S� CL co .N•r+.�'V•� iii" ''f °�+"t ✓� �.t �y. w� (p ° ✓.• CD C9 (�J (gyp �' CV H v t J i qQ /--- p f h 43 O tp, ,to tp a ip " �. "0 i o p n S G r. �• va co y •• co CD ✓ nom G � .+ n ter ?' cv N r p ull co O' G "t� � 7�e• � O � iN �i r' CSD ' dQ CCyw ;0:e~ mmmnn0nn00r) (,I > � ndnnnnnnn ITIn > noOOn ►�vb � � vn, •nvn, � bnCD o v� O nom, oOCCC adn did g � d � a o y 0 O N z � � o � nnnnnnn `" O M w w � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y CD A+ vo :3n n,n- cY n- n n p = 0 .0 0- C5' 0 0 'd O co - ° n ►», 0 - 0--�CD- E. zo 0 oo 0d �' 0 n va d 0 CD CD a 0 w a . w e 0 C � y � � a o CD o m 0 0 0 - �o o w CwCD b� CD CD (IQ 0 � m r» < o C7l z d � �• r b r z a r� z d m z 0 �4;1 rn- -I — O A A, v. cog c, ;; SQ-z to °' Z Oo 03 -a to n a go d d CA co n CL ma-- Iis o . 0 0 g Em 0 10 n agg cr i -9 R CL = 0 Z b :i ru c5 o 0' re 0 0 CO CLz 0 rl Er w 40, 5 0 = n • 0 -1 0 4) OQ On to w CL.0 n -U COD OQ r) c m ti C17 w 'b �j 9 • 0 ep rn c a R 6 ,2. o c 0 rs to n C6 B M" n 0 0 o aL 06o'b U b 0 -V �: > C6 c w 4.4 Et CD rD I cw • d r N ra cr or V, �. 10 co a a ° , O r, G ✓ „ & `° co tea �� O 'o Clo ♦ N i• a � i 6 W y l�,��y •a gyp. � w v o ? �3',� V. :� y .•d '..s �' a o o o S r W � r n � �• 7 � a �w wG G O Q• G• x Q r• ,� o ✓ ate " � o iP r aco- ? w✓. tea r_ c, 'vr ?, y Q cD �•n �. co O C• �. v , v '"�cr + o '� ' a% � "'. ? ,4 �„"'+y�. '" G.� moi✓+;"wr„ '�'✓t G � �` ;04 rf G r. rx �o N ({� N tD ../ •' "'� ✓,. N N C1 j �. oN• ° O i C� O ? w Ci4 w w O �•. �° o :• � � :•o N r+ �a°�n tlO $ o Sr� ° ?ta.. N..�- ? � � C,s• o co e "° � < 3 � ✓o N c^o � '"� a o io rod + oa° '^.w�-_, i°oRod�c^o N �t � N N � as, � r� °. O p G . i o c� t?• y+ ., N G +t w .e (0 ✓ �y �, . O N OG '� O ° f� D ? O ..O OG r. N �p•'O ?. �n r• N ✓• O` {z a„ N .•• w �; to o N ? .� N G °W L, O O N N G it "t G•°� $�:nq o ^.ao Y w � (•1 (') 7 a :; � io G cn,c � � ? �Q° '6. ' 0 G ?coo y ., NCU np. ^ N Fc tl4 N w N �o .. ✓ D ✓ .+, �� w N w `r r p w G V, w ? N ? ? ^ .++ O ^3' "� n++ „ r G• '.r n n p. O r W N °'.� ✓.,y' '�' N ✓ ��, G N Op (D .O ✓ O a^ O w N .e +C c •» •� G 6 9 ../ �p N i (,1^C�. v+. �. ('� p y C.Z1 ,:f f� ° O O cv^ 0' O pn OCA .i coo Z• " CO w v, � ,'^".+ w N.r^ � (y '•• °' G +^ l+• w 4� N r• CD O � � ?. N i•. O •� ° � o ✓' o � w 9 .,.ti° � �. o a A � N co � °%•G o'eco N ° °° � '"'• � ?vA cro Co °Q y w N " N < us G . ¢ D i N F°� w o• N (''n ni '" ? �. G ev 9 y p r•o N •o ? W, ^ co o �y ,, rte' N (prl N .4 '.> N 6 G A w r• .y C: G "� O-n "", C� D d ? N O la_- to 0 w .. w ✓ t9 7[ cin !� 7y .n O " N d w O C� i• N G%+ 'rr i� i N N. N 0 a OOH..R weN"• '3a �, ^ ✓ ✓' N, tV P so CD 5 co cv C SP d N :s n G Cn G •a � U G � d,. h •6 co G ../ y .� tlfl ✓ G ^NJ CD a � r• n � n Q n n G r 1 r 00 WCo clCD r+•+ CD Cal C, g' � `"co• "' Q O f w •o ,,, co a4 r r o � + .., C• D O, � O G• (7 ^^ c, 4 d gg fD .'7 � � A ^• N M fdL �^ lv G p A r ✓ ;:. L9 "O O n d d. � rro C r• C1 '� cCn rn i �.3 N ' o Cp a G n p G^• �, CO w 410, a Q � z ••� w uo C � � �• Q� a o � tro � D ni , •M Bw G G g p a O ^no � � � a i a`� a e � cc c O"owa � w0, � G �� �•,.H yu'. n n_C4". Z" co a C [ri cD ^• O C o o v co m iD• w °.' <cu �'! Q C) a,+ °•y°, _tea+. — Ga f(�{ 0 9:6 CD co O tJ• £ �3 i Q "� a C�9 cao w .� 0 yG ca a ry m ^• ^j C: p Q wG civ coo o C 4.Q; O ao co O < Q^ G n v f n y p N m Q "' G tD Q O fa :^ o w 0 :�,`G V • .+� tv G ¢' CD ^ ~.1' a.0 .+ ..q D D +y„ '�'..00 H ti '•� N 0 r c•. cc ct CD CD o "C1 co w co w co trc G w N a t9 w `b, tr? C0 ti° C�� a •+O �n D G w �. n m •p < . Cy c4 to ,�, wy qc t3 -oac 0�4d0GW 0, S. N "°cw"� r z OG� a °oCID t. p CD Q K y a w G CD < ..3 rs cu tti no b •cy w :; c tM a4 n wr ��. p O a G Q a Q 'O no °' yc �• � m a.cy t� .. ,7 n t!1 w b � '4 p Q w ,z d cD CD p G ^.• cD m O p cy w co to co o cn :'► a ,Gr as CT7 71 Za p (� •- CDcv -� z o � � CA o R cao G• �yyG+ C y- n aGq G G ^ 5 CD G b 0 O N ^tra CD O �. Cac y ,D •ty G•tz C CD CD CD v' fD CD p n N O �•O y � � O � n Ct cD w -•a'� � G 6 CD O CD (D � O p Q O d r G 9A s ..+ n `•,. .moi i '�" '^LS o � ao � 3 � far, °S.^ � ?, G f� ✓ N p� ?� o o y, :+• p. •p coo cdo (Do i• ° le CD V tP o• ✓ G � ti° F { O•r Gy N �+ A G 3 f c 2• 0 w 6 0 G N o G � O q �" �• .rG " � i� r. co � .•s ray �' G W. h N '". N fi o. 9+ { ^.• �...� .. % n• top y CA 0 n A o� p. D � '} O G•NG v q• O G i O'Q 4o O.e D ✓.'' O O 5r G 4 r''O V n �o G ? C` 3' W �" y O.n G v O m Uo 'ti co O 4 =� r CJ N a ►' G CTS or N O�l'r• «++ d G G• i9 N�° O N o C H �' v �� .. Q .Q p� y O O• �o .i D G O O N m r• pG p�� GO p R° G+ O i H G n m0 7 m � �^ 'fy' O ` "cot ? i• �" •t G r N 1-0 U' i m G O rJ r ✓.p O p. O� � cry y N O• �., N O ,� O•; tY N �{j L' O Qp �. O Q •nj•' D i 'r1 m fo dr ..n y �;j G p% G. � � �• r, N G cdo y t�1 � �,� H• O OG G 9 � C^ v N � 'Z cv G '� co cdo C', i v G p m o I' O O O N tA y � 6 N � � N 4� N y d N � Q N � N 6 OG O N N N a• a' G� co O c 'Z O GZ 70 3 ` o �• CD 4 a p ✓ 3 rC N 6 �p%. a-- .• co N• Cfi G n - N ' �• p7o N � C r 0 N N L A O two B c CD .y O Hy v o v D a ►.� ^ 0 o w o En n w > C O ^C L� In' ct co y A. ? •C to cc^D C O C. " ^ C b cD rn ^+ o b O oCD0 CD co y oo F p to to ° y a ? N p �, n �+ p. w 0^ C C n b �. B o �-. C y o w s Z k � � o co a F .� o' n n a C N a F c c ^°n a o CD o ., O CDD •o^ ^' f9 w S o i„C y C .G•. fD CD n y ow0 CD CD c z r CC R s � b y y r n n C b �• z v nd no t� 2 O ^• � �• ^ � � tri CD 0 o' OQOQ CD CD � w Q. oco • .- H w o z O N qO z w O p co c "RDCo ^ a... t9 p p O' Q" w < ~.. .w. •�i C^'+ � w_,..� py .w.. Qs.N•. K a. H �• " W, co co (d a r�J" a y O EL h O n N � O N to C:6 oCD w co oa f t3 ro p es o a o ^. ye < d .«.�, .d a s `° - � c. a' � � w o C0 c � n � o � o. a � � ,may �, n �.�sz ;-• � � . °. oc. H a : Cri a UQ co H .N"7' m. �. N ti O' w0�. a C 0 N C O o Cl. W w t3 C Q O p' 0 co io "O FA w s C �, O N p� •n y.y w O` i3• t"�' .•t y rte.+ N co w a o w Co �, a •, V1 yy C o "' tD cr N co co N co y '„4.i w N °' ` "' o y a -- co w N -., to w f w w ... w `'L" {'� o. f Im C d ^+ a Hjz,. — . co O ,p 4• � y te a. O O h w w co a UQ w 0 a+ �y c f O UQ G n w N Co cr N '.. -4 .. to C w 3. to, ^� to ro i o CO+ to ^ aQ o z {amu N tro �+ to 9 n p ^ w oc N t9 ;o.a ps a W W p y civ ....p.+ r. rM w, ..� Q, CD C9 O £^•p' w a V C .�.. �" a Cl. ,t+; W � r w gi coo Cri � a y a s (-Dc Qn =. a C ••' N b 'Cy O fD M f N +f.+. w ^w�. C C) a O a .�., N (fj cv o w w w a co cr ? y/y.�1{ coo ro CJ y' c N �c t co z a � o a � C6c. � Cr7 o •o a o �, io 'a a• o p' �. � � � b o ro crs c 0 o C� z5 w -Z'& W ".,t, � C: n cv CD M 7 QQ W resn Z-11 N n W UQ C R' F^i `. cD a G C h * cn 0 � a 9 CY cr a a v a mr cc N • N o z N O z d H ..by o ,.+ � cowcv y cto oo CO 0 d w a ro c co^s c °.p to o°Go y. atoo. - GZ� off ° °� .°rc o 00. �. B o C: 7a VT . N P. C3 "�3 "" Vi "' L' w C9 Cp e,} "P n (4 Q. .y ',y 7" .y 0. 06 �! r•r V/ r N ° 'd CO Cp to ►j ►h n M Ct ? =r n y e .» O C,y,y G w G G v ° p O co fi' 43 5" 45 �, w s Cp n y O O w aG n � ~' co a n n"terv @ 0 O nv "t-' to < t►a o ao crocv a p�5 G w , C• n w c ca g Cow � wo' w ^ nG oo o. 0 awn °' a N it Ntr om, iGli, G w �. 0 b H CD H ^ t6 0 0. vo a LY Co cD 'V �. « P• 0r'o : .°ty yC0• ? y W t�D w.. O "ti cv wC:6 ro a 0 G r.. b p o. C) O o rw a w 'e" co •o oa o ^ 0 CD a'' : Co V ocao w p ` ' "tp".6 o0yonO O0," 4 t9 u�• � ..bo C17 co CL p h C!a .P H b �• w w �j5.15C., g =r p �o a, F -3 •ten o °. 7s' �s''° :,:• p r n .• tD p CD v OnaC O 7 N� a, ^ � oNN � oc � n � � v n cD ^� z b o V+• R Z z cA .tom ar ct n :S O. CD p•a z 9 a C) ° a - c +� a C•1 =apo � G � d a co b � c H a 0 z 4 0 z 94.0 cp co .0 < Od 5.^ O C y n n OQ' to y ^ cj'`t Sn OQ 6a C w O dq w ^ • N .i' N• C�.0' 5. W �' 'C Co n ^ .wr. Q-ct 'N f9 �.oQ 4, 0=Q O n O 7 O 17 y co 0 F dw �, g �' co co H H to d CD o a .y. ro W co cp _ o d to CC., `C c]o - co Ch y y 7 a CD w fl o• ct c C a .n 7 �„ c o o �, o o b CCD E ° aCo y ° -°+, Z 'Y CI. p' O C H O G pq' 7b �-• .,, CD C C• `� .p��t C `n = O• w v, RNs w OQQ CCD ry H -1 0 °: �� `J 7 c f`�D c E 0 �o ° Iwo ==OQg o .:�oy c O w °' c C o• ^ o co yb ~' cao owag ? c tis' w Cri ,CDD o• c `D .e to CD CV EL w g c cD C ? H CD -.4 H �j c• C ti �' ��-Cy y c�D .w<. `�• N W co ..y cD .U°. G n• 5• a' b W _ C a w p, C to D C• C p c: c_ O_ O rjQ rn O' p' O O H O d c cD w C co cD a. D: �.• CD cD n R t7 f7 C CD .'T. y 0 y a cD a C=i w w w R7 On z p _ 0 CID O ►.y N 5 ti 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 r CD CD ct co r) -e ro a s. z CDa w w w w w O R v c9 CD fL It lD N G CD V 10 CD w cr CD tTj 0. < < CD CD CD CD RCD w�y V Ln w w w o � 3 3 3 3 0 = C n CD 7o C cp (: R CD C R T n CD CD w to w w c c 5 o Q o CD cD CD cD CD (� C) = 1 A 7 O z 0 z . °'• n coo 't7 o' - •^r- � - b N P7 y H H cr y f/J ny po aQ a» n � n � ? w w C CD n y O CD CD w 0- -p� 2 w �• w bd a o• g � v „ ct EL v� g CrJ CD C�J z r cr c a ►ti CDa o z a M d N G 0 r CID CD N o d w Cr Q O (T -_ . O tt i Q 0 cr tv. C, v 11 C6�Z k It CIO le C CD F; C) co (A CD C.0, CD C: co U) C: 0 (D 0 5 E� co C6 to = — A C, 0 C, to 0 P4, to 0 En !, co C) 0 —, S. = cn-to ia w — — . o E� 'A cr • a 'cr , =. = (,*OQ C n m :3 Cc n n eD Ct -- 0 O. cv wr" c6.0 cmro wa, a ^ ca 12� C3 W 06 c) m OQ CA 0 CA 0 Co OQ g — rjQ -- CO W 0 V 0 w C) a c6 co a — 9 " E. 4. 0 VQ -.4 CD r- > CO n n 0 C:, Vo C6 W= cr ZI CD a () a. caro H OQ n w wo 41. .4W -1 — E; C, W co 0 C16 -.4 CS. W— M QQ n r) n W c CO w cz n 0 — * w CD rA W) Co -ell c) CD O cu n CD 06 >eL T9. rL E3 > z CD > va n CD cc a r. OQ 0 to o 0 ct O s s sp a* CD CC, sp 10 Ir. za 00 PA CIS C) N , a vo v c n• =r � a a � w a C O z 0 w 8 b c Q a cr H C' S, d =., 6 O Co r] co'C X• y .y cr ^ W C) C) 'C go ,w+ N "�•� N = H C N'W ^ w' A ,w. y h Q y w 0 P7 0 CO cr In �'• n c°wj CD z C-w y w ,oma'-. . b „�7•, �b ", " vc, = o- c CD CD CD C' n fD o co ^ o w y •, c c� CD ^ a co A Co c N . y P. acO`G' w 4co cc`D �, O0 ci m a c n .on y' -9 p y w b <o k b .n cA CD H y w o' A o _ cSD o w .^9 CD CD ^ y^.. R S• n p) R. w,„ ^ S; o CL Md C .- - __" __-. .._ - _ "�'f'►t1%:D• in-•C ,,..�i) �' w Oo ^-N ^ n H �• �. y fDT O CD a o .7 2 w 3 , O^ n y n n S•am' ` n' �' l'D m G w � `c a � = - tD o ►� co �' w ^ ?_; cD w c H c coo -+ w a •„ , CD c o °• N J• d co cr .7 'o. F .0 CD Q, vii �• ��yy d OG "+� D '� C' NOO CD n' .+ ,~-. ,C.. .� Er o CD w w ° CO 0 C) r_ CCD -°w < c ►. to 0 m c�D vw, c S o 0 rAaCD, g � to w f = M O ^ Oq O N C' n C .C)+ OCG n• ^ .. '� poi crwi, w coCCD Co w' n n n ~• O w o co OG Cr ^ C w _; p hM b �+ Co C O w _ ti w CD CD H OG ~ C' :-. U) o ti C � d. C l�D CDD �' w ,,,� [! .w-r n "3 7 tD E C tTj... G ti CDD DQ Q,d � 'C w o p`) w w _ < w 'v ,0 k.0 o' o CD °: ; jr- r c y a mow- CD ° H OG "" co cp ^' CD H °' CD CD C) .7 ,."'�, w O H' N b H :r a ^ > oCDtri �z CD s � ^ � co r o' o• Cl) a z o � Mb L' 0z wCDQQd gas Ca � CD CD z CD y CD C) tzJ n (D NUn G7 �,, � a � � _ q 00 A CA CL to PT, CA z z Cl. CD d wa w a TJ R .0 • rO m C) Q. 0 o no r o w ra Fr n CL Er, "n 0 cl, co Z EP CD n 00 w z' o CD n fw, OQ kA CD CD . 4 = w Z o -a to , = F; CD to n —10 CD 0 tTj :a Po CD 4) or CD OQ 0 ,o n OQ �4 a 0 cr =(JQ — , .1 to o CD • 0) O 0 4 oronR" IW CDCn t7 M C) 0 CL m OQ vsn 8 — F; . .< y o- = C P" CD :e IM ,_ n rA 10 C4OQ CD n o cr A.0.0 *tvto CZ to O :, 5. " m 5 a, o rjQ ,°• (M 6 .D to co F OQ • nm t7 :e CD ca (A t7 w c6 c, E. (A 0 ooaort -h CA Pr S, co ::P 0 oa Pro CD co CD n 06 co CD C) M > C) z 0 so 0 CD 0 CD z > M z CD 17 CL (IQ o• N G a top.!„, � O, o G•a ^ o-% � w CZo G• G coo O �° °.:i_�,•.v r, �"�' G• � +c CA iv f w w 2� d Cp,„pp. V ^c H r"O N+,, i• cCo 23� � �+ n N p, '” '... O � N u'„ Cr �,.n cnc ^ w �' ?%: y ,p m CY �• coo'ry G n `tij-, ��-, � .N•h � � fy r• C 6 p � "r N N �. � y W v> O N `^ D � p ..� �= J G.."G "fir. G• r O 0 d N ua '.� nr„./ NED ,�,. �• w n CS O' C ••+ n_�,. N wn,,, Mj1 N O O p' ,G ?p n S %4'+ i.4 �•tic+ G G v> 'I'�• n C (� O N C G ►- n ^i ? co_f� ^• nS '� N n,Q °^ D i r Q r ¢` {)' n CA,-.� .f- io '3 p p .✓ Ua ..(9 C N co .- n C O 'fl '� Q'."C, cy !• w n CO. •a 4 w K v; i ',�� v w ro n o w m o. o 012 In O ^.� r w w w `� ^ w r w w, tp Gy *+ n rn v r• r r r p. O �. :.•V? O �" (nocrcno cp Q G �• N G^• po G ^ n to �- ;:r-CJN ° � � R3 ^,S O r• C d r• w G CY 0• n � ,,,,,04 � r v+ w � r• � N r .+ N r�i � "�• n0 ? N 0,2 N G �. .n .� 00 P' s w w p r" V w G n ty• c� `� C� ¢" �% C co war a ' % o fl ° �-�� ° o a o w cmc w y rN,t P- N r•0'C4 am G N p 3. O •^' w 'ti 'fl WfS •""i ti n p ni a4 `19 � °o. 3NG ;::,-so .. ?', y 3on9- -0wN � wov "' t� w J w � m Co iy M c�•+c' crv,N w ©" � g ^ '.sw.r CO 911. F O N y ,. y"•. r•AIla N ^ •• `,G Ts L i y a Com" CY N n G � y N C+•� r'J 7 � ,NLS N a N• o o� o C-1 ro CD c 0 Cal a- CL ID -00 bn R .Q 00 no F, ro CD No CO cl� CD Cb CD CD A, cc 4 CC, A, ft*, CL C110 CD 0 0. 0 0 0 to W 0 n — " C = o• to roGQ ro'a :3 .Q OM Al W W 0 w CA c as su F) O.Q c cow-"* .3 CD z =0 tn CO CA FA rA 10 co C'no O 10 = ---ft — B 2. q a on ra 0. ct CD ct CD 0 0 .0 CD CDU2 0ti C2. w 0 0 rr aL 0 oCD 0 cr w to 0 0 CD CD w . n = PL z n—..!A Z" oo CD '0 Q OrQ C5 CIO) CL .0 ID IV, CLCD ro O CD Cc: CD w � - 3 o a a c Fy,y a y z° 0 a � z co 9 b c rs co CID 104 a c ., n oo co ►� co to co o a o � •n 2 F o � � C c^o a o• �• n -n " Z yp' rr y coo o coo c"`o "w w y to- °o o' w 0 n w, -n 0' 0, c w c0o ' 0 v, 8, w w w Ln 0' G �" co b E W c c =� a ao w o .n aoco ' co � 5 ° w B 5 ES• ^.m cr CD w w •d 5 •o c 0o w er Jr* CD . co ax o 3 " c w 0 w CD ro CD a w = o coo �: <' � w °,� "0 0 � CD C n � ' �• '�• � or1.... N y � 0'.c w � •� �, w w O w -n y C n lD .7 �' fDy �••� CD 0 •'Y K n n fn n�' n• co W ' y w w 000 y 0 coo " O Q cv n_ < ►C 0. c CCD Cc, �' n �• G g o -. 0 2 GG < DQCD P)p o C w == < a F G co w v w 0 0 y .w�•. y ^ y O OCD CD O 11 Cl.FlO " •b o c a o a v w < > 0 0 0• ] " co 0 N y UQ aG _�• b 7 CD G M co - 0 n 0 mC) CS * D C'1 o �^ O O to (v so r[ dd 7K o 'd co "Alle C:r tgr 15t lk ':;� !:; 0, Ile 0 -co �� C, vg 9-; co S40 1.1 Oc, S t, 00 s To so c^o 00 0 SOO0 N tP tco, 1-4 0 co 95 co 04 ✓ t04 04 qQ C. N !J , v O C � � a a 0 0 � � O orte+ x z b 0 z .. .-. N= w •C O a' � O w cc G ►'. p, :i "¢. On. cGo chi w �a o rwn w C tr1 a; cs "d b c"o " IRtv K O o o Ca 14 at9O,o0o'c ° c i. C) b h o po O «*r mtTl OQ w G �• �� OQQ CD CCAITI w o. z 7> J' ^: y co o ,d p. ry r� CD M H b w co 0 � c� n C G � o ... o * aC7 = G d c ^ T o O 9 E d O y r• °✓N Vol led "• N n � O O V+ r0 ar'J - „� o co ,,'�,� p "� Yv, � .•..' O G fl` r � t• .�t�O+ y �.imp �- co � 3"G. � 2 �.� o N c °o.•dt °�m � �ro �w � n' �� .�y r.✓'� .� t n r a Yt $ .•+, y O �' O p;•.a ° � 7 'd 7 7r fr ti0 D i•p fd9 � N r � fi� p � N � �-�,� O. ,�. ^ r r• •� �„ p. O V+ N n "'. Vn f� ✓.,� 'Yt '"' to n N N �•..G tlQ - ,,. N G'" r" p W'� �D�� � co tF n 0 n � .•! p ►• vr � �. rte" N �.9.'✓.3 �f' a �.' �. d '.� C� Qepi•. •". fOJ+ 'O 'ten ' fD•t a ?D V +�r ,.t n•N Oo y r N, �`G � � gip? y ,�y ``� �. cn ►� °.+ tli N ." D �' co, co Q O a, y r fi yr p� ra eao `[ v+ y °✓ �n G C G " o f+ N Gf, O N +O �� fy ro y r• {3 `O ", "� a o 0. 5x ;+; ^ v, d u o O ✓ ai O wsr o o 5 a ?y 7° C cro o uQ v��l � �. cao Ivo y cao � o O Fj RS uvIll + G•s N G r ON o• r "Z+ o ✓' p N G r r -w 0 cp -n G7 N, G � "' CD•t G O' G• t ai d z N .• O "' 9 N O N V+ ✓b � K 3 � � eco� � Dw G O• e.j � � io o G • Cl-I 10 n Ks D Q CD N n Cl fA r {9 N � a y � b M. o � o d � � G c� d o %m 40" C) CD I-V CD to 'IQ CDc�a A i 0 C, U EA OQ rA* w e: CA AD n A, asA, rA IrD w o E n C. CD. to rocr �P6 C 0 FA 00 L CD 0 O'Q CL A, 0 N • CL =* = —q. n 0 w — 9 S — 4 "p rye C, dQ • CL S to 9- ir 0 CD CD (v -W, CO C6 N . = CD C w :Z- r7 C CL W CD A) IV > CD t7 CA Lill IV COD rD N 3 C C L7 CD C a ^ CD ..� `-" o w Y CD y P" ztoo 0 w z w v o ySa' oao3 as0y o o w �' "y' w n E! z CD En o y � vCi p y .^.� .> � .C• yN w N G.�' ^�' ^. ZA ,� _R. O K cob C 00 Co n O O n O �r m C w C rA CD 2 .0n .n ^. rS o es 2. tl ~ y 00• C eL.00 0 pr G 7-. w O a OQ n n < > O O, f�9 .7 0.00• �. I.a1 tz co � a � 7 w �. t7 -oa co C Q w \C> m a C7 n ... C 0 �. D Nv co co (] w i cr 0 04. a c• c �G a O W pM. F to 0 a� w o w tTl CD 0 CA ct n CD m cy C ^' N CDD B c c c a " n Cr) `�' f D f 9 03 n CD H ` y foo aoo aoo 10o rzn 3 ^o o CD o CD a 10 CD "ti ' O O• ',Y n C a tTl C) o' n s' 00 m 0 z z ,o b ct 0-4 b w row row b n rD y CD R CD CE Cf � f dE on n n n ^ n to C-I 0 C) COD 0 = 0 n ct > 0 CC CD cr p C-I CD CD C, E A o CL Lv N co -1 C-I 0 = < a to r- C, (p w o ; n CD �jj ol R L, < = rL CD v OQ rD <Cl C, CD ft CD w Ct co cr =6 CD 4B. = ,= tz CD = = > cr 'o Q CD co CD ;r C) > n m 10 0 > n z CL to < 0 < ft r) tra 27 Iz �. n 5 'O O• 4" a ynw ;Go3 `9 0 og N C,� N ..• 6 "" :�` :' O 7 rte+ r-y� lo � � n as 'A r•; �:;:'�;;,, � CD O tl� N tS N �• CS y tF N .�+ i• t, N ti•oo a .0 00 n p y ° r• co �' °G 690- O� n • � X14 n .3 .< n n �ZO n � d 70 CID O to ok �'r IS. ta A 00 tz z o D;- CD CD O I r� E a 0 c ry zy O - ° = cod w y CD a a CD °p z wCoCD En r �' G1 O � a f° Vl Co C tza cD a U] H y Y a o CD o o ^ c < y CD Z H tj� tz t y a a m > � o ° a a r o b r ro R a - 0 7 z CD a C z C ^ CD Q�Q v CD m 5 CD A , M (D CD C C) n G7 C) o O' co b i i n ,-+ eo z a e� �S c .. a co co C N y CD CD fD offco'° C,5-. ° 9 dao cl N � a q y "✓ co f -. 7 n b w ,7 co co to r" co n o �•°o N o 9 � � v � VO 0 o cav �. Cri o � d p � N Q A w W Y N tI1 UQ 0. r, 3; •rS v O K � O n os �J _ ofl O � O �' "'j �, oma^.• p' a, co •,,,, CI p � n o• � �• n N .3 ton w '00 Y 0 n � 4 cin O •o w w R W o w y �l C � a 7 b a N z 0 z 4- CD � y� o o .e 3 AEl G7 b .; =..= oo m rocD fir:o < = O nCD CD 3 O COD CD oa - - V. H Y+' fD O v: : ': N H :::::� ►�.y tv o � � CD CO o G7 t7l bn z o ^ b a tzo z ao 5` CDril ac CD UQ z c n y G. 0 Z 5 � C O ��ac t w 00 w O� t a :p. coo r„ c r 70 ctv co w r � r � N /t 4 to .K cto N O � pfi n tJa b t'n ° O• Q � � tp. a co C7 � N � 0 w w w w t,n 3 G CD ac c JQ 0 n O M Q F� rR. p' G �' � pCD . CrJ b C o ti CD o r• r"T d ."� 7" O p ca w q0 0 pto CD �, a W 2 �'• �^ c civ ps y -y N 00 — 10 co co 80. C N � � `.3�. ^• p��, Q -tin p !�' �' < y co , ' C Q •e "+ o Ci'7 m N O C1 Z Q 0 Z to co b � cv tr1 UQCD y CP Q Q rte+ +r+npi l I D Co � Q a c o Uo c� 0 b d W i sire .�....,,."'.+•• ' "V H O O a o`$ Z a. • o � co c� � cu '+ .(gy �• N,p 6 co 're•+ �� a "�O � d G N y N ._;;;�cn •�, � o ccs -+ � a0•+ � � � p �S� V1 •� rn: CT qc "Y�'�;; r• Cly P� a m O•q O R bb -� � ab N H r b r* r• n � l c o g: b o� w � n ^ ;• z a o IIV cNc • o�KsNNA ?. ^ oCD 00, 0 o 0 cu r• O� 0 b CO FT'1 r ^3 � � r• w ^•tra ro ro � 9 b ° 9 0 0 r ,y ? co Gy ^d L c C1 Ca n c;l o a � � o ao �-c b d ro 0 00 � d 4 D r r `pOH r .p � � p•* �.. pa _ � . .�y n Cj"� �r• 7 `� C3 q �.°yy �' ~ tau `�+ p 11 j uq• r. N ,ts fD Ufl "�' ¢ C9 N h A W U'Q 01 en+ CV gyp•,. � d.gpry. O�• � �•po�• C�.-• is p O G Wh N N � 'Qa N N r95 • o �y q" + �' 'L1 O p�p�� ,.� P N r Vo r• r• r• too co Q J do b w C n• d G R. D 'O n r• P tD .�1 W "� .Y " q 5 oz O y H .moo O- ' `� �� r •}�+ oOy QO q O G G, -. n r O M N .:. n p pn O CO 0 O. rry -. O 1� H G sv O o4 �► c co CD `"' � w � "° � o w o. � �• tib ia 0 CRI g r `•.:'. � coo � � Cri co .: ro o. Y G 9 a d r• or— CD' y rH c7• n tz L' co O n Q �• 6 n d• D O n � .ti O 'O b w oa n A o .o cro vi '•cs � �' Ste•. ,O-. N*O � � 0 z rA n cr c0o O O. �• V✓ CD Co .•r Ht Cp toa a GS. to CDH b Co 00 w 00 :..; rA CO co co rr v.'y ;.;..: ac ? � Co - a ct !� 00 *o c!a 2 CD c tJa' � rrte�• pQy1 � ° v w �, c C n .» CD n to y,,• CD 0 W co .'»'?<'.'�".''.: w d �, +i It, to y 'cam -W. O 'Cf p co It b' O Ca y m � n O � CO On ¢ I O 'G CCD p < -1 UQCD G b a voo b U c n a Q' a •a w ma n N S~+ N p `�� ►ter � 3 a m � y °z 0 : 0 CD VQ CD a G7 '° o• •v a o °, p• o pro' �. °c � C7 ct, CD � oro �.•��, � H C o o o' •°• o' �' chi., o n G� z a Cn coc CDrfl z z EvCp s d W z 0 CD El a y a 'G •II Oo n A W w 5 A ^ H o � 0 :i:rpt o Z :� a• c9 � O �: p' A� d z !6 0 b N a• A? w O O to ►� MD �•C O O O ov w e d o co N• f9 �!} •'U H O ��-. CD 0 ;?"1$..• � �. 0.. a' cin m ca to ;w bd w 0 y � y 4t ry• 4.�y� i+1 z b � m a C r �a 9 ' z .`...M; r UQ �. p Q z a CD r� v', G tj m ro m n .a r. 2Z O CV 'lop y � � m � n w b � n y n � z N «O a � CCDrA O CD co 4.4 tp N �q• N_ CII 9 S ' CpyC •�-• ��...y{ PCD co aoco CD P3 cn 0 °. p ..�:.: CD cz m z � M z � m .� CD 0 CD a aCDCDm n 0 CL In C) d 00 i4 A O. a ro n. w O n �o w 114 M 7 41 �a r c� � � a 0 o ?, d, A d app 3 i,._•---ter v� N cv a K 'Z to. o r b COI n7 ar n 7C 'T� ��'' N o � e ro �• � coo 0o O y a o a o@ �. � 5a ° a H =f a• to _ o o G- coo �• �.� �'.� g � �' �' C cu 0 co VQ CD r f9 o c� g, c ro ° � �' o °y ��• o ^ C3 r• o coo � o v, C2'1 a 0 •, = b °o �s J r r r co C7 .p o .- r cTO C• co 0 A v a 3 "� �• ,�`r C9 OD to go CDD RS, � CL N ►+1 H cr ry CD t z ro .,�, O ' � .a H 5 o a'�• � - G.� a ' co Co on CO CL co tv oa b � cnCD co a A 00 g S c n CDtz �7 z:M C 'fl w 4 ^ m CD • y > 9 El Qw k1 QQ �. 'Q CD a 0 o : o � 0o v A b 'ss o co n•e oa G� O m :o o �o zu;: 1t rs O O O dq �0.,.• •� •-•• �Ci O r rxj N O %> .•G0 VO •- n p.I to u� TP o r d ; G `a co co csA G n .fl o N• QO •o 0 • � tJ °a O � R 0-4z 0 it#Q::: pt n OfDA,y p'' c CDCD tz ?:Mr:a •, � CD f6 t4 t/Z _ rz fD G. CD R � � o y t Z !11 ice+ CDaCD CD CD n n m R7 O R. o• o' w 00 n N Q � CO 00,10 ro n N go fr. � �. rr.• �' A � � p• � � ccI Pip $ �N Z Hb a. $ .. v CD C4, O r•h .� s ro Ncv l+s Gy �• r N G N G to CD 110 n `L G� ao O '°o tr1 a caro O,4 '�►- Cs. cv sy �° tri N G. d J N r• (7 N O co b w N w i.s K o t�j co C OQ y UQ b z a .CD � ° naayM"wro a co ° 9= co00 CD Tsco v' y $ POwCD .v 4 GJ to N fD ¢ b W` 22. co ¢ b a ¢. O O N Cl k n p {9 `" g y ° o v� E. to ° ° ° ° y G f9 A7 CT) ° w C) !��3 0 (v w w Q W co rn 't? y w tv `°j' O% ci `n o C,'�a co ,v cv m , ., CD Mp tD d N w ' cm O O n y @-� G) Coco 0 E; a ° C7 rn z � rn b > vCCD 0 r > z C rn C-D CM C 0 C) CD 3 ro � o �•bo ro d W w c4 w UQ 0. n y N z 0 (Co oCD C: 0 co < es y 0 no- � � � c g is w c � m o• a � ,� �'' � � � =' >�> �u c. Ly At v' E n N 5 cp tea .ti 0 0 co in :? rQ- a ° c0v c y coo a ° "' a r, o `d St 5. CD r� O O c4 t�'R C �' ,� Q' C7 '� p cc 0i. O � � O a to co o: >. :; w "" c oma a WD co CL co CD Y w CD , _ v, �7 w ten:::;,.>: .. o 0 a co coo q 'ti p 'D py ao oa H N Ory Oro v' cy0 CD a O dp b tti G o c9 p O ° A C7 N in a ° _[a v C. »+ � y a w C> CO CDC o n a0 F. .. to m CD aco CVP cu CD m z b n rn .� ° � C a o p' > < �• z < > CD z z CD 00 w cv m ° y 0 CD -� a c' b w oa rc 6n a w b y w y N z N O COD G ° m > � CrQCD C O wiiij d :> -, co ? 'U NOrQr� :ric::qr G N lD � o w O CA �C W n a bo > � y o O trJ ^ a b a o v � r a � 0S b o O Cro" z a � d M z CD a QQCD h CD � rn CD 0 n C CD CD a o a c: p -•cro d. w w o � b 9 � Z O ecr co yy z 5 c, a C'y Cr' O G. � � a:�: ►� � OG "IC, .. w a cD C. OR ^ y `' ~ W spy .. a' d n a• '. & C, co aco ° ca y �i o co G -, vo b ' o o a co <: n y c. o o a 0 r.#�»: as Oy «coy G H to G '• p "" `: Er a c •off � � aG, Cr1 CD z o � �• CD bio 7� Z A C9 OQ �«^ ro v Cil C ., 0 o n CD 0 o- w rn 5g 'IS cr log. Tg ar CO ry O lc� Jb An, 0 Zl� 00 E 7 ) � 2 nk \ 0-4 2 � � O U2 ::r 0 2 ��: W}. � o��% \ � w )® o p E qD _ §{k k 7 Co °00C k \ \ § &� C 9 UQ 2 ¢ E � � \� q o � � n m 2 o / 2... / 5 d > 0 / / 0 § E \ } � A 2 2 @ c 7R 9 / } � § Z n • � ® k \ } /2 c� a n y N O 1 "'• to CQ7 m �+ � ry a H ce y Q -V O � CD •C7 "a ,5 acro` C„r b a ° C CD tr1 y y CD n a n y CL 'oo o � d � � 0 y 0 a o N f O � OG 0 ^ °• 'icy y � � o� d �C ?. a � Q � Q r a• r- A N O� r a � & � A ■ � � k � . � - q9 IF , k � S \ �© a \ e � o a cD °- CD y � z 0 o S O A7 CCD N CDD , J y Oy � H r C O � � y a m 0 o � r a a -o � o C7 O � � C n CD C. a o 5� o� r. O� w . ® D m a . ? � � no # » "Cop to O air 2 noto / k ? % p � » � � Z3 � � $ « n \ � ƒ / �m 7 � } w O 7. •CS cv � � m a. n� r 0 Gam✓ G D a �o o ^ wN H o �„ d d N v n � � Nr• 2 � `o 150 r .,lop o �. tt �,o o � �• '� N d. b a N w oe W v� o '» O � z CD 0 CO" In"IJWQ ro 'n a aro o'v ^ o a cz. a cQya � =, oaa xi O y y yC.",-4 CrQ n v' 0 10 r.- p: (CRD _ co O d y ^» C ] cz . w co Er. m o -c a co CRI .» ►�y CD N tr y y O X ' Oa' fCJD ��, ,may G f9 c ti 0 ° C1 o CD' a � a � r a0 0 0 o o' r a � b oz CD CD z b � 0 m n �• cr b d w to OQ �+ a y c a w z A O o ° c y o cCD cr o o a _ < C G Qq 'b N b 0 O { I N A y p n c-9 C q Z �y N ^ IrD N w n H — CCD co o' �^' 00 CMhC�i7y A N to y r rjQ • yM CD ° o�.c w mGa ° CDCD C G1 M 'o n -o n z D a 0' M. C R 4 a � r > � >a CD � R � 0 a v o � o .o d wCD 0 0 CTJ G r. n O n n CD C� 0 Q. v, Oma•. w 00 n U J ' ` s � - � - ' ' - . ~ - � - � � - =~_ � 00 �, a n. H a H O z 0 o CD < Q o H • ..... CD ry !A •. :. ° rn+ A ten-. CD• C+ z c a CD eD co a o aro a a _ �E ct, Oc CD 0 CZ oro O Al O C, N G C• yi nq n CD °+ ..�. cr �+• :l Cl. 7C Vin a G 0 n O A y.dy O OrQ p` w. ►Y N .yy H y a - # F n: � � � rr•••v ° y. o � a coo �• �' r°Sy C~i� y CD CD CL w ro CD CD CD w CD tz CD rA >Aii L+ CD Oo. oo G7 OZ CD CD CD ^ 0 R L7 y s' y 9 r ° o ^ c ° Y EL z a CD rw-. y fD ° w n .ti ct CZ) aroCD z C H 0 C7 C 1 ro cD a C7 5 •a d w 0 ` ' +� ^ ` � � � p� ~ ' O to C6 00 yC o CD ti R CD UIQ cr o N w ,� o CD n a CD ° a y .. O z 0 HCD to z 00 CD o o aro >:cn; RL w ,a y;;; p aro o• �n o' a _ :;:�{: �• °<.'•.; ��•Co cp o 'iii; ?� <. cr CD R '^3 A aCA W Cl. ., ce bD p c, tri j:j.; o>: c ° = 6 tz co ° y y 0. aTo a CD Al N cn ° o 0 CrJ >::>o:: CD Vi:<•>I:<: W CD a C n n `J `l N ny ('D o °o a ° �•o0 d w J W C, c CA.C;" 'k -2111 coo to VC, 0 A N 9� 0, ov i-. V % a-OM 9 1;1 .9 amp'k p' 5 - V-1 tg, c I 0 Ic", S, O 0S. O IP ;b 90 rn co 1 O CD 00 wt 5 VI r'90 to NJ > -> c- CL CL CL 9 CO 0 Z; 0 00 ov za 0. cr m cc 05 10 El. m*' CD 13 o 5. M 1, 9 oA) wo on c q {pyt;- OR A p aC Ord - :L 0ro CD AD 0 9 CL _r 9 Z cr tG 4F A ,Ov =0 0 'a 1-7 0 t7 ro cr as CD G) z cr 0 z a a z n O civ CD d w a Oct ct 100. . � co MCD -001a OQ ati O W .ts ' � � � � �• •.`moi� � � � � •+ �t9 Vi P r' 0' f9 t9 N N n O, Cz'1 o b 0 ac rr O CD b a, ao 90;., /tlfla O CD y l o Q w n 00 Im ✓• Co p Z a -d �h .►'0 .y A ti d O dP� ✓ < civ P. G p ° n d G r. 0 'rG - , R'm O n b y.130 VII VQ- to +G r• .y d co a N S'G N O •d N - O r QQ v� pyo. cn •O @n' "� ,��,.. O ✓ Cao �+ N d g •,� � G., k�,y C-1 y •3 O� '.QS N-.0 ,wiry civ G�Q (jQ In N G (p P•, fD �^'•+Gsch cr c• ►� 0 14 ^ ^ d co a co co o � ^ 00 O "�' n ^ N p ✓ ap "� " Co titOwl- 04 •' G p x7 d O ✓ ^ r'� n co tv til � O �`O O co , Ell N t}• G O d U P= 3 00 co 0 o VO VO o CO co �UQ CIO Inc, 0 S .�Aa q q O as CD C, tv 07P ov CD V, tr CA rjQ G 110 CA co 10 Woo Wo rt co C, 1� 0 0- co w 0 co" P coo Co 00 tr .0o s 4C,, 00 ti 0 1, v �x ; �i 0 ;... 0 CA to IS o C ClD Ln cin O 0 m N � a N � � PO J y Z CL vc b O a z n opo �D O ply C cra n O (D AP h C n - n,.cr m CL 4, n' (b CD c� CD CA GL g CD O _ � y b � m Lo. Oo Z ° n. 5 tr1 n ,> a Q: b a � CA r b V � y 0 n n � b d C C rD C Q rD O CL CM � � a.• •� H w v � � fy .� .+• r• ri a` '�� d r. � O K � �• w' �• Q° •O ty cv cv pK H cob y P+ Q: co y c� 00 ce- °" � °e � o � �d � � v- �•Q� p °c, J; y O vi ('1 ^ co :. O+ CD UQ a v+ Cts ts •L � G N � ��.' a � "h iHf9 .meq N p1 \+�, 0 n � coo ¢' � ts• o 5 � f o, E.N a°Qr, ° ►-� Ci .�. � � ? �� r• a'r„ coo cn CO ttl ^ b H O O � � Q•� r ^ � t • 'fi,BVH" c° �•tf '3' „a � ..p o .s� l � �. o a � a � r• C19t9 ^ n ° °° r b b w a� w w O0 . e� a M y � � u (A O a o p z 0 CD M C CDD = O. C', 0• � f�P � � p� cD cn ?�• o P�' ^QQ m b O y y C O CD CD ro G. yp� n �a - Q ►�yy- pq' a d GCD CD CD •g cv ° (n dam y O coCO fD ° ►C CD � ' o . a a r•, a na " cpD o' 9 G7 CD y !9 N °» a qq a CD c cin C� 0 c til o CrJ o. r CD CD s, r a z CD O .j _a CD CID 0 C) �o o D p p oo o C) y o o� V a A 90 w r O C) CL CD Oro ° A� G CD �- a ZCD CD a ►-� o z a to 00 0 CD CD IV O o y p �•a�••� cao Vb" ^+ o ao'a o° ^. ,b a g' cs' y Wp 2 o CO fcpp y 0 7d Yn Oa NNf�BD (c�D �ry^tp .�- �, Oc�.� �•' tiy .. .:O' pvjO �O („�, M.'CO,0 , - n COD. (-D '0 yQ0 CD RQ r+ Q. yw CD C Q CO CD CD xwa o .o ap�• oFy oo' nhyriyl CD ` cc, to e ad L w co o co c ° ° Q oil y' Op -c (v'j Co d rrooc��oo �. •dFa � cCD y O -� ° o B co o y G C eo D. co Co CD JQ co o < o c� " co 0 ti, CD to A fD H bp� co "•f p 'L7 G 'I CD — p Q b co p Oa 43 CZ ". &' p C OQ G .d CLCD co 0 p w �, co aoco 00 co w c°4o o o CD �7 v > oCD CD b Czi7 o: o: of n C" b 0 b Q coo "ti o c' � b G o' cob rr El- G z a CD CD ."� "^" .spy (7 Q' qQ CD CD > ! o aro y b o ° b o ° C Ct7 Vo CD CD CD � -- 0 n n n n n n n n n z c CD O .. d a 00 Q. co Vp (A CU ,,. .s C, 0 co o A- W % y,' s ` t, ick o 0, co 0 114 to W S. 9� 1100 va %to 0 • UQ 0 nn. CP- S- co tp 0 f.d� �?.�Opp, � .o G � � ���'' N � lw 0i Qi 4 04 0. 60 S 5; UQ y Oo to EL ^ O tt �r fD CS. b s' z fD w� .7`N,,, G C{. fn � N � C fan C7• (may � CD r'! ri r`J K x'j f(„ F o (9 9 , B; ,0o - 0C z Co CD ; c °. a c (b Qrco cr' fnn ch � O CD cr ° c�a c o y �- CA o. ooao0 � 5' a NES; -+ o v1 C0 0'D ° n Q+ :•t r.3 CS o va V a N O a s :" F OR - n . rs a N c 0a. 0. 8ci - c°o � � me $ y 0 CL CD N CD CL aro CD CD a c c nO • • V • 0 = c o, o a • b ! z CD n o n coo .6 o. CD � a o ff o r b " .n 0 CD ru OOq 2 a a N Q C7 o a ro a• /✓-s 00 qQ .� 0 °v • r C N N O -� ro o So,,, (v r 110, � o� NI, G r a C7 H Fl'•� -'-- 0 - Q:i+ fD r �. N O tfC+ O'qQ r:: C r 'V- � N �.�{ n n N o N V �pb.D �✓ �' ti 7'� OIR, �� N v O 0 O ff, Q O M G n N N fl„ ✓' N 9� , W O P rat' ,✓tea �4 A C. N r ✓tfa v' �• CC9 CP �D r vA .01 O r Q. •d iA co Co O r Off' ^ O � .-� O� ;9• 5z' "(S04 ✓ oV 0 n deo n 7 do dd �. o •v O d H N � � O �3 d -. 1 5. ct, � G O O N O (!1 O �i .O•• ? N G C% VC. a �n Qu D a � pt t9 N O C0 fl C) wt io 1p n ' o so o' zay .. A3 O {may C9CP 91 v. � � �• �,` �, tr1 ioOQ v 0 0 Co ^ ro ✓ l" O O Q r r � o G V l N ,t Q.j/ • I y i,i a1 � O W .1. U O cnD CCD � Oo G7 CD ct a ~ w G G CA CD ZO d O ca-D CD d z o m c9• _a a a t. o .ter'. � co o co m 0 5 5 a w 't7 a D 5 _a co OQ ^, a $ Oro °: d`: i -01b n p ct C, CRO OrQ ^ .ny r"T•• � y W (no j C1 O CD G O tD y o " CDD � OQ i' 5 aQ f; ^. CD < M .wn- � .b A' o _� a' a s o c c� cr s.°o° o :AF, co OQ o cro 0 CD -, OCD zb O COH .� cD OrQ �, a c a 5'� o; $ � CD C'1 a o y � o a coCO c O cs cD 14 O a H o HtTj y. O CCD a. .c �. o �. CD tiQr O 5• cD c < c o y oOQ At 8 O co � �„�'b CD cyD ° r+ ►°y� CD e�'7. "n'1 A O ^ C3. co CD co co a tz 0 Gn y CD ^ OrQ „'+ CD qQ o co y ' Q CD f"3 4\,1, v o O ° CD a �v ^ o, Y C" bo' CD � co 0z a v n w n co ,T1 z CD O �. .o d b o. CD Cn -, - CD z n � n Z . . 0 �. n r; d � R 1 V f � G� a 1 0 z !j C co N.a a oo co 7� O to a a .y a cc' cwc Q f P„ R' w co coo o a o0 a' .,, o w y oCID, 0 CL a. = w°° �, N' o R " R n o 7d P e tz 1 w f c o r�o� a°c b Y co a °O ps tv r� m CD CD co 1 p CD i m a F- CD o b co ro 1 v a Z E I l �a d a a Iz n a no � o. UQ r ^c m l uo - V r w � c✓Go �. coo � � � C h ro .ri (� • t7' r• C1 ...•,.• Cp t�, 70 CD uo N r. O •� N s o O O• O � � d oo �� a 0 ��aQ d CD ON CD j O CD 0 rAt7 om.. i-i. M 0 C) 0 ca I E� C5 CD (A nE i COP) 0 0 " �n a -, CLQ. n W Otv 0 co ri 0 O �coo :3 m 0 .0 — tz 0CL CD 0 ^ 5 5 V5 z o CD C) co CD co i G �+ 9 O G1 w d C 9,yC fD r• N � u' o o �• � p �o