Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03212006 - D.4 l TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS \ Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR `�+�• County DATE: MARCH 21, 2006 SUBJECT: HEARING ON A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, A REZONING FROM L-I LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND A-2 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO P-1 PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 357,500 SQUARE FOOT BUSINESS PARK AND AN APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF. A MAJOR SUBDIVISION.FOR 18 LOTS, WITHIN WHICH UP TO 70 CONDOMINIUM LOTS COULD BE ESTABLISHED. THE SITE ENCOMPASSES 66.55 ACRES AND IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTHWEST OF THE WILLOW PASS ROAD/EVORA ROAD INTERSECTION IN THE CONCORD AREA. THOMAS/DeNOVA, LLC ;(APPLICANT & OWNER). COUNTY FILES #GP030001, RZ043151, DP043096 AND SD048918. (DISTRICT V) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. OPEN the pubic hearing and take testimony on the Willow Pass Business Park project. 2. CLOSE the public hearing. 3. FIND the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( QA), and ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Progr m. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON 4z APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHERS( V0tJE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT O ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED AYES: NOES: ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact:Will Nelson (925)335-1208 ATTESTED JOHN CULLE CLERK OF THE BOAR OF Orig: Community Development Department SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: Thomas/DeNova, LLC(Applicant, Owner&Appellant) Craig Andersen-Attorney County Administrators Office Clerk of the Board BY ,D UTY Public Works Department GIS File i i March 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and DP043096 Page 2 4. ACCEPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission (CPC), as contained in its Resolution No. 5-2006, which is attached as Exhibit 2. 5. ADOPT the Willow Pass Business Park General Plan Amendment (County File #GP030001), including the changes to the Land Use Element Map and the Land Use Element text amendment related to the creation of the M-10 Mixed-Use land use designation, as recommended in the CPC Resolution No. 5-2006 and illustrated on attached Exhibit 913, and include the adoption of the General Plan Amendment in the 1" Consolidated General Plan Amendment for 2006. 6. ADOPT the Rezoning (County :he #RZ043151) of the subject site from L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District to P-1 Planned Unit District, as recommended in the CPC Resolution No. 5-2006 and illustrated on attached Exhibit 9B, and APPROVE the Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File #DP043096). 7. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2006-04 giving effect to the aforementioned Rezoning, which is attached as part of Exhibit 1. 8. GRANT the appeal of Thomas/DeNova, LLC and APPROVE the Major Subdivision (County File #SD048918) with revised conditions of approval. 9. ADOPT the findings as contained in proposed Board Resolution No. 2006/36 as the basis for the Board's action, which is attached as part of Exhibit 1. 10. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. 11. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for application processing costs. Ill. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant requests approval of: (1) an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation for approximately 26.5 acres from Light Industrial (LI) to Mixed Use (M-10), change the land use designation for approximately 2.3 acres from Agricultural Lands (AL) to M-10, change the land use designation fogy approximately 2.2 acres from Open Space (OS) to M-10 and change the land use designation for approximately 9.4 acres from LI to OS; (2) an amendment to the text of the General Plan Land Use Element for the purpose of providing a description of the proposed M-10 land use designation; (3) a Rezoning of the entire 66.55-acre site from a mix of L-1 Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District to P-1 Planned Unit District; (4) a Preliminary and Final Development Plan to develop up to 357,500 square feet of office, retail, commercial and light industrial uses in no more than 18 buildings, five of which could be up to 68 feet in height; and (5) an 18-lot Major Subdivision that provides for the establishment of up to 70 condominium-type lots. Said subdivision was approved by the County Planning Commission on January 24, 2006 and appealed by the applicant on January 31, 2006 on the basis of disagreement with the requirements of16 conditions of approval. The site is located immediately northwest of the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road and immediately east of the Contra Costa Canal, in the Concord Area. IV. BACKROUND & REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION On October 24, 2004 the applicant'applied for approval of a Rezoning to P-1 Planned Unit District, an 18-lot Major Subdivision and a Preliminary and Final Development Plan for a 357,500 square foot mixed-use business park. March 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and DP043096 Page 3 General Plan Amendment The current General Plan land use designations for the site are Light Industrial, Agricultural Lands and Open Space. These designations do not allow for the type of commercial mixed-use development that is proposed, meaning a General Plan Amendment is required to implement the project. Business Park is a General Plan land use designation that is similar to the proposed M-10 Mixed- Use designation. The Business Park designation allows commercial, light industrial, office and limited retail uses (those retail uses which are designed to only serve the needs of the business park in which they are located). The applicant has indicated a desire for flexibility to establish a broad range of retail uses that would serve more than just the project itself (e.g. retail that serves a larger market area). The Business Park land use designation therefore is not appropriate, as it allows for retail aimed primarily at providing Iservices to employees within a business park. Thus is the rationale for creating the M-10 designation for this project; it allows the same uses allowed by the Business Park designation plus large-scale retail. The proposed change to the land use designations does not constitute a major shift in land use policy for the project site. Like the Business Park designation, the existing Light Industrial designation is similar to the proposed M-10 designation, the primary difference being that office and commercial uses would be explicitly allowed under M-10 whereas they are not explicitly allowed under Light Industrial. While the Agricultural Lands designation for approximately 2.3 acres would be eliminated, there would be a net gain of approximately 7.2 acres of lands designated as Open Space, which is a public benefit. Rezoning The current zoning designations for the site are L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District. The L-I District allows for a wide range of uses to be established, but each one requires prior approval of a Land Use permit, a process that normally takes several months. The A-2 District allows for the establishments of agricultural uses, not light industrial, office, commercial and retail uses. The 'A-2 District is also inconsistent with the underlying Light Industrial land use designation. The proposed P-1 District is essentially a combination of the conventional Office, Light Industrial, Controlled Manufacturing, General Commercial and Retail Business zoning districts in terms of the uses allowed. The applicant would benefit significantly from adoption of this Rezoning because a wider range of uses could be established in the proposed P-1 District than in any other zoning district and those uses could be established much more quickly because very few of them would require approval of a Land Use permit. The proposed uses are generally considered to be compatible with each other; they are often found together in business parks and light industrial areas. Adoption of this Rezoning (and approval of the accompanying Preliminary and Final Development Plan) would benefit the public primarily by eliminating the possibility of piecemeal development on a visually prominent site. The entire project would be subject to the same design guidelines and conditions of approval, which would result is a cohesive and visually harmonious development. i i March 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and DIP043096 Page 4 i BACKROUND & REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION — CONTINUED Major Subdivision The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into 18 lots, within which up to 70 smaller condominium-type lots could be established. This type of subdivision is common in business parks and light industrial developments. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Preliminary and Final Development Plan The applicant proposes development up to 357,500 square feet of office, commercial, light industrial and retail uses. Up to 18 major buildings could be constructed, five of which could be up to 68 feet tall. Permitted uses, building designs, building colors, parking and circulation layouts, lighting designs, signage designs and landscaping designs would all be regulated through the conditions of approval. The proposed development plan is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and is an essential element of the proposed Rezoning. County Planning Commission Hearing The County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed project on January 24, 2006. Prior to the hearing the applicant expressed objections to a significant number of the recommended conditions of approval. At the hearing many those objections were addressed to the applicant's satisfaction. After evaluating the project in its entirety, including all public testimony and evidence in the record, the Commission voted 6=1 to approve the subdivision portion of the project and to recommend that the Board approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary and Final Development Plan portions. However, objections remained to several of the conditions, causing the applicant to file an appeal of the subdivision approval. Those objections, along with Staff's responses, are discussed below in Section V-Appeal Discussion. V. APPEAL DISCUSSION The applicant filed an appeal of the Commission's subdivision approval on January 31, 2006. The appeal requested that Conditions of;Approval (GOA) Nos. 10, 16, 17, 18, 34, 41, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54, 62, 64, 69, 77 and 78 be modified;or eliminated. The appeal also cited "Condition of Approval I," which is not a condition, but an Advisory Note. The appeal is discussed below with the appeal points stated in italics and recommended changes to the conditions represented by.strikeouts for deletions and bold, underlined text for additions. COA No. 10 . Appellant respectfully requests thatjthe Board impose financial maximums on said Condition in that the unlimited financial structure imposed places a potentially financial hardship on the project. As an alternative, Appellant respectfully suggests that a $25,000 fee to the County of Contra Costa be paid as a full satisfaction of this Condition. County Ordinance Code Chapter 82-22, Child Care Facilities, is the basis for this condition. This ordinance applies to certain residential projects and commercial projects of 15,000 square feet or more. The requirements of this chapter are commonly imposed as a condition of approval. i i March 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and 6P043096 Page 5 The child care ordinance requires the applicant to prepare a study to determine child care needs in the area of the proposed project. Based on the results of the study the applicant may be required to construct a child care facility and/or pay a fee to mitigate. the project's child care impacts. The applicant has submitted a child care study prepared by the Child Care Council. Staff has reviewed the study and recommends that the existing language of Condition of Approval No. 10 be deleted and replaced with the following: 10. Prior to issuance of building permits for the primary building on each lot, the applicant or its successor shall pay a fee in the. amount of $2,380.00 to mitigate the project's impacts to child care facilities. In the event that lots are combined or that development in any way occurs across lot lines, then the fee due shall be equal to $2,380.00 multiplied by the number of lots involved. The total fee due for Willow Pass Business Park is $42,840.00. Because building permits have been issued for the building on Lot 1, the fee for that lot shall be paid prior to finalization of the building permit. The applicant has agreed to this revised condition of approval. COA No. 16 Appellant respectfully submits that the requested information has been previously provided to Contra Costa County Health Services. Further, Appellant asserts that the "open-end" financial obligation potentially could impose extreme financial hardship on the project. The potable water supply for the proposed project and the adjacent Frito Lay project would come from two onsite wells and would be delivered through a private distribution system. The Health .Services Department issued a domestic water supply permit on April 7, 2003 indicating that the applicant has demonstrated that the water system has sufficient source capacity to serve the anticipated water demand for at least 10 years. However, it is unclear how long the aquifer that supplies the project's wells will be capable of supplying an adequate quantity of potable water. As the anticipated life of the business park is much longer than 10 years, it is necessary to take steps to ensure that an adequate water supply will be available into the distant future. This condition implements Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, which was agreed to by the applicant on August 29, 2005 and was written to ensure that the wells were consistently monitored and that steps were taken to establish an alternative water supply in the event that the wells became incapable of supplying adequate potable water. Based on discussions with the applicant it appears .that the objection to this condition is the requirement to guarantee a five-year supply of water. The applicant is concerned that it may be quite difficult to demonstrate compliance analytically. Community Development believes that the mitigation measure could still be implemented if the word "guarantee" is substituted with the word "confirmed." Community Development recommends amending the condition as follows: 16. b. Alternative Water Supplies: Alternative water supplies shall be identified and described in detail. If testing indicates .that the recharge capability and/or the water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating or is expected to deteriorate to the point where the supply of potable water is no longer guaFaRteed confirmed for a minimum period of five years, then a hydrogeologic study shall be conducted to more precisely determine the condition of the aquifer. If the hydrogeologic study confirms that the recharge capability and/or the i March 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and DP043096 Page 6 water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating and that the aquifer can no longer be considered a reliable source of potable water, then the study shall project how long the aquifer will be able to meet the needs of the project. In order to ensure an adequate future water supply, the applicant shall either: (1) develop an additional, or possibly replacement water supply; or (2) begin the process of connecting to the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). COA No. 17 Appellant respectfully requests that�said Condition be modified to reflect the amended Condition of Approval No. 16, supra. i This condition requires the applicant to record a deed disclosure alerting future property owners to the requirements and procedures stated in the Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan that must be prepared in accordance with COA No. 16. While COA No. 16 is recommended for modification, said modification does not affect this condition. Therefore, Community Development recommends that this condition remain unchanged. COA No. 18 Appellant respectfully submits that said Condition should occur prior to initial certification of occupancy or completion of the initial structure. This condition requires the applicant to participate in an election to form. a special tax district for the purpose .of funding the additional police services necessitated by development of the project site. County ordinance requires such tax districts to be created as a condition of approval of all major subdivisions. The applicant requests that the timing for compliance with.this requirement be changed from prior to recordation of the Final,Map to prior to occupancy or completion of the initial building. The reason for requiring compliance prior to recordation of the Final Map is that an actual election is held to create the special tax district. There; must be a b/vo-thirds"yes" vote to pass the measure. Once the Final Map is recorded, the applicant could sell off lots, meaning that instead of needing the "yes" vote of one person or a small number of people, up to 47 votes could be needed to pass the tax (47 is two-thirds of the 70 condominium lots that could be created by this subdivision). By requiring completion of the election prior to recordation of the Final Map, the County is able to guarantee the establishment of the tax district because the applicant is the only voter and the applicant has a vested interest in completing the election; the subdivision cannot be recorded and the project cannot be completed otherwise. If the timing of the election is pushed back then it jeopardizes police funding for the area because it is much more difficult to ensure the "yes" vote required for creation of the tax district when there are significantly more voters involved.. The applicant has already submitted the fee and materials necessary to begin the election process. Community Development has scheduled an item on the Board's April 4,. 2006 agenda with the recommendation that an election date be set. The applicant's proposal for changing the timing requirement for this condition is not a viable alternative because the applicant has not proposed.a mechanism that offers the same assurances as the standard timing requirement that the tax district will be created. Therefore, Community I March 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and DP043096. Page 7 Development recommends that compliance with this condition be required prior to recordation of the Final Map, as approved by the Commission. COA No. 34 Appellant respectfully submits that there is absolutely no nexus between the Appellant's project and the Condition imposed for the benefit of the East Bay Regional Park District. Because of the project's traffic impacts, the applicant is required to construct improvements at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. The East Bay Regional Park District has indicated that the Delta - de Anza Regional Trail is planned to cross through this intersection. This condition requires the applicant to consult with the District, the City of Concord and the Public Works Department in order to ensure that the design of the intersection and the subsequent improvements do.not interfere with the District's ability to establish the planned trail crossing. For example, if the District plans for the crossing to bei 12 feet wide, then the.intersection should be designed to allow for a 12-foot crossing. The nexus for this condition is that the applicant is required to improve the intersection and those improvements have the potential to negatively impact the planned trail corridor. This condition implements Mitigation Measure TRAF-5, which the applicant agreed to on August 29, 2005. Because there is a clear nexus and because the applicant has already agreed to the requirements of this condition in :the form of a mitigation measure, Community Development recommends that the condition be retained as approved by the Commission. COA No. 41 Appellant specifically objects to the Condition prohibiting construction activities on Saturdays and state and federal holidays. Due to the location of the project, there is no nexus between such Condition and the project. Further, Appellant respectfully submits that said Condition is unreasonable and no evidence.was presented at the hearing supporting the requirement for said Condition. i This condition limits the hours of construction activities. The standard condition limits construction activities to the hours between 7:30 .a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and limits the hours of deliveries and transportation of heavy equipment to the hours between 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. It has long been County policy to prohibit construction activities on weekends and on state and federal holidays. A noise study was conducted during preparation of the Initial Study for this project and construction noise was identified as a potentially significant: environmental impact. By agreeing to Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 on August 29, 2005, the applicant agreed to limit general construction activities to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and limit pile driving and similarly noisy activities to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., as stated in the condition. The applicant has already agreed to construction hours that are more lenient than the standard hours that are normally imposed on projects. Though construction noise was identified as an impact, Staff found it appropriate to slightly relax the standard limitation on construction hours because the project site is somewhat secluded and because the proposed uses are not especially sensitive. However, as the project is built out, more and more people will be present onsite and they could potentially be exposed to construction noise I I I March 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and DP043096 Page 8 impacts. Therefore, Community Development recommends that the work hours the applicant agreed to and the long standing prohibition 'on weekend and holiday construction be retained as part of this condition, consistent with the Commission's approval. COA Nos. 44, 45 and 46: Appellant respectfully submits that issues related to the Proposed Conditions Nos. 44, 45,and 46 have been previously addressed in, the Deferred Improvement Agreement as per Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 203-706.- Public Works recommends that the improvements listed in Conditions of Approval Nos. 44, 45, and 46 be constructed with this entitlement, considering the project is subject to the requirements of Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code, fronts on Evora Road, and will gain access from Evora Road at four locations. Deferment of the construction of curb, sidewalk and street lights, as allowed by the Conditions of. Approval for the adjacent parcel's Land Use Permit LUP 2108-01 (Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2003/706), was to ensure that the frontage improvements would be constructed at the time the Business Park was to be constructed. Upon construction and acceptance of the, frontage improvements, the applicant will be exonerated from those requirements in the Deferred; Improvement Agreement recorded against the adjacent parcel (Assessor's Parcel Number 099-160.-027). Following discussions with the applicant and to be consistent with the language in the Deferred Improvement Agreement recorded 'on the adjacent parcel, Public Works recommends allowing a reduction in the sidewalk width along the project frontage of Evora Road from 6.5 feet to 5.0 feet. Therefore, Condition of Approval No:. 44 should be modified as follows: 44. The applicant shall construct concrete curb, 5.0- 6-.5 foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face to back of: walk), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Evora Road. The sidewalk shall be constructed with the face of curb set 20 feet from the centerline of Evora Road. To provide clarification for Condition of Approval Number 49, Public Works recommends the following changes as noted: 49. The applicant shall construct concrete curb, 5.0-foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face to back of walk), ;and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage along the southwesterly side of the Willow Pass Road extension (a private road located within proposed Lot A), from the intersection with Evora Road to the beginning of the proposed private road serving Lots.1 to 11. Similar to Condition of Approval Number 44, Public Works recommends that Condition of Approval Number 50 be modified to reduce the sidewalk width.to match that proposed along Evora Road as well as internally through the project'. 50. The applicant shall construct the proposed private road serving Lots 1 to 11 to County private road standards, with a minimum traveled way width of 30 feet within a 37-foot wide access easement and additional 5=foot wide public utility easements (PUEs) on each side. The i i i March 21, 2006. Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and D,P043096 Page 9 . I applicant shall construct 5.0 €r5 foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face to back of walk) along the southwesterly side of the proposed private road serving Lots 1 to 11. COA Nos. 53 and 54 Appellant respectfully submits that the requirements imposed by said Conditions were not satisfied by the evidence presented at the Planning Commission Hearing and, further, that said conditions impose an unlimited financial burden upon Appellant witch is unreasonable and is further supported by contrary evidence submitted by Mr. Charlie Abrams, Traffic Engineer for the Appellant. Conditions of Approval Nos. 53 and;54'are based on Mitigation Measures TRAF-3 and TRAF-4 that were included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project and were agreed to by the applicant on August 29, 2005. At the Commission hearing, Public Works Staff reiterated that the developer's financial contribution toithe. future. eastbound and westbound Willow Pass Interchange ramp signal improvements would be;limited to a fair share contribution. The fair share contribution at each ramp intersection has been determined based on the traffic trips generated by the proposed project, as determined by the traffic analysis prepared as a part of the CEQA analysis for the project. After discussions with the applicant, Public Works recommends modifying Conditions of Approval Nos. 53 and 54 as follows: 53. The applicant shall contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and State Route 4 Westbound ramps with protected left-turn phasing in all directions. The applicant's fair share shall be $55,000, which is based on the ratio of trips added to!this intersection by the project compared to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to use this intersection, as it is applied to the overall estimated project cost for the signal., s Gt-te +-e review ^e^ .t_(MM TRAF-3). 54. The applicant shall contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and State Route 4 Eastbound ramps with permitted left- turn phasing in the north-south direction and split phasing in the east-west direction. The applicant's fair share shall be $27,000, which is based on the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the project compared to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to use this intersection, as it is applied to the overall estimated project cost for the signal., s bjen4 tG the Fevie�, and apomyal of the Di ihlin\Rind% Depaptme Rt (MM TRAF-4). COA No. 62 Appellant respectfully submits that the design speed of"45 miles per hour"has been changed to "35 miles per hour" as the 45 mile per;hour Condition imposed is unreasonable and not supported by evidence. The posted speed along Evora Road, west of Willow Pass Road is 30 miles per hour. The applicant will be required to provide adequate;sight distance at any access points proposed along Evora Road for a Design Speed of 40 miles per hour. Traffic Engineering standards and conventions typically set the Design Speed at 10 miles per hour over the posted speed. This is a mandatory condition placed on virtually every applicant who proposes access onto a public or private road. This condition seeks to ensure that vehicles will be able to safely exit from any proposed driveways located along Evora i i i March 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and DP043096 Page 10 i Road. Based on the posted speed on Evora Road, Public Works recommends revising Condition of Approval No. 62 to read as follows: 62. The applicant shall provide sight distance at all private road intersections with Evora Road for a through traffic design speed of 45 40 miles per hour. COA No. 64 i Appellant respectfully requests that said Condition be deleted as the requested annexation has already occurred. The applicant has provided evidence and Public Works has confirmed that the subject parcels have been annexed into the County Lighting Service Area L-100 Lighting District. Therefore, Public Works recommends Condition of Approval No. 64 be deleted entirely. COA No. 69 Appellant respectfully requests that;the words "if legally possible" be added to the last sentence of the paragraph in that Appellant has no control over the United States Government property and such Condition is unreasonable. Public Works recommends that Condition of Approval No. 69 remain unchanged. The intent of this condition is to guarantee that the applicant ensures that post-project storm water runoff is detained on-site to effectively mitigate peak flows generated by the additional impervious surfaces created by the proposed project. If the applicant is unable to do so, they may be required to make improvements to the downstream: drainage system, as necessary, to mitigate any identified inadequacies. COA Nos. 77 and 78 i Appellant respectfully requests that'said conditions be eliminated in their entirety in that no financial maximums are placed on Conditions of Approval No. 77 and, further, that regarding Condition of Approval No. 78, the imposition of said Condition is not supported by any rationale presented at the hearing by staff. At the Commission hearing, Public Works Staff recommended Condition of Approval No. 77 be removed. The Commissioners voted to approve the project with all of the changes to the Conditions of Approval, as recommended by Staff. Therefore, approval of this project is no longer contingent upon satisfying this condition and it is recommended for deletion. Regarding Condition of Approval No. 78, after further review and discussions with the County Flood Control District, it has been determined that this development will not be assessed Mt. Diablo Creek Mitigation Fees, since it is downstream of Bailey Road. The fee was established based on a 1983 Engineer's Report calling for improvements to Mt. Diablo Creek upstream of Bailey Road. The proposed project is located downstream of that area and therefore should not contribute additional storm water runoff to the portion of the creek that requires improvements. Therefore, Public Works recommends deletion of Condition of Approval No. 78. i i i i March 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and OP043096 Page 11 Advisory Note I j The Advisory Note Item "I" is not:a Condition of Approval, but an advisory note informing the applicant of the Area of Benefit Fees, as adopted by Ordinance, that will be assessed on the subject parcel and that must be collected prior to issuance of a building permit. The Area of Benefit program gives the County the ability to collect fees to make targeted improvements, as identified in the engineers report within a specific region, based on estimated traffic impacts generated by proposed developments. This project lies within the boundaries of both the Bay Point and East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCRFFA) Areas of Benefit. Frontage or other improvements to be constructed as;required by the proposed Conditions of Approval do not qualify for fee credits. i In addition, Public Works recommends that the following condition should be added (after.Condition of Approval No. 67 in the Maintenance of Facilities subsection) to ensure that the applicant records a deed notification on all parcels created by this subdivision informing potential and future property owners of their obligation to maintain common facilities on-site. 67A. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property' owners of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadways, private drainage facilities, pedestrian facilities, private landscaped areas, private road street lights, and any other common on-site private facilities. VI. CONCLUSION I Community Development and Public Works Staff have evaluated the appeal and recommend changes to certain conditions of approval as described above. As conditioned, the proposed project substantially conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan. Potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. The proposed General Plan Amendment would neither result in a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, nor result in a violation of the Growth Management Standards. The proposed Rezoning to P-1 District is justified for the purpose of implementing the General Plan and allowing increased design flexibility to create a harmonious development. The proposed Major . Subdivision and Preliminary and Final Development Plan are consistent with the proposed P-1 District and the proposed General Plan Amendment. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution No. 2006/36, the revised conditions of approval and the mitigation measures for the project. VII. EXHIBITS 1. Board Resolution No. 2006/36 and Rezoning Ordinance No. 2006-04 2. County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Appeal Letter 5. CEQA Determination 6. January 24, 2006 Staff Report to County Planning Commission 7. Pertinent Correspondence 8. Notification List 9. Maps and Plans i i i I DA 03-21-2006 i ADDENDUM i I Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element Map and text, a rezoning from Light Industrial District(L-1) and General Agricultural District (A-2)to Planned Unit District (P-1), a Preliminary and Final Development Plan for a 357,500 square foot business park, and an appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve an 18-lot commercial industrial subdivision, Concord area. (Thomas/DeNova,LLC-Applicant& Owner)(CountyFile Nos. GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918,and DP043096). Ms. Kutsuris provided the Board with a!memo requesting acceptance of new material under the 24 hour expception provision of the Better Government Ordinance (attached), regarding modification of Conditions of Approval No. 51 and No. 66. The Board voted unanimously to accept the material. The Chair opened the hearing and invited comment. The following person presented testimony: Steven Thomas, Thomas/DeNova, LLC. i The Chair closed the public hearing. As motioned by Supervisor Glover and 1seconded by Supervisor DeSaulnier, by unanimous vote of all present (Supervisor Piepho absent), the Board approved the recommendations as presented, to include the revisions to Conditions of Approval #51 and #66 submitted today. i i i i I i i I I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _ 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925) 335-1210 Fax:.(925) 335-1222 TO: Members, Board of Supervisors FROM: Dennis M. Barry,.AICP, Community Development Director By: Catherine Kuisuris, Deputy Director i DATE: March 21, 2006 i SUBJECT: Request to Accept;New Material under the 24 Hour Exception Provision of the Better Government Ordinance 0 County Code Section 25-2.206 (Better Government Ordinance) requires that "all such staff material must be distributed to the policy body and be made available to the public 96 hours before the scheduled meeting." The Code allows the policy body,by d three-fourths vote,to waive these limits "when, in its judgment, it is essential to do so, providing that the County Administrator, appropriate Department Head, or staff member furnishes to the Board of Supervisors or other policy body a written explanation as to why the material could not be provided to the Board or other policy body and the general public within the above time limits." On March 20, 2006, the Community!Development Department received the attached memo from the Public Works Department identifying changes to proposed conditions. This memo reflects the discussions between the applicant and the Public Works Department. DMB/CK/mp i I I I i i i i i I I I future property owners of their legal obligation to underground the existinQ utilities along the project frontage of Evora Road in the form of a deed notification. I I Please call me at 313-2187 if you have any questions. I I MS: ms G:\GrpDnrr\r•.nSSve\Monish\2006\Marcl+\Willow Paso BP SD 048918 COA mo3.doe I cc: B.Bafhas,&ngineeriog Sorvicos E.WJW4, Services I i I I I i I I i i I I I I I I I I I i I - i. I - , i I i i I I i i i i I I .,h h `1 . i . �, 6 0� 6 o1u �o gcs � Ov cjo6� B anc OT Z d1n gzol� R , h , , \ , \ , , , r I. i THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA .Adopted this Order on Tuesday, March 21, 2006, by the following vote: AYES; �(l.�i NOES: i ABSENT: i I . ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2006/36 SUBJECT.: WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ) (COUNTY FILE#GP030001), A REZONING FROM L-I LIGHT ) INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND A-2 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL ) DISTRCT TO P-1 PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (COUNTY FILE ) #RZ043151), A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ) (COUNTY FILE#DP0143096) AND AN APPEAL OF AN APPROVAL OF ) A MAJOR SUBDIVISION (COUNTY FILE #SD048918) ) CONCORD AREA, DISTRICT V ) I WHEREAS, Thomas/DeNova, LLC (Applicant & Owner) proposed development of a 357,500 square-foot mixed-use business park, including the construction of 10 to 18 buildings, some up to 68-feet in height (the "Project") on six parcels with Assessor's Parcel Numbers 099- 160-015, -019, -020, -025, -028 arida -029 (together the "Subject Properties"), comprising +/-66 acres in the unincorporated Concord!area of Contra Costa County, for which an application was received by the Community Development Department on October 28, 2004; and I WHEREAS, for purposes lof compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a report dated August 2005 titled "Willow Pass Business Park Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration" (the "Initial"Study") was prepared to determine whether an environmental impact report should be prepared for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards, noise, transportation/traffic and utilities and service systems and the Initial Study recommended mitigation measures which would reduce each identified impact to a less than significant level; and i WHEREAS, on August 31, 21005 and again on October 14, 2005 the County published a Notice of Public Review and Intent to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which I I i I I I . j Notice recited the foregoing facts, indicated that the Applicant had agreed to accept each ' mitigation measure recommended by the Initial Study and started a period for public comments on adequacy of the environmental documents related to the Project that ultimately ran to November 28, 2005; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 24, 2006, during which the Commission fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter and forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve the project as contained in its Resolution No. 5-2006; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated.January 30, 2006, Andersen & Bonnifield filed on behalf of the applicant/owner Thomas/DeNova, LLC, ari.appeal of the Commission's decision to approve the Major Subdivision citing objections to the requirements of Conditions of Approval No. 10, 16, 17, 18, 34, 41, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54162, 64, 69, 77 and 78; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors ("this Board") takes the following actions: 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.), and the County's own CEQA Guidelines (together, "CEQA"); this Board FINDS that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") is adequate for the purposes of compliance with CEQA and ADOPTS the MND for the Project. In support of these actions and conclusions, this Board ADOPTS the CEQA Findings. This Board ADOPTS these findings specifically for each of the Approvals and Entitlements it approves for the Project. i This Board certifies that it has been. presented with the Initial Study and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and the other information in the record prior to.making the following recommendations, determinations and findings. The Board further certifies that the Initial Study reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Initial Study has been completed in compliance with the CEQA Regulations. 2. ADOPTS the proposed General Plan Amendment (County File #GP030001) as part of the Is' Consolidated General Plan Amendment for 2006, which changes the General Plan Land Use Element Map land use designations for the Subject Properties from a combination of Light Industry (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL) and Open Space (OS) to a combination of Mixed Use (M-10) and Open Space (OS) as illustrated.on the map titled "Exhibit 9B" which is attached and updates.the text of the Land Use Element to describe the M-10 land use designation. Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 2 i ' i i 3. ADOPTS the proposed Rezoning (County. File #RZ043151), changing the zoning designation of the Subject Properties from L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District to P-1 Planned Unit.District. 4. ADOPTS the proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan (County File #DP043096) subject to the. conditions of approval as recommended by the County Planning Commission and subject to the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and the Board ADOPTS the findings contained herein supporting this action: I 5. GRANTS the appeal and approves the Major Subdivision (County File #SD048918) subject to the revised conditions of approval as recommended by Staff and subject to the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and this Board ADOPTS the-findings contained herein supporting this action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for these actions are as follows: FINDINGS 1. Growth Management Element Performance Standards A. Traffic: A traffic analysisprepared by LSA Associates, Inc. was incorporated into the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project. The analysis was conducted ; and prepared in . accordance with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's;technical standards and procedures. Level of Service (LOS) impacts were identified at three unsignalized intersections in the study area. All of these intersections currently operate at an unsatisfactory LOS during at least one peak hour. Impacts to these intersections would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through the installation of traffic signals and changes in intersection geometry. These intersections will operate; at satisfactory LOS after the mitigation measures are implemented. The IS/MND was sent ;: to the Regional Transportation Planning Committee (TRANSPAC) and Caltrans for comment. No comments were received from the TRANSPAC. Caltrans commented on the adequacy of the traffic analysis. Caltrans' comments and concerns have been addressed by the Transportation Planning Division of the Community Development Department, which is satisfied that the content and conclusions of the traffic analysis are correct. Based on the conclusions of the traffic analysis, implementation of the Project would not violate the traffic service objectives identified in .the Central Contra Costa County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. B. Water: The Subject Properties lie within the service area of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The Project proposes to draw all necessary water from onsite wells and the Contra Costa Canal consistent with the November 2005 raw water service agreement between the applicant and CCWD. The County Health Services Department has issued a permit to operate the wells for 10 years. The Project is conditioned to Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 3 i I require annual monitoring and reporting on the condition of the wells and their ongoing ability to provide the Project with adequate quantities of potable water. Should this reporting indicate that the wells are no longer a reliable source of water, then the Project is required to develop an alternative source of water, possibly by connecting to the CCWD. The CCWD has indicated that it is capable of.providing potable water to the Project. C. Sanitary Sewer: The Subject Properties lie within the service area of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD). The DDSD has indicated that its treatment facility has available capacity to accept and treat wastewater from the Project. However, the sewer infrastructure between the Subject Properties and the treatment facility can transfer only 42,640 gallons per day (GPD). Therefore, development is limited to a combination and square footage of uses that would.produce no more than 42,640 GPD of wastewater. The DDSD reviews all development proposals and therefore is in a position to verify that the wastewater limit isnot exceeded. D. Fire Protection: The Project site is within the service area of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District. The District requires that each building be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. I E. Public Protection: The Project does not include .a residential element, so the Sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 population is not affected. It would be necessary to provide additional patrol in the area as a result of the Project. The Project's conditions of approval require the creation of a special tax district for the purpose of financing additional police services. F. Parks and Recreation: The Project does not include a residential element, so development of new neighborhood parks is not required. G. Flood Control and Drainage: The Subject Properties are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Project design includes onsite drainage infrastructure, including a freshwater pond, a 3.5 acre-foot detention basin and bioswales that would convey and filter storm water runoff. Through the conditions of approval, the Project is required to: 1. Meet the"collect and convey" regulations of Title 9 of the County Code; 2. Verify that the detention basin and freshwater pond are adequately sized to meet the drainage demands of the site. II. Findings to Adopt a Rezoning A. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Protect Finding: The applicant requests approval of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use map to change theland use designation for approximately 26.5 acres from Light Industrial (LI) to Mixed Use (MU), change the land use designation for approximately 2.3 acres from Agricultural Lands (AL) to MU, change the land use Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 4 i I designation for approximately 2.2 acres from Open Space (OS) to MU and change the land use designation of approximately 9.4 acres from LI to OS. The text of the General Plan would also be amended to make it consistent with the changed land use designations. The.proposed Mixed Use ;land use designation is designed to allow for flexibility to establish a range of uses 'that are normally allowed in areas designated Light Industrial, Commercial and, Office. Establishment of this Mixed Use area necessitates . the creation of a special oning district that permits the desired range of uses and establishes standards to ensure that development is harmonious and compatible both internally and with the surrounding uses. The applicant, therefore, requests approval of a rezoning of the entire 66.'55-acre project site from L-I Light Industrial District and A- 2 General Agricultural District to P-1 Planned Unit District. The proposed P-1 zoning;district, together with the accompanying Preliminary and Final Development Plan, describes the types of uses that would be permitted as well as the development standards:that would be imposed. All of these uses can be categorized as office, commercial or light industrial in nature. Therefore, the proposed uses are consistent with the proposed Mixed Use designation. In terms of development standards, the conditions! of approval for the proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan (PFDP) include regulations governing total square footage to be developed, ratios of land uses, parking design, landscaping design, lighting design, fence and wall design, Building design including permitted colors, massing and architectural consistency, signage design and preservation of open space. The General Plan contains numerous policies, goals and objectives that apply to the entire County and thus, generally apply to the proposed project. As conditioned, the proposed project will be 'consistent with those polices, goals and objectives. The proposed project is particularly consistent with the following Land Use Element policies: 3-5 New development within the unincorporated areas of the County may be approved, providing growth management standards and criteria are met or tali be assured of beingimet prior to the issuance of building permits in accordance with the growth management.. 3-6 Development of all urban uses shall be coordinated with provision of essential community services or facilities including, but not limited to, roads, law enforcement and fire protection services, schools, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. 3-30 A variety of appropriately-sized, well located employment areas shall be planned in order that industrial and commercial activities can contribute to the continued economic welfare of the people of the County and to the stable economic and tax bases of the County and the various cities.. Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 5 I 3-41 The continuing orderly development of research facilities, regional offices and light industrial uses shall be encouraged in designated areas in order to improve the economic base and provide local employment. 3-42 Industrial development shall be concentrated in select locations adjacent to existing major transportation corridors and facilities. Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the proposed rezoning will substantially comply with the General Plan, as proposed for amendment. i B. Required Finding: The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Findt?Zg: The uses 'authorized by the proposed rezoning are office, commercial and light industrial in nature. In urban areas these types of uses are commonly found in close proximity to each other and can be considered to be compatible with each other, so long as they do not emit;excessive quantities of dust, smoke,fumes, noise or brilliant light or are otherwise. offensive.to the senses, or are of a kind or quality that their operation interferes with the development or enjoyment of adjacent or nearby property. Compliance with the development standards outlined in the conditions of approval for the Preliminary and Final Development Plan, as well as codes and regulations imposed by other governmental agencies, would ensure internal compatibility between the uses. The Subject Properties total 66.55 acres, but only 31 acres would constitute developable parcels. Immediately west of the developable parcels is the Frito-Lay site, which is zoned Light Industrial and is the future location of a distribution facility of approximately 100,000 square feet. This use would.be compatible with the proposed uses due to its industrial nature and its distance from the nearest proposed building pads, which would be approximately 550 feet from the distribution center itself. Further west and also south beyond State Rodie 4 is the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS). The Inland Portion of the CNWS will soon be deactivated with redevelopment to follow. The proposed uses on the Inland Portion of the CNWS property that will be located in closest proximity to the proposed project are unknown at this time. The zoning districts to the north and east of the Subject Properties are A-4 Agricultural Preserve District and A.-2 General Agricultural District, respectively. Private agricultural uses lie to the northwest and PG&E's Los Medanos Gas Storage Field lies to the north. State-owned land lies to the east. The undeveloped portion of the Subject Properties would be preserved as deed restricted open space. These deed restricted areas would buffer the developable portion of the Subject Properties from the private and PG&E properties. Due to distance, the proposed uses and the existing uses to the north and northwest could not affect each other. The land to the east is steep and undeveloped. The A-2 zoning primarily authorizes agricultural uses. Given the topography, the only agricultural activity that.could reasonably be located in close proximity to the Subject Properties would be grazing, which is compatible the proposed uses. Board Resolution No. 2006%36 Page 6 i i I i Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the uses authorized or proposed in. the land use district are compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts. C. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the'use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Project Finding: The Applicant has submitted an economic feasibility study which indicates that there is a high demand amongst small businesses to own their own real estate and that,the market in this area of the county is lacking available properties. In addition to leasable office;and retail space, the Project would provide condominium- type spaces that would be available for sale to these businesses. Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, community needs have been demonstrated for the uses'roposed. III. Findings for Adoption of a' Planned Unit District (P-1) and Approval of a Final Development Plan i A. Req g� Pl?Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. Project Finding: Portions of the necessary infrastructure have already been installed and construction of.a 28,827 square foot building has begun on Lot 1. Development plans have been submitted for Lot 12 and Lot 13. Staff anticipates that construction would begin on these lots soon after the Final Map was recorded. Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the Applicant has begun construction and intends to continue construction within two and orae-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. B. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. i Project Finding: The Project site has General Plan designations of Light Industrial, Agricultural Lands and Open .Space. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the General Plan as it is proposed for amendment, as explained in Section H.A of these Findings. Based on the entire record and a summarized herein, the proposed Planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan, as proposed for amendment. C. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with.the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. I i Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 7 i i Project Finding: The proposed project does not include residential uses. The Project's conditions of approval specifically prohibited the establishment of residential uses of all kinds. D. Required Findin. : The development of a harmonious plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of the Code. Project Finding: As explained in Sections H.A. and H.B. above, all aspects of Project development are regulated through the conditions of approval for the Preliminary ad Final Development Plan (PFDP) and as a result of this regulation the proposed mix of uses is found to be compatible. Under conventional zoning the proposed mix could only be established following approval of numerous Land Use permits. The granting of various approvals over an indefinite time span would amount to piecemeal development of the Subject Properties ;and could easily result in a hodgepodge of architecture, colors and other elements; of design. This would not only be detrimental to the site itself, but also to the surrounding areas, as the site is prominently located and highly visible. Bringing all development on the Subject Properties tinder the umbrella of the proposed P-1 zoning district and PFDP allows for the customized design criteria to be established that assure compatibility of uses and design consistency and also facilitates the protection of approximately 36 acres of adjacent open space. Together these functions of the P-1 district and PFDP result in the development of a harmonious plat? that would not be possible under conventional zoning. Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the development of a harmonious plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of the Code. IV. Findings to Approve a Tentative Map A. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Project Finding: As demonstrated in Section V of these Findings, the proposed project (which includes a tentative map) is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed. for amendment. There are no specific plans applicable to the Subject Properties. Based on the entire record and a summarized herein, the tentative map is consistent with the County General Plan, as it is proposed for amendment. B. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Project Finding:. As required by the conditions of approval and the Mitigation? Monitoring Program, the :tentative map shall fulf?ll all applicable County imposed construction requirements.;The conditions of approval are written such that the project cannot advance past certain stages of implementation (i.e. filing of the Final Map. i Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 8 i I I issuance of grading permits, issuance of building permits) until construction requirements have been satisfied. Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the proposed subdivision fulfills construction.requirements. I V. General Plan Consistency ; A. The Project, which includes the. General Plan.Amendment, is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Amendment approved for this Project will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. The General Plan Amendment and the remainder of the General Plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the County. The various land uses authorized for the Project, and each of its components, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. The Project is compatible with and conforms to the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the; General Plan. The Project will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. The Project is compatible with, and does not obstruct, General Plan goals and policies. The Project is in harmony with the policies of the General Plan. B. This Board has considered the effects of the Project on the employment needs of the region and balanced those;needs against the public service needs of County residents and available' fiscal and 'environmental resources. The Project helps to achieve a desirable balance. The Project provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling;opportunities. The Project is in harmony with surrounding land uses, and the site as designed for the Project is physically suitable for. the development proposed. C. The General Plan comprises many objectives, policies, principles, programs, standards, proposals and action plans; (collectively "policies"), as well as performance standards. At times the policies necessarily compete with each other. Examples of the tensions between General Plan policies are found between those policies that-promote managed growth, and those that provide for protection of resources that exist because land is undeveloped (such as open space, visual resources and agricultural land). As part of approving the Project, all applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the Project conforrns to each of those policies have been considered. D. This Board has fully evaluated the extent to which the Project achieves each policy, including those pertaining ;to compatibility of land uses, compliance with principles of the Urban Limit Line and Measure C-1990, protection of open space, standards regarding geology, soils and earthquake risks, hazardous materials, flood hazards and drainage, protection of water quality, protection of biological resources, transportation standards and goals, regional and local housing needs, jobs/housing balance, noise, protection of air quality, protection of visual resources, standards for public services and utilities, and protection of archeological and historical resources. This Board has fully considered the Project's compliance with all performance standards in the General Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 9 i i Plan, including the Growth Management Element policies and standards (including those for traffic levels of service), and performance standards for public services and facilities. This Board has ialso fully considered the project's impact in relation to the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard and determined that said standard would not be violated due to a net gain of approximately 3.9 acres of land designated for non-urban uses. E. This Board finds that through the development of the mixed-use business park, the Project will support General Plan policies, including: (1) the establishment of appropriately sized, welllocated employment areas planned for industrial and commercial activities that i will contribute to the continued economic welfare of the people of the County and to the stable economic and tax bases of the County; (2) the development of employment centers that are designed to be compatible with the nature of the surrounding area; (3) to provide commercial areas of appropriate size and location to accommodate the needs of the present and anticipated population in each subregion of the County; and, (4) to promote the implementation of job infill development and related goals and policies of the General Plan. F. In order to fully implement the change in General Plan under the Mixed Use land use designation for the subjecti properties, this Board finds that it is appropriate to amend the text of the General Plan Land Use Element. at page 3-22, adding new text as follows: "J. Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use (M-10) The Willow Pass Business Park Mixed-Use designation has been applied to a group of properties known as the Lesher and Steuli properties located on Evora Road, immediately east;of the Contra Costa Canal and north of the intersection of Evora Road/Willow Pass Road. The intent of this designation is to create a broad- based commercial development that allows for the establishment of a wide range of light industrial, retail, office and service-oriented uses. Development on this site is limited to 357,500 square feet in a ratio of uses stated in the approved Preliminary and Final l Development Plan (County File #DP043096) and Major Subdivision(County File#SD048918)permit. This designation does not apply to the 15.42-acre "Frito-Lay""properties. This Board finds that this text change will not cause any internal inconsistency with the remainder of the General Plan. i VI. Measure C-1988 and Related Resolutions A. This Board has considered the Project's compliance with the traffic service objectives of Measure C-1988, the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions. j. . Board Resolution No. 2006/36 i Page 10 i i B. Measure C-1988 established a Growth Management Program, "to.assure that future residential, business. and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth." The Program requires the County to adopt Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Standards keyed to types of land use, and to comply with the adopted. standards; to "adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth;" to participate in the forum established by the Authority to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts, using the CCTA computer model; and to develop an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels. C. The County has complied with all these requirements. Most important, the County is achieving Measure C-1988's overarching goal that development pay its own way. The County has identified Project mitigations to ensure that the Applicant will defray the cost of those improvements that are proportionately attributable to the development. 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 dat shown. ATTESTED: �<e 4,_z JOHN CULLEN, Clerk of the Board of upervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy i i Contact: Will Nelson (335-1208) cc: Community Development Department CAO County Counsel i I RESOLUTION 2006/36 i i . Board Resolution No. 2006/36 Page 11 i i. �, i �� '� tt�', �, '� . i ;, ' i '. i I '!� i' �,� ''i i it' %, ,l i i �I ', �. �� �' i Findings i L-I Rezone From A-2 To P-1 Concord Area I, D. Snyder Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of pages' F-15, F-16 of the County's 2005 zoning map_ indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of Thomas/peNoyo- R7043151 i i ATTEST: Secretary of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission,StateofCalif. I ORDINANCE NO. 2006-04 (Re-Zoning Land in the Concord Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page F-15, F-16 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map(Ord. No.2005-03) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see alsoCommunity Development Department File No._ RZ043151 ) A-2 j General Agriculture =;. FROM: Land Use District L-I Light Industrial I TO: Land Use District P-1Planned Unit District and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec.84.2.003. A-4 .................. �............ A-2, L-i �. City of o ncord o 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,.t%/�� '� //0 a newspaper published in this County. PASSEDon� �/G�i 2/ �7OV(11:bythefollowing vote: Supervisor Ave i No Absent Abstain 1. J.Gioia 2. G.B.Uilkema ( ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. M.N. Piepho ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. M.DeSaulnier 5. F.D.Glover (yt) ( ) ) ( ) ATTEST: John Cullen, County Administrator and Clerk f the Board of Supervisors h irman of the Board By Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 2006-04 RZ0431 1 Thomas,/DeNova I \ • 11 �1 6 1 . 5 1AAIIII , \��\ `1 '� �•,\ \��.\ ;� �\ �\ 't �� � 1 '� �' `` �` �� ,l 1 i �`\ �\ �+ 1� �\ t `\ �� ., `\� \�� i i RESOLUTION NO. 5-2006 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REQUESTED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, FINAL DEVELOPMENT PIAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE "WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK" PROJECT IN THE CONCORD AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, Thomas/DeNoya, LLC (Applicant & Owner) proposed development of a 357,500 square-foot mixed-use business park, including the construction of 10 to 18 buildings, some up to 68-feet in height (the "Project") on six parcels with Assessor's Parcel Numbers 099- 160-015, -019, -020, -025, -028 and -029 (together the "Subject Properties"), comprising +/-66 acres in the unincorporated Concord area of Contra Costa County, for which an application was received by the Community Development Department on October 28, 2004; and WHEREAS, for purposes ; of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a report dated August 2005 titled "Willow Pass Business Park Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration" (the "Initial Study") was prepared to determine whether an environmental impact report should be prepared for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards, noise, transportation/traffic and utilities and service systems and the Initial.Study recommended mitigation measures which would reduce each identified impact to a less than ;significant level; and WHEREAS, on August 31, 2005 and again on October 14, 2005 the County published a Notice of Public Review and Intent;to Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, which Notice recited the foregoing facts; indicated that the Applicant had agreed to accept each mitigation measure recommended by the Initial Study and started a period for public comments on adequacy of the environmental documents related to the Project that ran to November 28, 2005; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 24, 2006, during which the Commission fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission ("this Commission") takes the following actions: 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State. CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. 515000 et seq.), and the County's own CEQA Guidelines (together, "CEQA"), this Commission FINDS that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("NIND'') is adequate for the purposes of compliance with CEQA and ADOPTS the MND for the Project. In support of these actions and conclusions, this i I . i I I Commission ADOPTS the CEQA Findings. .This'Commission adopts these findings specifically for each of the Approvals and Entitlements it approves or recommends for approval for the Project. This Commission certifies that it has been presented with the Initial Study and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and the other information in the record prior to making the following recommendations, determinations and findings. The Commission further certifies that the Initial Study reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis, and that the Initial Study has been completed in compliance with the CEQA Regulations. 2. Recommends to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the proposed General Plan Amendment (County File #GP030001) changing the General Plan land use designations for the Subject Properties from a combination of Light Industry (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL) and Open Space (OS) to a combination of Mixed Use (M-10) and Open Space (OS) as illustrated in the map attached as Exhibit B, with an accompanying text amendment describing the M-10 designation and recommends that,the Board ADOPT the findings. 3. Recommends to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the proposed Rezoning (County File #RZ043151), changing the zoning designation of the Subject Properties from L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District to P-1 Planned Unit District. 4. Recommends to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the proposed Final Development Plan (County File #DP043096), subject to the mitigation measures contained in the MND for this project and subject to the conditions of approval for this project. 5. APPROVES the Vesting Tentative Map (County File #SD048918), subject to the mitigation measures, conditions of approval and adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning by the Board of Supervisors, and this Commission ADOPTS the findings supporting such;approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for these recommendations are as follows: FINDINGS 1. Growth Management Element,Performance Standards A. Traffic: A traffic analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. was incorporated into the Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project. The analysis was conducted I and prepared in accordance with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's;technical standards and procedures. Level of Service (LOS) impacts were identified at three unsignalized intersections in the study area. All of these intersection currently operate at an unsatisfactory LOS during at least one peak hour. Impacts to these intersections would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 Page 2 the installation of traffic signals and changes in intersection geometry. These intersections will operate at satisfactory LOS after the mitigation measures are implemented. The IS/MND was sent to the Regional Trarisportation Planning Committee (TRANSPAC) and Caltrans for comment. No comments were received from the TRANSPAC. Caltrans commented on the adequacy of the traffic analysis. Caltrans' comments and concerns have been addressed by the Transportation Planning Division of the Community Development Department, which is satisfied that the content and conclusions of the traffic analysis are correct: Based on the conclusions of the traffic analysis, implementation of the Project would not violate the traffic service objectives identified in the Central Contra Costa County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. B. Water: The Subject Properties lie within the service area of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The Project proposes to draw all necessary water from onsite wells and the Contra Costa Canal and the CCWD is supportive of that plan. The County Health Services Department has issued a permit to operate the wells for 10 years. The Project is conditioned to require annual monitoring and reporting on the condition of the wells and their ongoing ability to provide the Project with adequate quantities of potable water. Should this reporting indicate that the wells are no longer a reliable source of water, then the Project is required to connect to the CCWD. The CCWD has indicated that it is capable of providing potable water to the Project. C. Sanitary Sewer: The Subject Properties lie within the service area of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD). The DDSD has indicated that its treatment facility has available capacity to accept and treat wastewater from the,Project. However, the sewer infrastructure between the Subject Properties and the treatment facility can transfer only 42,640 gallons per day (GPD). Therefore, development is limited to a combination and square footage of uses that would produce no more than 42,640 GPD of wastewater. The DDSD reviews all development proposals and therefore is in a position to verify that the wastewater limit isl not exceeded. D. Fire Protection: The Project site is within the service area of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District. The District requires that each building be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. E. Public Protection: The Project does not include a residential element, so the Sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area and support facilities per 1,000 population is not affected. It would be necessary to provide additional patrol in the area as a result of the Project. The Project's conditions of approval require the creation of a special tax district for the purpose of financing additional police services. F. Parks and Recreation: The Project does not include a residential element, so development of new neighborhood parks is not required. County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 Page 3 G. Flood Control and Drainage: The Subject Properties are not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Project design includes onsite drainage infrastructure, including a freshwater pond, a 3.5 acre-foot detention basin and bioswales that would convey and filter storm water runoff. Through the conditions of approval, the Project is required to: 1. Meet the "collect and convey" regulations of Title 9 of the County Code; 2. Contribute to the drainage deficiency fund for Mt. Diablo Creek at rate of$0.25 per square foot of new impervious surface area created by the development.; and 3. Verify that the detention basin and freshwater pond are adequately sized to meet the drainage demands of the site. II. Findings to Adopt a Rezoning A. Required Finding: The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan. Project Finding: The applicant requests approval of an amendment to the General Plan Land Use map to change the land use designation for approximately 26.5 acres from Light Industrial (LI) to Mixed Use (MU), change the land use designation: for approximately 2.3 acres from Agricultural Lands (AL) to MU, change the land use designation for approximately 2.2 acres from Open Space (OS) to MU and change the land use designation of approximately 9.4 acres from LI to OS. The text of the General Plan would also be amended to make it consistent with the changed land use designations. The proposed Mixed Use land use designation is designed to allow for flexibility to establish a range of uses that are normally allowed in areas designated Light Industrial, Commercial an'd Office. Establishment of this Mixed Use area necessitates the creation of a special zoning district that permits the desired range of uses and establishes standards to ensure that development is harmonious and compatible both internally and with the surrounding uses. The applicant, therefore, requests approval of a rezoning of the entire 66.155-acre project site from L-I Light Industrial.District and A-. 2 General Agricultural District to P-1 Planned Unit District. The proposed P-1 zoning; district, together with the accompanying Preliminary and Final Development Plan, describes the types of uses that would be permitted as well as the development standards that would be imposed. All of these uses can be categorized as office, commercial or light Industrial in nature. Therefore, the proposed uses are consistent with the proposed Mixed Use designation. Int terms of development standards, the conditions of approval for the proposed Preliminary and Final Development Plan (PFDP,) include regulations governing total square footage to be developed, ratios of land,uses, parking design, landscaping design, lighting design, fence and wall design, building design including permitted colors, massing and architectural consistency, signage design and preservation of open space. County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 Page 4 i The General Plan contains nunlerous policies, goals and objectives that apply to the entire County and thus, generally apply to the proposed project. As conditioned, the proposed project will be consistent with those polices, goals and objectives. Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the proposed rezoning will substantially comply with the General Plan, as proposed for amendment. B. Required Finding: The uses authorized. or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts. Project Findin: The uses authorized by the proposed rezoning are office, commercial and light industrial in nature. In urban areas these types of uses are commonly found in close proximity to each other and can be considered to be compatible with each other, so long as they do not emit excessive quantities of dust, smoke.,fumes, noise or brilliant light or are otherwise offensive to the senses, or are of a kind or quality that their operation interferes with the development or enjoyment of adjacent or nearby property. Compliance with the development standards outlined in the conditions of approval for the Preliminary and Final Development Plan, as well as codes and regulations imposed by other governmental agencies, would ensure internal compatibility between the uses. The Subject Properties total 66.55 acres, but only 31 acres would constitute developable parcels. Immediately west of the developable parcels is the Frito-Lay site, which is zoned Light Industrial and is the future location of a distribution facility of approximately 100,000 square feet. This use would be compatible with the proposed uses due to its industrial nature and its distance from the nearest proposed building pads, which would be approximately 550 feet from the distribution center itself. Further west and also south beyond State Route 4 is the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS). The Inland Portion of the CNWS will soon be deactivated with redevelopment to follow. The proposed uses on the Inland Portion of the CLAWS property that will be located in closest proximity to the proposed project are unknown at this time. The zoning districts to the'north and east of the Subject Properties are A-4 Agricultural Preserve District and A-2 General Agricultural District, respectively. Private agricultural uses lie to the!northwest and PG&E's Los Medanos Gas Storage Field lies to the north. State-owned land lies to the east. The undeveloped portion of the Subject Properties would be preserved as deed restricted opera space. These deed restricted areas would buffer the developable portion of the Subject Properties from the private. and PG&E properties. Due to distance, the proposed uses and the existing uses to the north and northwest could not affect each other. The land to the east is steep and undeveloped. The A-2 zoning primarily authorizes agricultural uses. Given the topography, the only agricultural activity that could reasonably be located in close proximity to the Subject Properties would be grazing, which is compatible the proposed uses. I . County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 Page 5 I Based ort the entire records and as summarized herein, the uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are.compatible within the district and with uses authorized in adjacent districts. C. Required Finding: Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. Proiect Finding: The applicant has submitted an economic feasibility study which indicates that there is a high demand amongst small businesses to own their own real estate and that the market'in this area of the county is lacking available properties. In addition to leasable office:and retail space, the Project would provide condominium- type spaces that would be available for sale to these businesses. Based ort the entire record and as summarized herein, community needs have been demonstrated for the uses proposed. III. Findings for Adoption of a Planned Unit District (P-1) and Approval of a Final Development Plan I A. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. Proiect Finding: Portionsof the necessary infrastructure have.already been installed and construction of a 28,827 square foot building has begun on Lot 1. Development plans have been submitted for Lot 12 and Lot 13. Staff anticipates that construction would begirt ort these lots soon after the Final Map was recorded. Based ort the entire record and as summarized herein, the Applicant has begun construction and intends to continue construction within two and one-half years from the effective date of the zoning change and plan approval. B. Required Finding: The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the County General Plan. Proiect Finding: The Project site has General Plan designations of Light Industrial, Agricultural Lands and Open Space. The proposed planned unit development is consistent with the General Plan as it is proposed for amendment, as explained in Section II.A of these Findings. Based ort the entire record and a summarized herein, the proposed planned unit developrnent is consistent with the County General Plan, as proposed for amendment. i C. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained idesirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. i County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 Page 6 i I Project Finding: The proposed project does not include residential uses. The Project's conditions of approval specifically prohibited the establishment of residential uses of all kinds. D. Required Finding: The development of a harmonious plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of the Code. Project Finding: As explained in Sections H.A. and H.B. above, all aspects of Project development are regulated through the conditions of approval for the Preliminary ad Final Development Plan (PFDP) and as a result of this regulation the proposed mix of uses is found to be compatible. Under conventional zoning.the proposed mix could only be established following approval of numerous Land Use permits. The granting of various approvals over an indefinite time span would amount to piecemeal development of the Subject .Properties and could easily result in a hodgepodge of architecture, colors and other eleinentsi of design. .This would not only be detrimental to the site itself, but also to the surrounding areas, as the site is prominently located and highly visible. Bringing all development on the Subject Properties under the umbrella of the proposed P-1 zoning district and PFDP allows for the customized design criteria to be established that assure.compatibility of'uses and design consistency and also facilitates the protection of approximately 36 acres of adjacent open space. Together these functions of the P-1 district and PFDP result in the development of a harmonious plan that would not be possible u! nder.conventional zoning. Based on the entire record and as summarized herein, the development of a harnionious plan justifies exceptions from the normal application of the Code. IV. Findin sg to Approve a Tentative Map . A. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, his consistent with the applicable general and specific plans required by law. Proiect Finding: As demonstrated in Section V of these Findings, the proposed project (which includes a tentative neap) is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed for ainenclnient. There are no specific plaits applicable to the Subject Properties. Based on the entire record and a summarized herein, the tentative inap is consistent with the County General Plan, as it is proposed for amendment. B. Required Finding: The County Planning Agency shall not approve a tentative map unless it shall find that the proposed subdivision fulfills construction requirements. Proiect Finding: As required by the conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the; tentative map shall fiilfill all applicable County imposed construction requirements! The conditions of approval are written such that the project i i County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 Page 7 i cannot advance past certciin' stages of implementation (i.e. filing of the Final Map, issuance of grading permits, issuance of building permits) until construction requirements have been satisfied. Based on the entire record;and as summarized herein, the proposed subdivision fu f lls construction requirements. V. General Plan Consistency A. The .Project, which includes the General Plan Amendment, is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Amendment approved for this Project will not.cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. The General Plan Amendment and the remainder of the General Plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of p6licies for the County. The various land uses authorized for the Project, and each of its components, are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. The Project is compatible with and conforms to the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. The Project will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. The Project is compatible with, and does not obstruct;, General Plan goals and policies. The Project is in harmony with the policies of the General Plan. B. The Commission has considered the effects of the Project on the employment needs of the region and balanced those needs against the public service needs of County residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. The Project helps to achieve a desirable balance. The Project provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or .natural heating or cooling'opportunities. The Project is in harmony with surrounding land uses, and the site as designed for the Project is physically suitable for the development proposed. C. The General Plan comprises many objectives, policies, principles, programs, standards, proposals and action plans (collectively "policies"), as well as performance standards. At times the policies necessarily compete with each other. Examples of the tensions between General Plan policies are found between those policies that promote managed growth, and those that provide for protection of resources that exist because land is undeveloped (such as open space, visual resources and agricultural land). As part of approving the Project, all applicable General Plan policies and the extent to which the .Project conforms to each of those policies have been considered. D. The Commission has fully evaluated the extent to which the Project achieves each policy, including those pertaining to compatibility of land uses, compliance with principles of the Urban Limit Line and Measure C-1990, protection of open space, standards regarding geology, soils and earthquake risks, hazardous materials, flood hazards and drainage, protection of water quality, protection of biological resources, transportation standards and goals, regional and local housing needs, jobs/housing balance, noise, protection of air quality, protection of visual resources, standards for public services and utilities, and protection of archeological and historical resources. County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 Page 8 i I The Commission has also fully considered the Project's compliance with all performance standards in the General Plan, including the Growth Management Element policies and standards (including those for traffic levels of service), and performance standards for public services and facilities. E. The Commission finds that through the development of the mixed-use business park, the Project will support General Plan policies, including: (1) the establishment of appropriately sized, well-located employment areas planned for industrial and commercial activities that will contribute to the continued economic welfare of the people of the County and to the stable economic and tax bases of the County; (2) the development of employment centers that are designed to be compatible with the nature of the surrounding area; (3) to provide commercial areas of appropriate size and location to accommodate the needs of the present and anticipated population in each subregion of the County; and, (4) to promote the implementation of job infill development and related goals and policies of the General Plan. F. In order to fully implement the change in General Plan under the Mixed Use land use designation for the subject properties, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to amend the text of the General Plan.Land Use Element at page 3-22, adding new text as follows: V J. Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use(M-10) The Willow Pass Business Park Mixed-Use designation has been applied to a group of properties known as the Lesher and Steuli properties located oil Evora Road, imtnediately east,of the Contra Coster Canal and north of the intersection of . Evora Road/Willow Pass Road. The intent of this designation is to create a broad- based commercial development that allows for the establishment of a wide range of light industrial., retail, office and service-oriented arses. Development ori this site is limited to 357,5,00 square feet in a ratio of uses stated ill the approved Prehininaty and Finals Development Plan (County File #DP043096) and Major Subdivision (County File #SD048918)permit. This designation does not apply to the 15.42-acre "Frito-Lay"properties. " This Commission finds that this text change will not cause any internal inconsistency with the remainder of the General Plan. VI. Measure C-1988 and Related Resolutions A. The Commission has considered the Project's compliance with the traffic service objectives of Measure C=1988, the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) resolutions. B. Measure C-1988 established a Growth Management Program, "to. assure that future residential, business and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth." The Program requires the County to adopt Traffic County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 Page 9 i Level of Service (LOS) Standards keyed to types of land use, and to comply with the adopted standards; to "adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth;" to participate in the forum established by the Authority to cooperate in.easing cumulative traffic impacts, using the CCTA computer model; and to develop an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels. C. The County has complied'with all these requirements. Most important, the County is achieving Measure C-1988's overarching goal that development pay its own way. The County has identified Project mitigations to ensure that the Applicant will defray the cost of those improvements that are proportionately attributable to the development. WHEREAS, in a letter dated January 30, 2006, Andersen & Bonnifield filed on behalf of the applicant/owner Thomas/DeNova, LLC, an appeal of the Commission's decision to approve the Major Subdivision citing objections; to the requirements of Conditions of Approval No. 10, 16, 17, 18, 34, 41, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54, 62; 64, 69, 77 and 78; and NOW BE IT RESOLVED that. the secretary of this Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. This Resolution was approved upon motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Clark, Terrell, Battaglia, Murray, Wong, Snyder NOES: Commissioner Gaddis ABSENT: None ABSTENTIONS: None i Donald Snyder Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, cretary County of Contra Costa State of California County Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2006 Page 10 1�. Vb 1t Nal ns o Cay �� �� 4 �i� . ,` 1 � , 1 t 1 '� i CONDITIONS OF APROVAL FOR COUNTY FILES #SD048918 & #DP043096, THOMAS/DeNOVA,LLC (Applicant & Owner). Project Approval 1. This approval is based upon the following exhibits: A. Revised Vesting Tentative Map, Development Map, Final Development :Plan and Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan received by the Community Development Department on December; 1, 2005, which depict a 357,500- square foot mixed-use business park on approximately 31 acres. B. Willow Pass Business Park Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration dated August 2005 and all documents referenced therein. This approval is contingent upon the Board of Supervisor's approval of County File #GP030001 and#RZ043151. Duration of Approval 2. The length of approval for County File #SD048918 and #DP043096 is three (3) years. One 3-year extension may be granted for the project upon submittal of a valid request for extension and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. For a request for extension to be valid, it must be submitted prior to the expiration date stated on the front of this permit and must be accompanied by the appropriate fee, which is currently $600.00 but is subject to change without notice. Extension granted: Application Fees 3. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $62,538.00, which was paid with.the application submittal, costs for preparation of necessary environmental documents and time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs; first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you after permit issuance. Indemnification 4. Pursuant to Government Code!Section 66474.9, the applicant (inducting the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside,. void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for .in Section j 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Number of Developable Lots 5. The maximum number of office/commercial/industrial lots allowed is 18. CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ALL ACTIONS Condition of Approval Compliance 6. At least 30 days prior. to recordation of the Final Map, issuance of grading permits or issuance of building permits for any portion of Willow Pass Business Park, whichever comes first, the applicant or its successor shall submit an application for Condition of Approval Compliance review. The fee for this application is a deposit of$10,000.00 that is subject to time and materials costs. Should staff costs exceed the deposit, additional fees will be required. Submittal for this application shall include a checklist describing how each condition of approval has been satisfied, along with applicable proof that each . condition has been satisfied (i.e. documents, plans, photographs, etc.). This application will remain active throughout the life of the project and additional submittals will be required to ensure compliance with each phase of development (grading, building), as described below. Compliance with those conditions administered by the Public Works Department need not be includedas part of this application. Project Phasin 7. At least 30 days prior to recordation of the Final Map, issuance of grading permits or issuance of building permits for any portion of Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant or its successor shall submit a phasing plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The phasing plan shall be designed in such a way as to ensure that improvements such as streets, drivewaysi sidewalks, landscaping, etc. are constructed in a contiguous fashion so that 'no lot is developed as a stand-alone island amongst undeveloped portions of the project site. The intent of the phasing plan isnot to limit or define the order of development of the individual building pads; it is to ensure that i1equired infrastructure and common area improvements are not constructed in a piecemeal fashion. Mesouite Control At lease-day r prior--to--reeffdation of the-Final-zMap,-issuanee oo gFading pe ----ts i------- of building permits for- an), per-tion of Willow Pass BuSi$c-ss-rarn,-the-&pphEant-6f SucccHof-shall rsubmit rirrixvoqu'rcv COA-2 i = .,trel pler, r ipd 1,., a qualified biologist for ther-eview„ted appfe,l�l�f the Zoning n dm.i,;:str The Contra Cesta County Mesquite and Veete.F r:rtrel Dist..4et ..hall be eensulted .7,.r;ng the preparation of the .,la and th Ifl-d-atiefis shall be ineer-per-ated. While the plan shall ineludeto areas of where standing water- is likely to > sueh as bieswales, ponds, fund I b., [he 'A'illew Pass Business Park ner-'s assersiation or- an e �alent entity. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO, OR CONCURRENT WITH RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP Street Names 9. At least 30 days !prior to recordation of the Final Map for Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant or its successor shall submit plans for review by the Community DIevelopment Department, Graphics Section, for street name and address approval. Alternate street names must be submitted in the event of duplication and toavoid similarity with existing street names. Child Care Program 10. Atleast 60 daysI to r-eeor-dation of the Final Map fOF W IOW Pas; B Park, the 1;.ant ;t. vu�iiai�-:i-�rar�-zric-aFiprr „EE2s`.16r- shall .,r assessment of the. est;,,,,te.7 ..1,;1.7 eafe needs eause.7 1,., the r. se.7 ,. e t I from the py-e-ijeet -ate to be mifigated within Contra Costa County. The r-espensi ii�ei iei� en the leeatien and eapaeity of existing or- proposed ei ild ease used,faeilities and he thesse be established, maintained and opefated. The r-cap en__ "lull-- arse--ineludeinfen:natien addressingt1ie fnr 7 :1;t.. ., - e- -eafe to be -pfeyideed.if the rcsponse-pregfam tt,r.,,,g r ed7 faeil;t;es of ethers not p rt of the « the the te . ..1; I shall provide s„ffi..;e.,t inf:,Fm t:en to the Zoning A,-1..- inistr-Mer to deter., that the ehild eaf 0 needs generated by the pfE�eet shall be mitigated. The ,.1.;1,7ea--.-- -hell inelude ., assessment of the estimated „1.;1,7 . • I show how these needs for- child eme seiiiees afe to be mitigated within the. eount), : ..1,, 7;r, h„t net 1immite.7 to the manner- in .,1,;,.1, the establishment of availability of qu, l;f;ed ear-e pr-eviders and related r e e • eh irid-ear- in,ey shall be submitted the r-eview and a .,l e f th Zoning Adminis�ater if-the 7ening A.7:, inistr.,ter deter. ifies thM ..1,:1.7 . COA-3 i needs have not been adequately established or that ehild eare needs have no 1 at the Geunty�sdiser-etion f aid f r by then plieant to evaluate and n is in detefraining c4ild c-axe-needs and-r-egranis te-adeguateely a�'�rose needs fe-the p se.l n eet Prior to issuance of building permits for the primary building on each lot, the applicant or its successor shall pay a fee in the amount of $2,380.00 to mitigate the project's impacts to child care facilities. In the event that lots are combined or that development in any way occurs across lot lines,then the fee due shall be equal:to $2,380.00 multiplied by the number of lots involved. The total fee due for Willow Pass Business Park is $42,840.00. Because building permits have been issued for the building on Lot 1, the fee for that lot shall be paid prior to finalization of the building permit. Deed Disclosure Regarding Geotechnical Report(s) 11. Concurrent with; recordation of the Final Map for Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant or its successor shall record the following deed disclosure for each new parcel created by this subdivision: "Prior to issuance of grading or building permits on this parcel, a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer shall be submitted for the review of the Contra Costa County Planning Geologist and approval of the Contra Costa, County Zoning Administrator. At minimum, this report shall address differential fill thickness, total and differential settlement within building pads, potential for seismic ground shaking, potential for liquefaction, potential for soil expansion and' soil stability. This report shall include specific recommendations for building foundations to reduce the risk associated with soil subsidence, liquefaction and differential settlement and shall also include measures to control moisture around foundations. All recommendations and measures contained in the approved geotechnical report shall be implemented during design and construction where appropriate. This report will be kept on file at the offices of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department." No more than 30 days following recordation of the deed disclosure, proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. Deed Disclosure RegardingPipeline Easement 12. Concurrent with. recordation of the Final Map for Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant or its successor shall record the following deed disclosure for each new parcel located within 50 feet of the PG&E pipeline easement: COA-4 i i i "This property iso located within 50 feet of a natural gas pipeline easement. These pipelines have explosive potential. An accident involving any of these pipelines could cause extensive damage to private property as well as serious personal injury or death." No more than 30 Idays following recordation of the deed disclosure, proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. Building permits will not be issued on these lots until proof of recordation of the deed disclosure has been submitted. MM HAZr4 I Deed Disclosure Regarding Exterior Modifications 13. Concurrent with recordation of the Final Map for Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant or its successor shall record the following deed disclosure for each new parcel created by this subdivision: "This property is subject to design guidelines and requirements that are included as part of the approved Development Plan (County File #DP043096) and Major Subdivision (County File #SD048918) permit for Willow Pass Business Park. No modifications to building exteriors (including alterations to the color scheme), parking layouts, fences and walls, signage or landscaping are permitted without prior approval from Contra Costa Ciunty or its successor agency." No more than 301 days following recordation of the deed disclosure, proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. Grant Deed of Development Rights to Open Space Areas 14. Concurrent with)recordation of the Final Map for Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant or its successor shall grant deed all development rights to the areas within the project boundary that have been designated "Open Space" on the amended General Plan Land Use Element Map to the County. The Final Map shall 'include a notation reading "Restricted Development Area" that corresponds to the areas designated Open Space. At least 30 days prior to recordation of the Final Map, the text of the Grant Deed of Development Rights shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Covenants, Conditions &Restrictions 15. At least 30 days) prior to recordation of the Final Map for Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant or its successor shall submit the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions or equivalent document for the review and approval I COA-5 of the Zoning Administrator. At minimum, this document shall provide for the following: a. Establishment, ownership and maintenance of the common open areas, parking areas, fencing, private streets, drainage.systems, etc.; b. An explanation that the site plans, building designs, color schemes and landscaping plans and signage may only be altered upon approval by the County; and c. A funding me Ihanism for sewer maintenance. Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 16. At least 30 days iprior to recordation of the Final Map for Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant shall. submit a long-term (minimum 30 year) Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and the Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD). The Plan shall include the following: a. Regular Testing and Reporting: Testing shall be conducted by an individual or firm whose qualifications and methodologies are approved by the HSD to identify any deterioration in the quality and quantity of water in the underground aquifer supplying the project. Tests shall be conducted annually and reports including the test results shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval following verification of the results by the HSD. Testing shall confirm a minimum five year supply of potable water. Testing and reporting may be required on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary by either the Zoning Administrator! or the HSD. Factors that may necessitate more frequent reporting include, but are not limited to, an increase in the intensity of on- site uses, additional draws on the aquifer resulting from nearby development, an accident involving the release of hazardous materials into the soil in the vicinity of the aquifer and one or more years of drought. b. Alternative Water Supplies: Alternative water supplies shall be identified and described, in detail. If testing indicates that the recharge capability and/or the water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating or is expected to deteriorate to I the point where the supply of potable water is no longer gteed confirmed for a minimum period of five years, then a hydrogeologic study shall be conducted to more precisely determine the condition of the aquifer. If the hydrogeologic study confirms that the recharge capability and/or the water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating and that theaquifer can no longer be considered a reliable source of potable water; then the study shall project how long the aquifer will be able to meet the needs of the project. In order to ensure an adequate future water supply; the applicant shall either: (1) develop an additional, or I COA-6 I possibly replacement water supply; or (2) begin the process of connecting to the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Within three months of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that the establishment of an alternative.water supply is necessary, the applicant shall decide which alternative it intends to implement. The proposal for . the alternative;water supply shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall be acceptable to the HSD if that department has permitting responsibility. The alternative water supply or service from the CCWD shall be operational no less than one year prior to the anticipated inability of the aquifer to provide the necessary potable water supply, as projected in the hydrogeologic study. New construction and the establishment of new uses in existing tenant spaces will be prohibited if 'either of these deadlines is not met or if the Zoning Administrator;determines that adequate progress has not been made in establishing the alternative water supply. New construction and the establishment of new uses will not be permitted to.resume until the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate progress fhas been made. c. Emergency Measures: Measures to maintain a temporary/backup water supply shall be developed. The Plan shall be updated as site conditions change, new alternative water supplies become available, previously identified alternative supplies become unavailable, etc. The approved Plan shall be implemented by the applicant or successor entity. MM UTIL-1 Deed Disclosure Regarding Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan 17. Concurrent with.recordation of the Final Map for Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant or its successor shall record the following deed disclosure for each new parcel created by this subdivision: "This property is subject to the requirements and procedures stated in the Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for Willow Pass Business Park. The seller shall furnish each new property owner with a copy of the most current version of this plan. A copy may also be obtained from the Contra Costa County Community Development Department." No more than 30 days following recordation of the deed disclosure, proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. MM UTIL-2 Establishment of Police Services District 18. Prior to recordation of the Final Map for Willow Pass Business Park, the applicant or its successor shall participate in the provision of funding to COA-7 i maintain and augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to filing the Final Map. The applicant or.its successor shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, which is currently $800.00 and is payable at the time the election is requested. Allow a minimum of three to four months for processing. CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS Verification of Permitted Uses 19. At least 15 days prior to each issuance of building permits related to the establishment of a new use or a change in use or user on each lot, including permits for tenant improvements and signage, the applicant or its successor shall isubmit a detailed description of the proposed use or user for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The information in this description shall include, but is not limited to, type or nature of use, square footage occupied!. location within Willow Pass Business Park, required parking and available parking onsite. To ensure that the proposed use or user is permitted and to ensure that traffic generation does not exceed the volume that was projected in the environmental review, the proposed use or user must be consistent with the list of permitted uses and the allowable square footage for the various permitted uses as set forth in Table 3 below. MM TRAF-1 Development Plan Design and Review 20. At least 45 days prior to issuance of building permits on each lot, the applicant or its successor.shall submit Final Development Plans (FDPs) for the administrative review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. If a building on Lot.114 or 15 is proposed to exceed 50 feet in height, then the applicant or its successor shall file a Development Plan application and the decision to appro�e or deny .that FDP shall take place at a public hearing before the Zoning'Administrator. If that occurs, then the City of Concord shall be notified and given opportunity to comment on the design prior to the FDP being approved. FDP submittals shall include the following information: I • Site plans; floor plans; building elevations indicating exterior wall materials, roofing materials, window types and exterior color schemes accompanied by a detailed key indicating the area where each different building material and color is to be applied and material samples upon request; grading plans; drainage plans; landscaping and irrigation plans indicating the location, size and type or species of all plants, plant materials and groundcovers and the design of all irrigation systems; utility plans; fence, gate and wall plans indicating the location and design of all COA-8 i i fences, gates and walls accompanied by a description of colors and materials; and lighting plans. The following principles shall guide the design of FDPs: A. Visual Interest Along Street Frontages I 1. Utilize visual variety and.avoid long, uninterrupted walls along street frontages. Provide variations in massing,. form and texture on large buildings; however, avoid arbitrary changes in materials or colors. If facade variation is not feasible, use substantial landscape elements to break up the visual mass of the building street fagade. 2. Recesses, projections and/or accent materials at entries are encouraged. Fabric awnings are discouraged, except at commercial or retail uses. 3. Provide wi I dows along street frontages to provide "eyes on the street." 4. Diversity in building profiles is encouraged through the use of various height parapets and accent roofs that project above the parapets or main roof, and towers. 5. Attempt to locate larger or taller buildings farther from the streets and locate.smaller and shorter buildings closer to the streets. B. Visual Interest at Other than Street Frontages 1. Provide design treatment on all faces of a building, using consistent materials, accents, textures and colors. 2. Avoid unbroken facades in excess of 75 feet in length. 3. Avoid placing great emphasis on the office portion of the project at the expense of the appearance of the rest of the project. 4. Accessory buildings shall complement and be 'consistent with the design of the primary building or buildings. The following design standards apply to overall project and to the design of FDPs: Table 1 Design Lots Parameters 1-ll 12-13 14-18 Minimum lot area 7,500 SF 7,500 SF 7,500 SF COA-9 i Minimum lot width 100 150 100 (feet) (b) Maximum building 50 30 68 (e) height (feet) (c)(d) Floor Area Ratio 67 .67 1.5 (FAR) Maximum site 50% 50% 50% coverage(fl Building setbacks Front Yard 10 10 20 Side Yard (g) 7.5 10 10 Corner Side Yard 10 10 10 Rear Yard (h) 0 10 15 Parking standards According to each According to each According to each Required number use as outlined in use as outlined in use as outlined in of stalls (i) Condition of Condition of Condition of A roval #53 Approval #53 Approval 453 Minimum 6.25% 6.25% 6.25% landscaped area 0) Stall dimensions Per Table 2 below Per Table 2 below Per Table 2 below Loading Per County Code Per County Code Per County Code -Section 82-16.022 Section 82-16.022 Section 82-16.022 Landscaped strips 10 10 10 (feet) (k) Table Footnotes: (a) Where individual tenant spaces within a building will be owned as condominiums and where buildings are constructed as zero lot-line construction, the minimum lot area may be decreased to 1,500 square feet. (b) Where individual tenant spaces within a building will be owned as condominiums, the minimum lot width may be decreased to 24 feet. (c) Applies to chimneys, stacks, fire towers, fire walls and all architectural features. Does not apply to monuments, flag poles, tlelephone poles and necessary mechanical appurtenances attached to buildings. (d). The maximum height for all accessory buildings and structures except fences, walls and gates is 15 feet. Fences wall and !gates are limited to 6 feet in height. Fences, walls and gates may be constructed up to 8 feet in.height for the purpose of screening mechanical equipment or unsightly architectural features,sucli as roll-up doors. (e) Buildings over 50 feet tall shall incorporate design elements to reduce and break up the mass. MM AES-1 (f) Accessory buildings and structures are limited to 600 square feet and do not count against lot coverage. (g) The minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings and structures except fences, walls and gates is 5 feet. COA-10 (h) The minimum rear yard setback for accessory buildings and structures except fences, walls and gates is 5 feet. Primary buildings on Lots 8 and 9 must maintain a minimum rear setback of 10 feet. (i) When a single structure or parcel contains multiple uses, more than one parking standard may apply. (j) Standard applies to total parking area, which is defined as the combined area of the parking stalls, access aisles and the drive or drives leading to the parking area.The landscaped area is required in addition to the total parking area. (k) Landscaped strips shall be installed between parking areas and rights-of-way and between parking areas and side property line is. I. Building Designs: a. Building Wall Materials: Building walls may be finished with painted or imbibed cement piaster or concrete, Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS), glass, brick and factory finished high-quality metal siding or panels. Unpainted split-faced concrete block and wood may be used as accent materials, but may!not constitute the main finish of a building. b. Window Materials: Window frames may be constructed of clear, bronze; black or colored metal or naturally-finished wood. All types of glass are permitted, though 'mirrored and highly reflective glass may only be used in limited quantities. c. Roof Forms: Domes, gables and hips are permitted. Flat roofs are permitted if they are 'screened from view by parapets. Shed roofs are permitted over accessory structures. Mansard and similar roofs are prohibited except on tower elements and accessory structures. The proposed architecture shall emphasize curved and rounded forms as opposed to angular forms on windows and entries and on crowning features such as rooflines, parapets, etc. MM AES-2 d. Roof Materials: Most roofing materials are permitted, though some, such as mineral cap, single-ply PVC and other built-up roofing systems must be screened from view. Wood shingles and shakes are prohibited. e. Measures to Increase Enerfzy Efficiency: Each building over 10,000 square feet shall be equipped with photovoltaic solar panels of such capacity that the building has no net draw on the power grid. f. Colors: To avoid is significant contrast between the colors of the proposed buildings and the seasonal color change exhibited by the natural background, building colors shall be limited to various shades of browns and greens. Color schemes shall be integrated and coordinated to ensure not only that the various buildings complement each other, but that the development as a whole blends into the natural eni ironment. MM AES-3 COA-11 g. Roll-up Doors: Each condominium-type unit may have one (1) roll-up door. h. Screening: Freight loading docks, loading areas, roll-up doors and truck berths; R-V or heavy vehicle equipment storage areas; outdoor storage and maintenance areas; and ground, wall and roof mounted equipment shall be screened from view from rights-of-way. Outdoor storage of vehicles and boats for sale, accessory to vehicle and. boat dealers, may be left unscreened for sales purposes. II. Site Plan Designs: a. Visibility at Intersections: Nothing which obstructs the visibility of and from vehicles approaching the intersection. of two streets or of a street and a driveway shall be constructed, grown, maintained or permitted higher that 2- 1/2 feet above the curb grade or 3 feet above the edge of pavement, within a triangular area bounded by the right-of-way boundaries and a diagonal line joining points on the right-of-way boundary lines 25 feet back from the point of intersection. b. Loading and Unloading: Subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department, long curb radii and "red curb zones" shall be provided within 25 feet of intersections and driveways to accommodate truck turning movements. Loading and unloading operations shall not impact the public road system. All truck maneuvering must take place on site; adjacent streets shall not be used for this purpose. c. Bike Racks: One 51 bike, ribbon style, clear-galvanized finished bike rack shall be provided at each primary building. Bike racks shall be located outside of the path of travel and as near as possible to the building entry anticipated to receive the most use. d. Loading docks: One freight loading dock may be provided for each 4,500 square feet of total gross building area. Loading docks are defined as docks served by sloping,truck access ramps (loading docks do not include roll-up doors at grade without a ramp). e. Placement of Loading and Refuse Areas: No loading areas, dumpsters or refuse areas shall be placed so as to face any rights-of-way. f. Placement of Storage Tanks and Process Equipment: No storage tanks or process equipment shall be located within front setback areas or rights-of- way. If storage tanks or process equipment are located in corner-side yards, they shall be screened with a solid wall that screens at least 1/4 of the height of the object, but does not exceed 8 feet in height. g. Public/Private Pedestrian Connections: Where sidewalks at the street are existing or planned, a clear connection to the site's internal pedestrian system COA-12 i shall be provided. The site shall be connected to any nearby existing or planned bus stops with pedestrian paths. h. Connection of Building Pads: A walkway shall be provided in the vicinity of Lots 11, 15 and' 16 for the purpose of providing an internal pedestrian connection.between Pad B and the lots along Evora Road. This connection may be constructed as a stairway only if the applicant or its successor submits a statement from a qualified engineer indicating that construction of an ADA- compliant walkway is not feasible due to slope and infrastructure constraints and that adequate, ADA-compliant infrastructure has been provided elsewhere onsite to allow l for universal circulation by disabled persons. This improvement shall be completed prior to occupancy of buildings on Lots 15 and 16. i. Parking: Parking areas shall be designed and constructed according to the following standards: i. Parking Stall and Aisle Dimensions: Parking stalls and access aisles shall be constructed according to the dimensional requirements indicated , in Table 2. Table 2 Design Criteria for Standard Parking Spaces Angle of Stall Width Curb Stall Depth(a) Aisle Width Stalls I Length 0 9 ft. 0 in. 23 ft. 0 in. 9 ft. 0 in. 12 ft. 0 in. 30 9 ft. 0 in. 18 ft. 0 in. 17 ft. 4 in. 11 ft. 0 in. 40 9 ft. 0 in. 14 ft. 0 in. 19 ft. 3 in. 12 ft. 0 in. 45 9 ft. 0 in. 12 ft. 9 in. 20 ft. 0 in. 13 ft. 0 in. 50 9 ft. 0 in. 11 ft. 9 in. 20 ft. 6 in. 12 ft. 0 in. 60 9 ft. 0 in. 10 ft. 6 in. 21 ft. 0 in. 18 ft. 0 in. 70 9 ft. 0 in. 9 ft. 9 in. 21 ft. 0 in. 19 ft. 0 in. 90 9 ft. 0 in. 9 ft. 0 in. 19 ft. 0 in. 25 ft. 0 in. Design Criteria for Compact Parking Spaces (b) Angle of Stall Width Curb Stall Depth (a) Aisle Width Stalls Length 0 8 ft. 0 in. 20 ft. 0 in. 8 ft. 0 in. 11 ft. 0 in. 30 8 ft. 0 in. 16 ft. 0 in. 15 ft. 0 in. 11 ft. 0 in. 40 8 ft. 0 in. 12 ft. 6 in. 16 ft. 6 in. 11 ft. 0 in. 45 8 ft. 0 in. 11 ft. 4 in. 17 ft. 0 in. 11 ft. 0 in. 50 8 ft. 0 in. 10 ft. 6 in. 17 ft. 6 in. 13 ft. 0 in: 60 8 ft. 0 in. 9 ft. 3 in. 18 ft. 0 in. 16 ft. 0 in. 70 8 ft-.-O in. 8 ft. 6 in. 17 ft. 9 in. 16 ft. 0 in. 90 8 ft. 0 in. 8 ft. 0 in. 16 ft. 0 in. 21 ft. 0 in. i COA-13 (a) A credit towards the minimum stall depth may be given for overhangs into landscaped areas. The credit shall be based on a maximum allowable overhang of 2 feet for 90° stalls and shall be reduced proportionally as the stall angle decreases (e.g. 16 inches for 60°stalls, 1 foot for 45°stalls,8 inches for 30°stalls).No credit shall be given for 0°stalls. (b) Up to 35%of the parking stalls may be compact. ii. Reduction of Parking Area Sizes: Parking areas shall be broken into smaller lots: separated by buildings .:and/or landscaping. However, connecting.multiple lots on the same property or pad, to avoid travel on adjacent streets is encouraged. iii. Separation of Spaces: Except at,the back of buildings, no more than 15 parking spates shall be provided in a row without a landscaping separation. iv. . Pavement Marking: All compact stalls, handicapped stalls and loading spaces shall be clearly marked as such. v. Parking Area Screenins: Planting strips between street frontages and parking lots shall be designed, constructed and planted in such a way that views into the lots from the street and of the automobiles parked there are substantially diminished.'A planted strip at least 10 feet in width shall be provided to create a physical and visual break between parking areas and rights-of- way. Where depressions are required to accommodate bio-swales parking shall be screened with shrubs. Where bio-swales are not necessary, parking lots shall be screened from right-of-way with earth berms. Where earth berms are used, the following criteria shall be met: • 36 inches minimum height. • 3:1 maximum slope for shrub areas, subject to the approval of the Building Inspection Department. • 2:1 maximum slope for ground cover areas, subject to the approval of the Building Inspection Deaprtment. 111. Landscaping The following standards and guidelines apply to landscaping plans: a. Landscaping plans shall comply with the Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance (Ordinance Code Section 82-26). Landscaping plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall include a written certification that ;the plans are in compliance with the Ordinance. This certification shall appear as a statement on the face of the plans and shall be COA-14 _ accompanied by .the landscape architect's wet stamp and signature. Landscaping plans that do not include the certification, wet stamp or signature will not be approved. b. All setback, yard, .dead and intermittent areas shall be landscaped, irrigated with an automatic irrigation/sprinkler system and maintained in a healthy and attractive condition. Dead and dying plant materials shall be removed and healthy, attractive replacements shall be installed promptly. c. All plant materials shall meet the following criteria at the time of installation unless otherwise stated in this condition: • Trees: Shall be minimum 15-gallon size or 6 feet tall with a trunk thickness of 1-inch at 5 feet above grade. Minimum 20% of all trees shall be 24-inch box size or larger; locate larger trees at building entries and other highly visible locations. • Shrubs around buildings: Shall be a combination of 1-gallon size (25% of total) spaced at 24-30 inches and 5-gallon size (75% of total) spaced at 48-72 inches. The design intent is to use a mixture of plant sizes and spacing to provide visual interest and variety in planted areas. • Shrubs on slopes: Shall be large screen plants of minimum 5-gallon size spaced at 48i72 inches on center. The design intent is to visually screen the site from off-site viewers. • Ground cover around buildings: Shall be flats at 12-18-inch spacing, 4- inch pots at i18-24 inch spacing or 1-gallon size at 24-36-inch spacing. The design intent is to provide variations in plant sizes and spacing to allow variations in plant growth rates and landscape uses. • Ground cover on slopes: Shall be seeded ground cover-type plants or 1- gallon size 'at 36-48-inch spacing. The design intent is to provide variation in plant sizes and spacing and to adapt to different plant growth rates and landscape uses. d. A wide variety �of plant species shall be utilized to avoid monotony. Deciduous and evergreen trees shall be mixed throughout the site, seasonal foliage and/or flowers shall .be provided for color and plants with interesting and varied shapes and branching shall be installed. e. Trees and shrubs shall generally be planted in groupings, rather than in static rows. Exceptions to this rule are permitted in the case of street trees and in instances where landscaping is being used for screening purposes. COA-15 f. Solar orientation shall be considered in landscape design. At least 67% of the trees planted adjacent to the south and west facades of buildings shall be deciduous. g. All street frontages shall be planted with street trees at a regular interval generally not to exceed 40 feet on center (exceptions to this interval standard may be granted to accommodate the placement of driveways and other necessary infrastructure). These trees shall be minimum 36" box size. Trees shall be installed on both sides of the Willow Pass Road extension and the private road extension beyond. Installation is required only on the north side of Evora Road and the south access road. h. Landscaping that is adjacent to a right-of-way shall be designed as an extension of the existing or planned landscaping in the right-of-way. i. Landscaping shall be used to emphasize project entries. Special attention shall be given to the landscaping designs for the following locations: • Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection; • Area surrounding the Willow Pass Road cul-de-sac; and • Driveway entrances. I The landscaping designs for these locations shall incorporate a wider variety of plant species and other landscaping elements such as rocks, berms, water features, etc. These landscaping designs shall add visual interest at project entries and heavily traveled areas through the use of varied colors and textures. j. Canopy tree species shall be installed in each parking area to ensure that a minimum of 33% of the parking area will be shaded at tree maturity. Trees installed in parking areas shall be minimum 24" box size and shall be provided at a ratioofno less than 1 tree per 4 parking stalls. k. Landscaping shall be provided between the front fagade of a building and parking areas located immediately in front of the building. Trees species shall be selected that wiill be at least 3/4 of the wall height at maturity. 1. Graded areas between and adjacent to building pads shall be. seeded with native perennial 91 ass seed. m. The south- and west-facing edges of Pad B and the west-facing edge of the Lot 14/15 pad shall be planted with canopy trees for the purpose of providing some screening of!the buildings along these edges. I n. Drought tolerant plants shall be installed as much as possible to help reduce the risk of hazardous fuel accumulation in landscaped areas. MM HAZ-6 COA-16 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 ! Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18, Common areas IV. Utility Plans The following standards and guidelines apply to utility plans: a. Utilities shall be located such that they are not prominent along rights of way and along heavily traveled pedestrian walkways. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot5 —.— Lot 6 Lot 7. Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Common areas V. Fence, Gate and Wall Plans The following standards apply to fence, gate and wall plans: a. Fences, gates and walls shall generally not exceed 6 feet in height. They may be approved up to;8 feet tall where site conditions justify additional screening. b. Fences and gates visible from rights-of-way and adjacent properties shall be of either welded tubular steel or concrete masonry block construction and shall be an appropriate color. This requirement does not apply to property lines abutting land designated Open Space. c. Fences and gates not visible from rights-of-way and adjacent properties may be of galvanized ,chain link fence or concrete masonry block construction. Vertical slats of an appropriate color are required wherever chain link is installed. COA-17 d. Walls shall be crowned with a decorative capstone. This requirement may be waived for retaining walls. e. Fences, gates and walls are prohibited within front setback areas. f. Barbed and razor wire (or similar wire), other than what is currently installed in open space areas, is prohibited where visible from rights-of-way and adjacent properties. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 i Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Common areas VI. Lighting Plans The following standards apply to lighting plans: a. A photometric site plan shall be included as part of all lighting plans. ' b. All lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting and shielded to minimize glare and the direct view of light sources. MM AES-4 c. Motion detection systems shall be utilized where appropriate. MM AES-4 d. Light shall not unnecessarily "wash out" onto adjacent properties or into the atmosphere. MM AES-4 e. Adequate lighting shall be provided in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances. MM AES-4 f. Lighting shall be to appropriately accent architectural features and landscaping. g. Light poles shall be as low as possible. Traditional "cobra head" poles are . prohibited except where required by the Public Works Department. h. Fixtures intended to be lit for long periods of time shall accept low-pressure sodium lamps (or devices with similar properties) and generally shall not be located at the periphery of the property. MM AES-4 COA-18 i. Floodlights shall be prohibited and no lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. MM AES-4 j. Lighting intensity shall be no greater than what is reasonably required to provide visibility and security in parking areas, along pedestrian walkways and at the building facades. The applicant shall have the option to submit alternative lighting plans on Lots 12-18 for the purpose of accenting retail fagades, subject to design review. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 1 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Common areas VII. Signage Plans: a. All signs: i. Sign information shall be limited to development &/or building name, company or tenant name, business description, a logo, and the building street address. Sculpture or public art may be added to signs with design review approval. ii. Signs or characters shall not be painted directly on wall surfaces. b. Wall mounted signs, including building eyebrow/parapet signs: . i. One sign per tenant is allowed on each building fagade facing a right-of- way. Two signs per tenant are allowed when a single tenant's frontage exceeds 100 fei t in length or is a corner unit/space. ii. Wall mounted(signs shall be limited to 1 square foot of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage. In no case shall a single wall sign exceed a total of 200 square feet. The total length of each sign shall not exceed 75% of the frontage of the tenant. iii. Characters height shall be limited to 36 inches maximum, not to exceed 75% of the height of the surface on which they are mounted. I COA-19 iv. Wall signs shall be individual channel letters or cabinet signs, mounted directly to the wall surface. Wall signs shall either be lit internally or lit with shielded exterior lights. v. Wall signs shall be placed above or adjacent to main building entries and main tenant entries. Place wall signs within a wall area uninterrupted by doors, windows, or architectural details such as pilasters. C. Monument signs: i. Monument signs shall be limited to 50 square feet maximum. Monument signs may be double sided, i.e., 50 square feet maximum per side. ii. Character height shall be limited to 36 inches maximum, not to exceed 75% of the height of the surface'on which they are mounted. iii. Monument signs shall be set back minimum 5 feet from the property line. iv. Monument signs shall not exceed 9 feet above the adjacent grade, though accents, sculpture, public art, etc., may extend to 10 feet maximum with design review approval. v. Monument sighs shall either be lit internally or lit with shielded exterior lights. iv. One entry monument sign not exceeding 4 feet 6 inches.in height and 100 square feet is permitted. d. Directional and directory signs: i. Directional signage to identify location and types of vehicular entrances and exits and onsite directions to important areas (e.g., visitor parking, loading area, etc.) is required. ii. Directional signage shall be limited to 20 square feet maximum and directory signs shall be limited to 50 square feet maximum. Directional and directory� signs may be double sided, i.e., 20 or 50 square feet maximum per side, respectively. iii. Character height shall be limited to 18 inches maximum, not to exceed 75% of the height of the surface on which they are mounted. iv. Directional and directory signs shall be set back minimum 3 feet from the property line. v. Directional and directory signs shall not exceed 9 feet above the adjacent grade. COA-20 I vi. Directional and directory signs shall either be lit internally or lit with shielded exterior lights. vii. Should the internal connection in the vicinity of Lots 11, 15 and 16 be constructed as �a stairway instead of as a ramp, then directional signage shall include a notation indicating that the connection is ADA non- compliant. e. Pylon si s: Prohibited f. Flagpoles, flags, and flag signs: i. Flag signs may be mounted on light poles, with 2 flag signs maximum per pole. ii. Individual flag, signs mounted on poles shall be limited to maximum 25 square feet each. Flags signs may be double sided, i.e., 25 square feet maximum per side. There is no maximum size for United States and State of California flags. iii. The top of pole mounted flags and flag signs shall not be greater than the high of the pole itself. g. Landmark feature �or sign: O e landmark feature or sign is permitted along the Evora Road frontage and shall be limited to 35 feet in height and 350 square feet, subject to design review. Construction Notification 21. At least one week prior to commencement of grading or any other construction activities on each parcel, the applicant or its successor shall post at the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of personsi with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control,) tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the 247hour. emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading and construction 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 COA-21 I names and addresses of the property owners noticed and a map identifying the notification area. Litter Control 22. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, whichever. occurs. first, a litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of.the approved program'or applicable ordinances shall result in an immediate work stoppage. Construction work will not be allowed to resume until the site has been properly cleaned and if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. Geology, Soils & Foundation Reporting 23. At_least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, whichever occurs'first and on a lot-by-lot basis, the applicant shall submit site-specific geotechnical reports prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These site-specific geotechnical reports shall address differential fill thickness, total and differential settlement within building pads, soil stability, potential seismic ground shaking and liquefaction and provide specific building foundation recommendations to reduce the risk associated with soil subsidence, liquefaction and differential settlement. These reports shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. MM GEO-1 Grading, building and improvement plans shall be designed to incorporate the recommendations of the approved reports. The recommendations shall also be stated on the cover sheets for such plans along the with the geotechnical engineer's contact information. Lot 1 Lot-2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Common areas 24. At least 30 days prior to .issuance of grading permits or issuance of building permits'and on a lot-by-lot basis, the applicant shall submit site- specific geotechnical reports prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These site-specific geotechnical reports shall address potentially expansive soils and shall provide measures to control moisture around COA-22 foundations: Consistent with the final geotechnical report, measures to minimize expansive soil effects on structures shall be implemented during design and construction where appropriate. Potential foundation systems include pier and grade beam; use of structural concrete mats and post- tensioned slabs; pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment. These reports shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. MM GEO-2 Grading,building and improvement plans shall be designed to incorporate the . recommendations of the approved reports. The recommendations shall also be stated on the cover sheets for'such plans along the with the geotechnical engineer's contact information. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Common areas 25. At least 30 days; prior to issuance of grading permits or issuance of building permits,, the applicant or its successor shall submit the results of chemical testing of representative building pad soils conducted by a licensed geotechnical engineer to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. The following measures shall be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate-resistant concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils. The test results shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. MM GEO-3 Pipeline Easement Survey 26. At least 30 days prior to issuance of grading permits or ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the 20-foot PG&E pipeline easement, the applicant or its successor shall complete a detailed survey that identifies the exact location of the easement. The boundaries of the easement area shall be clearly marked during construction activities to ensure that construction personnel know when they are working within or close to the easement so that they may use proper precautions. All construction plans shall be submitted to PG&E for review and approval to ensure that disturbance of the underground lines is avoided. MM HAZ-2 COA-23 i Sewer System Improvements and Maintenance I 27. Prior to issuance of each building permit (including those for tenant improvements), the applicant or its successor shall submit to the Zoning Administrator written verification from the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD) that the proposed improvement of change of use will not cause the wastewater flow for the entire Willow Pass Business Park site to exceed 42,640 gallons perlday (average daily flow). This condition shall become null and void if a sewage system upgraded to the satisfaction of the DDSD. I 28. Prior to issuance iof any building permits or sewer permits, the applicant or its successor shall submit, for Delta Diablo Sanitation District approval, a detailed improvement plan showing the entire site sewer system. The sewer system must include a viable means of eliminating wastewater solids that will cause the onsite pumps to fail and overflows to occur. A copy of the approved plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. 29. Prior to issuance of.any building permits or sewer permits, the applicant or its successor shall submit, for Delta Diablo Sanitation District approval, a contract for the operation and maintenance of the wastewater system. A copy of the approved contract shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. 30. Prior to issuance) of building permits, the applicant or its successor shall submit evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the sewage pump station site has been designed with a positive overflow drainage system that would direct any potential spills away from the Contra Costa Canal and that sufficient holding capacity, back up power systems and/or emergency business closure procedures (to halt sewage generation) have been developed to minimize the risks of an overflow in the event of a system failure. Consultation with) the Delta Diablo Sanitation District may be necessary before compliance with this condition can be verified. MM HAZ-5 Building Separation from Grasslands 31. Prior to issuance of building permits for each lot, the applicant or its successor shall ensure that buildings .have sufficient - separation from grasslands to create a fire break as determined by the, Fire District to be adequate for the site. This may be achieved by setting buildings back from the edge of the grasslands, clearing combustible materials or a combination of the two. MM HAZ-61 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 COA-24 I Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9. Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan 32. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permits for the first primary building, the applicant or its successor shall submit a detailed TDM Plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator and the Transportation Planning Division. The TDM plan shall include measures to encourage alternative means of commuting and reduce traffic such as telecommuting, carpooling, staggering work hours, using non-motorized transportation, using public transportation, etc. The applicant or its successor shall provide a copy of the approved TDM plan to each new property owner, renter or lessee. Air Quality Mitigation 33. At least 5 days prior to issuance of grading permits and building permits for each parcel, the applicant or its successor shall submit construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that incorporate the "Basic Control Measures," "Enhanced Control Measures" and "Optional Control Measures" listed in Table 1. These measures shall be implemented during construction activities. MM AIR-1 Table 3 Basic Control Measures—The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites.' Water all active:construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucksihauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Enhanced Control Measures—The following measures should be implemented at construction sites rester than four acres in area. COA-25 • All `Basic"control measures listed above. • Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic)soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt, sand,etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags;or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Optional Control Measures—The following control measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area, located near sensitive receptors or which for any other reason may warrant additional emissions reductions. • Install wheel washers.for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • . Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot l 1 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Common areas CONDITIONS WITH NO SET TIMING REQUIREMENT OR THAT ARE ONGOING THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT East Bay Regional Park District Trail Construction 34. The applicant or its successor shall work closely with the East Bay Regional Park. District, the City of Concord and the appropriate transportation agency (Contra Costa County Public Works Department and/or California Department of Transportation) to ensure that the required intersection and roadway improvements in the vicinity of the Evora Road/Willow Pass Road intersection are designed with provisions to allow for a'trail crossing acceptable to the East Bay Regional Park District. MM TRAF-5 Hazards Mitigations 35. The project applicant and owners and operators of businesses on the site shall obtain all required permits and follow all applicable regulations regarding the COA-26 use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and shall conduct their operations in compliance with such permits and regulations. MM HAZ-1 36. Communication shall be established between employees stationed at Los Medanos Gas Storage Field and employees at the project area in order to facilitate the fastest and most appropriate response to a pipeline rupture. MM HAZ-3 Additional Environmental Review for Former Gun Club Site 37. The Contra Costa County Health Services Department has indicated that Lot 18 (the former gun club site) may contain soils contaminated by lead and other metals. The level of contamination does not exceed that which is deemed acceptable for commercial and industrial development. However, in the event that the Development Plan for Willow Pass Business Park is modified to fallow more sensitive uses such as residences, day care facilities, educational facilities, etc. on or in the vicinity of Lot 18, then a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment shall be conducted as part of the environmental review process for that modification. Permitted Uses 38. Willow Pass Business Park is designed as a mixed use development allowing for a variety of uses that are office, retail, commercial and light industrial in character. The total square footage that may be devoted to�these uses is 357,500, which may be allocated Throughout Willow Pass Business Park in any way that does not conflict with the ratios stated in Table 4 below. The following uses are permitted [parking ratios are in parentheses (1 space/x- square feet)]: Lots 1-1 l and 14-17 A. General use, administrative and business offices.' (1/250) B. Medical and dental offices and clinics. (1/200) C. Controlled manufacturing land assembly uses that are developed, conducted and operated in such a manner,that they do not emit excessive quantities of dust, smoke, fumes/odors, noise, vibration or brilliant light or are otherwise offensive to the senses; are of a kind or quality that their operation does not interfere with the development or enjoyment of adjacent or nearby property; and are of a kind or quality that if operated properly does not have the,potential to cause severe pollution of the air, soil or water within Willow Pass Business Park and its environs. (1/500) i. Research and development laboratories and facilities; ii. Medical, testing and experimental laboratories and institutes that can include the manufacture, distribution, ancillary sales and repair of medical equipment, pharmaceutical products and prototypes; iii. Software, electrical and electronic product and instrument manufacturing, testing and research,and development; iv. Bookbinding, printing and lithography; COA-27 i V. Cartography; vi. Editing and design; vii. Photographic printing, finishing and processing; viii. Household pottery;' ix. Plastic fabrication; X. Finished paper products; xi. Garment manufacturing; . xii. Furniture manufacturing, assembly or upholstering; xiii. Food preparation and handling; xiv. Large-scale laundry and dry cleaning operations. D. Light industry including processing, packaging, storage, sales and distribution of products such as, but not limited to cloth, plastic, leather, metals and stones, repair and installation shops, but not including such uses as asphalt or cement plants, rendering plants or tanneries. (1/1,000) E. Highway-oriented commercial businesses as an ancillary component of a permitted use if all sales, demonstrations showrooms, displays (other than approved signage), services and similar uses are conducted within the interior of a building.` (1/250) F. Construction-related services that are conducted within the interior of a building including but not limited to carpentry and cabinet shops, sheet metal shops, glaziers, tile setters, plumbers, electricians, painters, etc. (1/500) G. Highway-oriented commercial personal services and goods reasonably required for the convenience and support of occupants and users of Willow Pass Business Park and surrounding areas 'such as small branch banks, health clubs, indoor recreational facilities, delicatessens, etc..(1/250) H. Warehousing and storage of material, work in progress, and finished goods inventories. (1/1,000) I. Nurseries and landscaping businesses. (1/500) J. Self-storage of private or public .goods, within the interior of a building, freight terminals, trucking yards and moving companies. (1/1,000) K. Wholesale sales, showrooms and distribution centers. (1/500) L. Vehicle dealers and showrooms including vehicle display outside of buildings during business hours. (1/500) M. Outdoor storage areas for allowed uses only if such areas are located behind or to the side of buildings and are screened from view from.neighboring areas, streets and State Highway 4. N. Recycling facilities. (1/500) Lot 12 O. Retail shops where all sales, demonstrations, displays (other than approved signage), services and other activities,are conducted within the interior of a building. (1/250) P. Personal services such as hairdressers, small dry cleaners. (1/250) Q. Restaurants, including take-out food and quick-service eating establishments.; (1/3 seats) COA-28 i Lot 13 1 R. Gas station with or without convenience store. (1/250) S. Restaurants, including take-out food and quick-service eating establishments.3 (1/3 seats) Lot 18 All of the uses permitted on Lots 1-11 and 14-17 plus: T. Storage yards for construction contractors and contractor-related services. (1/500) Footnotes: 1 Permitted as an ancillary use if it occupies no more than 10%of the gross square footage occupied by the primary use. z To be considered ancillary, the retail component may not exceed 1,000 square feet or 10% of the gross square footage of the primary use,whichever is less. 3 Provided that a Land Use permit to allow a take-out food establishment has been approved iri accordance with County Code Section 88-16. Uses that are incompatible with the design and concept of Willow Pass Business Park and may not under any circumstances be established without prior amendment to the. Development Plan include residential units of all kinds, hotels, motels and all other types of lodging, religious institutions, all uses which by their nature would attract large number of children to the site and facilities that handle, store or process significant quantities of hazardous chemicals or material. While the uses listed above are all permitted, they may only be established according to a specific ratio which was established to limit the project's traffic impacts. To determine if a use may be established, the following table shall be consulted. The letters in the "Permitted Uses" column correspond to the uses listed above. The "Percent" columns indicate the percentage of the square footage that may be devoted to each type of use. Table 4 Percent of site square foots e Building Lot Lot Area Area Permitted Uses Low High 1 116,154 28,827 � A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 B, E, G, I 0 25 2 17,455 5,200 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 B, E, G, 1 0 25 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 3 27,900 � 8,200 — B, E, G, 1 0 25 4 L21,017--1 5,200 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 COA-29 Percent of site square foota e Building Lot Lot Area Area Permitted Uses Low High B, E, G, I 0 25 5 30,159 110;460 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 B, E, G, I 0 25 6 34,209 110,460 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 B,E, G, I 0 25 7 23,289 8,400 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 B, E, G, I 0 25 8 26,605 4,400 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M,N 75 100 B, E G, I 0 25 9 265706 6,400 A, C, D, F, H, J,K, L, M, N 75 100 B, E, G, I 0 25 10 40,941 10,818 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 B, E, G, I 0 25 11 85,469 14,554 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 . 100 B, E, G, I 0 25 12 40,667 6,416 6,416 square ft. multi-tenant retail including one fast food drive-thru. X X 4,992 square ft. retail/convenience store/fast food w/drive-thru, 900 13 51,577 5,892 square ft. car wash, 4,200 square ft. canopy and fuel island (10 fuel dispensers). xv 14 162,506 30,808 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 B, E, G, I 0 25 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, 75 100 15 51,698 19,200 _ � B, E, G, I 0 25 16 1235496 16,195 Al C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N 75 100 B, E, G, I 0 25 17 107,227 13,520 -A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M,N 75 100 B, E, G, I 0 25 A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L;M, N 75 100 18 146,789 17,660 B, E, G, I 0 25 T 0 5.5 A Road 35,441 0 C (Road+ Buffer) 86,933 0 D (Buffer) 23,798 0 j COA-30 i 1 Percent of site square footage Building Lot Lot Area Area Permitted Uses Low High E (Buffer) 4,695 j 0 Subtotal 1,284,704 222,610 Flexible Project A, C, D, F, H, J, K, L, M,N 75 100 Square Footage 0 134,890 Increase B, E, G, I 0 25 TOTAL 1,284,704 1357,500 Tree Removal 39. All trees located on the on Lots 1-18 at the time of project approval are permitted to be removed. Archaeological Resources . 40. Should archaeological materials, cultural materials or the like be uncovered during grading, trenching or other onsite excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped, the Community Development Department shall be notified immediately until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or 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. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone and historic features such as privies or building foundations. 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. If there is an archaeological I or burial discovery in the State Route 4 ROW, all construction within 50 feet of the find shall cease and the Caltrans' Cultural Resource Study Office, District 4, shall be contacted immediately. 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. COA-31 Construction Activity 41. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. General construction activities, including deliveries and transportation of heavy equipment, shall be limited to the.hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays and the following state and federal holidays: New Year's Day (State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and Federal) Lincolni's Birthday (State) Cesar Chavez Day(State) Memorial Day(State and Federal) Independence Day(State and Federal) Labor Day(State and Federal) Columbus Day(State and Federal) Veterans Day(State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day(State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving (State) Christmas Day(State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://www.edd.ca..ov/eddsthol.htm MM NOISE-1 B. Pile driving and similarly lo ud activities shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. MM NOISE-1 C. All heavy construction equipment used on the project site shall be maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment equipped with intake and. exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. All stationary noise- generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from neighboring property lines, especially residential uses. MM NOISE-1 D. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. Construction equipment shall be parked on-site. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each portion of the development site. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. COA-32 E. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Litter and debris shall be contained in appropriate receptacles and shall be removed as necessary. Following cessation of construction activity, all construction materials and debris shall be removed. F. The site shall be watered throughout the day in order to minimize the amount of dust and particulates in the air resulting from construction. G. Dump trucks entering and exiting the site shall be covered when hauling loose materials. H. Loose particles on-site shall be swept and collected when practical. I. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. J. Noisy equipment shall be located as far from adjacent residences as is practical. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED IBY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, Title 9, and Title 10 of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the Vesting Tentative Map received by the Community Development Department on December 1, 2005. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP OR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. I General Requirements: 42. 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 there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. 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 received by the Community Development Department on December 1, 2005. 43. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all street or drainage improvements required by the County 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. COA-33 Roadway Improvements (Evora Road): 44. The applicant shall construct concrete curb, 6-.5 5_0-foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face to back of walk), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening and transitions. along the frontage of Evora Road. The sidewalk shall be constructed with the face of curb set 20 feet from the centerline of Evora Road. 45. The applicant shall install street lights along the project frontage of Evora Road. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 46. The applicant shall construct a street-type connection with minimum 20-foot radii curb returns:in lieu of standard driveway depressions at all private road intersections with Evora Road. 47: The applicant shall install safety related improvements on all streets,including traffic signs and striping, as necessary, and pedestrian ramps at the curb returns, as approved by Public Works. Curb ramps shall. be designed and constructed in accordance with current County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on all curb ramps. Roadway Improvements (On-Site): 48. The applicant shall construct the on-site roadway system to County private road standards, subject to the review of the Fire District. 49. The applicant shall construct concrete curb, &.45_0-foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face to back of walk), and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage along the southwesterly side of the Willow Pass Road extension (a private road located within proposed Lot A), from the intersection with Evora Road to the beginning of the proposed private road serving Lots 1 to 111. 50. The applicant shall construct the proposed private road serving Lots 1 to 1 l to County private road standards, with a minimum traveled way width of 30 feet within a 37--foot wide access easement and additional 5-foot wide public utility easements (PUEs) on each side. The applicant shall construct 6-.5 5_0- foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face to back of walk) along the southwesterly side of the proposed private road serving Lots 1 to 11. Roadway Improvements (Off-Site): 51. The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road with permitted left-turn phasing in the north-south direction and split phasing in the east-west direction, subject to the review and COA-34 I i I I approval of the Public Works Department. Thetraffic signal and appropriate infrastructure shall be installed to allow for the interconnection and coordination with future signals at the Willow Pass Road/SR 4 eastbound and westbound ramps. MM TRAF-2 52. The applicant shall lconstruct one 12-foot wide westbound left-turn lane in the northbound direction at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road, subject to the review and approval of Public Works. The intersection modification shall ',result in a configuration which includes one left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane. MM TRAF-2 53. The applicant shall)contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and State Route 4 Westbound ramps with protected left-turn phasing in all directions. The applicant's fair share shall be $55,000, which is based on the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the project compared to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to use this intersection, as it is applied to the overall estimated project cost for the signal., subjeet to the r-eview and al of the Publie WeFlEs Deptkfnent MM TRAF-3 I 54. The applicant shall contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and State Route 4 Eastbound ramps with permitted left-turn phasing in the north-south direction and split phasing in the east-west direction. The applicant's fair share shall be $27,000, which is 'based on the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the project compared 'to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to use this intersection, as it is applied to the overall estimated project cost for the signal., s� J-0 te-the-rev exr, and-appr-eval of the Works Depaftment MM TRAF-4 Access to Adjoining Property: Proof of Access I 55. Applicant shall furnish proof to Public Works of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. Encroachment Permit I 56. Applicant shall obtain an. encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center for Iconstruction of driveways or other improvements within the right of way of Evora Road and Willow Pass Road. i . l COA-35 i 57. Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for construction within the State right of way, as necessary. Site Access 58. Applicant shall relinquish abutter's rights of access along Evora Road with the exception of the access points proposed for this development. Road Dedications: 59. The applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for the planned future half-width of 30 feet along the frontage of Evora Road. Pedestrian Facilities: 60. All curb ramps shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current County standards. A detectable warning surface (e.g. truncated domes) shall be installed on all pedestrian curb ramps. 61. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access) and .the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall include all sidewalks, paths, driveway depressions, and pedestrian ramps. Sight Distance: 62. The applicant shall provide sight distance at all private road intersections with Evora Road for a through traffic design speed of 4-5 40 miles per hour. 63. The applicant shall provide sight distance along all on-site private roads for a through traffic design speed of 15 miles per hour. Street Lights: 64. he a,ppheant shall apply for arnexatienrto Ce SeFyiee zrccr = 100 Lighting�is submitting t est; tom n bound moo_-____a �e�--s�n�l�-a�-Tetter of , filing the Final Thar Thea „liea.,t shall be aware that this ,t: ,., Z11111s Z1IG 1-lli CLl Z�lil�The � must—eenp'1�vftYCe'�'fv' . t�Tfl"fYYIGCAir'aIeTTto that state th prepefty owner- must hold a speeial eleetie rz^v—a0. exatien.This pfoeess tak Aely A to 6 m „ths to eamplet'c. Amneatien into GS i tY sfoY of owner—shipor- me a of'street lighting pT M me Y ads COA-36 Parking: 65. Parking.shall be prohibited on one side of on-site roadways where the curb-to- curb width is Jess than 36 feet and on both sides of on-site roadways where the curb-to-curb width: is less than 28 feet. "No Parking" signs shall be installed along these portions of the roads subject to the review and approval of Public Works. Underground Utilities: 66. Applicant shall underground all new and existing utility distribution facilities, including those along the frontage of Evora Road. Maintenance of Facilities: 67. The applicant shall insure that the on-site private roadways, private drainage facilities, pedestrian facilities, private landscape areas, etc. will be privately maintained. The applicant shall convey all common areas to an acceptable entity other than the County for ownership and maintenance. The County will not accept private facilities for maintenance. 67a. Applicant shall record a Statement of Obligation, in the form of a deed notification, to inform all future property owners of their legal obligation to maintain the private roadways, private drainage facilities, pedestrian facilities, private landscaped areas, private road street lights, and any other common on- site private facilities. Drainage Improvements: Collect and Convey 68. The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks, or to .an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914.'of the Ordinance Code. 69. The. applicant shall verify that the existing downstream drainage system(s) that receives storm water runoff from this project are adequate to convey the required design storm (based on the size and ultimate development within the contributing watershed) and, if necessary, construct improvements to guarantee adequacy. The applicant shall obtain access rights to make any necessary improvements to off-site facilities. COA-37 Provision "C.3" of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance: 70. In compliance with Provision C.3 of the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge. Control Ordinance, it has been determined that this project does. not require submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) since it was deemed complete prior to February 15, 2005. However, this project is required to incorporate stormwater quality elements to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)! in accordance with all other provisions of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. This must include efforts to limit new impervious surface area, limit directly connected impervious areas, iprovide for self retaining areas and include other Best Management Practices to the MEP. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan: 71. Prior to. ground disturbance, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate construction related impacts and submit it to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall be kept on-site at all times and shall be amended whenever there is a change in construction or operations which may affect the discharge of significant quantities of pollutants to surface waters, ground waters, or a municipal separate storm sewier system. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 72. Any new drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 1 73. The applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across sidewalk(s) and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 74. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage easement over any man-made drainage system thi t conveys storm water runoff from public streets. 75. If required, the applicant shall provide proof that they are allowed to drain to the detention basin' on the adjacent property to the northwest (APN# 099-160- 025) and that this facility is designed to accommodate the additional drainage from the proposed lots in this application. The applicant shall provide evidence that the detention basin, freshwater pond, and other on-site drainage systems will be maintained and funded in perpetuity. 76. Applicant shall ensure that the design of the detention basin and freshwater pond are sized adequately to accommodate the runoff from those portions of the project site that will be conveyed to each facility. COA-38 i 77. The plieant sh rrilrcasei�it. 9��tciaieBenefit Assessment drainage f4eilities i wit D Meas 123 (NU. Diable wa4er-shed) Dfainage A&ea 83 (12-4 --- Ghieage water-shed). The appheant should assist in th f:,.Y..,.,tien ,f'., Ada A ll if it has net ai-0ady been f,-.. ed in the afea.- 78. To o.uee the et of .,.ldifi nal ste,=.,., ,.,tor ,-, eff f;-.,.., tl,;ffi deyel.,..men en AU Diable Gr-eek, s all eentA�te to the . rainage-de fieieze) fund for- Mt Diable l Creek based on the-rate-of$0.25 per- square feet „f new .surfaee area er-eate4 by the deyel.,pme„t will be based a the Fleed Centre! Distriet's standard lifnpefyieus sur-faee area-0rdinaneeThe ., „t eelleeted should be de s ted to the County Drainage Defieieney Tf st Fund. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 79. 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 or Central Valley Region). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMP's) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate some or all of the following long term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage: Stencil advisory warnings on all catch basins. - Minimize the amount of directly connected impervious surface area. Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. Shallow roadside and on-site swales. Slope pavements to direct runoff to landscaped/pervious areas, where feasible. Develop an employee training and education program to inform employees of the need for the reduction in pollutants leaving the site, and to inform them of appropriate methods of handling potential contaminants. Develop a perpetual maintenance program for on-site clean water/drainage facilities. The owner shall sweep the paved portion of the site at least once a year between Sepiember I" and October 15th utilizing a vacuum type sweeper. Verification (invoices, etc.) of the sweeping shall be provided to the County Clean Water Program Administrative Assistant at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553 (925) 313-2238. COA-39 I • Filtering inlets. Alternative pavements. - Other alternatives as approved by the Public Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OR 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. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST.FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq.; the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions.required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period aftdr the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the. amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game. It is the 'applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within the development.that may affect and fish and wildlife resources,per the Fish and Game Code. C. Applicant must comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department. D. Applicant must comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits arerequired prior to the construction of most structures. E. This project maybe subject to the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. F. The applicant must comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. G. Applicant must comply with applicable requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. COA-40 i i H. The project must.comply with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. I. The applicant shall be required to comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the Bay Point Area of Benefit and the ECCRFFA (RTDIM) Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. J. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, lof any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.' K. This project may be subject to;the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. COA-41 . I i i � i i i i i i i i i i i i i hlb1,� 4 �X �\ Oak �etitier App' 1 CRAIG F. ANDERSEN #60435 ANDERSEN & BONNIFIELD 2 One Corporate Centre 1320 Willow Pass Road, Suite 500 3 Concord, California 94520 Telephone: (925) 602-1400 Attorney for Appellant 5 THOMAS/DENOVA, LLC 6 7 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 10 THOMAS/DENOVA, LLC (APPLICANT ) CASE NO.: 11 AND OWNER), ) 12 Appellant ' ) APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILES NOS. 13 V. ) SD048918 AND DP043096 THOMAS/DENOVA, LLC (APPLICANT 14 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, ) AND OWNER) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ) 15 DEPARTMENT, ) 16 Respondent. ) 17 18 THOMAS/DENOVA, LLC (Applicant and Owner) ("Appellant") hereby appeals to the 19 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS certain Conditions of Approval as 20 set forth in the Conditions of Approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on 21 Tuesday, January 24, 2006, Agenda Items #5, 6, 7 and 8. 22 COMES NOW, Appellant,.and respectfully appeals the following Conditions of Approval: 23 1. Condition of Approval No. 10, Page COA-3, Child Care Progam. Appellant 24 `i respectfully requests that the Board impose financial maximums on said Condition in that the I 5 II unlimited financial structure imposed places a potentially financial hardship on the project. As an 2 6 II alternative, Appellant respectfully suggests that a$25,000 fee to the County of Contra Costa be paid as a full satisfaction of this Condition. G 7 I 28 Appeal 1 i 1 2. Condition of Approval No. 16, Page COA-6, Potable Water Monitoring and 2 Mitigation Plan. Appellant respectfully submits that the requested information has been previously 3 4 provided to the Contra Costa County Health Services. Further, Appellant asserts that the "open- 5 end" financial obligation potentially could impose the extreme financial hardship on the project. 6 3. ' Condition of Approval No. 17, Page COA-7; Deed Disclosure Regarding Potable 7 Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. Appellant respectfully requests that said Condition be 8 modified to reflect the amended Condition.of Appr val No. 16, supra. 9 10 4. Condition of Approval No. zr'* Page COA-7, Establishment of Police Services 11 District. Appellant respectfully submits that said Condition should occur prior to initial certification 12 of occupancy or completion of the initial.structure. 13 5. Condition of Approval No. 34, Page COA-26, East Bay Regional Park District Trail 14 Construction. Appellant respectfully submits that there is absolutely no nexus between Appellant's 15 16 project and the Condition imposed for the benefit of the East Bay Regional Park District. 17 6. Condition of Approval No. 41, Page COA-31, Construction Activity. Appellant 18 specifically objects to the Condition prohibiting construction activities on Saturdays and state and 19 federal holidays. Due to the location of the project, there is no nexus between such Condition and 20 the project. Further, Appellant respectfully submits that said Condition is unreasonable and no 21 22 evidence was presented at the hearing supporting the requirement for said Condition. j 23 7. Conditions of Approval Nos. 44, 45 and 46, Page COA-32 Roadway Improvements ' 24 II (Evora Road). Appellant respectfully submits that issues relating to the proposed Conditions Nos. i 5 I� 44, 45 and 46 have been previously addressed in the Deferred Improvement Agreement as per 26 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 203-706. 27 2 s ;I 8. Conditions of Approval Nos. 53 and 54. Pages COA-33 & 34. Roadwav H Appeal ` I 1 Improvements (Off-Site). Appellant respectfully submits that the requirements imposed by said i 2 Conditions were not satisfied by the evidence presented at the Planning Commission Hearing and, 3 4 further, that said Conditions impose an unlimited financial burden upon Appellant which is 5 unreasonable and is further supported by contrary evidence submitted by Mr. Charles Abrams, 6 Traffic Engineer for the Appellant. 9.. Condition of Approval No. 62, Page COA-35, Sight Distance. Appellant 8 respectfully requests that the design speed of "45 miles per hour" be changed to "35 miles per 9 10 hour" as the 45 mile per hourlCondition imposed is unreasonable and not supported by evidence. 11 10. Condition of Approval No. 64, Page COA-35, Street Lights. Appellant respectfully 12 requests that said Condition be deleted as the requested annexation has already occurred. 13 11. Condition of Approval No. 69, Page COA-36, Drainage Improvements. Appellant 14 respectfully requests that'the I words "if legally possible" be added to the last sentence of the 15 paragraph in that Appellant has no control over the United States Government property and such 16 17 Condition is unreasonable. 18 12. Conditions of Approval Nos. 77 and 78, Page COA-37, Miscellaneous Drainage 19 Requirements. Appellant respectfully requests that said Conditions be eliminated in their entirety in 20 that no financial maximums 'are placed on Condition of Approval No. 77 and, further, that 21 regarding Condition of Approval No. 78, the imposition of said Condition is not supported by any 22 23 rationale presented at the hearing by staff. 24 13. Condition of Approval 1, Page COA-39, Advisory Notes. Appellant respectfully • li I i 25 l requests that said Condition not be imposed upon Appellant in the absence of demonstration of a 26 ;� rational nexus or that the project is in the specified district. 2� ii • l Appellant respectfully requests that the aforestated Conditions of Approval be modified 28 ii i! 3 Appeal I I I 1 and/or eliminated as per Appellant's specific requests. Further, Appellant has generally based this 2 appeal on the adverse effects on Appellant's property in that the requirements were not satisfied by 3 the evidence presented at the hearing, the Conditions imposed were unreasonable and/or the 4 5 Conditions as objected to have no reasonable nexus to the project. 6 DATED: January 30, 2006 7 Respectfully Submitted, 8 THOMAS/DENOVA, LLC, g Applicant, Owner & Appellant 10 /1 11 By STEVE THOMAS, I 12 General Partner/Principal 13 ANDERSEN & BONNIFIELD 14 n 15 C ANDERSEN 16 Atto for Appellant AS/DENOVA, LLC 17 18 19 20 2'1 22 23 24 I i 25 i 26 it 27 .I li I I 28 II VDFNOVA`.LFSHEWA PPEAL .I it 4 . Appeal i i i i Exhibit 5 CEQA Determination - g Mltlg atec Ne ative Declaration - Initial Study - Mitigation Monitoring Program i i er�is arry;'1RC'R� C oln'rrm u n ity i Contra un i* evelo ire or Development p Costa Department � County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street COUNTY CLERK 4th Floor, North Wing :�7 OSTA COUNTY Martinez, California 94553-0095Ogt- DEPUTY Phone: (925) 335-1210 - DATE: August 31, 2005 co" I NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I County Files: #GP0300015 #RZ043151, #SD048918 & #DP043096 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date.. this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an Initial Study on the following project: THOMAS/DeNOVA, LLC (Applicant & Owner), County File #GP03000L RZ043151, SD048918 & DP043096: Applicant requests approval of: (1) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations for approximately 29 acres from Light Industrial, Agricultural Lands and Open Space to Mixed Use; (2) a Rezoning from L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District to P-1 Planned Unit District; (3) a Major Subdivision to create 14 commercial/industrial lots; and (4) a Preliminary & Final Development Plan to allow the development of up to 357,500 square feet of office, commercial, retail and light industrial uses including a gas station in buildings up to 68.feet tall. The subject property consists of approximately 66.55 acres fronting the north side of Evora Road from its western terminus tolits intersection with Willow Pass Road. The western edge of the site is bordered by the Contra Costa Canal and beyond the canal is the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The site is bordered to the north by private agricultural land, to the east by PG&E's Los Medanos Gas Storage Field and to the south by State Route 4. Beyond State Route 4 is the inland extension of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The site is located in the Concord area. (General Plan:ILight Industrial (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL), Open Space (OS); Zoning: Light Industrial District (L-I), General Agricultural District (A-2); Zoning Atlas Page: F-16; Census Tract: 3150.00; Assessor Parcel Numbers: 099-160-015, 099-160-019, 099- 160-020, 099-160-025, 099-160-028 and 099-160-029). I The Initial Study for the proposed development identified potentially significant impacts in the following environmental areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology & Soils, Hazards, Noise, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities & Service Systems. Environmental analysis has determined that measures are available to mitigate potentially significant adverse impacts to insignificant i I Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2), 21064.5 and Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15071), the MND describes the proposed project; identifies, analyzes and evaluates the potential significant environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project; and identifies measures to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts. With the mitigations identified in this document designed into the proposed project, it.would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The applicant has agreed to all of the required mitigation measures. A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed at the offices of Ithe Community Development Department in the Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, North Wing, Second Floor, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on. the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Thursday, September 29, 2005. Comments must be in writing and must be submitted to the following address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Attn: Aruna Bhat 651 Pine Street,North Wing—4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 The County File Numbers listed at the beginning of this notice should be included on all correspondence. It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 25, 2005. It is anticipated that the hearing will be held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, 651 Pine Street (intersection of Pie and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California. If you have any questions regarding this notice or the proposed project, please contact Aruna Bhat at(925) 335-1219. S' Terfly, Wi am Nelson Senior Planner cc: County Clerk's Office(3 copies) i I. I� - I I Exhibit S I CEQA,., Determination I - Mitigated. Negative Declaration - Initial S W dy - gProgramMltl ation Monitorin g I I I I I I I I 4 I I SIS eRy, ColhiMunity Contra ur,,,� e�eio ire or Development p Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street ' ` _ S- R, COUNTY CLERK 4th Floor, North Wing ;j - OSTA COUNTY Martinez, California 94553-0095 _ DEPUTY -- Phone: (925) 335-1210 ' " DATE: August 31, 2005 a'cou NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGA'T'IVE DECLARATION County Files: #GP030001, #RZ043151, #SD048918 & #DP043096 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date,this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an Initial Study on the following project: THOMAS/DeNOVA, LLC (Applicant & Owned. County File #GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 & DP043096: Applicant requests approval of (1) a General Plan Ainendment to change the land use designations for approximately 29 acres from Light Industrial, Agricultural Lands and Open Space to Mixed Use; (2) a Rezoning from L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District to P-jil Planned Unit District; (3) a Major Subdivision to create 14 commercial/industrial lots; and (4) a Preliminary & Final Development Plan to allow the development of up to 357,500 square feet of office, commercial, retail and light industrial uses including a gas station in buildings up to 68.feet tall. The subject property consists of approximately 66.55 acres fronting .the north side of Evora Road from its western terminus toy,its intersection with Willow Pass Road. The westem edge of the site is bordered by the Contra Costa Canal and beyond the canal is the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The site is bordered to the north by private agricultural land, to the east by PG&E's Los Medanos Gas Storage Field and to the south by State Route 4. Beyond State Route 4 is the inland extension of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The site is located in the Concord area. (General Plan:ILight Industrial (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL), Open Space (OS); Zoning: Light Industrial District (L-I), General Agricultural District (A-2); Zoning Atlas Page: F-16; Census Tract: 3150.00; Assessor Parcel Numbers: 099-160-015, 099-160-019, 099- 160-020,.099-160-025, 099-160-028 and 099-160-029). The Initial Study for the proposed development identified potentially significant impacts in the following environmental areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology & Soils, Hazards, Noise, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities & Service Systems. Environmental analysis has determined that measures are available to mil igate potentially significant adverse impacts to insignificant Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd &5th Fridays of each month i levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2), 21064.5 and Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15071), the MND describes the proposed project; identifies, analyzes and evaluates the potential significant environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project; and identifies measures to nitigate the adverse environmental impacts. With the mitigations identified in this document designed into the proposed project, it would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The applicant has agreed to all of the required mitigation measures. A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed at the offices of!the Community Development Department in the Application and Permit Center.at the .McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, North Wing, Second Floor,Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on. the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Thursday, September 29,.2005. Comments must be in writing and must be submitted to the following address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Attn: Aruna Bhat 651 Pine Street,North Wing—4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 i The County File Numbers listed at the beginning of this notice should be included on all correspondence. It is anticipated. that the proposed .Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Planning Commission-on Tuesday, October 25, 2005. It is anticipated that the hearing will be held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, 651 Pine Street (intersection of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California. If you have any questions regarding this notice or the proposed project, please contact Aruna Bhat at(925) 335-1219. S' kamg , Wi on Senior Planner i cc: County Clerk's Office(3 copies) i I I i I y Exhibit 5 I CEQA , Determi"nati" on - Miti ated N ' g Negative I3eclaratlon - Initial Study - Mitigation Monitoring Program ram I I I I I I I I 4 4 i i I I ColmMunity Contra eras av;i Co un eveloire or Development Department I Costa P County - �� County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing �• �, COUNTY CLERK R rA CPU f' Martinez, California 94553-0095 I 2 MDEPU'�'1° Phone: (925) 335-1210 DATE: August 31, 2005 sT'4 COU ', NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County Files: #GP030001, #RZ043151, #SD048918 & #DP043096 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date.. this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an Initial Study on the following project: THOMAS/DeNOVA, LLC (Applicant & Owner), Countv File #GP030001 RZ043151, SD048918 & DP043096: Applicant requests approval of: (1) a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations for approximately 29 acres from Light Industrial, Agricultural Lands and Open Space to Mixed Use; (2) a Rezoning from L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District to P 1 1 Planned Unit District; (3) a Major Subdivision to create 14 commercial/industrial lots; and (4) a Preliminary & Final Development Plan to allow the development of up to 357,500 square feet of office, commercial, retail and light industrial uses including a gas station in buildings up to 68 feet tall. The subject property consists of approximately 66.55 acres fronting the north side of Evora Road from its western terminus to its intersection with Willow Pass Road. The western edge of the site is bordered by the Contra Costa Canal and beyond the canal is the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The site is bordered to the north by private agricultural land, to the east by PG&E's Los Medanos Gas Storage Field and to -the south by State Route 4. Beyond State Route 4 is the inland extension of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The site is located in the Concord area. (General Plan:1 Light Industrial (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL), Open Space . (OS); Zoning: Light Industrial District (L-I), General Agricultural District (A-2); Zoning Atlas Page: F-16; Census Tract: 3150.00; Assessor Parcel Numbers: 099-160-015, 099-160-019, 099- 160-020, 099-160-025, 099-160-028 and 099-160-029). The Initial Study for the proposed development identified potentially significant impacts in the following environmental areas: ,Aesthetics, Air Quality, Geology & Soils, Hazards, Noise, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities & Service Systems. Environmental analysis has determined that measures are available to mitigate potentially significant adverse impacts to insignificant I I Office Hours Monday- Friday:6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month I I _ levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2), 21064.5 and Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. I Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15071), the MND describes the proposed project; identifies, analyzes and evaluates the potential significant environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project; and identifies measures to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts. With the mitigations identified in this document designed into the proposed project, it would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The applicant has agreed to all of the required mitigation measures. A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed at the offices of the Community Development Department in the Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, North Wing, Second Floor,Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period - The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Thursday, September 29, 2005. Comments must be in writing and must be submitted to the following address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Attn: Aruna Bhat 651 Pine Street, North Wing—4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 I The County File Numbers listed at the beginning of this notice should be included on all correspondence. I It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the County Planning Commission.on Tuesday, October 25, 2005. It is anticipated that the hearing will be held at the McBrien Administration Building, Room 107, 651 Pine Street (intersection of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California. If you have any questions regarding this notice or the proposed project, please contact Aruna Bhat at(925) 335-1219. S' er ly, I I Wi am :Nelson Senior Planner cc: Counry Clerk's Office(3 copies) I I^ I ' I I , I n I WILLOWIPASS BUSINESS PARK iJ INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION _ i 'ill. t. Lip r. f: r. Contra Costa County File Numbers General Plan Amendment No..GP030001 Rezoning No. RZ043151 (Subdivision No. SD048918 Development Plan No. DP043096 I I " LSA I August 2005 I I i DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: 15 Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 I . 3 County Clerk, Contra Costa County FROM: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,4th Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 I Project Title: Willow Pass Business Park Applicant: Thomas/DeNovaj LLC. Project Location: Willow Pass: Business Park is proposed within the unincorporated.area of Contra Costa County, northeast of the City of Concord. The project site is located along Evora Road and adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal, immediately northwest of the State Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange. The entire project site is within the Urban Limit Line of Contra Costa County; Assessor'.s Parcel Numbers: 099-160-015, -019, -020, -025, -028 and -029. Project Description: The project applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, a j Rezoning, a Major Subdivision and the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the Willow Pass Business Park (County Files #GP030001, #RZ043151, #SD048918 and #DP043096). Areas currently designated Light Industrial, Agricultural Lands and Open Space would be changed to Mixed Use to allow the development of a 325,000 to 357,500 square foot mixed-use business park including uses such as light industrial, warehouse commercial, office, restaurant and retail spaces. The proposed project involves construction of 10 to 14 buildings up to 68 feet in height. The existing six parcels would be subdivided into 14 lots. Previously prepared environmental documents have evaluated many of the larger changes to the project site. In 1987 an EIR was.prepared for the Lesher Park General Plan Amendment (County File #13-85-CO) for proposed ]and use designation change for the property from Open Space to Light Industria] for the purpose of developing a newspaper printing facility known as Lesher Park. The General Plan Amendment was approved, however, none of the proposed development occurred. In 2002 an Initial Study was prepared for the annexation of the project site into the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (Zone 1) and the concurrent detachment of the site from the Central Contra Costa County Sanitation District. The 2002 Initial Study included the evaluation of the grading of the site and extension of public services. Finding: Based on the attached Initial Study, it has been found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment as mitigated. See mitigation measures within the Initial Study and the attached Consent Agreement for Mitigation Measures (Appendix B). x/3'(105 William R. e s n, Senior Planner Date Contra Costa County Community Development Department I I _ I I i i WILLOWIPASS BUSINESS PARK INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT MITIGATIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Contra Costa County File Numbers General Plan Amendment No. GP030001 Rezoning No. RZ043151 'Subdivision No. SD048918 Development Plan No. DP043096 I i Submitted to: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Administrative Building 651 Pine Street 2nd Floor-North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1295 i I Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510.540.7331 L S August 2005 i ` | | |' - �, f^~.J���� ����� C~^^,TE^, ~`^ _ | ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ! / | � ---------------------.------.-----..l \ A. SUMMARY INFORMATION------------_-------_--.—.------.l I. AESTHETICS .1 .......................................................................................................2O D. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES------------------------22 i D0. AIR QUALITY ..................25 / IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES----...--------_-----.-------32 V. [lJLTl}R&L RESOURCES....................................................................................35 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................37 ! VII.. HAZARDS .....L-------------------------------.—..40 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-------------------..45 / D{. LAND USE AND PLANNING------------_-----.-------..48 ! X. y4IBREBAL RESOURCES—.-------.-----.—.-----_------49 ' }Q. Y4OlSB --_-------------.-------.------_..50 - ��l I{C�J8l�J0 56 / .� POPULATION,°���''^" -----------------.-------. � XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES..............................................................................................57 ' }{IV. -------------.-------.58 XV. TRAN --------.-.-----------59 | XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS................................ .............................75 ` XVII. OF SIGNIFICANCE---.------------..7g B. REPORT pREPAREk8....................................................................................................8l ( C. . BIBLIOGRAPHY.... .................................----------........................................82 - i | � ( APPENDICES | | � AppendixA: Agency Project AppendixI}: Mitigation � |re Agreement � |� � . . | � | , ) !� Rcvic,m^wu.d=w,0/2=* � � | ` / i I i . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I � f A. SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Willow Pass Business Park General Plan Amendment No. GP030001 Rezoning No. RZ043151 Subdivision No. SD048918 evelopment Plan No. DP043096 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department McBrien Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4`h Floor—North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-1295 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: William R.Nelson, Senior Planner Phone: (925)335-1208 ( I 4. Project Location: Willow Pass Business Park is proposed within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, northeast of the City of Concord. The project site is located along Evora Road and adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal, immediately northwest of the State Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange, as shown in Figure 1. The entire project site is within the Urban Limit Line of Contra Costa County. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 099-160-015, -019, -020, -025, -028 and-029 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Thomas/Denova,LLC 3100 Oak Road, Suite#140 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 6. Existing General Plan Designations: Light Industrial (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL) and Open Space(OS) 7. Existing Zoning:.L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District I P.ICCC5301PRODUCrSVS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.d.( 30!2005) 1 i , I ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1' i S. Description of Project: Existing Conditions and Setting The project site consists of 6 parcels comprising 66.55 acres, all of which are owned by Thomas/Denova LLC. The site is located on hilly terrain north of Evora Road, as shown in Figure 2. The site contains an abandoned gun club with one small building and parking area. A Frito Lay warehouse/distribution facility (which is not a part of this project) has been approved on land surrounded by the project site. The Frito Lay facility has not yet been constructed and the timetable for construction is unknown at this time. The project site and the undeveloped open space to the north and east of the project site drains into an existing storm water detention basin and fresh water pond in the northwest portion of the site. Runoff flows to the detention basin and freshwater pond through a conveyance system of bioswales and concrete lined channels. All runoff leaving the detention basin and freshwater pond is directed to a 30-inch storm drain line that passes under the Contra Costa Canal to the southwest of the project site. The southern and western portions of the site have been graded and are covered mainly by grasses, with two trees on the southwest portion of the site. The northeastern portion of the site consists of grass-covered hills which have historically been used as.grazing land. Access to the project site is provided from Willow Pass Road and Evora Road, both located on the southern edge of the site. Primary utility infrastructure systems for storm drainage, sewage disposal, public utilities, domestic and fire water have been installed. The General Plan designation for the site is Light Industrial (LI), Agriculture Lands (AL) and Open Space (OS) and the site is currently zoned Light Industrial District (L-I) and General Agriculture District (A-2). Approximately 31 acres of the northern portion of the site (the hill slope areas and along the northern border) are to be designated as restricted development areas under a conservation easement. In 1988, a General Plan Amendment was approved to redesignate 63 acres of the site from OS to LI for a newspaper printing facility, while retaining 20 acres of the project site as Open Space. i Prior Environmental Documentation In 1987, an EIR was prepared for the Lesher Park General Plan Amendment (County File 411- 85-CO) for a proposed land use designation change for the property from Open Space to Light Industrial for.the purpose of developing a newspaper printing facility known as Lesher Park. The project evaluated in the EIR involved the land use designation change to Light Industrial to allow for the development of 74 of that site's 78 total acres. The proposed development consisted of 743,000 gross square feet in six two-story buildings. These buildings were to be used by Lesher Communications,Inc., a newspaper publisher, and other industrial uses. A two- story 230,000 square foot building was planned on the central portion of the site and a 15,000 square foot garage would have been constructed adjacent to the central building. An additional 498,000 square feet of development in five buildings was proposed for other parts of the project area, and each-of the buildings were to have been surrounded by surface parking areas for 1,456 cars. In 1988 the Lesher Park General Plan Amendment was approved,'however, none of the proposed development occurred. P:I000350\PRODUCI'SVS-MND(Public\Public Revicw IS-NMDAm(960/2005) 3 . f-� 0 n O M o JR RN F � _ F m G1 r.. ��••''r . ,'%:> Oz- IBIN I p c,,• lqy (y�j 4,�4. ���'� +''��7 f f'r f��I ..rte �/� ;�;•���! /�a�.�� V'�'�' P"x�lW'111j'r v-"/���� ,li,'Sl�l �� +'�'� <' O 5 o y fyl�r /✓�1/�"'��l, / /1t��li . 17 ;a.'t'•` `"- :� "=>;�:�� _ r_-_ . ;r, �e�' f�!%f%/ +tai�� �- � 1 13 4: -�.__«_ •,/%r'.%' 't'�j 'a"% f'�,3` � /�Jji/1}r _. �l 1 �i " VIVY J/1/l o -�1'lt _ ;.kt�J r"''`4 �% ==-"=.�'--�%�i(��!I,','1�t�/I��i/J���„ �•.,r.;�,•,,�'.,� - � •j--�`I 1 , _- ifi /i- rf���".�.��� t�\ 11"� l.,,il i. ' 1 o to .�-- t,Y �,.x; Vii."/,//' �'-�\: :�;i�'\}�\1\ •.,: '•..1 ,�_. � 1' �„}•--�. �``� � r t 't:'i' iii I i i i!i I I(,ri i ' }z 0 N o 0 PA Am '�� ,, 'F• u=:,x`4,. W tri {� ,,. i- �..,.� .ay�{, .6 t 'rte }• .� �`,'1 a .w( gid; ';t� b,.•�• i:"A�' .&�.p+T... •�Y;.r F^ � � \,; \� •. T�,�, :fir.. :!a1'y' � , '`'•*� -'�.A \. \11` \ •T"','q,:�>u l t' }.h 5.1 t z��rur•' `" h'^trt'.: .;C.♦ .��,;, .�`� ::.;T"'' ' �• > a'r. ;� a ue!w _ �\. ,. ��+:.• sC' pr;:!'y�G.`,•��,`4 1 �v2•�? •' tt:,.����";. .'J�-' 'k'A .� ,C'. .,fi. J. .\C�•' �.` '\ :u+ fr...Vi•. �t}'S :::., 31:, �., 1. '+i: {i :�y .. A�,Jxwa/.r'z;ri-i.:"�(':�.ate#.;Ls: 'n<.k�!tr 1:T.taS.:"•,'t.`•. - �:�`.+ .;F:t: '".it\~ s, ;y�r�' V •`*^ 'tYi.- ,F ';u�a, zs�. •J nw:t3.• .�� .� �.,... �r:��;• �.Ic.�,�� ,Vrt^ n.{�..�' Mati�t'��F' t�;i�'Y`, '�''" :_; ;�' cry. 4'• • ;4 y.'W r'•:,is t�}� n y,'2.. ' �::.'+ ,,,-$i , . � : ,�y_ t,• � *: !, 1, �<:'",s.f^. \ ��tis ��ii i��t� lfta4:}�;`v'FSi`.•i ^4•.,Y•i.�jt•n y,,, ,r �',:, ,Zr.,t,. 'r;'�,,ce..r M,,,. .� ,^3 �,j. r a °''.t(4.r•'+1 t!"' .f'� ,f..',' '`�'9�t Y:-�".fir i:� \�: ':li•ti,..y' �+;y, �.:.2:-,..y�., x :as: � � % `r^ '.i ,..},1. `J�� >. :..:,,,1,`4.4,-. F�.:,t �• \�;_ '+CAC` ,-, •'K� A '(tr::. .,:k't...,..,r:s`,.; :+% � {j/�J,��•. \ L; ",r_ �SL{M,.i';r.2�:.�-'4'+[+�•��R� �j �,}, j;".,� -.a„+pfy:i..:� .�ir�' .-q�3il�f:r. \, :i�?`t^ * Aa :: 4x`+;> x •�.5 („,�-'.`-'+ ; S. t; a�F'Y•'. Rpt o+.e, -t:� e+�.t•x i'� t,'.''�;':.s:, i�, �l x, r .- `dp.. ...,•., t ;� ': ,,.Cr:h:io.:,ti,�ti.r:•?. ,..-.`'� 'Fb �: .9 .. �� `t;��•'�: ��.'a!'.J'. ,\�, ��*k 1\, w'"'r:%.1 Lr;a♦T..: :'•.�,f :y.C. ZL1,<�1., `k'•'�•,a..:•'~:' '-;;1'- w k3vw` t\•' #r. ^�t;L• t. 1 y� ��;;�� �i...,S,C••�.,•':..• .. • :#i ,��Y:_�:'�,:::' .fir` i.��;�j;" 'l��. `e �. � vf_a"3t fat:- r� #`�'•;.,,.•r > '�+s`.#"„f^,.^R°•v.. -}'� i�t���,'P,`.y`q�+'�'^�� \ 1 + j• t' .�•.. \ E•r.7a Al R '.�;:, '..:,s�'"''�:• \L•.�: I ♦, R�4.' '.•,. r�' � .v FJ�.s`y �A 9A ••�"': ..�,:-� ::k.?<f;�.w y'�,c .F',,;.;`' fQ #k. q4 �t .r; ii,;,�;f3!t ♦, ,N`n ti�w��V ` � 'S�, iA.:�,':'I 'S•'7T Asa.,.. :�:,"s�' ;i j '��'y' at r-�'�i�';�`r�n,:a:il�,.�` ,. �, ♦' �'y.,.1 s�c�„ �" rF,, ,. .�L�t'`•t.:^1�:: ,;'t?}' � f.'� �' b° ..,Z' ,n.,�.'"�•��'�s�S:,a'•.7.�'r2f'�..�```,;,,,^i'��'�:•. '.iV=:i�:.` ♦._• J� y.� :r( r't` f:X.:' ."+: •�c ' p .•• �' '` ^:, 1D t j -t:'':fJ �F ,,ru •k.: , ° p 1fiY '+'e:r ;'lr;•ew• ,rp s, f{\.. ,'\ -'..t'"a^;�F'r'-kw 'aa``3.i� \ S"?i,te � ! �,f�' �•'� ;`oa,i;'�',i•� :r,- of ,r: rvt.':l'' ,F° }" y ra, •!a j. �• 't-.. ? `f fir: •,7�;•:�`x'Z.=€i:�T`ki:::.,�z"s",`�, ; �. k..: C: •�� . ;try:ie�, `t 1' ';,:1::: e:' �•.0 �'•y{?•,;` �,:; � 15, on .. .,,}f i ;r.X•� ;'?;j':; k;- a r..•.`�i�,'ifj. ;4•"Y�i ..\". „�- ,1:"` a�' / w Stir.,t�t'k��.,�+ "i.•tay�L'�G�':e. s.:,�tf-pt.'�' 'T-4's3� �:•V,y,V� ``: S !i,i;.l� i�%f� .,er��i�;r ,I ":x, i ,.�?;.-._;. .1 .h.,in':ta>;;nar'� �;Fn�-K`d' ":`�y'br`4�i,'IS�S�; ��•F .�, z+�. o''ycar t�.�"+�'w� t .t� ..'.r P•f � 1\ sr.,.. t�^a ,G.^: :' •e '�ry + ;Ji'vf �`a t > '� •,�i'4,• 'J. `� ( 4' t,V.l�-�"�,'.= ,3_:r•.''a.u, Vit• ir:. �'; � ,A#^ :t'i ,��p '�!Y,.'#.'?hn.•'\.• .:'�::�f ..,.�•. \ '$.• 'u,k;,'x Y k t.. �:`" '1 � `.rtt,"y?'t �;t`,rrr: � -i:,' �"t;';•,u t,. �,;:y` ::,Y... •�-+tti:}� �t ,,�i�`'+\�i�y,�:� rt; ` � 'V.�� '+.,r{� /.8'•�G,1' +� 1. "1 7 ,•:PsiC�."zk: ` ��4bt�;?fcr���.K;,.7'...�'�Y.r?'s .i. ;i v ,,;.�' t,.�'i:.^` ::f�"., a;.+{,^.-;�, \ —;'�s°'tq; '-'�ttyfi"r„'.+�r'::�.S�;A�:'�s;•i�2;�ki '�';:a°��a;bF:;♦' j �L)�k �1. � ,r.� ••i: /, x�,- .�r!:;r. ��,., >r..y:, &22c' -Yr..r�:��tf% d�:�t,,"r'.,r�tl,° ( ,�r ! :-.:,•Rft .;r�. ,.aqt����., :;;`t ;rr`-'' .y'" \,, U U "N.t`f::�•`,`t`4wf}:7";E'4 _ ,aq•5 ,��t''"•t\.�y 1:: ,r. .� wF.` r H�;.A�.c��.�j�r'• �.r,�{�... ''fit 'w.. \+ U ¢� c±i•r`., �e �t r :r '^•� Y .v_; yj ,� e�r. -J„✓i.,..:i' •a W .:'t.,-f'�'+S' r{;?3hV;J t '1\- •, r '' dd J ���.,.,�'�•;•t:s,^Y�� Q .:n :1'l��->.t:�,.�. '��5'rs'.;.pa <�!' `i``� � ,Y,i 1:Pi:);! ♦ v=` r:�!•S••,:rr "tj7t ;'.) i W sn +.t,�,y�{� NJ ,1i�;T,„Y '.��••t� + �` �;.��y jf,�' 1'j f, " ••,�.': 4� 3u• O .+l`�FY{:��w�i .'JS`-`L` J y ^.K:i 1 1 I, X41: _* +: '�iV t:'� ",7,� 1 f..,..Y.av ..y.("�•-��f w1 ?1T ,F{ : e+ Lf'4' ?3,�4 ;:±erJvt �i:;� f,t 1 ffn• �'%�;xh. �`<'. Tn J �•,`f R•;•N7tt.• i't_�; ,t.�rr. `t�,!+,,„; �•• w •'�f- JF t'.,'.{�J� y• ';�” �q\�••i'S t-+ gip.• Y ����.J,•�.:'>.1w.''.� - "Y+,`- i .. � 'i•'i',•✓•'' w ~•`f' , .�1 `,aC' , i �'."•;-l.;h'r r, aji. N. �'r;#?,6.;%l..rF� 'F}'`,'*,i:'7:;i.'•�- -;•� ,.`•'•.%u. ��'[t��,gµ Fx��'�,.�_` .�,.`.'_.'.,'.,.'' t. .ti,^�.�.=<`:;,: ,1?�;, 133. Ji^.f.F y.��'`,i„` }��r}�• x. .;;�'�i: ,iy,lti 's't' )'t�'� �;`,d:`'.i"i3 ` w'�`;'F�?r` �i ..:q,+:;tom q P'.r'•. � ��S�.'/ ,•.. 1 1 / WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION �r I��\ •'��'r' mss':. i Contra Costa'County File Numbers General Plan Amendment No. GP030001 Rezoning No. RZO43151 Subdivision No. SD048919 Development Plan.No. DPO43096 LSA August 2005 i DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: 15 Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 3 County Clerk, Contra Costa County FROM: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,4th Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Project Title: Willow Pass Business Park Applicant: Thomas/DeNova, LLC. Project Location: Willow Pass Business Park is proposed within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, northeast of the City of Concord. The project site is located along Evora Road and adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal, immediately northwest of the State Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange. The entire project site is within the Urban Limit Line of Contra Costa County; Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 099-160-015, -019, -020, -025, -028 and -029. Project Description: The project applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Rezoning, a Major Subdivision and the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the Willow Pass Business Park(County Files#GP030001, #RZ043151, #SD048918 and #DP043096). Areas currently designated Light Industrial, Agricultural Lands and Open Space would be changed to Mixed Use to allow the development of a 325,000 to 357,500 square foot mixed-use business park including uses such as light industrial, warehouse commercial, office, restaurant and retail spaces. The proposed project involves construction of 10 to 14 buildings up to 68 feet in height. The existing six parcels would be subdivided into 14 lots. Previously prepared environmental documents have evaluated many of the larger changes to the project site. In 1987 an EIR was prepared for the Lesher Park General Plan Amendment (County File #13-85-CO) for proposed land use designation change for the property from Open Space to Light Industrial for the purpose of developing a newspaper printing facility known as Lesher Park. The General Plan Amendment was approved, however, none of the proposed development occurred. .In 2002 an Initial Study was prepared for the annexation of the project site into the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (Zone 1) and the concurrent detachment of the site from the . Central Contra Costa County Sanitation District. The 2002 Initial Study included the evaluation of the grading of the site and extension of public services. Finding: Based on the attached Initial Study, it has been found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment as mitigated. See mitigation measures within the Initial Study and the attached Consent Agreement for Mitigation Measures (Appendix B). William R. e s n, Senior Planner Date Contra Costa County Community Development Department i WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Contra Costa County File Numbers General Plan Amendment No. GP030001 Rezoning No. RZO43151 Subdivision No. SD048918 Development Plan No. DPO43096 Submitted to: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Administrative Building 651 Pine Street 2nd Floor-North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1295 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 510.540.7331 LSA August 2005 || � � � \ � \ ) � � ' l � ` T^~~�~~~ ��^^", ~'O^`TE^` "^" � ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST | ..........................................................................................................l A. SUMMARY ---.-----.----.—.---.----.—..l 1. AESTHETICS'........................................................................................................2U D. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES--------..--------_------22 DJ. AIR -----.~----.--.----.--.--.—...25 IV. BIOLOGICAL I RESOURCES----------.---.----.---------3% V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-------.---_----.----.----`---35 VIGEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................37 � VII. HAZARDS ------------------------.--4O VIII. HYDROLOGY,AND WATER QUALITY—....--.-------------...45 DX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.............................................................................40 X. MINERAL RESOURCES-----------------..-------..--...49 XI. NOISE.............................................................. ................................................. ...5U XII. ANDHOUSING..........................................................................5M XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.............................................................................................57 XIV. RECREATION1.............................................................. .......................................58 ' XV. ---.---------------------..59 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS....... ........................ ..............................75 � XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.----.—.---------.7g B. REPORT .-----------------.--.---.-----.—_--0l CC 82 . ` —''f---'--------------''.----^---'.~-----' APPENDICES | ` Appendix A: Agency Project Comozeots � Appendix B: Mitigation Measure Agreement � � | � | � � i �| | '.'NC`C530"RO"UC'S\]^°N"Pu°"\Publi"P�view"-N~"^~~13~20; ^ � | LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FIGURES Figure 1: Project Vicinity and/Regional Location .................................................................2 Figure 2: Aerial Photograph....................................................................................................5 Figure 3: Proposed Project Subdivision,Rezoning and General Plan Amendment................7 Figure4: Site Topography.......................................................................................................8 Figure 5: Landscape Concept..................................................................................................9 Figure 6: Proposed Building Elevations................................................................................11 Figure 7: Visual Simulations.................................................................................................23 Figure 8: Existing Traffic Volumes......:................................................................................61 Figure 9: Project Trip Distribution and Project Trips ...........................................................66 Figure 10: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................................67 Figure 11: 2025 Baseline(No Project)Traffic Volumes........................................................71 Figure 12: 2025 Plus Project Traffic Volumes........................................................................72 TABLES Table 1: Willow Pass Business Park Proposed Uses.....................................................................13 Table 2: Willow Pass Gas Station Proposed Uses.........................................................................15 Table 3: Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10...... .............................29 Table 4: Mobile Source Emissions(lb/day)...................................................................................29 Table 5: 2005 CO Hot Spot Analysis.............................................................................................31 Table 6: 2025 CO Hot Spot Analysis.............................................................................................31 Table 7: Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels(LL,,,.)...................................51 Table 8: Existing No Project Traffic Noise Levels................................................:.......................53 Table 9: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels............................:.........................................53 Table 10: Year 2025 Baseline No Project Traffic Noise Levels......................................................54 Table H:: Year 2025 Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels............:......................................................54 Table 12: LOS/Delay at Unsignalized Intersections........................................................................60 Table 13: Existing LOS Summary...................................................................................................60 Table 14: Trip Generation Summary...............................................................................................62 Table 15: Existing Plus Project LOS Summary...............................................................................68 Table 16: 2025 LOS Summary........................................................................................................70 Table 17: 2025 Plus Project LOS Summary....................................................................................70 P:\CCCSIO\PRODUCTS\IS-MNI)\Wblic\Public Review IS-NMD.dw(830/2005) ]� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Willow Pass Business Park General Plan Amendment No. GP030001 Rezoning No. RZ043151 Subdivision No. SD048918Development Plan No. DP043096 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department McBrien Administration Building 651 Pine Street . 4`h Floor—North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1295 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: William R.Nelson, Senior Planner Phone: (925)335-1208 . 4. Project Location: Willow Pass Business Park is proposed within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, northeast of the City of Concord. The project site is located along Evora Road and adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal, immediately northwest of the State Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange, as shown in Figure 1. The entire project site is within the Urban Limit Line of Contra Costa County. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 099-160-015, -01% -020, -025,-028 and-029 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Thomas/Denova,LLC 3100.Oak Road, Suite#140 Walnut Creek,CA 94597 6. Existing General Plan Designations: Light Industrial (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL) and Open Space(OS) 7. Existing Zoning: L-1 Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District P:%CCC530%PRODUCTSUS.NM\Public\Public R-im IS-NIr4).Oac(10012005) 1 CONCORD \ / COsi / \ a O no \ \\ �._ J \ Mount' A �f .:..:....:. . e ASS T=:<.. :DU9t0:':� �'".• �.. p,0 N :CREEK,'. . O - C G\ _ co' R ;.:.. ...... ....•':�.:GOLF:':. ,..,,'. :.;.,.r:.`:`:--i".'",::;;. o... BART... /$ P N'By 7�V gW GR 0 BPS 4' eAwa:w os/B�'' OAS ` GFo aR o .U.S..NAVAL ,3 R �y WEAPONS STATION 1 CONCORD REGIONAL LOCATION S? �' . O OR PARK-_� i 0 : IDE: a`.. FabZ . C.ONCORD Co : A n J 0L1- Oy Aemdi 'W Q > F0. r u � Tracy O H mard L S A FIGURE 1 LEGEND x ® PROJECT AREA Willow Pass Business Park ------- RESTRICTED ROAD Project Vicinity and 0 125 .25 — UNPAVED ROAD MI® .Regional Location SOURCE: LSAASSOCIATES,INC.,2005. IACCC 530 Willow Pass\figures\Fig_Lai(421/05) i i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT !LITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8. Description of Project: Existing Conditions and Sitting The project site consists of 6 parcels comprising 66.55 acres, all of which are owned by Thomas/Denova LLC. Thel site is located on hilly terrain north of Evora Road, as shown in Figure 2. The site contains an abandoned gun club with one small building and parking area. A Frito Lay warehouse/distribution facility (which is not a part of this project) has been approved on land surrounded by the project site. The Frito Lay facility has not yet been constructed and the timetable for construction is unknown at this time. The project site and the undeveloped open space to the north and east of the project site drains into an existing storm water detention basin and fresh water pond in the northwest portion of the site. Runoff flows to the'detention basin and freshwater pond through a conveyance system of bioswales and concrete lined channels. All runoff leaving the detention basin and freshwater pond is directed to a 30-inch storm drain line that passes under the Contra Costa Canal to the southwest of the project site. The southern and western portions of the site have been graded and are covered mainly by grasses,with two trees on the southwest portion of the site. The northeastern portion of the site consists of grass-covered hills which have historically been used as.grazing land. Access to the project site is provided from Willow Pass Road and Evora Road, both located on the southern edge of the site. Primary utility infrastructure systems for storm drainage, sewage disposal; public utilities, domestic and fire water have been installed. The General Plan designation for the site is Light Industrial (LI), Agriculture Lands (AL) and Open Space (OS) and the site is currently zoned Light Industrial District (L-1) and General Agriculture District (A-2). Approximately 31 acres of the northern portion of the site (the hill slope areas and along the northern border) are to be designated as restricted development areas under a conservation easement. In 1988, a General Plan Amendment was approved to redesignate 63 acres of the site from OS to LI for a newspaper printing facility, while retaining 20 acres of the project site as Open Space. Prior Environmental Documentation In 1987, an EIR was prepared for the Lesher Park General Plan Amendment (County File#13- 85-CO) for a proposed land use designation change for the property from Open Space to Light Industrial for the purpose of developing a newspaper printing facility known as Lesher Park. The project evaluated in the EIR involved the land use designation change to Light Industrial to allow for the development I of 74 of that site's 78 total acres. The proposed development consisted of 743,000 gross square feet in six two-story buildings. These buildings were to be used by Lesher Communications, Inc., a newspaper publisher, and other industrial uses. A two- story 230,000 square foot building was planned on the central portion of the site and a 15,000 square foot garage would have been constructed adjacent to the central building. An additional 498,000 square feet of development in five buildings was proposed for other parts of the project area, and each of the buildings were to have been surrounded by surface parking areas for 1,456 cars. In 1988 the Lesher Park General Plan Amendment was approved, however, none of the proposed development occurred. P:\CCC510\PRODUC'rUS-NM\PublicTublic Rcview IS-NMD.dm(8/10/1005) 3 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION An Initial Study was prepared by Donaldson Associates in 2002 for the annexation of the project site into the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (Zone 1) and the concurrent detachment of the site. from the Central Contra Costa County Sanitation District. To reflect changes in environmental regulations since 1987 and to provide more recent information, biological surveys for California Red-legged frog, Burrowing Owl, California Tiger Salamander and special-status plant species were performed for the project site. Subsequentmitigation monitoring for Burrowing Owl habitat and wetlands and waterways under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game has occurred and summary reports have been prepared. Information from these documents is incorporated in this Initial Study. The Bibliography for this Initial Study includes the full titles of prior environmental documen- tation completed for the project site and referenced in this Initial Study. These source documents are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department during regular business hours. Proposed Project The proposed project is a 325,000 to 375,500 square foot mixed-use business park including land uses such as light industrial, warehouse commercial, office, restaurant and retail spaces, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. The proposed project entails construction of 10 to 14 buildings, two of which could be up to 30 feet tall, seven of which could be up to 50 feet tall and five of which could be up to 68 feet tall. Conceptual site plans and building elevations are shown in Figures .5 and 6. The existing six parcels would be subdivided into 14 lots and would require final grading permits. Approximately 37 acres contained in the six parcels would not be developed, as these are Restricted Development Areas with recorded conservation easements. Within the 29 acres that would be developed for the Willow Pass Business Park, the building areas would have 25 percent lot coverage. Applications for building permits and final grading permits have been submitted for a building on the proposed Lot 1. Approximately 31 acres of the hill slope areas on the northeastern portion of the site have been set aside as a "Restricted Development Area." The proposed project does not include APNs 099-160-026 and 099-160-027, the Frito Lay building pad, as it has been entitled under a separate application (County File#LP012108). a. Business Park. The Planned Unit District(P-1) entails the creation of.14 lots. Two lots on the southeastern corner would be developed with a gas station and a retail building, as detailed below. The business park buildings and parking areas would be located on the central and southern portions of the project site, on the existing rough graded pads. Access to the business park lots would be from Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. The uses of these lots may range from office to ancillary retail, restaurant and/or take-out food/quick service establishments, clinical, controlled manufacturing, fabrication or assembly, storage or warehousing,research, light industrial, distribution and other similar functions as detailed in the development plan application available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Table 1 lists the proposed uses by lot. P:ICCC570\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(830!2005) 4 w` Al, R, 11 I p "\ `•'11 J,r ,� r RUA ..•-„c_��m�;:a, / 5aa,`��• �I�S:. X11; .: "%il. 10 de 01 iv uq ����} \ / '..n.,, O� f � r?�'�' rn�i!� ,I',,t'`! ♦ 1,f jli,G��In:�t ��� y',s,`,(•i Vim. �� •�� >�;� :' 47 ._�. �.. �-fir�,rfr�; , �rr � _'.•,. ....__: � _, �. ,- �_ �~<'• tib,, _'��` ---=-` �. , �,f i; � ,;tit;!1 r--=.�;�-.•• .,1, z 0 0 � COC st 7�� 6tS It F> LV AD ll.',i'er�naq,1•• ,mss _ fjj•1: ? 7 I i 'SP1 yid =>•� �c_. F - +.y' r g �c+ t i• ^L RE s b ® 1P b y m o lE 02• A a~ rP Q+ rn•► �.. W ,t ;r'i'p'"' :>.'� 'r'�iy�'+�'.:,..4�:. . ,y.x '1,'.•xn"�..-..� •` _ .�t .. .:+..;'a�:::z,;.'"S:;r_�;a c' moi'<:;'�ti ..te '�'."r.:`. +':?�� '���.�,i•.'' r�1.:;:it{'' (�' .� a:,..l C .\. �;y\ ; -:v_ � .��`�.::_:� �� N � O .. + .-`�';c t..yd :k.,- s .� ..�. .rC, a\' 1 ...�: ...V�; :;1*. •..X;'�•'::+_`<;�'�' ar tom% •.i, 1:,.. �'\'. �y ,f+. •� -j�'rq •MF ,, ''.s"'�t' .vh i'•.',\ t\-3 •.�•15 _� \\ ,:tom`,;::• T' :i,:,c l.' W ^ lt !l, yv.��-J !� I&ry�'' ,.117.4'`:,`. �`•� '\ _\� �",�•�. ,''�,�` ��.,1 � a/ y .•1 - �?' '7�`l F�fJ�•'� �O'' f �i I,1,.; �,�a .!:y'., _ \` \.\t �' q-r�- Y{1.. r+•1 i , ••- ,r:. i\.Ix.,: ..II17,{ h' S,i,, ':11,_� ` `.� Y4..`_-' 'ti••"' ... "')1` "r QI +�+�c,„:c- •y. - t.2; - . . .+3;. '�a:4�•��=T+s(�i������ rf. _ .1.� :'/f �1,. Vin' `,{',':.�1. .�4`k,.,.';{,,`' `1, •.�A�\�:. .4.,.:i�- ;.�-`.F e.. .y � . i 5' C {�'�'�n.• •.l4:4�N .a`.C,i�':. •`t iy' •'tl' �•L. y `4 tz •P:J.t :,y. ,�-• -o�;. .d :a1'".,1�'il+" r” .,. .:P•vf �'F� \ .��1 �''. li.: �f.,��:• +.. �. - 's:' I't:I� `•:';,,:,.vim ".t,• q.. .h;-' �`•'.�' .i�l ,1�, �. ..� r...� . 1.,<.V,.;:: - l•S �' �:1.,;,'i':K.•y1, .otic ,��y.�«�' ¢q.7s± Pib- :�•'L'. _ '��i ,fir .(/�i - �� ';.,t 1.s,, tl, ®� r.�, `Y.19F�. ,'rl:., {,'f'�'✓'.-1,f 1.P:�'` f �l�f�„'Gt ■) .f,sti4 A, ,;,t.- ,1, ,�,� :.�• -�•. .,,' r - � ',i;�'.:�.Fi^\.•.,:a��.��'..'f'. - /.kl L' !.f �:I:l� f///•••,.t T :� 4'�: `� .'J.\. 1�.. •T,- O'4lll,''''t J1,� ' '- ,Ifis`. � � }j �y, f:,,.t7 ��r,.� ��• •F inp. - '%� ' _ ..•i' :,•.�s::,: �,',��.Iv,,f.��, .•t'' �+� ! f.;;d �lui� r��, :-• ',t.t' .� i�;...,a _ [i,,. u •`�.�''•�� �_"'�',.,__�. ')�I� �!: ,� ,:( 4t :t ���• aJ.."' �r,.'j1 .� '�'1�. `..1. 1 r�'`(.% :Z�moi•. 7„-. _.�i:t�t`� -�,��� ,�,...b,, _ :.+��/9'`•��' "7�j's�',�;li,iiv ,L.,D.• '��''. -�,//. '�•:f! I.,:`�.,j�i•,,•'`� �x'•".••�� 'a,' �..�': ^'.��• •_ �.1 f. •. J'�:: .f{'�^I,...i,... l -r� '4 '�. ��ei :lid'r.l��! '1 e,�' �` ;�,> :>`^"', �` .�`.:'�`•.�q`,ti'•�'ff `.��� ,.',J;'•a�• �a� ''� s s n`��ji r, l }< ri•W rF•`'sf.'.�%=. i.'%i ��pw[t': W • 'l7 h {n t �+ ✓ 1� y y� i' `J• 1 1 . � ` +♦+"- t'�.R �'_:r-,�''Xl fi#.�� r-` �a`• \�i''1���%t qt l•� "vV ��.;',i; :;1r.. -"'''`' x�M1�'•uy i..� -... -- it .w••.,,., ' �+n�•a>':;r� 't,; ,:. •. �. �.h: •'�'l+S �'(' ^C'4:'`(t::r .. :!�'".4' br rrr �..'.',',...� '*'1'�,rt:.l; 'J9 '`r. t ti<:�'�� . ''�`6 9��' `i• :),`,�i`'.•'. t.r:e•n�:�=k::� ,cr.._,.. �.;'' ,s•� �;e d+ 1 t .��� .1'1. r' r,e;k(•.:, {,+.y:..i i''.+ t 'Jy /- :C..r 3`\�.`S �t,�. -'v.. ,9'•'�;{} '{t�- '�'��� ll,i� ilii=::-�:,. ,,.�:,.. } `'r;�151�` '," °•,� - r+� ` ` ..� ,.i... ,.,q �'•°' ;,',Z ,i t ':4`ITJQ.,.�c. t• �• v'' .1:14 � ,5,:. qi,, ;;�r+�•!',I.�.. •r>;;� /`r'; "':'; An_ mss.♦•.'i:• '":l„r;; 'i'c `-��t� . .�.. 1 t ■ 1 .f. .4+; r,: �:jr^!�r`r► r - .'.'- , ' V( a y^ry. J.r; r"�T`e�•'-'� �l'G: :♦ �e",y •4Jn., •:��',• `;Y� `( 'r1 ,IY�fi"r y' _ � y y;•u,.`�`,Y�.�'+, � IY t3��. ,. - ��e �r, .� t:r•��j-:� , fY,. `T: VP `,•:.: 't. ..tom :�e.,�• �,,�'•Ws J`� '..'�f% ys:^ ^.•L .f. y.. 9 r.�1�,�t�%';t � " ...,-J •'.:t_ �F'� '���,. - i VcV•�4``\�-` i ' ,r: ./'.' �,• 'tet.�V r'-.i ',1-:r'�. ,'g. nni� ���,�{i,T _"!'`'..`YXJ� l': :r �1'.: /.. �1'Y`T .:�i'.',;:i:.•. �,'. - - `•e: .�,�.tf� �.�.,.... ,� ,�J,yi:;V^S• .I =;,�_. y. h ',,.��,,•••ri•: '�•C��,J:�,1�'•V� '�C" ♦C �• ':.s .J, •'NJ L.s. 4 - .J' 'i_r"^%'�y+: .yty p •.:F�' _ -,2Y;!;;,:"- :.l,J� nc ",t.,• .■, .1 ,, _ t� �`+•".i.- ,til uL . « 1: � �y� ••`'�:. /. Is. /v .al''.,�,,•,".3�; r_:.:r2it+c.;��tV� t+'� ' . v1 - _ '��` ':`;i7 j'r�� a..s:,.r�•'� .� +q � , '�x� ;�`illfiltll'y,: .,t �+. '�� S .� ov ;y :�:-'^`� J la���ye� •JkaUJ {r .c, ,: is p;,1•; 4 i' �F v Ni ymiF°.'p , /' "4�'" .•-�'` \(/•"p{'F,tP` ;i� ,V••t'l" 1 p 70 n r t{�. n .ai!.\ .,ti ., f,F• •,i;`+y' .p ty,.u!fr-, � ,:1�.,_ .{.\:i.. �.r 1� C4 T t- V.�1•,.. •3<4,�, ''� .�:J,:� ,.�: of :'F////y):� F., .. •<Y �' f- \•O.�1�.','' I L-J.i''.�il:ti ./fl.' ..,{U.:, ..".'1„' �:1'1,+. -,:.{'e'• `O , .. :���':�*•y'.. :�.�..��., .r�I .,5�'.- may, �OA N i�.: j.�j�,,��y'!,' ���,�,y ,..iN�'^,�� ,1."`'v O *a. ..;i-,y.:;`'�,» ,..IS f. 3 . .w,i ,•' ri /;j;: 'd':r. y ;yam�_., Fig+'• �: * .";,��...y, f��fr/n��/� {•: 'r.-f•�r�,7.`i+1”' ,�J t. /..,.� .'4 ?� /+.'lrR��, 'i< •. wl ,�,. rl�.., ����+4 p O rNS:,n• .Ir+•'�: a%:� �,. rn I., ':P r.,. � '� T.,, JyF� 1• �,-• � �} 0.�. u•:r,,'•,. .f Y'. 4c1 c� ./,.� '� .a.•,�;om /�/"y `}' .�•.. ,/iph.'�' 7,'` "��.�,/dr' '`i•.�'i.'�t:-�,Y•:r.�,.le`�'•'•._ � V v1 f; •�t- - ,:.�'.' � ��'•//.,,{�. 1ffl, `'1�:..���.•i:`i.�, _ 'y ;s�� ) •''t'QY, V .ti:,:- `7�! :x 'r'�. ."!!r' '•( ��,.'J?r• "' � �7''1...i,:_,:/ •. :,; � ."r'' r :1}f t.,.:. (� H U �.ra,t,.�r' '�'::t.,'. ,1�:�f•�:" `^:"71�`.asS`m... •p�,.Fr1�1 ..1'., 4.F.,::,)�o',,:.��r � �\!-.r pq p U °.:` 00 114 m P' RNI � i I ''.� --`"t��'� <<:•:;i�.,.,:�x�'�`- `...� !' rl:, �`"=`" '�der� ,9 d .- � t r Vit•�` '� ;+%"' �...__ �.:�'.:.'_r,`,>. dl/ I j � 1•��%�:�.1 dl/ �3 1 r i i ll ! ,s{:;,r�1+.•.%'' 4�d!1 vii `— 1 � ��' (' t _ `lF�:•f,� r �df 1 o .rte till c C7 3 X11 r� w t�3 Ade �+J o 0 H r o Imp- 1.Illp RIMINI o ���� � v • , "'• rel► T ER •rr' �� • ° \\\\i\\\\\ Ql� li Am- VONfA a �o a� N O N O N O N O N O N O N tV C ►d � m 5Q L m; � mF . 4 o tn o o oz ao ad 3F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — E" U U �Uf cUy U U U Y .��.. � �+ �~,, y�, Lam{.. �• ..: N y y y �. y �. fA �. y C >> �. rA VJ VJ y VJ a y y A G N 0 N F v1 yOy C y G y 0 5 0 C OOy on p, . a p, s a _ ao _ �o on Ct., c rC rn � •� � fA .� N y '•� � y •.�+ � � � VJ •ate+ � y •� � � 1+ 4 as N H V Imo. d V 26 26 _N 1�T. N Iii U 44, 0 C 'd td C 'b ed G -d �0 C 'b c7 G 'b ed G •b CO G 'p �0 O G p^ y oA^ 'Ua R bA^ 'U t�0^ 'U 00^ 'U bA-- 'U 00^ 'U OA�"' 'U ,U •U O C G G C G .� G C G C .� C ❑ � •C � •G � e0 'C � ed •G � cd •C � of 'G � 03 `tea .� `"° U .5 `'`� ayi .E U U � a o o a. o a y C t0 U G i0 U C 0 U G i0 U G w U G w U G W U y d 0. CO y t0 Vi cd. VJ c0 y (tl vJ c0 y t0 VJ �.. ,> E :° E 2 E N y E s E 2 .� E d `.3 E M G y Id G N M G N Vi c0 C y c0 C y vi t0 G N v," M U U W LL 3 N y y 6I y N to y y u y N y v1 y _y y U y y N y y N y y 0 ,y .p y U ^ b y U p U p U p U p y v p N U p 0 v p = 'A E �L E 'C E~ .G G x cd G t M G � 5 .c G s c0 G p a o 0 0 3 y 0 3 yy 0 3 �, 0 3 y o 3 y o 3 O y 'C a y .0 7 y .0 .'t y b 7 y b G y b 7 y b .'J O > O y y N .O y y 0 .0 w y U .0 Vi y U .0 y y" d y y U .0 y y 0 .D d E c E 5 ° v .5 ° �° v .5 .5 EG .5 EG .F EG .5c0EC .5 EpE 0W O G O G O R a 0 G O G O G ' a 0 C E 3 E ��.. y O 07 e0 e0 M M M M Rf t0 �0 c0 O7 c0 Vl h O r„ .O fA .� V1 .� 'A .0 y .Q h .p V1 y 'b y U y U y U y U y U 'y U y U y N 'd d y b d u '0 ch N y 'b N N y 'b d y 'b th y 'b W 6l y O O O C 1A U 'd y v � ❑ rn v 'b G m tC 'Cy F rn U 'b G w U b G y U b y O y. O 4» ;d C C d O 4r c—CO td G 10 O 7 e0 a G >.� O b .� y O b > N O .fl � d O .d .> � O „O .^ S O ,O � .G O — •" w N ed w y y3 o � b3 ,cm M 0 � � 3 0 � � 3 0 � � 3 0 � y3 0 � 3 oIQOQOo N �.. U N i U U N U N d N d 'd U 'O E W E W VJ E W fA E W V1 E W E W vl E ... W Q A w O` 'O O O b O .d O •b N y Q GL,G Q L4 w G4 G Q G Q v CL G Q LL F Q Lir G Q H W G Q .� Q 5 y .� C iOr n O ON O� 00 �'t �O N a d o C14 kn 4 0, N 00 h 00 O O V 10 h 00 y h � r7 Q h O PJ 00 V Vl OMi y CCVl�lO O� v Oi N y a SOV 000 NV c v7 a o 3 O N M V N 00 O� O o mF y 5 v j< � d w•� z0 y _w C �+F 30 O O '� O Okn O O O . OZ a in aw 3F o _o F tUV CUd CUO cUy U tF. O U O >U O09 U p U C U ul En in i a. CL C6 a o :EE .. .. .O Y N N N N 12 CIS r7 008 G to U G C U U 00 U v C) U 'C 'C s yVl aa+ N VJ Vim u U as U U y U GN y U E :° E d E o E E VJ US N N A y Vl H 0 v vi of N CCA N . U -U• 'd y U N •b y U 'b y V ^ '�O �/+ V b y °G M fElIV c 0 °G c s c 0 3 � 'w 0 3 � 'W 0 3 � 'y o 3 � '�, N y N .0 N y 0 .0 v`Ai A 0 .0 ai y 0 .0 y 'DN .0 y w .o .E y E v .E E b .E E b .E y w b G O " U 0 O c ea .a . .. G e0 c G 0 G Lz A GO 4 N o ,, o +. RO �' 3 •y N .y 3 •y � N 3 •y y N 3 •c G b N 'C: ,G_ •L7 N 'G ,G 'fl N 'C C 'L7 N 'C. G b N 'G p . 'E w y E w y E ='' w y •E 4 y •E °.�' w °' .d Q P. c Q Lu A. c Q °L' a c Q 0 R d L 00 O Vl O O O O O O Q 00 O O� n n C O _ M N M O 8 p O c v d '0 00 ON M 00 to h O t- O 2 Q "O O, N o0 O, 0, ON N N O d, N f" OtiO 3 a+ N cn I- �O � [�N N N V1 IO M v !'n f+j O �O v1 N O M 00 N 00 00 U a � N N ►a wr n.i r7 = U O go ec °� o 0 0 ❑ o � � a Q rAO i , I LSA AS90CIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUCU9T 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I b. Gas Station and Retail. This component of the project includes a gas station/convenience store land drive-thru fast-food building, a freestanding car wash and a freestanding fuel island canopy on the.southeastern portion of the project site, at the corner of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. A multi-tenant retail building is proposed on the adjacent parcel to the northwest of the gas station along Willow Pass Road. I The gas station site design would provide access Table 2: Willow Pass Gas Station Proposed for merchandise and fuell delivery trucks and Uses other vehicles (see Table 12). The gas .station Building Area would have two driveways, providing access Proposed Use S Ft from .Willow Pass Road,' and one additional Gas stationhetail building 4,992 access point from Evora Road. Fuel tanker truck Car wash 900 access is the primary, consideration in -Freestanding canopy at fuel islands 4,200 determining the proposed driveway locations Multi-tenant retail building/including 6,416 and interior parking lot design for the gas 1 drive-up food service window station. Source:Thomas/Denova LLC,2004 and 2005. The fuel system would consist of two double wall fiberglass storage tanks with a total storage capacity of 42,000 gallons.) The site would have 10 fuel dispensers. The underground piping would also be double wall construction with a monitoring system. Per California installation and monitoring requirements, which are more stringent than those required by the federal government, all sumps would be double walled and monitored in addition to the pipe and tanks. All monitoring systems would be set for positive shutdown, which sends an alarm and shuts down the entire fueling system any time the monitor goes into alarm mode. The car wash would use standard car wash cleaning chemicals, and utilize a reclaim system for water recycling. The reclaim system would typically recycle 60 to 80 percent of the water used in a car wash cycle depending on the brand of car wash equipment used. The water would be run through a sand/oil separator and a water clarifier before it is discharged to the sewer system. I The gas station building would contain a convenience store and a fast food.facility with both indoor seating and a drive-up window. There would be take-out food served from both areas of this building. The establishment and maintenance of a take-out food establishment would require approval of a separate land use permit. The second parcel within the gas station component wouldbe be developed with a.multi-tenant retail building with one drive-up window. The building would be anticipated to contain one or more take-out food businesses. The building is currently designed to accommodate up to six tenants. Both retail buildings would be situated towards Willow Pass Road to limit the visibility of the parking areas from the public right-of-way and landscape berms along Willow Pass Road would further hide the drive through lanes. Rear elevations of the buildings that face Willow Pass Road would be designed to provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance than the service entrance to the building. Landscaping would be included to improve the appearance of the site. The sites would req ire final grading. P:\CCC570\PRODUCTSUS-A4.1D\Public\Public R«iew IS•NI.ID.dac(8/!0/3005) 15 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION C. Water Supply. The water supply for the project site would be from two on-site wells as well as the Contra Costa County fresh water canal. Approximately'1/3 of the water for the site would be drawn from the wells for potable use and 2/3 of the water for the site would be drawn from the canal. The two on-site wells, which are about 1/3 mile apart, have been drilled to a depth of approximately 320 feet. The drilling of the wells was monitored by the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Services Department, which also reviewed and approved the flow rates and the test results from the water samples taken after the wells were drilled. Flows rates from the wells have been measured at about 125 to 130 gallons per minute(GPM). Water is pumped from about 280 feet below ground surface to a well house, which is adjacent to the project site's western access road. The water is chlorinated in the well house before it enters the piping system leading up to the. 750,000 gallon holding tank on top of the hill overlooking the project site and located in the "Restricted Development Area." An electronic system would control the cycling of the pumps, the level of the water in the tank and the rate at which water is chlorinated. .The high elevation of the holding tank (approximately 100 feet above the building sites)provides sufficient pressure for the tank to feed each of the building sites by gravity. The size of the 750,000 gallon holding tank .was predicated on the water supply required to fight a fire in a 100,000 square foot building, plus a. reserve of 150,000 :gallons. :The cost of operating and maintaining the water system will be prorated amongst the owners and tenants within the project site, in accordance with the recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC&R's). The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) fresh water canal, which runs along the south- western boundary, would provide approximately 2/3 of the water supplies to the project site. On July 20, 2005 the CCWD Board authorized the CCWD to enter into a Raw Water Service Agreement with Thomas/DeNova and Rolling Frito -Lay Sales LP for an estimated annual average use of 27,000 gallons per day (30.24•acre-feet per year). This agreement includes terms to locate, design, construct and pay for a turnout from the Contra Costa Canal; to locate, design, construct and maintain equipment associated with water flow and distribution; and to make water service payments to the CCWD. Thomas/DeNova, LLC has signed the agreement and Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP is anticipated to sign. The project site lies within the service area of the CCWD. Additional water supplies could be obtained either by connecting to the existing water supply system for the Concord Naval Weapons Station located directly across the canal to the southwest of the project site or by installing a new pipe along Willow Pass Road to connect to a CCWD stub. The neighboring system is operated by the Navy,'which is currently seeking proposals from outside agencies or parties to take over the management, operations and possibly ownership of the system. In this case, it is a possibility that additional water supplies could be accessed with a pipe underneath the CCWD canal. The option of drilling more wells on the project site also exists, should the need arise for additional water. d. Stormwater System. A storm water conveyance and detention system for the site was developed as part of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District project. A storm water detention basin P.XCCC530TRODUCfSUS.NNDU%bliePublic Review IS•NMD.d%(9/70/2003) 16 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION and freshwater pond are located in the northwestern corner of the.project site. The storm water detention basin is designed with a capacity of approximately 3.5 acre-feet of runoff. It is approximately 440 feet long and 160 feet wide with a maximum depth of 6 feet.. The fresh water pond is located west of the detention basin and is smaller, 260 feet by 70 feet with a depth of two feet. An engineered drainage system conveys surface runoff from the site to the detention basin and fresh water pond. Vegetated bioswales, concrete lined channels and a storm drain pipe system would surround the buildings and parking lots and follow the toe of both natural and graded slopes throughout.the site. Runoff from 75 percent of the site would be . directed to the stormwater detention basin, where it would be collected in permeable basins to allow for evaporation, infiltration and controlled release into the existing 30 inch storm drain that passes be the Contra Costa Canal for eventual discharge into Mt. Diablo Creek. Drainage from the Gun Club site and the western project entrance road would be collected in drainage swales and sub-surface drains for discharge directly into the storm drain beneath the canal, bypassing the detention system. Surface runoff from Evora Road, the Streuli parcel (099-160-020) and the freeway embankments would flow to an existing stormwater system south of the project site then to a culvert that passes under the freeway embankment and flows south to Diablo Creek. Approximately 37 acres of the hill slope'areas on the northeastern portion of the site have been set aside as a "Restricted Development Area" and surface runoff from these hillsides on- and off-site would be collected in the detention basin and fresh water pond. ' . e. General Plan. The General Plan land use designations for the project site are Light Industrial, which allows for light industrial activities such as processing, packaging, distribution, warehousing, storage, research and development, Agricultural Lands, which allows for the establishment of agricultural uses and Open Space, which places severe limitations on development. f. Construction and Phasing. Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that construction would take 15 to 18 months. In the event that on-site buildout were to take place over a longer time period, environmental impacts would generally be less severe. g. Approvals. County approval's necessary for the proposed project include- • A General Plan Amendment to change.the `General, Plan land use designation for the developable areas of the site to Mixed Use while retaining the Open Space designation over the hilly, undevelopable portions; • A Rezoning from L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General.Agricultural District to P-1 Planned Unit District; • A Major Subdivision to create 14 lots; • A Preliminary and Final Development Plan to allow construction and operation of a mixed- use business park; • A .Land Use permit to allow the operation and maintenance of a take-out food establishment; and P:\CCC530TRODUCTSUS-MNDIPubliclPublic Review IS-NMD.d.(&'30/2005) 17 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION •• Possible Land Use permits to allow the storage and use of hazardous materials on-site. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project is located in unincorporated northern Contra Costa County,just beyond the Concord City Limit and within its Sphere of Influence. The project site is located northwest -of the Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange, and is surrounded by the following land uses: • North. The areas north of the project.site are privately owned grazing lands. • East. The Los Medanos Gas Fields are located to the east of the project site,beneath land owned by PG&E. The land is used for grazing and consists of the hills leading up to Willow Pass on Highway 4. South. Immediately to the south of the project site is Evora Road; beyond that is Highway 4. Across Highway 4, farther south of the project site is developed and undeveloped land occupied by the Concord Naval Weapons Station. West. The project site is bounded on the west by the Contra Costa Canal and the City Limit of Concord. Developed areas within the Concord Naval Weapons Station are located west of the canal, and the Diablo Creek Golf course is further to the west of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, participa- tion agreement,.etc.): The following is a list of federal, state, regional and local agencies from which permits may be required prior to construction and/or operation of the proposed project: United States Department of the Interior-Bureau of Reclamation United States Army Corps of Engineers California Department of Transportation California Department of Fish& Game Regional Water Quality Control Board Bay Area Air Quality Management District Contra Costa County Public Works Department Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department • Contra Costa County Health Services Department—Environmental Health Division • Contra Costa County Health Services Department—Hazardous Materials Division Contra Costa Water District Delta Diablo Sanitary District The following•agencies are,or will be, involved in the review of the project: Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District East Bay Regional Park District California Historic Resources Information System P:\CCC570\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8130/M5) 18 LRA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PAIS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. O Aesthetics Q Agricultural Resources . 0 Air Quality O. Biological Resources O Cultural Resources O Geology/Soils .0 Hazards&Hazardous O Hydrology/Water Quality O Land Use/Planning Materials O Noise O Population/Housing D Mineral Resources O Recreation O Transportation/Traffic O Public Services O Mandatory Findings of O Utilities/Service Systems Significance Determination. On the basis of this initial evaluation: O I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a'significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. O I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or in tigation.measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature Date William R.Nelson,Senior Planner Community Development Department,Contra Costa County P:ICCC530'PRODUCTSUSAIND143blia+Public PxAm IS-WIDAx(A/26(2003) 19 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. .Would the project- a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ■ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not ■ limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ■ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ■ a ❑ would adversely affect day'or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact) The Contra Costa County General Plan identifies scenic resources in the County, including major ridges and waterways. The project site is not within an area identified in the General Plan as containing scenic ridges or waterways. The northeastern portion of the site consists of moderate slopes while the lower southwest portion of the site consists of graded pads. The proposed project involves thedevelopment of a business park and gas station on the already graded portion of the site. Because the project site is not in the vicinity of the scenic resources identified in the General Plan, no impacts to scenic vistas,would result. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (No Impact) The project site does not include any portions of a State scenic highway and is not located in the vicinity of a State scenic highway. There are no scenic resources on the project site. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The existing visual character of the site consists of graded pads in the foreground with grassy hills, a water tank and several small buildings in the background. There is an existing building on-site, which formerly housed a gun club. The visual character to the west is urbanized. To the north and east of the project site are open grassland hills and grazing areas. To the south is Highway 4, and developed and undeveloped areas within the Concord Naval Weapons Station. California Department of Transportation,California Scenic Highway Program. P:1CCC570\PRODUCrsUS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.doc(SI702005) 20 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The proposed project would develop the site with 325,000 to 357,500 square feet of mixed-use business park with a gas station. Ten buildings are currently proposed, though up to 14 could be constructed if each proposed lot were developed with a separate building. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet for Lots 1-7, 30 feet for Lots 8-9 and 68 feet for Lots 10-14. The character of the site would change from vacant graded pads to a business park with landscaped parking and slope areas, as generally shown in Figure 7. The existing pad elevations are as follows: • Lots 1-7 have a sloping pad elevation at approximately 194 feet. • Lots 8 and 9 have pad elevations of 228.and 231 feet;respectively. • Lots 10 and 11 have a sloping pad at approximately 218 feet. • Lots 12 and 13 have an elevation of 175 feet. • Lot 14 has an elevation of 141 feet. Due to its hillside location,the project site is highly visible from surrounding communities. It is also particularly visible to travelers on Highway 4, and especially to those climbing east toward Willow Pass. Given the existing pad elevations and the proposed building height for each lot, the approximately 400-foot ridgeline east of the project would not be broken. While there is some scattered development along the hills, large, angular.development of the kind proposed is unprecedented and would be a stark contrast to the rolling and undulating background that the hills provide. The proposed development could substantially degrade the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings due to the.mass of the buildings, their angular nature and the potential color schemes. The following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure AES-1: Massive buildings are unprecedented along the subject hillside. Buildings over 50 feet tall shall incorporate design elements to reduce and break up the mass. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, proposed plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior-to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure AES-2: Angular buildings would contrast sharply with the natural background of rolling hill's. In order to lessen the contrast between the building forms and the natural background, the proposed architecture shall emphasize curved and rounded forms over angular forms on windows and entries and on crowning features such as rooflines, parapets, etc. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, proposed plans shall be submitted for the review and approval .of. the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure AES-3: The color of the natural background changes with the seasons. To avoid a significant contrast between the colors of the proposed buildings and the changing colors of the natural background, building colors shall be limited to various shades of browns and greens. Color schemes shall be integrated and coordinated to ensure not only that the various buildings complement each other, but that the development as a whole blends into the natural environment. To ensure compliance with this mitigation P:\CCC530\PRODUCrSUS.MNDTblicXPublic Review IS•NMD.dm(8/70/2005) 21 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION measure, proposed color schemes shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The proposed project could create substantial new sources of light and glare.in the area. The following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure AES-4: All lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting and shielded to minimize glare and the direct view of light sources. Motion detection systems shall be utilized where applicable and light shall not"wash out" onto adjacent properties. Adequate lighting shall be provided in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances, but shall be minimized elsewhere. Fixtures intended to be lit for long periods of time shall accept low-pressure sodium lamps (or devices with similar properties) and shall not be located at the periphery of the property. Floodlights shall be prohibited and no lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, proposed lighting plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Q ] 0 Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, . which due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSUS.MND\Public\Public Review IS-N?tW.duc(&30/1005) 22 1 Ifj` v � r�It��S�� if' � i i� }f.—� • 6 t t DIIY n' 71i .;fit . ` M .1`t Ij 1 t(��\V✓ii 1t1• yy,yy_�,.'Std'' 4�er 0. Q l V"ilk q'G. LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,, to a non-agricultural use? (Less- Than-Significant Impact) The following analysis is based on information from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program(FMMP). The most recent FMMP data for Contra Costa County is from 2002. According to data from the FMMP, the project site is..classified as "Grazing Land." Grazing land is the fifth, and least significant, of five categories of agricultural land: 1)Prime Farmland, 2) Farmland of Statewide Importance, 3) Unique Farmland, 4).Farmland of Local Importance and 5) Grazing Land. In 2002, the Department of Conservation calculated that Contra Costa County had 100,625 acres of land in the first four categories and 172,368 acres of grazing land. The 41 acres that would be developed as a part of this project would result in the urbanization of less than 0.01 percent of the available grazing land in Contra Costa County. It should be noted that since a significant portion of the site has been graded, the quality of the grazing land has been substantially diminished. Therefore,the proposed project would not convert high value farmland to non-agricultural uses. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?(Less-Than- Significant Impact) The current zoning designation of A-2 General Agricultural District is inconsistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation.of Light Industrial. Rezoning.to P-1 Planned Unit District would be beneficial because it would bring the zoning and General Plan into conformance. The project site is not operated under a.Williamson Act contract. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? (Less;Than-Signiftcant Impact) The project site currently has utility infrastructure in place for storm drainage, sewage disposal, electricity, domestic water and fire suppression water. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area, or other changes that would result in the conversion.of additional agricultural.land to non-agricultural uses. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations..Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? P:\CCC570\PRODUCPS\IS•MND\Public\Public it-i—IS-NMD.dm(8/3012003) - 25 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ ❑ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an-applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone . precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ number of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less-Than- Signifcant Impact) An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region into attainment, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Clean Air Plan(CAP). The air quality plans use the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the plans are based on local General Plans, projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan are usually found to be consistent with the air quality plans. Development that would.occur under the General Plan amendment proposed as part of the project would not significantly change the overall.buildout scenario for Contra Costa County envisioned in the County's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic volumes above that projected in the County's General Plan. In addition, employment increases in the County that would occur as part of the proposed project are consistent with the projections of regional agencies, including the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG). The proposed project: 1) is expected to comply with State and federal ambient air quality standards; 2) is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current air quality plans; and 3) would result in emissions that would be below the emissions thresholds established in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines,' December 1999, as discussed in Section 111.b, below. Because the proposed project would not violate air quality standards or exceed emissions thresholds, and is generally consistent with the buildout scenario envisioned in the I Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996(Revised 1999). BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. April. P:\000530\PRODUCI'SVS-MND(Public(Public Review IS-NUDAm(&30/2005) 26 i I I LSA A990CIATE9. INC. WILLOW PA99 BUSINESS PARK AUOU9T 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I I County's General Plan and current air quality management policies, the project would not conflict with the Ozone Attainment Plan or the CAP. I b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) I Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occurover the short term in association with construction activities such as grading and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term emissions would result fromlvehicle trips associated with use of the project site. The discussion . below describes potential air quality violations that could occur as a result of the following: construction equipment exhaust emissions; fugitive dust; long-term vehicular emissions; and local carbon monoxide hot spots. I Construction Emissions. Project-related construction activities would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut and fill operations, trenching, soil compaction and grading. General construction includes adding improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures and facilities. The emissions generated from these construction activities include: • Dust [including Particulate Matter of 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PM10) and Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)] primarily from "fugitive" sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) such as soil disturbance; • Combustion emissions of criteria air pollutants [Reactive Organic Gas (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NO7,), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Oxide (SOX) and Particulate Matter of 10 Microns in diameter or smaller(PM10)]; • Primarily from operationl of heavy construction machinery (primarily diesel fuel powered), portable auxiliary equipment and construction worker automobile trips (primarily gasoline powered); and I • Evaporative emissions(ROG)from asphalt paving and architectural coating applications. Construction-related fugitive I dust emissions would vary from day-to-day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt.content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in-significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis during the construction period. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by construction would include not only PM1o,1 but also larger particles, which would fall out of the atmosphere within several hundred feet I of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts. The BAAQMD's approach to analysis of fugitive dust emissions from construction is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive dust control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. The District considers any project's construction related impacts to be less than significant if the required dust--control measures are implemented. Without these measures, the impact is generally considered to be significant, particularly if sensitive land uses are located in the project vicinity. I I P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Pub1iC Re i—IS-NMD.dm(8170/2005) 27 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Construction activities would also result in the emission of ROG,NO,,, CO, SO,,and PMJ0 from equipment exhaust, construction-related vehicular activity and construction worker.automobile trips. Emission levels for construction activities would vary depending on the number and type of equipment, duration of use, operation schedules, and the number of construction workers. Criteria pollutant emissions of ROG and NO,,from these emission sources would incrementally add to the regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during project construction. The BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines recognize that construction equipment emits ozone precursors, but indicate_that such emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans. Therefore, construction emissions of ROG and NO7, are not expected to impede attainment or.maintenance of ozone.standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 1999). The impact of construction equipment exhaust emissions would therefore be less than significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce construction related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The "Basic Measures," "Enhanced Measures" and "Optional Measures" listed in Table 3 shall be incorporated into the construction plans and implemented for the proposed project. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, the applicant shall submit the construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Long-Term Emissions. Long-term air emission impacts would be those associated with changes in permanent usage of the project site. Mobile source emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. The Urban Emission Model (URBEMIS . 2002) computer program,which is the most current air quality model available in California for estimating emissions associated with land use development projects, was used to calculate long-term mobile source emissions associated with the proposed project. Increases in long- term stationary emissions from natural gas and electricity use within the project site are expected to'be negligible when compared with mobile source emissions. Therefore, these emissions were not included in the calculation. The traffic analysis included in Section XV of this Initial Study provided traffic data associated with the proposed project, which was used in the URBEMIS 2002 model. The emissions from daily vehicle trips associated with buildout of the proposed project are illustrated in Table 4. As shown, with the exception of carbon monoxide, the long-term vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project are not anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD's operations thresholds and would have a less-than- significant impact on local or regional air quality. Emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed the BAA QMD threshold of significance for CO. However, as discussed below, the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project.would not result in an exceedance of the federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO. Therefore, the proposed.project's impact on the long-term air quality would be less than significant. Local CO Hot Spots. Local ambient air quality is most affected by carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from motor vehicles. CO is typically the contaminant of greatest concern because it is the pollutant created in greatest abundance by motor vehicles. Areas of vehicle congestion P.kCCC550WRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Public Rcview IS-NMD.da(W012005) 28 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR U AUGUST 1000 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 3: Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMto Basic Control Measures—The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave,apply water three times daily,or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweepstreets daily(preferablywith water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Enhanced Control Measures—The following measures should be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area. • All"Basic"control measures listed above. Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • Enclose,cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic)soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt,sand,etc.). Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as,quickly as possible. Optional Control Measures—The following control measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area,located near sensitive receptors or which for any other reason may warrant additional emissions reductions. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks,or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph. • Limit the area subject to excavation,griding and other construction activity at any one time. Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999. Note: One Optional Control Measure,"Install wind breaks,or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s)of construction areas"has not been included. Table 4: Mobile Source Emissions lb/da Daily Emissions Emission Source Trips ROG NO CO S02 PM10 Project Buildout 6,700 56.04 70.72 567.57 0.28 42.12 BAAQMD Thresholds 80 80 550 N/A 80 Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. create pockets of high CO concentration called"hot spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) of CO and/or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. CO transport is extremely limited; it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations proximate to a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, adversely affecting the health of local sensitive receptors(e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, hospital patients, etc). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling is recommended to determine a project's effect on local CO levels. P:ICCC5501PRODUCrSVS-MND%PubliclPublic Review IS•NMD.dw(W012005) 29 .LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PABB BUSINESS PARR AUGUST 2003 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The impact of the proposed project on local CO levels was assessed with the California Air Resources Board-approved CALINE4 air quality model, which allows microscale CO concentrations to be estimated along roadway corridors or near intersections. . This model is designed to identify localized concentrations of CO. The data in Table 5 and Table 6 show the projected CO levels with and without the proposed project for the years 2005 and 2025, respectively. The 1-hour CO concentrations near all four intersections analyzed range from 6.8 to 8.8 ppm in 2005 and from 6.1 to 6.9 ppm in 2025, significantly lower than the 20 ppm State standard. The 8-hour CO concentrations range from 3.1 to 4.5 ppm in 2005 and from 2.6 to 3.2 ppm in 2025, also lower than the 9.0 ppm State standard. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse air quality impacts associated with carbpn monoxide hot spots. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project is located in a federal and State non-attainment area for 1-hour ozone emissions and in a State non-attainment area for PM,o. The project would causetemporary construction-related emissions (as discussed in Section III.b and Section IIIA), but is not expected to result in a significant increase in long-term emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines states that a project would result in significant emissions (on both the project and cumulative scales) of criteria pollutants if the project results in the emission of more than 80. pounds per day of ROG, NO, or PM,o. The proposed project would not exceed these emissions. Therefore,.implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial cumulative impact in terms of any criteria pollutant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Construction of the proposed project may expose the surrounding land uses to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel.fueled vehicles and equipment). However, there are no sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. These impacts are not considered significant because the construction contractor would implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following standard construction practices and complying with the BAAQMD rules. The City of Pittsburg local air monitoring station records ambient levels for the criteria pollutants. Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions, as discussed above. Therefore, sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and no significant impacts would result from the proposed project. P.\CCC530\PRODUC7SUS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dw(V3Qr 05) 30 i I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 I INITIAL STUDY/DRAPT LITIGATED NEGATIVE.DECLARATION I I I I Table 5: 2005 CO Hot Spot Analysis Receptor Project Without/With Without/With Exceeds State Distance' Related Project One- Project Eight- Standards` to Road Increase Hour CO Hour CO Centerline 1-hr/8-hr Concentration Concentration Intersection Meters m m m 1-Hr 8-Hr Willow Pass Road and Evora Road 10 0.6/0.5 7:1/7.7 3.3/3.8 No No 10 0.4/0.3 7.1/7.5 3.3/3.6 No No 10 0.5/0.4 6.9/7.4 3.2/3.6 No No 8 0.6/0.5 6.8/7.4 3.1/3.6 No No Willow Pass Road and SR-4 7 0.7/0.5 7.8/8.5 3.8/4.3 No No Westbound Ramps 7 0.5/0.4 7.8/8.3 3.8/4.2 No No 7 0.5/0.3 7.7/8.2 3.8/4.1 No No 1 7 0.4/0.3 7.5/7.9 3.6/3.9 No No Willow Pass Road and SR-4 1 7 0.2/0.1 8.6/8.8 4.4/4.5 No No Eastbound Ramps 7 0.2/0.1 8.4/8.6 4.3/4.4 No No 1 7 0.3/0.2 8.3/8.6 4.2/4.4 No No 1 7 0.3/0.2 8.2/8.5 4.1/4.3 No No Willow Pass Road and Avila Road 7 0.1/0.1 8.3/8.4 4.2/4.3 No No 7 0.1/0.1 8.3/8.4 4.2/4.3 No No 7 0.1/0.1 8.2/8.3 4.1/4.2 No No 7 0.1/0.1 8.2/8.3 4.1/4.2 No No Distance within which CO concentrations were analyzed. Because CO disperses rapidly,areas outside of this zone would not be expected to experience elevated CO concentrations. b Includes ambient 1-hour concentration of 5.9 ppm and ambient 8-hour concentration of 2.5 ppm: Measured at the nearest air quality monitoring station(583 W. 10th Street,Pittsburg,CA). ` State Standard=20.0(1 hr.)/9.0(8 hr.) Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. I I I e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during the project construction period. However, these odors would be short term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would result..from the proposed project. 1 Some odors might be generated by diesel trucks transporting good and material to and from the planned Frito Lay distribution center. This distribution facility will be located approximately 200 feet from the closest on-site structure. The distribution center would have to be located within 100 feet to have a noticeable impact on the proposed project site. At the proposed distance, no significant health effects wo6ld be associated with these odors. To reduce the potential odors within the proposed structures filters could be installed on the ventilation systems. I I P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSVS.MNDiPublic%Public Rcvim IS-NMD.dm(8/30/10U5) 31 I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 6: 2025 CO Hot Spot Anal sis Receptor Project Without/With Without/With Exceeds State Distance'to Related Project One- Project Eight- Standards` Road Increase Hour CO Hour CO Centerline 1-hr/8-hr Concentration Concentrationb Intersection Meters m m m 1-Hr 8-Hr Willow Pass Road and Evora Road 10 0.1/0.1 6.2/6.3 2.7/2.8 No No 10 0.0/0.0 6.2/6.2 2.7/2.7 No No 10 0.1/0.1 6.1/6.2 2.6/2.7 No No 8 0.1/0.1 6.1/6.2 2.6/2.7 No No Willow Pass Road and SR4 7 0.1/0.0 6.4/6.5 2.9/2.9 No No Westbound Ramps 7 0:1/0.1 6.3/6.4 2.8/2.9 No No 7 0.1/0.1 6.3/6.4 2.8/2.9 No No 7 0.0/0.0 6.3/6.3 2.8/2.8 No No Willow Pass Road and SR4 7 0.0/0.0 6.6/6.6 3.0/3.0 No No Eastbound Ramps 7 0.0/0.0 6.6/6.6 3.0/3.0 No No 7 0.1/0.1 6.5/6.6 2.9/3.0 No No 7 0.1/0.1 6.5/6.6 2.9/3.0 No No Willow Pass Road and Avila Road 7 0.1/0.1 6.8/6.9 3.1/3.2 No No 7 0.1/0.1 6.8/6.9 3.1/3.2 No No 7 0.0/0.0 6.8/6.8 3.1/3.1 No No 7 0.0/0.0 6.8/6.8 3.1/3.1 No No Distance within which CO concentrations were analyzed. Because CO disperses rapidly,areas outside of this zone would not be expected to experience elevated CO concentrations. b Ambient 1-hour concentration of 5.9 ppm and ambient 8-hour concentration of 2.5 ppm. Measured at the nearest air quality monitoring station(583 W. 10th Street,Pittsburg,CA). State Standard=20.0(1 hr.)/9.0(8 hr.) Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? P:ICCC530\PRODUCPSIS.MNDIPublie%Public Rniew IS•NMD.dm(8/3012005) 32 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7000 INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected .❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal,etc.)Through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ■ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ ❑ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local,regional,or State habitat conservation plan? The following assessment of biological resources is based on information_from biological resource studies completed by Mosaic Associates LLC, Sycamore Associates LLC and information from the Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development prepared by Donaldson Associates in 2002 for the Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Antioch,CA. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The project site was rough graded in association with its annexation to the .Delta Diablo Sanitation District project and does not currently provide habitat for any special status species. The Delta Diablo Sanitation District Initial Study determined that the site contained suitable habitat for the Burrowing owl. Prior to the grading of the site, it was determined that off-site mitigation would be required for the loss of Burrowing owl habitat. This mitigation, involving the purchase of 6.5 acres of mitigation credit at the Haera Wildlife Conservation Bank, managed by'Wildlands, Inc.,;was agreed upon by Thomas/DeNova, LLC and the sanitation district. P:1000570\PRODUC'rSUS-MNDU'ublic)Public Rcview IS-NMD.dm(BnO/2005) 33 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) Prior to rough grading, two freshwater seeps and associated unvegetated swales existed on-site that were under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game CDFG and the . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). As a part of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District annexation, which included project grading, the filling of the swales required mitigation as determined appropriate by the CDFG and the USACOE. Mitigation measures included the construction of grassy swales to provide on-site mitigation for the loss of freshwater swales and the construction of an on-site freshwater pond. Due to engineering constraints, it was determined that one of the swales (1,244 linear feet)must.be lined with concrete. In lieu of the on-site mitigation provided by the grassy swale, the applicant donated $5,000 to Save Mount Diablo, a Contra Costa County non-profit land trust, for the sole purpose of wetland/riparian habitat acquisition. The proposed project would be developed within the areas that have already been rough graded. Therefore, no riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would be disturbed. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal.pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Adverse effects from polluted stormwater runoff from parking lots would be reduced to less- than-significant levels by the filtering properties of the grassy swales and stormwater detention basin constructed in conjunction with the annexation to the Delta Diablo.Sanitation District. Therefore, the proposed project does not include any activities that would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. Prior to the rough grading of the site, in accordance with Section 404 and the nationwide permit general conditions of the USACOE, the applicant was required to provide on-site mitigation for -filling approximately 2,459 square feet of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. subject to the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Mitigation measures required the. construction of a freshwater basin on the northwest corner of the site to provide seasonal wetland habitat and grassy swales to replace the filled drainage swales. A deed restriction was recorded with the County in 2002 to provide a permanent conservation easement for the hill-slope areas, swales and basins within the mitigation areas., The grassy swales were seeded with herbaceous wetland species and the upland slopes surrounding the basins and swales were planted with native herbaceous species, shrubs and trees. The mitigation measures also required a 5-yeas monitoring program of the stormwater retention basin;freshwater pond and grassy swales.Rough grading plans included a stormwater conveyance system utilizing grassy swales.and concrete lines channels to deliver stormwater runoff to a stormwater detention basin and then into the freshwater pond. No element of the presently proposed business park would increase the extent of adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. P:\CCC530TRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.d.(8130/2005) 34 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 4005INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION i d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratoryfish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? �o Impact) I No wildlife corridors would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Highway 4 to the south and the Contra Costa Canal to the west of the project site create barriers to the movement of many wildlife species.The developable portions of the project site do not contain suitable habitat for migratory wildlife e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) The project site contains two.Mulberry trees (one 15-inch and one 19-inch tree) and a 36-inch Pepper tree. The trees are not within oak woodlands, within a•riparian buffer area or part of a stand of 4 or more trees. No trees eligible for protection under the County's Heritage Tree Protection Ordinance would be removed.Tree loss would be mitigated by implementation of the proposed landscaping plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. J) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation.Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) No such plans are applicable to the project site. Potentially Significant. Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance 13 13 of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance C . 0 C of an archaeological resource(pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?l a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? (No Impact) Potential impacts .to .cultural resources were investigated in the Lesher, General Plan Amendment EIR prepared by Contra Costa County in 1987. In addition, the California Historic I i P:\CCC530TRODUCiSUS-MNDNublicWublic Review IS-NMD.dm(9/30/2003) 35 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Resources Information System has indicated that there is a low possibility that historic resources may be located within the project area and no further study was recommended. No impacts to historic resources would result from the proposed project.. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance.of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? (No Impact) There are no known significant archeological resources at this site. However, it is possible that previously unknown historic or prehistoric resources could be discovered during grading and excavation work associated with the new construction. Therefore, as a condition of project approval, contract specifications will include the following language: "In accordance with CEQA Subsection 15064.5(f), should any previously unknown historic or prehistoric resources, including but not limited to charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bone, pockets of dark, friable soils, glass, metal, ceramics, wood or similar debris, be discovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 100 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a.professional archaeologist certified by the Registry of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), as determined necessary." Implementation of these best management practices would limit the potential archaeological resource impacts associated with construction to a level of less than significant. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) There are no known paleontological resources, unique geologic features or sites on the project site or within the immediate vicinity. However, there is the potential for paleontological resources on the site. Under standard County conditions of approval, should paleontological resources be uncovered during final grading or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these resources shall be stopped until a certified professional archaeologist/paleontologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less- Than-Significant Impact) The project site is considered to have a low potential for cultural and historic resources. The project is proposed in a location that has already been significantly disturbed due to the on-site grading and installation.of underground utilities. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County-Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner is required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the owner of the land or his/her representative, the descendant shall inspect the site of the discovery. The descendant shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. P:\CCC5301PRODUCrSVS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(Sn=005) 36 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. ' GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects;including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated ❑ ❑ ❑ on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or ❑ N ❑ ❑ that would become unstable as a result of the project, . and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil)as defined in Table 18-1-B ❑ ❑ ❑ of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) . i The following assessment is; based on information contained in the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005), the Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light P:%000530\PRODUC7SUS•MNDIPubliclPublic RMcw IS•NMD.dm(8/30/2003) 37 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGU9T 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Industrial Development prepared by Donaldson Associates, 2002, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Lesher General Plan Amendment prepared by Contra Costa County in 1987. i) Fault Rupture. The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone designated by the State. The northern extension of the Clayton fault, which is an inactive fault, is located beneath the northeast corner of the project site.- The project is not within an area of known surface fault rupture potential. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii) Groundshaking. The San Francisco Bay region is a seismically active region that is subject to large earthquakes; there are 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of generating earthquakes. The site is located between the Concord/Green Valley fault system (about 5 miles southwest) and the active portion of the Clayton fault(about 6 miles southeast). The San Andreas fault is about 35 miles to the southwest, the Hayward fault is about 17 miles to the west and the Antioch fault is about 9 miles to the east. Because it affects a much broader area, ground shaking, rather than surface fault rupture, is the cause of most damage during earthquakes. Three major factors affect the severity (intensity) of ground shaking at a site in an earthquake: the size (magnitude) of the earthquake; the distance to the fault that generated the earthquake; and the geologic materials that underlie the.site. Thick,.loose soils, such as bay mud, tend.to amplify and prolong ground shaking. The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires use of seismic parameters which allow the structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types (see UBC, 1997,Volume 2, Div. 5,page 2-23). Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits. iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during ground shaking. Due to the loss of strength, the soil acquires a"mobility" sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant amount of fines(silt and clay fraction)may also liquefy. The project site is underlain along the western boundary by soils with.a low to moderate liquefaction potential while the remainder of the site has a low liquefaction potential. As discussed above, the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with applicable construction codes and requirements intended to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from ground failure and liquefaction. The following mitigation measure would reduce any potential significant impacts associated with ground failure and liquefaction human safety to less than significant levels. P:\CCC530\PRODUCfS\IS-MND\PublicWublic Review IS-NMD.doc(9'3012005) 38 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT LITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site specific geotechnical reports prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These. site specific geotechnical reports shall address differential fill thickness, total and differential settlement within building pads, soil stability, potential seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and provide specific building foundation recommendations to reduce the risk associated With soil subsidence, liquefaction and differential settlement. These reports shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. iv) Landslides. Site specific studies identified two landslides on the northeastern hillside of the project site and a possible third landslide. The previous rough grading work included the repair and removal of all slide debris. No buildings are planned beneath the hillslopes that experienced landslides. The hill slope area is within the restricted development area. b). Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The predominate soil types found on the project site (Altamont Fontana Complex and Capay Clay) have moderate to low erosion potential. ' Soils exposed during final grading and construction could potentially affect the Contra Costa Canal or Diablo Creek. Recommended mitigation measuresthat would reduce potential soil erosion and loss of topsoil are presented below in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality. The potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil is greatest during the period of earthwork activities and between the time when earthwork is completed and new vegetation is established, or asphalt is laid. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)and Erosion Control Plan are a routine requirement of projects requiring grading permits. The SWPPP identifies the "best management practices" that are most appropriate for the site, and the "Erosion Control Plan,"which is required for the final grading permit, provides the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site and maintained .throughout the winter rainy season. Implementation of a SWPPP ,and an Erosion Control Plan, submitted by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the County, would reduce the impacts of soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to less-than-significant levels. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially'result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Most geologic hazards have been addressed during the rough grading phase. The engineered fill placed over the site can be expected to settle in proportion to the thickness of fill placed and the magnitude of the planned building foundation loads. Landscape irrigation would result in perched groundwater zones, .which would cause re-adjustment of soil particles and some settlement. Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1, listed above in Section VI.a, would ensure that potential impacts;from soil instability. would be reduced to less-than-significant levels: P.\CCC570TRODUCfS1IS-MNDIPubtkT.blic Review IS-NMD.d.(SnV2005) 39 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT LITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The potential building sites are underlain by soils with high shrink/swell potential. The following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts from potentially expansive . soils to less-than-significant levels: Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to issuing final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site specific geotechnical reports prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These site specific geotechnical reports shall address,potentially expansive soils and will provide measures to control moisture around.foundations. Consistent with the final geotechnical report, measures to minimize expansive soil effects on structures shall be implemented during design and construction where appropriate. Potential foundation systems include pier and grade beam; use of structural concrete mats and post-tensioned slabs; pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment. These reports shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prior to issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the results of chemical testing of representative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. The following measures shall be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate-resistant concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils. The test.results shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator., e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal,of waste water? (No Impact) Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be installed on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to soils associated with the use of such wastewater treatment systems. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII.HAZARDS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- C 0 ment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? P:\CCC5701PRODUCfSOS•MNDIPublic\Public Review IS•NMD.dm(8130=5) 40 I i i LSA A990CIATE9, INC. WILLOW PA99 BU91NE99 PARK AVCU9T 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I I I I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Create a significant hazardlto the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous'or N acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? I d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1 e) For a project located within)an airport land use plan or, �. where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project located withinithe vicinity of a private air- strip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua- tion plan? I h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where resi- dences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The proposed gasoline station and car wash would utilize underground storage tanks and car wash related chemicals. Gasoline would be routinely transported to the gas station on the project site. Chlorine would.be stored in the proposed well-house and will.be used to disinfect the well water. I I I I I PiCCC330'PRODUCTSUS.MNDO'ubliciPublic Review IS-NMD.dm(&!30/201 3) 41 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Soils contaminated with lead and copper, associated with the shooting range that previously existed on the project site, have been excavated and removed.[ According to the landowner, no pesticides associated with cattle dipping have been used on the project site. Although small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials could be used within the new business for cleaning and general maintenance purposes, and potentially for landscape maintenance within the project site, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. While gas and diesel fuel would typically be used by the construction vehicles, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized to ensure that no construction-related fuel hazards occur. As part of the building permit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and Fire Department requirements, pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related County requirements. Flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks require approval and permits from the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District. Implementation of the following mitigations measure would ensure that the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant/or owners and operators of businesses on the site shall obtain all required permits and follow all applicable regulations regarding the use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. and shall conduct their operations in compliance with such permits and regulations. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) As noted in VII.a, above the proposed project would involve the routine transport, storage and use of gasoline, chlorine for water disinfection and a variety of chemicals that could be used in the proposed manufacturing, research and medical related land uses. All businesses operating on the site would be subject to permitting requirements and management protocols for hazardous materials which are intended to protect public safety and worker safety and to reduce the risks of accidental releases. The applicability of these procedures will reduce the potential risks and the magnitude of accidental releases. A below ground gas pipeline operated by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is located on-site along the northern edge of "Pad B." There are currently no aboveground or underground storage tanks on the project site. 1 AEI Consultants,2005. Soil Excavation&Removal Report,4650 Evora Road,Concord. January 14. 2 The term"cattle dipping"refers to the practice of spraying or immersing cattle in vats of arsenic solution,DDT or other pesticides to eliminate disease carrying ticks. The process may result in contaminates remaining at the site which may present an environmental or public health risk. P:1CCC530\PRODUCfSVS-MND\PublicNublic Review IS-h'A D.da(9/30/2005) 42 I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I I I I The following mitigation measures would reduce potential hazards related to reasonably foreseeable accidental rupture or release from the underground gas pipeline to less-than- significant levels. I Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit that authorizes Iwork within 50 feet of the 20-foot PG&E pipeline easement, the applicant shall complete a detailed survey that identifies the exact location of the easement. The boundaries of the easement area shall be clearly marked during construction activities Ito ensure that construction personnel know 'when they are working within or close to the easement so that they may use proper precautions. All construction plans shall be submitted to PG&E for review and approval to ensure that disturbance of underground gas lines is avoided. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Communication shall be established between employees stationed at Los Med Janos Gas Field and employees at the project area in order to facilitate the fastest and most appropriate response to a pipeline rupture. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: To alert potential buyers and project occupants to the potential hazards associated with the pipeline easement, a deed notification shall be filed for every parcel (located within 50 feet of the easement. The notification shall clearly indicate that the substances conveyed through the pipeline have explosive potential and that an accident involving the pipeline could cause extensive damage to private property as well as serious personal injury or death. • I The Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova,LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development prepared by Donaldson Associates noted that the potential failure of the proposed sewage collection system forlthat project could result in an overflow of untreated effluent from the pump station, which is fed by gravity sewers. The pump site is elevated above the Contra Costa Canal, which suppliesi domestic water for the Contra Costa Water District Canal. An uncontrolled release from thel pump station could pose a risk of contamination to water flowing in the canal. A mitigation measure addressing such an event was included in that Initial Study. It not known if the project applicant has complied with that mitigation and as such it is included in this document as Mitigation Measure HAZ-5. I Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: The applicant shall design the sewage pump station site with a positive overflow drainage system that would direct any potential spills away from the Contra Costa Canal; In addition, sufficient holding capacity, back up power systems and/or emergency business closure procedures (to halt sewage generation) shall be developed to minimize the risks of an overflow in the event of a system failure. I c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mileofan existing or proposed school?-(No Impact) I • There are no schools within 1/4,mile of the project site and no new schools are proposed within '/4 mile of the project site. I i i I P:\CCC5I0WRODUCTSl15-MND\Whlic\Public Revicw IS-Nb4),doc(8/)0/3005) 43 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact) The-project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and therefore would not pose a significant health hazard to the public.or environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for.people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the boundary of the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for Buchanan Field,the nearest airport located approximately 3 miles west of the project site. ,i For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted.emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) The proposed project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,.including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) . The project site is in an area surrounded by grazing lands, open space and urban development. As part of the building permit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and Fire Department requirements, pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related County requirements. The surrounding grasslands could potentially pose a fire hazard to the buildings located adjacent to the .grasslands. The implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the risk involving wildland fires to less-than-significant levels: Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall ensure that buildings have sufficient separation from grasslands to create a fire break as determined by the Fire District to be adequate for the site. This may be achieved by setting buildings back from the edge of the grasslands, clearing combustible materials or a combination of the two. Drought tolerant landscaping shall be incorporated in the project design to help reduce the risk of hazardous fuel (plant material) accumulation in landscaped areas. P:ICCC330\PRODUCTSUS.MNDNubliNWblic Review IS•NMD.doc(8/30/2005) 44 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR: AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 0 requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere C substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the C3 1 0 C site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 13 0 13 site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed 13 the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage, systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 13 13 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami;or mudflow? 13 13 E E P:\CCC530\PRODUCISVS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8130/2005) 45 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The sewage collection system would transport wastewater from the project site to the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD). The system would comply with all applicable requirements established by the DDSD and the wastewater would be treated at the DDSD water treatment plant which is operated in compliance with all applicable federal and State water quality requirements. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices (BMP's) were prepared for the previously approved and constructed site grading and storm water detention system County .inspection during site preparation and construction would confirm the implementation and on-going maintenance of the SWPPP and BMP's and other . pertinent County requirements related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The project would not result in significant impacts on water quality. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would utilize water from a dual water supply system using groundwater from two wells for potable water use supplemented with water from the Contra Costa Canal (Contra Costa Water District) for irrigation, standby fire suppression and storage tank replenishment in the event of a fire. Groundwater supplies from the project site and the vicinity are generally limited, and most existing planned land uses in Concord rely on imported Contra Costa Water District water, not local groundwater. The proposed project includes permeable drainage swales, a stormwater detention basin and a freshwater pond, infiltration from which would replenish groundwater supplies in the project area. Accordingly, it is expected that the project's reliance on groundwater for water supply would not result in a significant impact on groundwater resources. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The project site has already been graded and 75 percent of the stormwater runoff would be conveyed to a detention basin and freshwater pond via a system of vegetated bioswales, concrete lined channels and storm drain pipes. The existing system and mitigation measures required for the rough site grading are designed to prevent on-site erosion and siltation. The vegetated bioswales and detention basins would minimize the peak flood levels and surface runoff rates leaving the project site so that there would not be substantial erosion off-site. P:\CCC530IPRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8/30!2003) 46 i I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION i I I The proposed project includes final grading and development on existing building pads, however, it would not change the direction of drainage on the site and would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area. The construction standards and permit requirements described in Section VIH.a would mitigate potential impacts related to erosion or siltation to a less than significant level. I d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the.site or area, including through the alteration of the course of'a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Less-Than- Significant Impact) I - Existing improvements on! the site include rough' graded building pads and underground utilities. The proposed project would develop the site with approximately 325,000 to 375,000 square feet of mixed use buildings and associated roadways, driveways, parking lots and landscaping. The proposedl project would increase the amount of impervious surface and thus increase the amount of surface runoff from the site. However, most of the stormwater runoff from the developed areas would flow through a system of bioswales, concrete lined channels and storm drain pipes to a detention basin and fresh water pond, which would reduce the rate and amount of surface runoff leaving the project site. Potential flooding impacts would thus be less than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) I The storm water conveyance and detention system for the site was developed as part of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District project. Stormwater runoff from 75 percent of the developed areas would flow through a system of bioswales and storm drain pipes to a detention basin and fresh water pond, which would reduce the rate and amount of surface runoff leaving the project site and. help reduce `first flush' pollutant levels. Surface runoff collected in the detention basin and freshwater ponds and excess runoff would be directed to the 30 inch storm drain pipe which passes beneath the Contra Costa Canal. i The project site is located in,theContra Costa County Public Works formed drainage area 48c and possibly in the unformed area 83. The standard conditions of approval for subdivisions require that allrunoff be collected and conveyed to an adequate st rm drainage facility or natural watercourse. Compliance with the conditions of approval would ensure that the impact from storm water runoff would be less than significant. I Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) I The construction standards and permit requirements described in Section.VIII.a would ensure . potential impacts related to water quality would be less than significant. i i • I I P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSIS-MND\PublicWublic Review IS-NMD.dm(9/30/M15) 47 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARS AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION g) Place housing within a 100:year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) The proposed project site does not include any residential•uses and.the project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ;flows? (No Impact) See Section VIII.g. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact) Any flooding that did.occur on the site would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. The site is not protected by a levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) The project site is located approximately 3 miles from Suisun Bay and at an elevation substantially above that which would be at risk of inundation. The potential for the project site to be inundated by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow is less than significant. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No .Impact Incorporated. Impact Impact IX. . .LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? B b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation C3 0 plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The proposed project is located in an undeveloped area adjacent to Highway 4 and would not divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal PiCCC570TRODUCiSUS.MMTublielPublic Rm—IS-NM DAa(&202005) 48 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impact) The General Plan land usel designations for the project site are Light Industrial (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL) and Open Space (OS). The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to re-designate most of the site to Mixed Use while retaining some of the Open Space designation. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not conflict with general plan policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. c) Conflict with any applicablei habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) The project site is not subject to any such plans. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important . mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan orIother land use plan? a). 'Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? (No Impact) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) See Section X.a. P:ICCC5301PRODUCISUS.MNDIPubliclPublic Review IS-NMDAx(&3Oni 1 3) 49 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 9008 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ N where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would . the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Contra Costa County has established recommended external noise levels for long-term land uses in the Noise Element of the General Plan. For commercial office space, external noise levels up to 70 dBA LdnI are acceptable. For industrial and manufacturing uses, external noise levels up to 75 dBA Ldn are acceptable. The County does not maintain recommended noise standards for temporary construction noise. The following discussion describes the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of the proposed project on noise levels. Short-Term. Short-term noise levels related to construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase in the vicinity of the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. Table 7 lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments ' Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level(dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The Ldn is the 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight,obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m. P:\CCC530TRODUCISUS-MNDNublicTublic Review IS-NMD.doc(SnOn005) 50 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUiGUST 1006 I INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 7: T ical Maximum Construction E ui ment Noise Levels L..,l Range of Maximum Sound Suggested Maximum Sound Level Measured at 56 feet Level for Analysis at 50 feet Type of Equipment dBA dBA Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-Ib/blow 81-96 93 Rock Drills 83-99 96 I Jackhammers .75-85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78-88 85 Pumps 74-84 80 Scrapers 83-91 87 Haul Trucks I 83-94 88 Cranes 79-86 82 Portable Generators 71-87 80 Rollers 75-82 80 Dozers 77-90 85 Tractors 77-82 80 Front-End Loaders 77-90 86 Hydraulic Backhoes 81-90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81-90 86 i Graders 79-89 86 Air Compressors 76-89 86 Trucks 8147 86 i Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants,Bolt,Beranek,&Newman 1987. for typical construction equipment based on a distance of 50 feet between,the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical construction noise levels vary up to a maximum of 91 dBA at 50 feet from the construction site during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equip- ment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes; bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders and earthmoving and compacting equipment, which includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of earthmovers such as bulldozers and scrapers, loaders and graders, water trucks, and pickup trucks. The typical maximum noise level generat6d by each earthmover on the proposed project site is assumed to be 88 dBA at 50 feet from the operating earthmover. The maximum noise level generated by water and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA at 50 feet from these vehicles. i P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSIS.MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8/702005) 51 r LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pile driving may also be necessary to construct the proposed buildings, and could result in noise levels up to 93 dBA. Noise associated with pile driving can comprise very loud, impulsive sounds,resulting from a large hammer that drops on reinforced concrete piles. Individual noise impacts are of short duration (under 1 second), but the noise is repetitive, occurring about once every 2 seconds. Pile driving also generates vibration that is perceptible at a distance of 100 feet,but would not cause damage to other properties. Based on the assumption that pile driving could occur within the project site, exterior noise levels resulting from construction of the proposed project could be as high as 83 dBA in the vicinity of the proposed Frito Lay plant (located approximately 150 feet northwest of the project site). Commercial, public, and industrial uses adjacent to the project site could be exposed to normally unacceptable noise levels. However, due to the short-term nature of this construction-related impact, the County considers it a less-than-significant impact if each of the noise-reducing measures, described below, is implemented. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the project's temporary construction-period noise impact to a less-than=significant level: Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The project shall comply with the following noise reduction measures: • General construction noise shall be limited to weekdays from 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. • Pile driving and similarly loud activities shall be limited to weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • All heavy construction equipment used on the project site shall be maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. All stationary noise- generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from neighboring property lines, especially residential uses. Long-Term. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in vehicle trips in the vicinity of the project site. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate the traffic-related noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. This model requires parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the vicinity of the project site and access roads were taken from the traffic analysis included in Section XV of this Initial Study. The resultant noise levels were weighted and summed over 24 hour periods to determine the day-night average level (Ldn) values. The Ldn is the 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Tables 8 and 9 provide the noise levels on the roadways adjacent to the project site for the existing and existing plus project traffic conditions, respectively. Tables 10 and I 1 provide the noise levels on the roadways adjacent to the project site for the future (2025) no project and future plus project traffic conditions, respectively. These noise levels represent the worst case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location P1CCC5301PRODUCfSIIS-MND1Publicftblic Revim IS-NMD.da(8/302005) 52 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 8: Existing No•Project Traffic Noise Levels CNEL Center- Center- Center- (dBA) line to line to line to 50 Feet from 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Roadway Segment ADT feet feet feet Lane Willow Pass Road Between Evora Road and SR-4 6,300 <50° 57 119 63.8 Westbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Westbound Ramps and 10,700 <50 80 168 66.1 SR-4 Eastbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Eastbound Ramps and 17,300 <50 108 231 68.2 Avila Road Willow Pass Road south of Avila Road 18,500 55 113 242 68.5 Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road 300 <5O <50 <50 49.0 Evora Road east of Willow Pass Road 6,400 . <50 <50 79 62.3 SR-4 Westbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 5,000 <50 <50 67 61.2 SR-4 Westbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 2,900 <50 <50 <50 58.8 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 7,700 <50 F <50 89 63.1 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 5,400 <50 <50 71 61.5 Avila Road east of Willow Pass Road 100 <50 <50 <50 1 44.2 Because of noise fluctuations over any given roadway segment,traffic noise within 50 feet of a roadway centerline requires a site specific analysis to determine accurate noise levels. Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,June 2005. Table 9: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Increase CNEL . Center- Center- Center- CNEL(dBA) (dBA) line to line to line to 50 Feet from 50 Feet from 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Outermost Roadway Segment ADT feet feet feet Lane Lane Willow Pass Road north of Evora Road 3,000 <50' <50 . 74 60.6 N/Ab Willow Pass Road Between Evora Road 12,000 <50 86 181 66.6 2.8 and SR-4 Westbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Westbound 14,000 <50 95 201 67.3 1.2 Ramps and SR-4 Eastbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Eastbound .. 18,300 55 112 v 240. 68.4 0.2 Ramps and Avila Road Willow Pass Road south of Avila Road 19,500 57 117. 250 68.7 0.2 Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road .3,600 <50 <50 54 59.8 10.8 Evora Road east of Willow Pass Road 7,100 <50 <50 85 62.7 0.4 SR-4 Westbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 6,600 <50 <50 81 62.4 1.2 SR-4 Westbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 3,700 <50 <50 55 59.9 1.1 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 8,600 <50 <50. 96 63.5 0.4 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 6,800 <50 z 50 82 62.5 1.0 Avila Road east of Willow Pass Road 100 <50 <50 <50 44.2 0.0 Because of noise fluctuations over any given roadway segment,traffic noise within 50 feet of a roadway centerline requires a site specific analysis to determine accurate noise levels. b N/A-Not Applicable. This roadway segment does not currently exist. Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,June 2005. P:\CCC530IPRODUCrSUS•MNDIPublic\Public Pa iew IS-NMD.dec(8/30/2005) 53 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 4005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 10: Year 2025 Baseline No Project Traffic Noise Levels CNEL Center- Center- Center- (dBA) line to line to line to 50 Feet from 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Roadway Segment ADT feet feet feet Lane Willow Pass Road Between Evora Road and SR-4 7,100 <50° 62 129 64.3 Westbound Ramps Willow.Pass Road Between SR-4 Westbound Ramps and SR-4 Eastbound Rams 14,500 <50 97 206 67.4 Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Eastbound Ramps and 30,700 75 158 338 70.7 Avila Road Willow Pass Road south of Avila Road 37,200 1 85 179 384 71.5 Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road 300 <50 . <50 <50 49.0 Evora Road east of Willow Pass Road 7,600 <50 <50 88 63.0 SR-4 Westbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 6,600 <50 <50. 81 62.4 SR-4 Westbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 4,300 <50 <50 61 60.5 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 10,300 <50 51 108. 64.3 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road. 7,800 <50 <50 90 .63.1 Avila Road east of Willow Pass Road 100 <50 <50 <50 44.2 Because of noise fluctuations over any given roadway segment,traffic noise within 50 feet of a roadway centerline requires a site specific analysis to determine accurate noise levels. Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,June 2005. Table 11: Year 2025 Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Increase CNEL CNEL Center- Center- Center- (dBA) (dBA) line to line to line to 50 Feet from 50 Feet from 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Outermost Roadway Segment ADT feet feet feet Lane Lane Willow Pass Road north of Evora Road 3,200 <50° <50 77 60.9 N/Ab Willow Pass Road Between Evora Road 12,900 <50 90 190 66.9 2.6 and SR-4 Westbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Westbound 17,800 54 110 235 68.3 0.9 Ramps and SR-4 Eastbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Eastbound 31,600 76 161 345 70.8 0.1 Ramps and Avila Road Willow Pass Road south of Avila Road 38,200 86 182 391 71.6 0.1 Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road 3,600 <50 <50 54 59.8 10.8 Evora Road east of Willow Pass Road 8,200 <50 <50 93 63.3.: 0.3 SR-4 Westbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 8,200 <50 <50 93 63.3 0.9 SR-4 Westbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 51100 <50 <50 68 61.3 0.8 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 11,300 <50 54 115 64.7 0.4 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 9,300. <50 <50 101 63.9 0.8 Avila Road east of Willow Pass Road 100 <50 <50 <50 44.2 0.0 Because of noise fluctuations over any given roadway segment,traffic noise within 50 feet of a roadway centerline requires a site specific analysis to determine accurate noise levels. b N/A-Not Applicable. This roadway segment does not currently exist. Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,June 2005. P:ICCC5301PRODUCTSIJS.M iDlPubliclPublic Rmew IS-NMD.dm(5/1012005) 54 I i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I I where the noise contours are calculated. The data in Tables 9 and 11 show that, with the exception of the segment along Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road, implementation of the proposed project would result'in noise level increases that are imperceptible to the human ear. Changes in noise of 3.0 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. The largest increase in traffic-related noise that would occur as a result of the proposed project would be on Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road. Noise levels on this roadway segment would increase by approximately 10.8 dBA due to implementation of the proposed project. This increase in traffic noise is perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. However, there are no existing sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, along this roadway segment. In addition, traffic noise along Evora Road would remain generally low with the 65 and 70 dBA Ldn contours confined within the roadway right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than)significant impact on the long-term off-site traffic noise levels. I The project site is located approximately 375 feet from the centerline of SR-4. The County's General Plan states that the segment of SR-4 adjacent to the project site would generate traffic noise levels of 78 dBA Ldn at a distance of 100 feet. Therefore, at 375 feet the project site would be exposed to noise levels of up to 70 dBA Ldn. In addition, the on-site buildings could be located within 25 feet of the centerline of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. At these distances the on-site building's could be exposed to traffic noise levels of 67 and 65 dBA Ldn, respectively. These noise levels are considered to be acceptable for commercial uses in the General Plan. Therefore, no on-site mitigation measures to reduce traffic noise would be required. The nearest development to the project site would be the proposed Frito Lay distribution center located approximately 150 feet to the northwest. At this distance, noise generated by on-site operations such as parking I lot activities and delivery trucks would not be significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of persons to excessive noise levels. It is unlikely that any of the on-site uses would be exposed to noise levels exceeding the County's)noise standards for commercial uses. I b) Exposure of persons to or generation of.excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project (including potential pile driving) could Itemporarily expose persons in the vicinity of the project site to ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Implementation Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. i c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) I Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in daily traffic trips and would potentially increase traffic noise along access roads leading to the project site. However, as discussed in Section XI.a above, the increase in ambient noise levels would be less than I I I p:\CCCSIOWRODUCI'SUS-hWD\PublicWublic Review IS-Nt.ID.da(N/302005) 55 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARE AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION significant. Therefore, the permanent increase in ambient noise levels associated with the proposed project would not be considered substantial. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated). Project-related construction activities could result in high intermittent noise up to 83 dBA Lmax at adjacent land uses. This noise would result from the temporary use of earth-moving and construction equipment during the project construction period. Implementation Mitigation 'Measure NOISE-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The proposed project is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the Buchanan Field Airport. Due to the project site's distance from the airport no significant noise impacts in terms of the 24-hour averaged noise level, such as CNEL or Ldn, are expected to affect the project site. ,i For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the projectexpose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working within the project site to excessive airport-related noise. Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either C3 directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? .c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating C3 13 1 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSqS-MND\Public\Public Rcvim IS-NtvM.dx(6/30/2005) 56 LEA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project includes the development of a mixed use business park. The project site is located in the immediate vicinity of the City of Concord and most of the anticipated businesses would be expected to draw employees from nearby communities. Utility and transportation infrastructure that would serve the proposed project is in place. The turnout for water from the Contra Costa Canal is specifically tied to the development of the Frito Lay site and the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The proposed project would not displace any existing housing units or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See Section XII.b,above. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? C Police protection? ❑ 13 0 C Schools? ❑ C3 .0 Parks? ® 0 C3 Other public facilities? C3 C3 P:1000530TRODUCf SVS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8/30/2005) 57 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 4005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause -significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fireprotection, police'protection, schools, parks, other public facilities? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would consist of a mixed use business park and would not include a residential population. 'The level of public services required for the site would be slightly greater than the level currently demanded. As part of the land use entitlement process, all departments and agencies responsible for providing services are consulted to determine their ability to provide services to proposed development projects. Such services within the project area may include, but are not limited to fire and police protection, schools, maintenance of public facilities including roads and other governmental services as anticipated by the County's General Plan. The Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District and the Contra Costa County Sheriff serve the site. Both agencies have submitted comments on the proposed project and neither has indicated that its implementation would cause significant impacts to current response times, impede the attainment of level-of-service goals or require construction of additional facilities. The property is already taxed to support fire protection and an additional fee based on building square footage would be collected prior to issuance of building permits. A condition of project approval would require the creation of a new tax district to support police services. New facilities would be built according to community-wide need. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, need, or construction of government facilities or services such as parks, schools, libraries, etc. Impacts to roads would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels as explained in Section XV below. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? P:\CCC570\PRODUCI'SVS-MND\Public\Wblic P—im IS-NMD.dm(5/708005) 58 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGU9T 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would consist of a mixed use business park and would not include a residential population. The increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, regional trails or other recreational facilities as a result of the proposed project would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact) The proposed project does not include recreational .facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. See Section XIV.a, above. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑ ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in alsubstantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually of cumulatively,a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency on design Hated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted polices,plans,or programs ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? a) Cause an increase in traffic,which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle P:\CCC310\PRODUCTSlIS-MNDULbIiclPublic Review IS•NMD.da(8!1012003) 59 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) To document the existing traffic conditions, intersection turn movement counts were taken by Southland Car Counters on Thursday, April 28, 2005. Four unsignalized study area intersections were selected because of their proximity to the project: 1. Willow Pass Road/Evora Road 2. Willow Pass Road/SR-4 westbound ramps 3. Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramps 4. Willow Pass Road/Avila Road The existing traffic volumes at the study area intersections are illustrated in Figure 8. The existing levels of service (LOS) for the study area intersections were calculated using Traffix, Version 7.7; and the. methodology set forth in Chapter 10 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. This methodology defines LOS in terms of total intersection delay in seconds per vehicle (four-way stop-controlled intersections) and approach delay of the minor street (two- way stop-controlled intersections). The resulting delay is expressed in terms of LOS, where LOS A represents free-flow activity and LOS F Table 12: LOS/Delay at Unsignalized represents overcapacity operation. According to the LOS Intersections criteria set forth in the Contra Costa County General Plan Level of Unsignalized Intersection for signalized intersections, the worst acceptable Service Delay per Vehicle operation is LOS D, or a signalized volume-to-capacity (LOS) sec A .10.0 ratio of 0.89. B >10.0 and 15.0 C >15.0 and 25.0 The relationship of delay and LOS at unsignalized D >25.0 and 35.0 E 1 >35.0 and,50.0 intersections is summarized in Table 12. F 1 >50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, The existing intersection levels of service are show in Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Table 13. All of the intersections currently operate at unsatisfactory levels of service during at least Table 13: Existing LOS Summary one peak hour, with the exception of Willow Existin Pass Road/Avila Road. AM PM Delay Delay Intersection sec LOS sec LOS The project trip generation for the proposed � S Willow Pass Business Park was calculated 1. Evora Pass Rd/ `'3716's c<iE!'`.-' 10.5 B Evora Rd r :v'� using trip generation rates from the Institute of 2. Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 4891 E: 12.7 B Transportation Engineers, Tri Generation f P g � p Westbound Rams •��'�����; �:_ �~.I . ,. .., Seventh Edition. The ro ect uses have not 3.Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 s>'S0w >,=.=F; x 3 ;0 = E::;;: P 1 Eastbound Rams ?Y. been precisely defined; rather,the project would 4. Willow Pass Rd/Avila 20.5 C 16.6 C. provide for a range of allowable land uses on Rd each lot, including relatively low trip generators ®=Exceeds LOS criteria. such as heavy industrial, manufacturing, and Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. warehousing, as well as uses that generate a higher number of trips per square foot such as office, medical office, and retail. Land uses proposed by the project applicant and described beginning on page 3 of this Initial Study have been translated into land uses in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Proposed land uses by lot P:ICCC5301PRODUCrS\IS-MNDIPublic\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8/702005) 60 r-------------=-r-------- :... ...:;..;..: I' �ProJ.,'ect . :.... :.: ... . I " - = 32 . 7 - 7921 1 - - f EVORA RD 9/5 M N N to CO en T 17/9 —97/3 j + f—. 748/270 • � f r N f— MM v SR-4 4 LO N C` CQ W • �C\D 158/391 217/376 ' 1�N • M 117 r CSD LO t!)N Q1 co t M 6/4 L i-4/1 AVILA RD t N (i/ N a 3 CO O a .a 3 L S A FIGURE 8 LEGEND Willow Pass Business Park N XX/YY -AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Existing Traffic Volumes SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE 1:\CCC530 Willow Pass\Figures\Fig_8.cdr (8/4/05) LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 14: Trip Generation mary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Unit ADT In Out I Total In Out Total Trip Rates" 720 Medical-Dental Office TSF 36.13 1.96 0.52 2.48 1 1.00 2.72 3.72 750 Office Park TSF 11.42 1.55 0.19 1.74 0.21 1.29 1.50 820 Shopping Center TSF 42.94 0.63 0.40 1.03 1.80 1.95 3.75 934 Fast-Food Restaurant with TSF 496.12 27.09 26.02 53.11 18.01 16.63 34.64 Drive-Through Window 946 Gas/Service Station w/ Fuel 152.84 5.43 5.21 10.64 6.67 6.67 13.33 Convenience Market and Stations Car Wash TSF - 6.27 6.03 12.30 6.89 6.89 13.77 Trip Generation Lot 1 Office Park 21,620 TSF 247 33 4 38 5. 28 32 Shopping Center 7,207 TSF. 3095 3 7 13 14 27 Total Trip Generation Lot 1 556 38 7 45 18 42 59 Lot 2 Office Park 14,0631 TSF 1 161 1 22 1 3 1 24 1 3 1 18 1 21 Shopping Center 4,6881 TSF 1 201 1 3 1 2 1 5 1 8 9 1 18 Total Trip Generation Lot 2 362 .25 5 29 11 27 39 Lot 3 Office Park 11,250 TSF 128 17 2 20 2 15 17 Shopping Center 3,750 TSF 161 2 2 4 7 7 14 Total Trip Generation Lot 3 290 20 4 23 9 22 31 Lot 4 Office Park 6,482 TSF 74 10 1 11 1 8 10 Shopping Center 2,161 TSF 93 1 1 2 4 4 8 Total Trip Generation Lot 4 167 ll2 14 5 13 18 Lot 5 Office Park 7,822 TSF 89 12 1 14 2 10 12 Shopping Center 2,607 TSF 112 2 1 3 5 5 10 Total Trip Generation Lot 5 201 14 3 16 6 15 22 Lot 6 Office Park 8,114 TSF 93 13 2 14 2 10 12 Shopping Center 2,705 TSF 116 2 1 3 5 5 10 Total Trip Generation Lot 6 209 14 3 17 7 16 .22 Lot 7 Office Park 10,9161 TSF 1 469 1 7 1 4 1 11 1 20 1 21 1. 41 Shopping Center 3,639 TSF 156 2 1 4 7 7 14 Total Trip Generation Lot 7 625 9 6 15 26 28 55 P:\CCC530\PRODUCfSVS-MMTublie,Public Review IS-NMD.dw(8!!0/2005) 62 I 1 I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 7005 INITIAL STUDY I I I Table 14 continued 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Unit ADT In Out Total In Out Total Lot 8 Shopping Center 3,208 TSF 138 2 1 3 6 6 12 Fast-Food Restaurant w/ 3,208 TSF 1,592 87 83 170 58 53 111 Drive-Through Window Pass-by Trips(49.5%ADT,. 3,208 TSF 788 43 41 83 29 27 56 49%a.m.,50%p.m.)b Net Trip Generation Lot 8 941 46 44 90 35 33 68 Lot 9 Gas/Service Station w/Conv. 10 Fuel 1,528 54 52 106 67 67 133 Market and Car Wash Stations Pass-by Trips(64.5%ADT, 10 'Fuel 986 34 33 67 44 44 88 63%a.m.,66%p.m.)` Stations Net Trip Generation Lot 9 543 20 19 39 23 23 45 Lot 10 Medical-Dental Office 23,106 TSF 835 45 12 57 23 63 86 Building Shopping Center 7,702 'TSF 331 5 3 8 14 15 29 Total Trip Generation Lot 10 1,166 50 15 65 37 78 115 Lot 11 Medical-Dental Office 14,400 1 TSF 520 28 7 36 14 39 54 Building 1 Shopping Center 4,800 1 TSF 206 3 2 5 9 9 18 Total Trip Generation Lot 11 726 31 9 41 23 48 72 Lot 12 Office Park 12,146 TSF 139 19 2 21 3 16 18 Shopping Center 4,049 TSF 174 3 2 4 7 8 15 Total Trip Generation Lot 12 1. 313 21 4 25 10 24 33 Lot 13 Office Park 10,140 1 TSF 116 16 2 18 2 13 15 Shopping Center 3,380 1 TSF 145 2 1 3 6 7 13 Total Trip Generation Lot 13 26.1 18 3 21 8 20 28 Lot 14 Office Park 13,245 TSF 151 21 3 23 3 17 20 Shopping Center 4,415 i TSF 190 3 2 5 8 9 17 Total Trip Generation Lot 14 341 23 4 28 11 26 36 Total Project Trip Generation 6,700 341 128 469 229 414 642 Trip Rates referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual,7th Edition(2003). b Pass-by Trip Percentages referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook (1998)-Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps(Land Use 853). ADT Pass-by Trip Percentage taken as an average of the AM and PM Pass-by Trip Percentages. Pass-by Trip Percentages referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook (1998)-Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window(Land Use 834). ADT Pass-by Trip Percentage taken as an average of the AM and PM Pass-by Trip Percentages. Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. 1 I I � L . P1CCCSJOIPRODUCTSIS-MNDIPubliclPublic Review IS-M�.d%(9501/2005) 63 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 2005 INITIAL STUDY are included in Table 14. According to the trip generation,there will be approximately 6,700 daily, 469 AM peak-hour, and 642 PM peak-hour trips at the Willow Pass Business Park. It should be noted that,even with the parcel-by-parcel calculations shown in Table 14,the trip generation does not specifically estimate truck trips for each land use;the ITE Trip Generation translates truck trips into auto trips. Because the project would allow a range of uses and tenants,no special consideration was given to truck trips: As a result, conclusions drawn in this analysis do not yet account for the possibility that certain land uses or project tenants could experience a high proportion of truck traffic. If truck intensive land uses are later proposed on the project site,then that specific project shall be defined and subject to a new trip generation . study. The following mitigation measure would ensure that the effects of truck traffic are not significant. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Prior to each.issuance of building permits on each parcel, the project applicant shall submit final development plans and/or plans for tenant improvements to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. To ensure that traffic generation does not exceed the volume that was projected in the Initial Study, the development indicated in the proposed plans shall be consistent with the allowable square footage for the various uses as set forth in Table 1 of the Initial Study. To estimate a realistic number of trips that could be generated by the project while maintaining flexibility in the land uses that could be built, the trip generation was estimated assuming that the majority of the site would be made up of office park and supporting retail. Medical office was specified on Lots 10 and 11. This use has a higher trip generation per square foot than office park; however, because it is an allowed use, it should be assumed that it may comprise a portion of the final project. Lots 8 and 9 include a fast-food restaurant, convenience store, and. gas station. Because of the location'of the project, it is likely that motorists will exit the freeway to patronize the businesses proposed for Lots 8 and 9 and then get back on the fi-eeway. Some existing motorists from Evora Road and Willow Pass Road may also patronize the fast food restaurant, gas station and convenience market. These would not be new trips, but simply trips that are already passing by the project site. To estimate the number of"pass-by" customers, pass-by trips for the fast-food restaurant with drive-through window and the gas/service station with convenience market with car wash have been estimated using. the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (1998). Pass-by trips from the freeway do not currently utilize any of the study area intersections. As a result, these trips would not be considered "pass-by" trips, even though they are currently traveling on SR-4. However, pass- by trips that currently use Willow Pass Road and Evora Road should be re-distributed at the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection to account for pass-by trips from these roadways. The number of pass-by trips through the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection was estimated to be 8 percent of the total pass-by trips of the project during the AM peak hour and 5 percent of the total pass-by trips of the project during the PM peak hour. These percentages were determined by comparing the existing volumes traveling on Willow Pass Road and Evora Road with the existing volumes along SR-4 during both peak hours. In a multi-use development, it is likely that there will be trips internal to the site (i.e., office workers who patronized the fast-food restaurant for lunch) which should be removed from the P:1CCC530TRODUCISUS.MNDNublic\Public P-im IS-NUD.dm(2(50/2005) 64 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 1005 . INITIAL STUDY total of trips generated. This trip reduction for internally captured trips is separate from the reduction for pass-by trips.Because land uses have not been specifically defined for each parcel on the project site,the internal capture cannot be forecasted for the project site. . Project trips were distributed through the study area intersections (based on previous analysis prepared for the site) and added to the existing traffic volumes. The project trip distribution and project trips at each study area intersection are illustrated in Figure 9. Existing plus project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 10. Existing and existing plus project LOS for study area intersections are presented in Table 15. As shown in the table, Willow Pass Road/Avila Road is the only intersection that will continue to operate at a satisfactory LOS during both peak hours in the existing plus project scenario for.both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections of Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road at the SR-4 ramps will continue to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service during at least one peak hour. It should be noted that while the project will add traffic to these intersections,the project traffic is not the primary cause of the unsatisfactory operation. Rather, the project will only contribute to an existing LOS deficiency. A peak hour signal warrant analysis was prepared for the.three intersections that have been forecast to operate at.an unsatisfactory LOS.in the existing and existing plus project condition. This analysis shows that although each intersection would operate at an unsatisfactory LOS, no signals are warranted. In all cases, the minor street approach volume does not meet the minimum criteria of the peak-hour signal warrant. At all three intersections, the LOS deficiency is a result of the high through volumes on Willow Pass Road, which do not provide sufficient gaps in traffic for left turns onto the major street from the stop-controlled direction. In addition to the conclusion that no traffic signals would be warranted in the existing plus project scenario, there are no other feasible mitigations at the three deficient intersections. It is not possible to create gaps in the traffic stream by adding additional through or turn lanes; however, a traffic signal in each case would create gaps in the through traffic, thereby mitigating the unsatisfactory LOS experienced on the stop-controlled movement. The traffic signals would also serve as.a safety improvement at the study area intersections by providing protected movement for the traffic from the minor street. It should be noted that regional and local traffic is forecast to increase in the area, and traffic signals would probably be warranted in the future. This is discussed further in the cumulative impact analysis section. The following mitigation measures are prescribed to offset the LOS deficiencies experienced in the. existing and existing plus project conditions. These mitigation measures. apply to the proposed project only. Should a more vehicle trip-intensive use, or a more truck trip-intensive use be proposed, a new trip generation study shall be completed to verify the adequacy of the required mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure TRAF-2: 'To remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersec- tion of Willow Pass. Road/Evora Road, a traffic signal shall be installed at this intersection with permitted left-turn phasing in the north-south direction and split phasing in the east-west direction. The traffic signal should be interconnected and coordinated with the recommended traffic signals at the Willow Pass Road/SR-4 Eastbound and Westbound ramps(see Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 and TRAF-4). P:\CCC5301PRODUCTSUS-MNDlPubliclPublic Revim IS-NMD.dw(8/30/2005) 65 ----------------------- P ---------------- ----- P4. ro ect I.:'.:..;:, _ ... .. .. .:'...:•.::::DC7:.::��:�:i: ,•:;::.:<'.: ,:::':.:;':: TIom; L20/15 J. i': 21 15 v I- / E ORA RD 10/2fi 1 t 69/211 —� M M_ M a O O N O N \ O O CO Ir r 146/106 N N SR-4 4 00 ' M r� IL 167/121—� v c cD M C o ..M AVILA RD t C v) M N c0 3 0 J 3 L S A LEGEND FIGURE 9 xxM -AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes - Project Trip Distribution Willow Pass Business Park N Project Trip Distribution and Assignment. SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE 1:\.CCC530 Willow Pass\figures\Fig_9.cdr (84105) I I I I I j Kft � 'i4 ; /'�i, t r - ;•Site_' - I.,'�:"?`: 1.6 .f..::�: _ _ :.•�... - T'.T:T;j'. x'22/15 2718 "r - 2/21 7 0 9 - - :�► 11/31 I t r 1.78/216 o M I u')r v 1 i co r N N I 1 �o 1 co M N� L-163/115 --@--97/3 f-74/8/270 1 � f N M gc. M 1 c SR-4 co4 CD o� i 1. I 1325/512 t 217/376 c N Cn M co N I 1 N M M I 6/4 1 4/1 AVILA RD I • t r 1• � c M I � I 4 � I �O 1 3 L c [� LEGEND FIGURE 10 S " I 1 AW -AM/PM PeaklHour Volumes 1 Willow Pass Business Park N I Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE I IACCC530 Willow PasMuiguresTig_10.ccir (8/4/05) I I I I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR JULY 9005 INITIAL STUDY Table 15: Existing Plus Project LOS Summary Exi ting ExistingPlus Project AM PM AM PM Delay Delay Delay Delay Intersection sec LOS. sec LOS sec LOS sec LOS 1.Willow Pass Rd/Evora Rd 3=<t37c6 ''s ?E : 10.5 B =>50. '' `�.'F 49.9 D. 2.Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 Westbound Rams ';:;489,`i''='`E=- 12.7 B <>.SOs" ; ?F;•s: 14.7 B 3.Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 Eastbound Rams >;50.. :F, ,_37:0> :E:= >;gp `:r.; F.;= =;: >50w'F;° `, ,,:. �:: 4.Willow Pass Rd/Avila Rd 20.5 C 16.6 C 21.9 C 17.3 C =Exceeds LOS criteria. Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. The intersection should be modified to provide a westbound left-turn lane, resulting in the following geometrics at the intersection: Northbound: One left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane. Southbound: One shared left-through-right lane. Eastbound: One shared left-through-right lane. Westbound:One left-turn lane and one shared left-through-right lane. Implementation of this improvement would result in the intersection operating at LOS A during both peak hours in the existing plus project condition (0.520 volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) during the AM peak hour and 0.521 v/c during the PM peak hour). The signalized operation of the intersection was analyzed using the Circular 212 (Critical Movement Analysis) methodology, with adjustments to the saturation flow. rate, as set forth in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Technical Procedures manual. Mitigation Measure TRAF-3: Improvements will be necessary to remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/SR4 westbound ramps. Installation of a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in all directions, along with the existing geometrics, would remedy the LOS deficiency at this intersection. If a traffic signal is installed, then it should be interconnected and coordinated with the recommended traffic signals at Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramp (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 and TRAF-4). However, the California Department of Transportation and/or the Contra Costa County Public Works Department may determine that improvements other than, or in addition to a traffic signal are more appropriate. Because the intersection operates at unsatisfactory LOS E in the existing condition, the project applicant shall participate; in necessary improvements on a fair-share basis, corresponding to the amount of traffic forecasted to be added to the intersection by the project and calculated using the appropriate State and/or County methodology. Since the impact from this project could be mitigated through the installation of a traffic signal, the project applicant's contribution to necessary improvements shall not exceed the fair-share cost of installing a traffic signal. P:I0005301PRODUCI'SVS-MNDIPubliclPublic Review IS4MD.dw(SM2005) 68 I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 2000 INITIAL STUDY Implementation of this improvement would result in the intersection operating at LOS B (0.643 v/c)during the AM peak hour and LOS A(0.371 v/c)during the PM peak hour in -the existing plus project condition.. Mitigation Measure TRAF-4: Improvements will be necessary to remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramps. Installation of a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in all directions, along with . the existing geometric§,.would remedy the LOS deficiency at this intersection. If a traffic signal is installed, then it should be interconnectedand coordinated with the recommended traffic. signals at Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramp (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 and TRAF-4). However, the California Department of Transportation and/or the Contra Costa County Public Works Department may determine that improvements other than, or in addition to a traffic signal are more appropriate. Because the intersection operates at unsatisfactory LOS E in the existing condition, the project applicant shall participate in necessary improvements on a fair-share basis, corresponding to the amount of traffic forecasted to be added to the intersection by the project and calculatedusing the appropriate State and/or County methodology. Since the impact from this project could be mitigated through the installation of a traffic signal, the project applicant's contribution to necessary improvements shall not exceed the fair-share cost of installing a traffic signal. Implementation of this improvement would result in the intersection operating at LOS A during both peak hours in the existing plus project condition (0.463 v/c during the AM peak hour and 0.491 v/c during the PM peak hour). b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) To assess the impact of the proposed Willow Pass Business Park in a cumulative horizon, as well as assess the project's 'impact on the Congestion Management Program facilities in the area, a future scenario was analyzed. Year 2025 serves as the planning horizon for the cumulative traffic analysis. LSA obtained 2025 traffic model data from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This data included year 2000 and 2025 forecast traffic volumes and land use data,by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). It should be noted that the extension of Leland Road to Avila Road was not included in the 2025 model data. In addition, background truck traffic estimated to be generated as part of the Frito Lay project,was also not included from the modeling as this traffic is specific to this site and therefore would not be included in the countywide model. (These are not part of the proposed project.) No adjustments to account for Frito Lay truck travel were made to the countywide model data. P;%CCC530VPRODUCTSVS-MND\PublicTublic Review IS-NMD.doc(8/30/2005) _ .69 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 1005 INITIAL STUDY According to the land use data provided by the OCTA, the project land use has not been included in the TAZ corresponding to the project's location. As a result, it is necessary to add project traffic to 2025 modeled traffic volumes to determine the impact of the project in the buildout horizon. 2025 baseline traffic volumes were forecast by applying the Table 16: 2025 LOS Summary growth between 2000 and 2025 in the 2025 model to the existing traffic counts. 'The AM no o PM 2025 baseline project) traffic volumes p j lIntersection Delay Delay(sec) LOS (sec) LOS are shown in Figure 11. The 2025 baseline 1. Willow Pass Rd/Evora >50..i:` ±:F;`;; 11.5 s LOS summary is shown in Table 16: As Ra 2. Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 >'S0' ` ..., F;<:;', 24.1 C shown below, each of the four intersections Westbound Ramps would operate at an unsatisfactory LOS in 3. Willow Pass Rd/SR-3 the AM peak hour. Two intersections, Eastbound Ramps Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow 4..Willow Pass Rd/Avila Rd Pass Road/SR-4 westbound ramps would 0-Exceeds LOS criteria. operate at satisfactory LOS.in the PM peak Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. hour;the other two would not. Project trips were then added to the 2025 baseline traffic volumes. The 2025 Plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 12. The 2025 plus project LOS is shown in Table 17. All intersections will operate at unsatisfactory LOST during one or both peak hours. Table 17: 2025 Plus Project LOS Summary 2025 2025 PIus Project AM PM AM PM Delay Delay Delay Delay Intersection sec LOS sec LOS sec LOS sec LOS 1. Willow Pass Rd/Evora Rd >,'SO .:' F,<`: 11.5 B 2. Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 Westbound Rams >.50' `F:` 24.1 C >:50'' V,'` 30.8 D 3. Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 Eastbound Ramps ::'..F'_ 4. Willow Pass Rd/Avila Rd >.g0 ;_::F:`::`' >,50:.:.''.'.F:-:'". `..x;50 F;:`; '`:>50` N=Exceeds LOS criteria Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. A peak-hour signal warrant analysis was prepared for all four study area intersections. A traffic signal and/or other improvements would be warranted during the peak hour for the intersections of Willow Pass Road/Evora Road, Willow Pass Road/SR-4 westbound ramps, and Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramps. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-2, TRAF-3, and TRAF-4 would result in satisfactory operations in the existing plus proposed project, as well as the 2025 Plus Project scenario at the three intersections. With implementation of the mitigation measures,the 2025 Plus Project level of service at the three intersections are shown below: 1. Willow Pass Road/Evora Road v/c=0.675, LOS A during the AM.peak hour v/c=0.653, LOS A during the PM peak hour P:\CCC530\PRODUCTS\IS-MNDIPublic\Public Review IS-NMD.da(8/30/2005) 70 "i. .......:.. ... 1�' Pr0'ec1;��- 4 1 `.. 9027 EVORA RD 1/5r 9/5- Cr C. N Ln Cfl T C'7 M CD O CO CD M �—24/10 1,'" 97/3 f-1085/416 iOO N c^v SR-4 4 LO 0 228/446-� Fr 315/583LO � `C N M to CC'J N ti Cp� 6/4 IL f-4/1 AV ILA RD t Q N 0. O O M � y ti 3 � 0 a 3 I LSA FIGURE II LEGEND ANY -AM/PM PeaklHour Volumes N Willow Pass Business Park Year 2025 Traffic Volumes SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE l:\CCC530 Willow Pass\figures\Fig_1 i.cdT (8/4105) ----------------------- 4. L;;r::; '•r0- 22/15 I�.::��',.�'.:.�,'r.'.�1'•':��'.�'..�_�:..ti:`;fir: -0-27/18 •;v,!._ - - 935 21 - 6 - EVORA RD 11/31 f l' 78/216–� C2 N ti M is C12ra LO CDN co cn 170/116 "' —97/3 J 1 f-1085/416 � f �M Co Co v a��o LO� SR4 4 ul�Co ti �T �iz T� 1L 395/567 315/583 —� C N`l Il_Cl) Lo co T M 6/4 L f—4/1 AVILA RD t cc C\JCn O M Cn O 4 '7 3 T 0 a a 3 LSA LEGEND FIGURE 12 )OM -AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Willow Pass Business Park N Year 2025 Plus Project Traffic Volumes SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE JACCC530 Willow PasAfiguresTig_I2.cdr(8/4/05) I i I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK JULY 9005 INITIAL STUDY I i I 2. Willow Pass Road/SR-4 weIstbound ramps v/c=0.806,LOS D during the AM peak hour v/c.=0.516,LOS A during the PM peak hour I 3. Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramps v/c=0.633,LOS A during the AM peak hour v/c=0.575,LOS A during,the PM peak hour A traffic signal would not belwarranted at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/Avila Road. The LOS deficiency at this intersection is only on the minor street (Avila Road). No stop control exists on Willow Pass Road; therefore, vehicles on Willow Pass Road would not experience any delay. Ten or fewer vehicles are forecast to utilize the westbound approach and experience significant delay due to the through traffic. No project trips are forecast to utilize Avila Road and contribute to Ithe delay on the stop-controlled approach. Because of the small number of affected vehicles, no mitigation is recommended at this intersection. I According to the Central Contra Costa Updated Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance; SR-4 is designated as a Route of Regional Significance. The following traffic service objective has been established for SR-4: • Delay index of 2.0,with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 30 mph. • Peak-hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.4 persons per vehicle. I The delay index is a measure of the time that it takes to travel between two points during the peak hour as compared to non-congested off-peak hours. A delay index of 2.0 indicates that a trip would take twice as long during the peak commute hour as during the off-peak hours. According to traffic countsl obtained from the Caltrans Web site (www.dot.ca.gov), the segments of SR-4 east and west of Willow Pass Road currently carry approximately 11,500 vehicles during the peak hour, or approximately 1,650 passenger cars per hour per lane (pc/h/ln). Based on the project trip distribution shown in Figure 9, the project has the potential to add up to 258 peak-hour vehicles to SR-4. To determine the effect on the average travel speed, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)was consulted. According to Exhibit 23-3 in the HCM, the existing peak-hour volume would correspond to an average travel speed of approximately 68 miles per hour. When-258 project trips are added to the freeway, the freeway would carry approximately, 1,680 pc/h/ln. Based on Exhibit 23-3, this addition of approximately 30 peak-hour, pc/h/ln would result in a negligible reduction in average travel speed of less than.2 to 3 miles per hour. Therefore, the project would not significantly impact the free flow speed on SR-4,land as a result, would not be expected to result in a delay index of greater than 2.0. I c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (1Vo Impact) I The project would not-affect air traffic patterns in the area. I I I P:\CCC570\PRODUCI'SVS-MNDV'ubliclPublic Review IS-NHID.doc(8/742003) 73 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 1000 INITIAL STUDY d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Vehicular access to the project will be provided from Evora Road and the terminus of Willow Pass Road. Project driveways have all been designed as standard full-access driveways. Parking on-site is generally in 90-degree stalls with two-way drive aisles. No dead-end parking aisles are proposed, and the planned circulation is adequate to accommodate the anticipated land uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Emergency access is provided via the project driveways off Evora Road and Willow Pass Road. Based on the proposed site plan, emergency vehicles could access all sides of the proposed buildings; with the exception of the building on Lot 6. Access is provided to three sides of the building on Lot 6, which would be adequate for emergency vehicles and personnel. Adequate emergency access will be provided to the proposed project. ,9. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed General Plan Amendment contains development standards- (including parking spaces) required for the proposed project. As each parcel was developed,the minimum number of parking spaces for the proposed land use(s) would be provided. Alternatively, if a shell building was proposed and the specific uses were unknown at the time of construction,then the potential uses and their square footage would be limited by the number of parking spaces provided. Lots 8 and 9 will contain the proposed Black Diamond Vista project, with a gas station,multi-tenant retail building(including fast food),and car wash. This project contains up. to 12,000 square feet of building space and will be parked at a ratio of one space per 250 square feet, consistent with the County's requirement for retail land uses. Fixing the number of required parking spaces to the square footage of the proposed uses would ensure that the project would have adequate parking capacity. 1) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates in the median of SR-4 adjacent to the project. The closest stations to the project are the North Concord/Martinez station and the Baypoint station in Pittsburgh. The Contra Costa County General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element designates SR-4 as a transit corridor. Within the corridor, the County will pursue the construction of rail transit extensions and high occupancy vehicle facilities,the establishment of express bus service,the integration of rail transit and bus service, and the promotion of carpools and vanpools. Implementation of the proposed project would not affect BART operations within the SR-4 corridor or implementation of the transit corridor as outlined in the General Plan. A segment of the Delta/DeAnza Regional Trail terminates approximately 275 feet south of the Evora Road/Willow Pass Road intersection. The East Bay Regional Park District's "Master Plan 1997" identifies a potential extension of the trail along the south side of Evora Road from Willow Pass Road west to the Contra Costa Canal. The project site is on the north side of P1CCC7701PRODUCfSVS.N(NDIPubliePublic Review IS-NMDAM(0!702005) 74 i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 1005 I INITIAL STUDY Evora Road and would not directly impact the planned trail corridor. However, the traffic mitigation measures described in Section XV.a above require improvements within the trail corridor. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the required roadway improvements do not conflict or interfere with the implementation of the trail extension. Mitigation Measure TRAF-5: The project applicant shall work closely with the East Bay Regional Park District land the appropriate transportation agency (Contra Costa County Public Works Department and/or California Department of Transportation)to ensure that the required intersection and roadway improvements in the vicinity of the Evora Road/Willow Pass Road intersection are designed with provisions to allow for a trail crossing acceptable to the East Bay Regional Park District. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination bye the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? P:I000530TRODUCTSIIS-MNDIPublieftblic Re im IS-NMDAW(MG/005) 75 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR JULY 1005 INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Comply with federal, State,and local statutes and 13 regulations related to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The sewage collection system would transport wastewater from the project site to the Delta Diablo Sanitation District(DDSD). The system would comply with all applicable requirements established by the DDSD and the wastewater would be treated at the DDSD water treatment plant which is operated in compliance with all applicable federal and State water quality requirements. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) which incorporated Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the project was reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department, Grading Division prior to issuance of grading permits for the rough grading. An updated SWPPP would be required in conjunction with future site development. County inspection during site preparation and construction would confirm the implementation and on-going maintenance of the SWPPP and BMPs and other. pertinent County requirements related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The project would not result in significant impacts on water quality. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The wastewater generated by the proposed project could be accommodated with the existing DDSD wastewater treatment facilities and would not require the construction of additional faculties. Construction of the on-site water system would occur on a site that has been rough graded and would not cause significant environmental effects. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) As detailed in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, stormwater runoff from 75 percent of the developed areas would flow through a system of bioswales; concrete channels and storm drain pipes to a detention basin and fresh water pond, which would reduce the rate and amount of surface runoff leaving the project site and help reduce `first flush' pollutant levels. Surface runoff collected in the detention basin and freshwater ponds and excess runoff would be directed to the 30 inch storm drain pipe which passes beneath the Contra Costa Canal. The storm water conveyance and detention system for the site was developed as part of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District project. Compliance with the County's "collect and convey" P:%CCC530\PRODUCMS-MM\PublicWublic Rai—IS-NMD.dw(8/5012005) 76 i I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARR JULY 2005 INITIAL STUDY I I requirements, which would be a condition of project approval, would ensure that the storm water drainage systems wouldiaccommodate the proposed project. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new orexpanded entitlements needed? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) • I The proposed project is located within the service area of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The CCWD has indicated that it has capacity to. serve the project. While located within the CCWD's service area,the proposed project would draw water from on-site wells for potable use and from the Contra Costa Canal for use in irrigation and fire suppression systems. Approximately one-third of the project's water demand would be satisfied by the wells and two-thirds would be satisfied by the canal. On July 20, 2005 the CCWDI Board authorized the CCWD to enter into A Raw Water Service Agreement with the project applicant and Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP.- This.agreement includes terms to locate, design, construct and pay for a turnout from the Contra Costa Canal; to locate, design, construct and maintain equipment associated with water flow and distribution; and to make water service payments to the CCWD. The applicant has signed this agreement and .Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP is lanticipated to sign the agreement. I . The Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD) has issued a 10-year permit to operate a private water system on-site. However, it is unclear how long the aquifer that feeds the project's wells would bel capable of supplying an adequate quantity of potable water. The possibility that the project could exhaust the supply of potable water is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that the quality and quantity of water in the aquifer is monitored and that an alternative water supply is established, if needed,thereby mitigatinglthe impact to a less-than-significant level: I Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a long-term (minimum 30 year) Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and the HSD. The Plan shall include the following: • Regular Testingand nd Reporting: Testing shall be conducted by an individual or firm whose qualifications and methodologies are approved by the HSD to.identify any deterioration in the quality .and quantity of water in the underground aquifer supplying the project. Tests shall be conducted annuallyand reports including the test results shall lie submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval following verification of the results by the HSD. Testing shall confirm a minimum five year supply of potable water. Testing and reporting may be required on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary by either the Zoning Administrator or the HSD. Factors that may necessitate more frequent reporting include; but are not limited to, an increase in thel intensity of on-site uses, additional draws on the aquifer resulting from nearby development, an accident involving the release of hazardous materials into the soil in they vicinity of the aquifer and one or more years of drought. I I i P:ICCC530)PRODUCMS-MNDftblie,Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8!!0!2007) 77 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 2005 INITIAL STUDY •. Alternative Water Supplies: Alternative water supplies shall be identified and described in detail. If testing indicates that the recharge capability and/or the water quality.of the aquifer is deteriorating or is expected to deteriorate to the point where the supply of potable water is no longer guaranteed for a minimum period of five years, then a hydrogeologic study shall be conducted to more precisely determine the condition of the aquifer. If the hydrogeologic study confirms that the recharge capability and/or the water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating and that the aquifer can no longer be considered a reliable source of potable water, then the study shall project how long the aquifer will be able to meet the needs of the project. In order to ensure an adequate future water supply, the applicant shall either: (1) develop an additional, or possibly replacement water supply; or (2) begin the process of connecting to the CCWD. Within three months of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that the establishment of an alternative water supply is necessary, the applicant shall decide which alternative it intends to implement. The proposal for the alternative water supply shall be subject to the review and approval of-the Zoning Administrator and shall be acceptable to the HSD if that department has permitting responsibility. The alternative water supply or service from the CCWD shall be operational no less than one year prior to the anticipated inability of the aquifer to provide the necessary potable water supply, as projected in the hydrogeologic study.New construction and the establishment of new uses in existing tenant spaces-will be prohibited if either of these deadlines is not met or if the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate progress has not been made in establishing the alternative water supply. New construction' and the establishment of new uses will not be permitted to resume until the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate progress has been.made. • Emergency Measures: Measures to maintain a temporary/backup water supply shall be developed. The.Plan shall be updated as site conditions change, new alternative water supplies become available, previously identified alternative supplies become unavailable, etc. The approved Plan shall be implemented by the applicant or successor entity. Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Concurrent with recording the Final Map, the applicant shall record a deed disclosure statement for each parcel alerting future property owners to the existence of the Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and informing them that they are subject to the requirements and procedures contained therein. Each subsequent property owner shall also be provided with a copy of the most current version of the Plan. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) See XVIA,above. P:\CCC530TRODUCTSVS-MM%Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dw(8/70!2005) 79- i i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 5005 INITIAL STUDY f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would be served by the Keller Canyon Landfill, which has remaining a capacity of approximately 681 000,000 cubic yards and an estimated closure date of December 31, 2030.1 The existing landfill has the capacity to accommodate.the proposed project's solid waste disposal needs. g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less- Than-Significant Impact) Recycling receptacles would be provided within the project site, in accordance with all statutes and regulations related to solid waste. i Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than i Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the C3 0 O quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,'or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable.future projects.) i d) Does the project have environmental effects which will. ❑ 0 13 0 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?i a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or l California Integrated Waste Management Board,2004. Keller Canyon Landfill Facility/Site Details. Website: http://www.ciwmb.ca.eov/S WIS/detail.asp°PG=DET&SITESCH=07-AA-0032&OUT=HTML P:ICCC3701PRODUCTSVS.MND(Public\Public Review 15-NMD.da(9/301 3) 79 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR JULY 1000 INITIAL STUDY restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) As described in Section IV, the proposed project would not adversely affect special status plants and animals. As described in Section V, Cultural Resources, there are no identified cultural resources within the site, and it is unlikely that resources would be uncovered during . the construction period. Implementation of the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4)threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5)reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the.effects of probable future projects) (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would result in the development of a mixed use business park in unincorporated Contra Costa County. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on . human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact) The proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. P:\CCC530\PRODUCI'S\IS-MXD\Public\Public Review IS-NM.dm(B/30/300S) 80 I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 9005 INITIAL STUDY I I I ' B.. REPORT PREPARERSI LSA Associates,Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley,CA 94710 David Clore, AICP,Principal in Charge Shannon Allen,AICP,Project Manager Jason Burke, Assistant Planner Sue Smith, Word Processing Skip Shimmin,Graphics Manager I One Park Plaza, Suite 500 i Irvine,CA 92614 Tony Chung, Principal Tony Petros,Principal,Transportation Keith Lay,Air Quality/Noise Specialist Meghan Macias, Senior Transportation Planner . I I Other Preparers William R.Nelson, Senior Planner,Contra Costa County Hillary P. Heard, Senior Planner-Transportation Planning Division, Contra Costa County I I I I . I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I P:ICCC5301PRODUCI'SUS.\M\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.da(8/30/7003) 81 I I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY RODS INITIAL STUDY C. BIBLIOGRAPHY AEI Consultants,2005. Soil Excavation&Removal Report, 4650 Evora Road,Concord. January 14. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection,2002. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, 2004. Williamson Act Program. Website: hqp://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/ica/ California Department of Fish and Game,2003. Streambed Alteration Agreement Amendment, Thomas DeNova Annexation and Light Industrial Development,Contra Costa County. May 8. California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Program. Website: liqp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LaiidArch/scenic/schnl.htmi California Integrated Waste Management Board,2004. Keller Canyon Landfill Facility/Site Details. Website: hn://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/detail.asp?PG=DET&SITESCH=07-AA- 0032&OUT=HTML Contra Costa County, 1996. Contra Costa County General Plan 1995-2010. Contra Costa,County, 1987. Draft Environmental Impact Report,Lesher General Plan Amendment. December. Donaldson Associates,2002. Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development. Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Antioch, CA. February 21. Mosaic Associates, LLC, 2003. Thomas/Denova LLC Industrial Subdivision First Year Monitoring Report, Concord, Contra Costa County. December 15. Mosaic Associates, LLC, 2004. Re: Burrowing Owl Mitigation, Agreement#1802-200200040003, Thomas/DeNova LLC Industrial Subdivision, Concord, Contra Costa County. April 29. Sycamore Associates,LLC,2000. California Red-legged frog and California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment for the Lesher.Property, Concord, Contra Costa County, California. July 13. Sycamore Associates,LLC,2000. RE:Special-Status Plant Surveys at the Lesher Property, north of Concord, Contra Costa County. October 16. P:ICCC5101PRODUC SgS.MNDIPublie,Public Review IS-NMD.d.(MO/1005) 82 1 1 15 1 1 , 1 i � AppEN ►niX�'" 1 ENT ©3EC'f CO AGENCY YR 1 - - 1 i i 1 1 1 - 1 1 . 1 - 1 1 1 y , 1 1 1 1 y y . i 1 ����� ;. 1 FYrK.1.7.G17CI7 J•�xl'I l.lA'G'0.p`Il IT Vr-vtLVr1-MJ-1I NV.4UW V.e1 CALIFORNIA +cis "' ALAMM4 ,,:ti 1 V Z;t, SA4 MATr-o Northwest Intannetiop CenW MENDOCINO SANTA CLARA HISTORICAL - CONTRA COSTA MONTUMy SANTA CRUZ Sonoma stateUpiverslh HF'SOURCES '' LAKE I APA i�r SOU►tio 1303 frim Avenue SONOMA INFORMATION 14 Nov eE flOLisco54 YYOLO Tol:Roh707AIs4 ert Pail; 9 Fax 7o7.ssa,o *o SYSTEM +�.�,i'�,►�' f:-rna8;nw�coeonorpa.edu November 12,2004 •� File No.:044040 I W71 Nelson,Project Plat w Contra Costa County Commtmity Developmm Dept, 651 I'ine Street 4s.'Floor,North Wing Mardnez,CA 94553-0095 re: W 04.0010,RZ 04-3151,SD 048918;DP 04.3096/Hwy 4&Willow Pass Road/ThomasOoNova LLC Dear Mr,Nelson Records at this office wm reviewed to deter fine if this project could adversely affect historical resources. The review for possible historic strµctures,however,Was limited to references currently in our office, Please note that use of the , historical resources includes both archaeological sites and h jstorle ctructiires. no proposed project arca contains or is 4WAW to the archseological sitefsl ( ). A study is recommended prior to comII]encetTOGnt ofproject activities. I The proposed project area has the possibility of contig unrecorded arcbaeoloQical sJkW A study is recommended prior to comrnencemeat Iof pro�eet activities, XX The proposed project area has a]PH possibility of containing unrecorded arcbaeolo tical ailgal, Therefore,no further study for archaeological resomm isl recomtneaded. The proposed project arca contains a listed historic structure ( ), See recommendations in the comments section below. Study# identified no historical resourges. Further study for hjggLnical resources is not reconanended. 2M Review foF possible historic stractureswas limited to the Northwest Information Ceaters documents and should not be considered comprehensive.Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older maybe of bistorie'yalue,,tiietefore if the project tn'ea contains such properties it is recommended that they be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. I _The guidelines for iraplemontation of the California Register of Historical Resources(Cal Register)criteria for evaluation of historical properties have been developed by the State Office of Historical Preservation. For the purposes of CFQA,all identified sites:should be evaluated using the Cal Register criteria. We raconuneud you contact the local Native American tribe(s)regarding traditignal,cultural,and religious values. For a complete lisrigg of tabes in the vi abcinity of the project,please contact the Native American Heritage Couunissiou at 916/653-4082. If archneologiieW resources are encountered Iduring the project,work in the immediate vicinity of the fiwds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist bas evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call(707)664-0850, . Sincerely, I Leigh Jordan Coordinator I I Uri I A14 LUJ i is C�uiut2il of f1pr1ra (Rnnla 04 NOV 22 AK 10= 1 'Offirr of tlj #rriff ? 'i.;,�;� November 16,2004 Warren E.Pu f snatrr P )4r, W'r11 Nelson Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4*Floor,North Wing Martinet Ca 94553 Dear Mr,Nelson Subject: Request to allow development of a business park on a 28-acre parcel,located at Highway 4 and 'Willow Pass Road iin the unincorporated area of Bay Point,California, RE: County File#GP04-0010/DP04-3096 Proiect Description; This is a request for develttpmetwl of a multi-ttse bu4nesS park located on the northwest cower of the intersection of Willow fuss Road aW Evora Road in the Bay Point Area, The project is designed to acro, odate light-indus4iaL warehowpe,comnwercW of ice and retailuses. This office has reviewed the submit*documents and completed a bite survey. The following concerns, comments and recommendations are provided for your consideration. Crime Anal vais Data Crime analysis data for the 6-month period May 1,2003 through October 31, 2004 indicates the Office of the Sheriff has received the following crime reports in the area inmwediately surrounding the project site: (1)Commercial Burglary; (1)Auto Burglary;(1)Miscellaneous Burglary and(l) cases of Malicious Mischief General Security Recommendations Doom 1. Exterior employee,pedestrian and utility room doors should be of soled construction, with a minimum thickness of 13/4 inches and should be secured by a deadbolt lock with a minimum throw of one(1)inch .2. Door Strike plates should be augmented with three-inch screws to guard against forced entry. 1980 Muir Road•Martinet,California 94553-4800 I Outside hinges on all exterior doors should be provided with mli removable pias when pm type hinges are used, or should be provided with hinge studs to prevent removal of the door. 4. Glass doors should be se=)ed by a deadboh lock with a nnminunn throw of one(1) inch 5. Doors with glass panels, or doors with glass panels adjacent to the door Should be secured witb burglary resistant glaring.t 6. Doors with panic bars should have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No Secondary locks should be installed on panic equipped doors and no exterior surface-mounted hardware should be used. 7. A 2"wide and 6"long astragal shouX be installed on the doors exterior to protect the latch. S. Overhead roll-up doors should be secured on*inside to prevent the lock from being defeated from the outside and should be seamed with,a cylinder or padlock on the inside. windows 1. Louvered windows should not be used as they pose a.Significant security risk 2. Windows that are capable of being opened should be secured on the inside by a locking device capable of withstanding a force of three hundred(300)pouter.in arty clirecdalL 3. All windows capable of being opened should be equipped with secondary lockdng mechanisms. Roof Openings 1. All glass skylights shopld be equipped with the following: a. Burglary re4stant glass or glass-I&e acrylic material . or b. Iron bars of at least'/a"roupd or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material, spaced . no Poore than 5 inches apart and secured under the skylight or c. A steel grill of at least 1/8"material or 2"mesh under the skylight 2. All hatchway openings oa the roof of any building should be secured as follows: a. If the hatch is of wooden material, it should be covered on the outside with a sheet of steel of least I&gauge and should be attached with screws. b. The hatch should be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. c. Outside hinges on all hatchway openings should be equipped with non-removable pins when usingpin type binges. 3. All air duct or air vent openings on the roof or exterior walls that exceeding 8 inch x 12 inch should be secured by either of the following: a. Iron bars of at least %"round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material,spaced no more thea 5 indbes apart and secured under the skyligbt or b. A steel grill of at least 1/8"material or 2"mesh under the sV ight alnd c. If the barrier is on the outside,it should be secured with galvanised rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8"diameter on the outside. 'Minim=$/16"seewity Wninave,l."polycarbonate,cr approved=ap ity film treatment Lighting . 1. Parking areas,driveways, circulation Areas,aisles,passageways,recesses,dud grounds contiguous to buildings should be provided with lighting sufficient to make cWiiy visible the presence of any person on or about the prem%A s. 2. All exterior doors should be equipped with their own 4edipated light source 3. All exterior fixwes should be equipped with vandal resistant grating and be installed at ndlicieni height to discourage tamperakg. 4. All exterior lights should be controlled by a photocell systerq designed to opeMe during all periods of diminished]fight,regardless of bane of day. Landscaping 1. Landscaping should be of the type and situated in locations to n=nvze observation while providing the desued degree of aesthetics. Bushes shpuld be no Wgber than 42" from the ground and tree canopy should not M below a level of seven(7)feet from the ground when mature. 2. Defensible(Thorny)landscaping is encouraged along fence and property lbus,under vulnerable windows, and any other location where you want to restrict peoplol¢Ability to sit,loiter, cli nab,or wal]c. Defem'ble plant listings are available,upon request from the Crime Prevention Unit,by catling(925)313.2723. 3. Ensure that landscaping,when mature,will not interfere with security UghOM. Addressing 1- Nurnmils,should be a mini rn of font(4)inches in height and of a contrasting color to their bacl%rouad. 2. The address#lumber should be illuminated during periods of darkness. 3. Building numbers should be positioned in the front of the building and in such a way as to be easily visible to emergency vcliicles. Alarw Or Access Contr9b 1. Each building should be equipped with a comprehensive alarm System,to include coverage of all exterior doors and windows, 2. A licensed alarm company should monitor the alarm system on a tweZy-fog hour a day basis. 3. Individual alarm access codes should be assigned to each authorized employee. The alarm system should have 11m ability to motiitior'who bas made access,wham and at what time the access was made. Accurate employee code documentation should be kept, 4. Proper key control should be incorporated and proper documentation sbould be meintainW I I I I I I I irking& Signage I 1. AD entrarnces to the parldno area should be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC,to assist in removing velbcles at the property owner's/manager's request. Also, appropriate signage referring to section 602 PC(No Trespass)and Section 647 PC(No Loitering) should be posted at all entrances to the property. 2. Handicapped parlang spaces should be clearly marked and proper signs posted 3. Tire stops should be installed in all parking space& tecommendatious for Convenience Store &Fast Food UtabUshmouts 1. A Class F steel safe,wi#h a mptmnutn UL rating of TL-30 should be 4stslled in tJ* administration offices of the convenience store and fast food r4uurant. This safe should be secured to the concrete foimdatiom by bolts from the inside of the safe, Access to each safe should be restricted to necessary personnel only. A licensed atmoxed car company should service each safe al least weekly. 2. Audible panic buttons Should be placed in all restrooms. Silent panic buttons should be placed at each register and the administration office. All panic buttons should register as such with the alm company to include alarm location. 3. Security cameras(CCTV)sho*d be isastalled in such a way as to provide complete coverage of the convenience store and fast food estabfighraem At mom,a monitor should be placed at the cashier booths and at the drive through window. A recording device should be located in each administration office. Security tapes should be replaced at least twice yearly. 4. Alcoholic beverage coolers theft should be locked at 2:00 am to prevent s and attempts to purchase alcabol.ofter 2-00�am. 5. The casbiers'platform shwuld be elevated to provide a better view of the mere]aaadising area. !D=cashiers'platforim should be equipped with a telephone and the cashier should remain in the booth alter dark This platfonn should be visible from the outside of the building. 6. Shelving should be low enough tQ assure good visibility throughout the store. 7. Two-way or convex m'=lrs are encouraged to decrease blind spots S. The applivaat should install a f=,-delay drop safe to provide employees the ability to limit the amouut of cash an hand, Cashiers should not have access to money once it has been placed in the drop safe. All enties to the premises should be marked with notification that the cashier does not have access to the sa&. 9. Visibi'li'ty into and out of the binding should be maintained at all timers. Banners and/or merchandise should not hie placed on or in front of windows. No outside display of merchandise should occi i in the parking or circulation areas. 10.All storage areas should be closed and locked when not in use. 11.If a payphone is to be ingorporated,it should be located inside the minimart,within view of tbo cashier. 12.Height tape should be placed at all exits to enable staff to easily recognize the height of robbery/burglary suspects. 13.Low-press= sodium fixtures should be installed to the front of the store to reduce loitering. i i I I I I I f you should bave any additional questions regarding this matter,please feel free to contact the wnlber listed below. Sincerely, Warren E.Rupf. Sheriff Oifim of the Sheriff--Contra Costa County By: NGcbaet Voss w4, Crime Preveatioa Specialist Office oftbe Sheriff Cot=Costa County (925)313-2723 cc �Aeuunmw Mike Newman,Muir Station Command" Pet Pave—Community Relalow Supa vi,oc 7bomaRTk-N*n[1C-Applicant. File Contra Costs Coup tY Fire protection District 0h NOV 22 PH 3:45 :rrU 01nuTeo November 18, 2004 , � Or UT nrf-. AaMnez, CIA 94553 . Wention, Will Nelson Subject: GP 04-0010; RZ 0¢3.151; SD 04-8918; DP 04-3096,Willow Pass Business Park CCCFPD Project No. 10582 3entlemen, No have reviewed the Subdivision application to establish a commercial business park with a total of 18 lots at the subject location. This project is regulated by codes, regulations,and ordinances administered Fly this Fire District. If approved by your office,the following shall be included as conditions of approval, 1• The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a Minimum fire flow of 2500 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than three (hydrants flowing simultaneously for a duration of four hours while maintaining 20 poioids residual • 1.; •�7 ��'�1'�'", �-1 NJ . ...�.,.�1 a-�•:A� p7pYDf•�•lAV.Pal:rer..,•..r,.•t • j, ,,,� This includes the reductiort fcrthe installation of automatic fire sprinklers. 2. The developer shall provide fire hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon supmlttal of three copies of a tentative slap or site plan. (903,4.2) CFC 3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet,6 inches of vertical clearance,to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade,shall have a rninirrlum outside turning radius of 45 feet,and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus Le.,37 Ions. (902.2)CFC Note; a. Access roads of 20.feet 4nopstructed width shall have NO PARKING signs . posted or curbs painted red with the words"NO PARKING FIRE LANE'clearly marked. b. Roads 28 feet In width shall have NO PARKING signs posted, allowing for parking on tine side only, or curb painted red with the words"NO PARKING FIRE LANE" clearly marked. c. Roads 35 feet In width allow for parking on both sides. Acgew ss shown gppears to comply with these requirements. {l. + LWgr2gg9 y h{cles shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.Electrically operated gates shall be equipped with i KKnox GoMpany key-operated switch. Maine?operated galea shall be equipped with a non-casehardened breakaway lock or approved Fire District lock Contact the Fire District for informaWn on ordering the padlock or key-operated switch. 2010 Geary Flood•Plessern Hill,California W28-4694•Telephone(925)941.3300•Fax(925)941-330: East County Telophone(mss)767.1303 • Fax J025)941 X329 West County •Telephone(510)374.7070 www ccdrpd.org CCCFPD Project No. 10532 .2- November 18,2004 S. Center divide medians on any access roadways shall leave a minimum remaining lane width of 20 feet on each side. 6. Dead end Fire District access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus, (902,2.2.4) CFC 7. The developer shall submit three copies of site improvement plans Indicating fire apparatus spoess and turnaround area for review and approval prior to construction.(902.22.1)CFC Note. This may be the same submittal as the Hydrant Iocations if necessary. 8. The developer shall provide a computer-aided design (CAD)dig'Ital file copy of the sybjeet project upon final approval of the site improvement plans or subdivision map. CAD file shall be saved in an AutoCAPO 2002 file format or DXF file format.Contact this office for current acceptable . AutoCAD®version. 9. Access roads and hydrAnts shall be installed,in service and approved prior to construction, (8704.1).CFC 10. Approved premises identification shall be provided. $uch numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street.(801.4.4)CFC 11. No flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks shall be located on the site without obtaining approval and necessary permits from the Fire District 12. The buildings as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13, Submit three sets of plans to this office for review and approval prior tc installation, (1003.1)CFC is. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2010 Geary Road. Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 To schedule field inspections and tests,call 825-9413323. It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this office when compiled by the planning agency. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office, Sincerely, Ian Hardage Fire Prevention Technician IH/nlr Fiie:10532.Rr CCCFPD Project No. 10532 -3- November 18,2004 c: Thomas/DeNova LLO 3100 Oak Road, Syne 140 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Michael J. Murphy 3100 Oak Road, suite 140 Wainut Greek, CA 94597, HrK.'IZ$.cum Z;'4rl'1 I.VPII•RJM 1 T UtVLLL*-rL.Y i NU.41U V.1( ` ' CONTRA costa i:0l1�+P,A COR.1.`. ...,....o WATER DISTRICT 1331 Concord Avenue Conoo�rd,HCA Mea 20 04 OEC -L ?M 2-- 10 (925)688-8000 PAX(625)688-8122 ,r.�,"M..r November 29,2004 •1.1.t11't'1�t�I i.I.'r' VIA FACSIRI7.L: 925 335.1222 Hard Copy to Follow Joseph L.Campbell Preddant F-100eth R.Anelto Will Nelson Vim President Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Pette 6oetmun 4th Floor,North Win John A.ayrO Kan L wendry Martinez,California 94553-0095 Generrali Manager Subject: Willow Pass Business Park Dear W.Nelson: The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)is in receipt of the Agency Comment Request dated November 3, 2004 regarding the.request by Thomas/DcNova I.,L,C to create a major subdivision and business park on 28 acres at Willow Pass and Evora Roads. The subject property is located just above the Contra Costa Canal and just north of State Route 4, CCWD has been actively involved with the review of this property for the past several years. During the early part of 2003 CCWD worked with Contra Costa County and Thomas DeNova on a variety of concerns related to development of a Rito I aydistribution complex at the subject site. Contra Costa County provided this portion of the project with a grading permit prior to the land use application for the site and the grading permit did not consider impacts from drainage on the Contra Costa Canal. CCWD worked with Contra Costa County staff and Thomas DeNova to devise a drainage plan that was approved under land use Permit No,LP012108, On December 12,2003 CCWD provided Contra Costa County with comments as it pertained to the proposed Willow Pass Business Park. CCWD indicated its concerns With the proposed rezoning of land in this area, the fact that Thomas DeNova had yet to fulfill its obligations with respect to drainage improvements for land use Permit Na.LP012108, and that the proposed private water system within the CCWD service area constituted duplication of service impacts to CCWD customers. CCWD understands that the County ultimately rejected the request by Thomas DeNova to rezone and subdivide the property at that time due to concerns that the applicant was requesting land use changes piecemeal. i I I November 29,2004 Page 2 I Since December 2003 Contra Costa County granted Thomas DeNova a grading permit for the Willow Pass Business Park and the remaining portion of the property has been graded and leveled in anticiparion of a new business park. Generally,CCWD would expect to have the opportunity to review and provide its coT=ents in the context of an environmental review for this project and prior to the property being leveled and graded. CCWD recommends that before Contra Costa County adyaneq6 the Nov=ber 3,2004 application further that the following must be considered and evaluated in environmental and land rise considerations: 1) The proposed area is within the CCWD service area. Howover, the doveloper is intending to pursue an independent water supply (a single groundwater well)and a private distribution system. Construction of an independent water system within CCWD's service area constitutes a duplication of seivice. CCWD is in the process of working out terms to address this issue. No agreement has been reached. CCWD requests that the developer request not be approved until CCWD has an agreement in place the resolve,&this situation. 2) The proposed development needs to consider the Federal Endangered Species Act(FtSA)in the environmental documentation for this project. The Interim Service Area Map on Listed Species Occurrences and Potential Habitat(June 2000)indicates that much of the subject property is designated as grasslands. The map is prepared by CCWD and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as required under the Los Vaqueros Project biological opinion for terrestrial species. i 3) CCWD would like to ensure that with the expansion of the business park to include upwards of 28 acres,that drainage from the proposed business park not result in greater site drainage towards the Canal. Post deyelopMent drainage should not be greater than pre-development flows. In addition,the concrete apron that has been constructed to convey drainage from the Nto Lay property under the Canal has no further capacity to accept additional drainage from the new commercial areas that are now proposed. 4) California water Code requires that a water supply assessment be prepared for this project. The water supply assessment should consider impacts to the!groundwater supply during periods of drought.This is especially important given that the business park is intending to use a private water supply(single groundwater well) and distribution system to supply all of the facilities at this site. i i i Sincerely, J Bro Director Planning MSlrlr cc; Ion Baird; Thomas DeNova Cay Goude; United States Fish and Wildlife Service(Sacramento) I I Hem.1::�.6d ::$:tt>vm COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO.480 P.20 I G>rrYpv Qortao>so Crrrcoumn i'sa�arCarsflt 4 — ILAm M.AU=, Mayor 1900 Parkside DriveLatin M. Hoffineistm vice Mayor Concord, California 9MID-2578 .�,���Tf1A COST': ' suaso Som11a MrMwdo dcphone: (925)671-3454 _ Mu n ax: (925)671-:1981 • ra oil + I oerk ne Mary Rae LehoentUn , City ream ` T1u+mas Wcntlin Ci Trcanrrer + '•r•T40 T U r 1 $d card R Juan;, City Mm4ger I I December 1,2004 I I I Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development Depaxanent 651 Pine Street i Martinez, CA 94553-0095 I Subject: VMOw Pass Business Park GP04,0010;DP 3096;RZ 3151; SD 8919 I Dear Nir,Nelson: I The City of Caucord Planning Division has reviewed the Willow Pass Business Park General Plan Amendment, Planning Unit Development, Rezone and Major Subdivision proposal located adjacent to Concord's City Limits. Staff has rcviewed the proposed project and have no comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep us informed of the progress of this project. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (925)671-3281, ..I Sincerely, I I 'Fina Hadley Assistant Planner I cc: Phillip Woods,Principal Planner I I I I . 041jr.321 Cougtyltetem�] I i i i e-+naik cityinf.6d.concord.ea us a rpcyr tc;www.cityof=ncprd.org I I I PUBLIC WORK$DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COU14TY DATE: December 7,2004 'O: Will Nelson,Project Planner, Community Development 'ROM: Keith Hoey,Engineering Staff,Engineering Services V 11 ;UBJECT: SUBDMSION 8918 30-DAY COMMENTS(PE ASE 2) (Thonmas/Denova LLC/Evora Road/Bay Point/AP#099-160-015,019,020'.0250 027) -TILE: SD 8918 We have reviewed the revised tentative map received by your office on October 27, 2004 and submit the following conunents: Background This project was previously filed under $ubdivision 8793 in which the applicant proposed to develop a 9-lot light industrial park in the Bay Point area.That project has since been-vd* rawa. The proposed project has been assigned a new subdivision number and now consists of a 14-lot business park and will require a General Plan amendment and Zoning change to P-1. The site is located along Evora Road, a County maintained road, with the eastern access point at Willow Pass Road and western access point at the western end of Evora Road.' A concuavnt rezone application (RZ 04-03151) is being processed for this property. The applicant is currently in the processing pbase for Land Use Permit LP 2108-01, which required the construction of the eastern and western access roads &long with various concrete ditches ftqughout the site to handle drainage. 77se submitted vesting tentative map should be considered incomplete. Before accepting the application as complete,the following concerns shall be addressed: • A more detailed project description Should be provided. Knowledge of the types of businesses and their locations other than the ones indicated will allow tis to better evaluate the proposed subdivision. • Provide information regarding the existing and proposed improvements and conditions on Evora Road. • Where will the drainage from the project ultimately be conveyed? Discharging into th, Contra Costa Canal is prohibited. I I • The current approved LP 2108-01 application constructed a detention basin,whicb is on s separate piece of property owned by Thomas/Denova LLC. If needed,the applicant shal be required to provide pzoof that they are allowed to drain to the detention basin and tha this facility is designed to accommodate the drainage from the lots in this application The applicant Shall also be required to provide proof that there is an entity that wil maintain the detention basin in perpetuity. I • Conveyance of clean Witter is a major concern throughout the County, The proposed gat station and car wash raise concerns. The applicant shall place an emphasis on complyint with NPDES requirements, Disconnected impervious surfaces can be landscaped fa aesthetics and can prove Ito be a cost effective alternative to conventional storm draii systems. The applicant m1% provide information indicating how C.3. mquiremernts wit be addressed. This includes mitigating contaminants in storm water to the maximun extant practicable, controlling potential pollutant sources, and matching post projec rano$peak-period flows and durations to pre-project conditions. The applicant shout provide preliminary information regarding short. and long term Best Managemen Practices(BMP's)with any fµture submittal. I I a�CapDa�n��9Ye1T�ip►12�41>�bb15DD�Q8918idoe m: H,Baron,�+ElA�ipg Seavioa E.WbM EnCincoift SerAM C.Lu.ftoaeaipe Soman lin SAW.Th=*(AsSM 1100 Oak ftd.Wit 1A Wohml Crock.G 94597 I I PUBUCWONG DEPARTMENT CON1R; COSTA COUNTY CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y 05 JAN 20 Pill 3-- 4$ !0: Will Nelson,Project Planner,Community Development +�tOM: Christopher Lau,Associate Civil Engineer,Engineering Servic6p )UBJECT: SUBDMSION 8918 (Thomas/Denova LLC/Evora Road/Bay Point/AP# 099-160-015, 019, 020, 025, 027) P+iUaT: SD 8918 We have reviewed the letter from 'Ibomas/DeNova LLC addressed.to.Keith Hoey and dated January 12, 2005. Iiaving addressed the concerns of the Public Works Department in our 30- Day comments dated December 7, 2004,the Department can deem the above stated application as complete, Our Department will prepare the staff report and conditions of approval and will forward them to the Community Development Department when completed. Please contact us if you have any further questions. M G1�P�B?s11�B5vo�GhriFV►pPNmtlon�0e5117a►ga�+�SU 8914 Oeem Gk�mPla�c MgacAa ec: B.Bo1baR Fn8inwins 4eiV1— &Whin,EnBm°riS kr*o. K.HWY,pnBin0ftiPS$=Na— im Baird.nom VIDoNavp j.d.C,3100 ft P.04d,Wto 140,VAIRUFcleck G►94397 I I I � I I I _ CONTRA COSTA.COUNTY� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMF>W&P"a* 651 Pine Sireet,North Wing-4*Floor 05 FEB —3 Pi J ° Mart=4 CA 945$3 Telephone: (925 335-1290 COMM`NIlYi i NNWD%PT Fan: .(925)335.1300 I I TO: Will Nelson, Cwrrent Planning Division I FROM: Hillary Heard,Transportation P14tuti4g Division, DATE: February 3,2005 I SUBJECT: Traffic Irnpact Study for the Willow Pass Business Park Staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the Willow Pass Business Park prepared by Abrams Associates,It is our undamtartding that this Traffic Impact Study is intended as an update to the previous Study for the adjacent development of the Frito-Lay Distn'butiou Centerprepared inNovember 2002.The information in the current Traffic Impact Study is not complete and therefore staf'fwould notrecommeod that it be relied upon for use in evaluating the environmental impacts of this prc jocL I In.order to fully evaluate the impact$to the transportation facilities Associated with this project,additions elements are needed that do not exist in the current study.The missing elemen%.=outliined below: ■ Land Use. The current traffic study notes that it is intended to be an update to the stud, published in November 2002 however it is not clear what range of land uses the study i evaluating.Although the land use type isnot idendfied in this traffic study,staffhaveatampto to interpret the analysisi as only evaluating the impacts to traffic associated with a warehous facility(Pad A,98,400 sq,ft.);tUe mini umWgas station and retail shops(Pad D,11,800 sq.$.: As well as the trip rate for the land uses on the remaining development ages;Pad B,Pad C,Lot 10-11 and Lots 12-13 for a total area of 325,000 sq fl,appears to analyze traffic associated with warehouse facility but the calculations are not exact. The trip generation calculations do uc reflect"R&D facility"or"mixed use so these impacts for these activities are not disclosed b the study. The limited range of land uses evaluated by the study has the potential 1 underestimate the traffic impacts to the roadways,which poses a significant issue. ■ Level of Service CrniteiU. The table documenting the Level of Service Criteria f( Unsigualized Intersections appears to utilize the standards for signalized intersections,whit is not correct (Table 1, page 5). This development project is served by unsignalim intersections therefore the analysis needs to evaluate the LOS for unsignalized interseetiol and evaluate whether the intersections will warrant signals due to added traffic. Tl worksheets for this analysis are not ipeluded but need to be provided as part of the analysi Level of Service Calculations,The traffic study does not appearto adju%ftLOSw&natestore& the traffic impacts of slow�moving trucks associated with the warehouse facility.Thiszstirnuk shot be incorporated due to thefactthat asemi-iractorwit atimUa waiting at an intasection has farms significant impact on the intmection operation than a passenger car due to it's weight and size.T LOS estimates in this study appear to assume that all new trips are associated wilt passengrca w il,�nl.1%�v 41.n wntAntio�to tlnAPtPCt;M-.%?, ths.immi-tQ to the Jirhatnd irltmections. I i I • Trip.Generation.The Trip Geae dau Table does not contain the analys*far the AM Peak Hour,Traffic nor does it molude tbe.Ti'E T p Generation Rates and Swim fpr each land use (Table 3,roW 4 page 7). Evabadan of the project'e*wU on AM peak Dour conditions eaimot be made Without ost=frog trips for the Ali peak bony, • AverageDaily Traffic.The narrative follovong Table 3 discums the average dai7gwe&day taffic on Wow 1'asp Extension but not on the other adjaceutrosdways,the narrative sbould discus the impacts to all of ft mffeoe4 roadways and iatersecdow. • Pass-by Trip >aeduetion. The pass-by calculations for the Trip Generation Ore not doouaseuted iA 7 able 4;this information needs to bF iuchtded in a traffic etndy(Table 4.page S). There is no way to verify that the reductions arc valid. • Cumulatiye Level of$a-vice Aunlyds.Th=does riot appear to be a final We docw=ting lire Cumulative Leve]of Srrvice conditions as the study intetsectim for the AM and?M peak hour. x Teehniral Data.Data that is norroaAy submitted c.9 part of a Traffic InapW Analyaia was not included iu the appendtt,the following inib=atiaaa needs to bo oft tted;Traffic Coptgs, bdatiag Volumes IAS oatcylAtions, 8xisting phts Project LOS calm9adons, Cu=cove Develop=.nt LOS c**tions,and TrAMc Signal W=gnts for i use ftuure emArios. As you are aware staffhave previously commented on the preparation of the oriond Trac Study for a 98,400 square foot warehouse with the total bWd out of the I-msher Property (additional 130,000 square feet)for a total of 228,400 square foot prgject(Traffic Impact Study for Prito Lay, Novemb=2002). That ehuly found that the cwTent uses allowed by the General P14n for this site would wammt installation of at u c vipW at Evora Road/WillowPass Road and thepotential need for signals for the freeway ramps 4%the ads aoent inu aU=ga, The updated study evaluates a 422,400 aquas feet project and expands the range of allowed uses beyond wambouse #itaotions, yet it comludes that the impacts would be lirni*to signabTin Evora RoadlWiUaw Peps intersection,nc impacts to the freeway ramps are anticipated, 'Thmfore staff would hIm to reoo=cnd the consideration be given that the County hires an independent traffic eaaz Ueut to prepare a mon thorough traffic analysis for the environmental review of dais revised project. This mom dwroue analy&is atiould provide the itlfoamatign missing firam the applicant's study. Please contact me if you have any cjgwdons regarding this memo. CC. S.Goctr,CDD C.Lau,PWA G�1Rtxaspoty�tionlF�iiRarylA�Omo��D►�t1�1WiAaw�e�k_pa�ian�dyrrv.dAc Y NI 11 1 I I✓L Y LL-%./1-1•Icl,1 ' I 1kt{.ti ► B. WALM, MID, J HAZAK-..JUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS ' FLm1N Seances f]tatoa 4383 Pacheco Boulevard RANDAfrt L, SAWYER I Martinez, California DrRECTPl4 li(�f` 1'F1 `�j7 �+V 94553-2229 N TRA C O S T A Fax (925)Ph (9z5) 6'2266 J�L T H SERVICES 6A6-2073 CQMM.11h'ITY tlr vi'I P KNI NP 1 March 14,2005 Mr,William Nelson' Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,2nd Floor N Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subject., APN 099-160-019 Former Gran Club Located at:4650 Evora Road, Concord, California Soil Remediation Report Prepared by AEI Consultants,Walnut Creek, CA Dear W.Nelson, This letter is in response to Contra Costa Health Services' (CCHS)review of the Soil.Excavation &Removal Report ('the"Report'I for the above subject site. CCHS staff reviewed the Report and on February 11, 2005 met with Mr, Phil Ludolph, Contra Costa County Building Inspector to discuss the Report's findings. CCHS staff was not present during any soil sampling or exca ations, According to the Report,the subject site appears to have been cleaned to levels conducive for light industrial activities. CCHS's assessment of the subject site is limited to specified"areas of interest"and specified contaminants (inorganic.lead and copper)in the Report. It is CCHS's understanding that the subject site is a small part(Lot#14)of a much larger development (Willow Pass Business Park). used on information given to CCHS at this time,CCHS is not able to address any site characterizations for adjacent parcels. Evora Road—Soil Remediation Report Page 1 of 2 .Com-Costa Alcohol and Other prugs Services•CorNa Cosa Emerp_nq Medical 5eMees • Conn[osn WironmertWl Health • Contra Costa He*flan •Contra Costa Hazardous Mawab Programs•Conga Cam Merndl Health • Contr>r Comta Public Health • Contra Com Bo9ional MOO Center 9 Com costa Hwtrcergers I . Due to the above listcd reasons,it is the judgment of CCHS that a note be attached to the parcel book page indvcatiug that if the land use were ever to change to residential(or similar use, e.g. scbool,daycare center.atc.), a full phase H investigation shall be conducted. if you have any questions regarding this information,please contact Melissa Hagen at the letterhead address or at(92$)646-2286. Regards, f M mi Ra Hazardous Materials Specialist I Cc: W.Phil Ludolp Building Inspoctor I Contra Costa County 651 Pine Str=4 4ei Floor Martinez,CA 94553.1295 CCHS Site Mitigation File Evora Road—Soil Remediation Report Page 2 of 2 i I RPR.13.ZM5 :3:55PM COMMUNl l Y VLVLL0FT 9-Y I NU.4UW CommunityContra - rolm� �8t9 ®fpMfi{�ft Dctar Development Costa Department County LN0V - d 2004County Administration Building DING INSPE 651 Pine Street DEPARTMENT 4th Floor,North Wing Martinet,Califomia 94553-OD95 Phone: (92SMS-1210 Date; i AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. i DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: ,j�-Building Inspection 1 C �� -y—RSD,Environmental Health, Coneord Project Planner 1 ;� v RSD,Hazardgns Materials I U 19C% y o 010 _P/W-Flood Control(Full Size) County File R z P 4- 3117 1 P/W-Engineering Sycs ull Size) Number; S n o S - S 4 8 Date Forwarded p Dtr 3 o ct P/W Tmffjc(Reduced Prior To; -1c 1 P/W Special Districts(Reduced) 's,/-Comprehensive Planning rcji d--t We have found the following special programs , -.Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System CA Native Amer.Her, Comm. NL'L Redevelopment Area w"� �O CA Fi h&Game,Region US Fish&Wildlife Service &12Q Active Fault Zone .Y,Fire District J, L, -L j -,4_Sanitary Distrlot - Flood 11ozard Area,Panel T Water District t. c• Lv e Y 60 dBA Noise Control City .� C.4" 9-� .�,School District 6i-I n► �: u.,,,. , L Sheriff Office-Admin. is Coma,Svcs. $—)C—)CA EPA Hazardous YVaste Site Alamo Improvement Association —El Setbrantte P1g. & Zoniq Committee Traffic Zone kc � N1T- DOIT.Dep.Dwi ector,Communications CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Co_mI1mun/�ity Organizations Iac�/ &P a U.LL ��w.nn r10Wy�.0 //�► G.O ,py, I I Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance, Please send copies of your response to the Applicant&Owner, _No comments on this application. -?Qeur Comments areauspi4ed Comments; DIF�ICN AR C& Wltl- 2:221 Gree-- sigiintare � Agency —T Swm %planning/iempim;a/fortrWageneycomment request Date Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8;00 a.m, - 5:00 p.m. (liFinn it nlnrnr +6- -1r4 7.r/ 0 V0, C.irin,.n ni nnnL. ..+n..iF. I I I - I - APPENDIX B MITIGATION MEASURE AGREEMENT I - I , I I I . - I • F . I I - j I o I . I I I i i Appendix B Consent lAgreement for Mitigation Measures Project Title: Willow Pass Business Park County File No. GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 and DP043096 Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. William R.Nelson, Senior Planner (925)335-1208 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Thomas/DeNova,LLC 3100 Oak Road, Suite 140 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Contact:Mr.Michael J.Murphy,Project Manager (925) 945-6266 ext. 17 Thomas/DeNova, LLC, the applicant, hereby agree to implement the mitigation measures described herein which are recommended for the proposed project based on the assessment of potential environmental impacts in the Initial I Study and are incorporated into the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (pursuant to Section 21157.5 of the Public Resources Code and Article 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines) for the proposed project. The mitigation measures required to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project to a less-than-significant level are as follows: Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES-1: Massive buildings are unprecedented along the subject hillside. Buildings over 50 feet tall shall incorporate design elements to reduce and break up the mass. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure,proposed plans shall be submitted for the review and approval-of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure AES-2: Angular buildings would contrast sharply with the natural background of rolling hills. In order to lessen the contrast between the building forms and the natural background, the proposed architecture shall emphasize curved and rounded forms over angular forms on windows and entries and on crowning features such as rooflines, parapets, etc. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure; proposed plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure AES-3: The color of the natural background changes with the seasons. To.avoid a significant contrast between the colors.of the proposed buildings and the changing colors of the natural background,building colors shall be limited to various shades of browns and greens. Color schemes shall be integrated and coordinated to ensure not only that the various buildings complement each other, but that the development as a whole blends into the natural environment. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, proposed color schemes shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. I Mitigation Measure AES-4: All lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting and shielded to minimize glare and the direct view of light sources. Motion detection systems shall be utilized where applicable and light shall not "wash out"onto adjacent properties. Adequate lighting shall be provided in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances,but shall be minimized elsewhere. Fixtures intended to be lit for long periods of time shall accept low-pressure sodium lamps (or devices with similar properties)and shall not be located at the periphery of the property. Floodlights shall be prohibited and no . lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure,proposed lighting plans shallbe submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. Air Quality Mitijzation Measure AIR-1: The "Basic Measures," "Enhanced Measures" and "Optional Measures" listed in Table 3 shall be incorporated into the construction plans and implemented for the proposed project. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, the applicant shall submit the construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of grading or building permits: Table 3: Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM,o Basic Control Measures—The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard: • Pave, apply water three times daily,or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep.daily(preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Enhanced Control Measures—The following measures should be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area. • All "Basic"control measures listed above. • Hydroseed:or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. • Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt,sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Optional Control Measures—The following control measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area,located near sensitive receptors or which for any other reason may warrant additional emissions reductions. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at anyone time. Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999. Note: One Optional Control Measure, "Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind beaks at windward side(s) of constructionareas."has been deleted. App. B p.2 I I Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior toi issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site specific geotechnical reports prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These site specific geotechnical reports shall address differential fill thickness, total and differential settlement within building pads, soil stability, potential seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and provide specific building foundation recommendations to reduce the risk associated with soil subsidence, liquefaction and differential settlement. These reports shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to issuing final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site specific geotechnical reports prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These site specific geotechnical reports shall address potentially expansive soils and will provide measures to control moisture around foundations. Consistent with the final geotechnical report, measures to minimize expansive soil effects on structures shall be implemented during design and construction where appropriate. Potential foundation systems include pier and grade beam; use of structural concrete mats and post-tensioned slabs; pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment.These reports shall be subject to the review.of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prior to issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the results of chemical testing of representative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. The following measures shall be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate- resistant concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils. The test results shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Hazards Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant and owners and operators of businesses on the site shall obtain all required permits and follow all applicable regulations regarding the use, storage. and disposal of hazardous materials and shall conduct their operations in compliance with such permits and regulations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit that authorizes work within 50 feet of the 20-foot PG&E pipeline easement,.the applicant shall complete a detailed survey that identifies the exact location of the easement. The boundaries of the easement area shall be clearly marked during construction activities to ensure that construction personnel know when they are working within or close to the easement so that they may use proper precautions. All construction plans shall be submitted to PG&E for review and approval to ensure that disturbance of underground gas lines is avoided. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Communication shall be established between employees stationed at Los Medanos Gas Storage Field and employees at the project area in order to facilitate the fastest and most appropriate response to a pipeline rupture. Mitigation.Measure HAZ-4: To alert potential buyers and project occupants to the potential hazards associated with the pipeline easement, a deed notification shall be filed for every parcel located within 50 feet of the easement. The notification shall clearly indicate that the substances conveyed through the App. B p.3. pipeline have. explosive potential and that an accident involving the pipeline could cause extensive damage to private property as well as serious personal injury or death. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: The applicant shall design the sewage pump station site with a positive overflow drainage system that would direct any potential spills away from the Contra Costa Canal. In addition, sufficient holding capacity, back up power systems and/or emergency business closure procedures (to halt sewage generation) shall be developed to minimize the risks of an overflow in the event of a system failure. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall ensure that. buildings have sufficient separation from grasslands to create a fire break as determined by the Fire District to be adequate for the site. This may be achieved by setting buildings back from the edge of the grasslands, clearing combustible materials or a combination of the two. Drought tolerant landscaping shall be incorporated in the project design to help reduce the risk of hazardous fuel (plant material) accumulation in landscaped areas. Noise Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The project shall comply with the following noise reduction measures: • General construction noise shall be limited to weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. • Pile driving and similarly loud activities.shall be limited to weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • All heavy construction equipment used on the project site shall be maintained.in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. All stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from neighboring property lines;especially residential uses. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Prior to each issuance of building permits on each parcel, the project applicant shall submit final development plans and/or plans for tenant improvements to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. To ensure that traffic generation does not exceed the volume that was projected in the Initial Study, the development indicated in the proposed plans shall be consistent with the allowable square footage for the various uses as set forth in Table 1 of the Initial Study. Mitigation Measure TRAF-2: To remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/Evora Road, a traffic signal shall be installed at this intersection.with permitted left-turn phasing in the north-south direction and split phasing in the east-west direction. The traffic signal should be interconnected and coordinated with the recommended traffic signals at the Willow Pass Road/SR4 Eastbound and Westbound ramps(see Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 and TRAF-4). The intersection should be modified to provide a westbound, left-turn lane, resulting in the following geometrics at the intersection: Northbound: One left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane. Southbound: One shared left-through-right lane. Eastbound: One shared left-through-right lane. Westbound: One left-turn lane and one shared left-through-right lane. App. B p.4 i i I I i I. i Implementation of this improvement would result in the intersection operating at LOS A during both peak hours in the existing plus project condition (0.520 volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) during the AM peak hour and 0.521 v/c during the PM peak hour). The signalized operation of the intersection was analyzed using the Circular 212 (Critical Movement Analysis) methodology, with adjustments to the saturation flow rate, as set forth in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Technical Procedures manual. i Mitigation Measure TRAF-3: Improvements will be necessary to remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/SR4 westbound ramps. Installation of a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in all directions, along with the existing geometrics, would,remedy the LOS deficiency at this intersection. If a traffic signal is installed, then it should be interconnected and coordinated with the recommended traffic signals at Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramp (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 and TRAF-4). However, the California Department of Transportation and/or the Contra Costa County Public Works Department may determine that improvements other than, or in iaddition to a traffic signal are more appropriate. . Because the intersection operates at unsatisfactory LOS E in the existing condition, the project applicant shall participate in necessary improvements on a fair-share .basis, corresponding to the amount of traffic forecasted to be added to the.intersection by the project and calculated using the appropriate State and/or County methodology. Since the impact from this project could be mitigated through the installation of a traffic signal, the project applicant's contribution to necessary improvements shall not exceed the fair- share cost of installing a traffic signal. Implementation of this improvement,would result in the intersection operating at LOS B (0.643 v/c) during the AM peak hour and LOS A (0.371 v/c) during the PM peak hour in the existing plus project condition. I Mitigation Measure TRAF-4: Improvements will be necessary to remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/SR4 eastbound ramps. Installation of a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in all directions, along with the existing geometrics, would remedy the LOS deficiency at this intersection. If ai traffic signal is installed, then it should be interconnected and coordinated with the recommended traffic signals at Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road/SR4 eastbound ramp (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 and TRAF4). However, the California Department of Transportation and/or the Contra Costa County Public Works Department may determine that improvements .other than, or in' addition to a traffic signal are more appropriate. Because the intersection operates at unsatisfactory LOS E in the existing condition, the project applicant shall participate in necessary improvements on a fair-share basis, corresponding to the amount of traffic forecasted to be added to the intersection by the project and calculated using the appropriate State and/or County methodology. Since the impact from this project could be mitigated through the installation of a traffic signal, the project applicant's I contribution to necessary improvements shall not exceed the fair- share cost of installing a traffic signal! I Implementation of this improvement would result in the intersection operating at LOS A during both peak hours in the existing plus project condition (0.463 v/c during the AM peak hour and 0.491 v/c during the PM peak hour). i Mitigation Measure TRAF-5: The project applicant shall work closely with the East Bay Regional Park District and the appropriate transportation agency(Contra Costa County Public Works Department and/or California Department of Transportation) to ensure that the required intersection and roadway improvements in the vicinity of the Evora Road/Willow Pass Road intersection are designed with provisions to allow for a trail crossing acceptable to the East Bay Regional Park District. i I App. B p.5 I Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measure LTTIL-1: Prior to recording the Final Map,.the applicant shall submit a long-term (minimum 30 year) Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and the HSD. The Plan shall include the following: • Regular Testing. and Reporting: Testing shall be conducted by an individual or firm whose qualifications and methodologies are approved by the HSD to identify any deterioration in the quality .and quantity of water in the underground aquifer supplying the project. Tests shall be.conducted annually and reports including the test results shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval following verification of the results by the HSD. Testing shall confirm a .minimum five year supply-of potable water. Testing and reporting may be required on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary by either the Zoning Administrator or the HSD. Factors that may necessitate more frequent reporting include, but are not limited to, an increase in the intensity of on- site uses, additional draws on the.aquifer resulting from nearby development, an accident involving the release of hazardous materials into the soil in the vicinity of the aquifer and one or more years of drought.. • • Alternative Water Supplies: Alternative water supplies shall be identified and described in detail. If testing indicates that the recharge capability and/or the water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating or is expected to deteriorate to the point where the supply of potable water is no longer guaranteed for a minimum period of five years, then a hydrogeologic study shall be conducted to more precisely determine the condition of the aquifer. If the hydrogeologic study confirms that the recharge capability and/or the water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating and that the aquifer can no longer be considered a reliable source of potable water,then the study shall project how long the aquifer will be able to.meet the needs of the project. In order to ensure an adequate future water supply, the applicant shall either: (1) develop an additional, or possibly replacement water supply; or (2) begin the process.of connecting to the CCWD. Within three months of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that the establishment of an . alternative water supply is necessary, the applicant shall decide which alternative it intends to implement. The proposal for the alternative water supply shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall be acceptable to the HSD if that department has permitting responsibility. The alternative water supply or service from the CCWD shall be operational no less than one year prior to the anticipated inability of the aquifer to provide the necessary potable water supply, as projected in the hydrogeologic study: New construction and the establishment of new uses in existing tenant spaces will be prohibited if either of these deadlines is not met or if the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate progress has not been made in establishing the alternative water supply. New construction and the establishment of new uses will not be permitted to resume until the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate progress has been made. • Emergency Measures: Measures to maintain a temporary/backup water supply shall be developed. The Plan shall be updated as site conditions change, new alternative water supplies become available, previously identified alternative supplies become unavailable, etc. The approved Plan shall be implemented by the applicant or successor entity. Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Concurrent with recording the Final Map, the applicant shall record a deed disclosure statement for each parcel alerting future property owners to the existence of the Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and informing them that they are subject to the requirements and App. B p.6 i Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and informing them that they are subject to the requirements and procedures contained therein. Each subsequent property owner shall also be provided with a copy of the most current version of the Plan. Applicant's Signature: Steven P.Thomas Managing Member Thomas/DeNova,LLC Date: S�- r i App. B p.7 O 1 � � tr 7 N O 6'O-N 9 O 00 .. p.":+ G d N G�ka, I N O _ R H'O on N o- rN',in CA CA 8 Q Q U N p G u � p U U a) O N 03tOr, 7s * G � N GN p� �'N.O�� 3 a• $ N � go �' sem. ;: �•�o' .-H �'"'c, .o a w � > � Row o �O cu N u t° v nv W A w o n y 3 .. 0 -5 vN G c, N y o 0 C� o'b to G G U O 4) ° 7 o Go G D o a�qq E. 5cW > 3 �• .a G o o a Q 0.00 O ern wo a -.84:5 o �) w os' y d � JG ys o G rj . O O to W � �N"� v u � 6 ��y O O J•4, c�w�O O G � � P . o �¢ N�y` .i.W G P J P � a u � a 4a c�y o o1;�y ��•� � � �, � � o y) d N � r O � •y N y q r �A p. d r"A �.d N �O ".'.� G•� �' Co m ya a = ta 12 so UUUcc�}}U o v r? oy 3 ? v nY v Gyp u U u i II 7 N V to Us 63 � o 7 Ap o �y pA id u p C- c) '° G°o A � CA�� O J.3 wo q O G d a oUv At o a 9 d Oob G �� Li m G a c4a N 3 a a a i ca P. ba u d y„ t3 r-. ? ✓V., �'^ O'O q U �� o.Sj ° °� °' p � 0 6 w •x�A'q �� u . •� �o F � N�� oU 7a � ° � o � G % G N � .n b°o9- v6��� N � -008 p,•�' y � u °' N cis-01 ° H C .D p 11l v N N p'0 G s- N �N 4 tu N N G .N U�• U p F Y N W y '" •N td or, a w � �r�u Sao oy � oG � 61. y G A % o �'Ar u3 wY� o Po a m o 9 0 Rs +�y > �y" �.— cid �, „ � -°= c�,'� `�„ 'U N v� � a" "� Yom°• tG � v ,y�'vi ..+ w.Y U �n�y � I +�A G-� 'd � '�', {�,�. y."p 9� *� �'•v N y�-^j Y `d„ G•4'O LOS . i �+,a �f u �N d R'��a O ,� �'• ^a � .Q7� y _> c�•io 'i C� � � d U "�+ � Y W P• .et ✓ y C sy� �'Q.q� iC p. N H � . d �'a ,+ N a•P• a 'J O � v•N Qy e� :+ C r'j .—'� O � e1 �• �.G fG •Q ou-a�aai cU C �,.�'m' �.. �, 7 d U� o c y �y 5i p y o-3 N UO10n Ir 7•� D-� �• p � ,� a N oU� ci � . Y a4 cr Es o o ¢ c S o c o 7 N c P a eNi o "o c ° d r p~ y o r N N o a in aoI,.� �i T O 4-� J •� .:I O p Cis 9 Op N '0 v -qO t'3 u JJ � F� A d \ J i O N a GU J Q A � N �+ O .GNgt6 �O ✓� 0 'ipy N i 01 ✓'i .+ �i J 6l1�P�?U G O .�J G U a� N B 4� G S� G •'O o - p on ouof ✓�'rQ* G y Q✓ yp u m 3 m GG py tlS n � � � e� .'•O �'in ✓ '03 9++ of'$a�p, N b � w e° � . '^ °°? •4'A'-J'^o a c•o••g'7 d ''� 'G y.�„ .J.+� tl1 5i 'in �M i � 4{•r1� 0 Uy 0 ',r1� Op G O N � v �• P � �•� N,� 3 °' Y'G".m Y t 0G"OG-3 GO '� A e�°: a 0 �, A N d u f' O d J.PK�fj•p N O d o G Fa d) „'✓•. 7 •9 d- ,O D O Y'G wN J �V �� N O� '� � �O V �%'� � •`� O No-Oya y� d Q� %O� O•Y'�afl'F� O Gl � Y •\� G %O �.. ,G�� 01 ^ � . Y N y o0 0 d �(O}y' G N•N Y O 'N G �.. O A d O •r "p., 0 v �� � y @•� •Q�.y O � Q ✓ .- ci O O J G a ^T \ W � 0 a i' Q � 0 N O . 3 .F, N v on 0 U:Q G1 Q G O G N'fl G'p o � W J �:� Y • o d a d � fo N pC � d O N N u �•�� � a�(Y o o �Y � a.�� oC� p� gg W a C, O p O N 03 03 cr 5u�'oaj a w.d y O f aYi O ? o 0 Ed of ate" op 6' 07 o YP" 7, Y'7 AG o o J N °i v' a 1, `- wN m,o"' ,o•o cpi � ° o o �,d a'"' J '� `L N who pp grJo �.a� � G � .'I, oG �oPcu � �8 G 'o cA! ' W v fN++tt Q F � N 'p �ti � �p �j N U 3 �O �� ✓ F �,.G o C,o �o d o o u �•P o o �' ° '�,P �' N o -0 6i8 oY FR�� o o °' o6 � N •as `3 ;; o CY•" y .6 N 7 N 1 a+ � p � N � {i+ � p � p� � � N • Q w M aw G �� cr ai p -93 U b N ', R u w 41 V 04,0 ;> N �E ••Q y p CL R W p E N �,• '� y O G 4 cn N 0. U fl ° rnla0 � mo M gURaCt �Q aG1 Q U ° u o a, a u C�' a -3 p a u p p N O N w� u � CA rn . Q Q t 3 � N 'ob�•�•oR�, _ aA v O �tr v - — 4 `,N f >, r0" ¢^d ° >'N •='n ct1 bpi o"p- o ° pug a^d a 4' G u y W Q•� N u a- Or. ti= 5 v 'C o > 3 ° p v E .> 5-d C° scu u W$ u 4)9 O o u ? N w g g d o ° u u P, a! ai (1+Y P A �'• _ d m to v aO flu b �0. u 0 ,w r< to E >.£ v o .5 a rs a u o ai N N ° g43 . A U v U to T G R v p W a V01 •D aD y Ui'j 0.yba N 'i..«' .G;a .L] W tb a ° m N a m Q N Ot m r� `0 �i n u asv a'"i nEru «. _ p y �iC? v v 08,6 cq.�a ` �v o Y o Ca aG>i Gs" •6 ^' G ig E 113 40 vuGo Eu •�, a4= ° �� c � � � O .o ad u •G � �"" o p n ea v p ° N t� 1.1, cui G >,G a a« a, a C au.r_ O a a O 0. p O�n'O c0. O O N •p0.O ; .Pa » [,' p Y 0.'a1.4-0 'a bo u G p p•,U 5,00 y b �.- p .:7• v, d U U v °^ « o N N u N ° ° C i o o y > o a w c a °.N c > •O 5 > U ' O .� �' O F EO U �' G.� N ' .:d•� V) d ° A u m u m G 7 W [) 4- 43 u 8 Y O w 4" G C O G ,c0 6Ni O O to u N 5 O O .ttl U pU U N y O O 0. C ., O ° UK tai t0 U 0 G ai O C CL G � I � G 'W G O v a�c° u 0.5 .MNl' a E c r� o - o 5i � x at u p O O 0 o c uc o 5 a u� v Y to 0 0 v uQ •n ro v " ra ti h a 10 0 F. c rn 6 0 E v F > o > .5 y o . u U. v 0 F o 2 5 •a L 0 -7-0 tC 0.0. OU v u •O 5 0. a 0 ❑ E3 s c o v o y 'S cu v c-0 P , '' v . E °3' 3 u o °c L u o cu 0' a iu 3 a ansa „ v ul > `o v ay ° O v in bl� m 'w 41 C U O v •O v v b `° D mks s cIV > 0. o•C '�'� v o u uL-.5a a ° �a Qb :`,-" � Lr~u�c�i .a07 '« L •' `q•5 �. «O. .E v �u boy c O •F� a �+ u �•G F d 0 7 R 7 Q �C G F� 7 F Gaut u ° c°u gra ° C '^ °H cn X ' > O � u � v.5 C �rz � O u '7 'O to^ .. N O O is qC '0. O _u u .5 _ N c u o ri 5 m �• pp °c o .o u u 5 v o c u y v ov N H .-16-9 v 0. u Y W uvo N O E b G o O 'O to 0. P _ u 0 u a a c u s 0. 0 o v v •d u.5 u c v to " ° 5 o u « $ 3 0 u c° ca u ou o v 3 v hGo 2 am ° :3 ou,no ° • 2g ca,= > OGOcOc:Oc G CU D O d .. v ° O. O C 0 a 0.{,u. v v 0 O G v b H aEl 0 C�7 a 'a t5d a ° a Fns u @ b 3 > td tui .5•°y 0�rm ° 5 u $� °� bU U r U .O O .O st4C N 2 O � � .9 O •J' � N Oz ca, En n ° t-.5 ztn°w3 ` •= � o o ° y •? a o o y « xa ca a p o U o v o w m u a a o d o °� N u o a °- 6 3 t3 °o y u u E : o a = �' 3 2 F' ° 0 1 ° 2 G3 as u va ' •4o. ''�O OV° GFa v QLWa 50O OCO W. owv •oa = G N:> •.5 vwr, 257vO 3 e ck ° d� w G C m ej ° u t0 4°VF ° D n - v .tGo•.a'L•¢pm 9O•O U a 7 L �. U Ly °. p., O W oo u .9 c cn 5o u a.° �., q ! U 3 « t� Fc.5 c a Q 0 A •Ga O w A a µ. O F O ° A y U a uN p. �ot V GO ✓ a w U a o �r ✓u G a ° � o o � O � G A � a F v N G• w v i ^ 'pG•, Q,D �f, a o � F @ rd o7�N,� 'G• � a -o a �Q � 7 F rOr wp� � a �G S" tD �' 4' •�' ° J r•+ �d ✓Q1 O O O a N a ,�O' F A Ay,.,-• 7+ S� �C,,O O v tn' '-^ `"a"� ��a�c�v u�� �a•� J � a� Dp,p.-� p.•p ° � � F a a �;'sa° °Soria a ,D+ opua�'�11 . ia ��5tn �ao «+ y ^ C ° 7 # +' y W G ✓ to r p y p cn N �� °•o .o ° a r,C• D ou V" �`° �`di N 3 m .N p a,�.-• O r 3--�•o Jas " id d .a N J w�• pg�} � N a � ,, a a N ? o•p �Fidqq ✓� +' �D `�'�'�y,�tArJ'�`ojvrj i a G °+�'� c�,O �� '' � ��.-• O`� .° or- O ° U P^ G pj+ G �j a� j a �° O ° .p'N F y°„ �p '��` ° ✓� J�q y a d 5O O .',A. o✓I r' @ h11 J 0 �° Fa Go of N o U�p D 3 3& p d3 o o es F 6 0 7 �✓`° a o'° as w�,- o�.mow'�• v o�5' �a�..p?,� N a�'Or,�•�J � �°'„ *p,° 't?� .aN.+� n o�, �d—°O o `�, , w•�-„ aass�d�.�]u C F A � ° v G o m •O I a+ /� U 'N U U •O P•r J O O G aG N o � J �v a -� y���is. GJ �Sv Fcrw a c1 G. ✓'N. � cq a c` °' o� � �7 P� � � S' O a W p J "� 1 1� a a N�i•.p�'v'ra ON�..�' O-3 7° a ls1 as' s+ r3 P a mid A 9 Dy O 't o4s, G -00 o a :G q �� N'^ Fye J21� a a�OOo G ttv d ° wYac°� ✓Gs a an A N At A a Zy �yu� O U1 a y A °✓ �y°.. U J N r �N � � N"•�3 �� y �.� a 9 y K O J U1+ �V�� m a�d � � J S A � ���y�`✓C�`, a � `� A d�a'`� Cs$ > y�' a Y o a•N A 'O O (S. 7 ? G .• O .r, O. G J O. ° ,O a s ✓ N eJ' F� r.ss Nap..:° `� F ? aa�, ° �, � �.. •oo �cn/� u "� <q3 ° y ° a • G , P^ � e❑d f G �' N `•• L) O O u a R R L9 a E Ur, u o a .aCi v > o 0 3 G• v > y o >o 0. W V7 td o 0 u O O YI'NQ w G Q A 5 0. p v A A � A di r 41 AIn u w uo AU0. x m . G � 0 w C 0 o a, G G G a I� U v 4 4 0 w U F C E u C) E o°• u G 4 > O w. O O N w C •per E zw U U ik �C E O O W cq p v -• a o o •o w cO v CC > •o v v E >• o ° »G 0 in ° C �..°-, G G •� v cE C w t 7 O 'o ' v N 7 v u 0. vUoo � `� d,UG oQv' oa"icu � oC.� � c � .� Ev� A � � ia �'" a4iw, ' 4, v v o " Q- o Cd Q ) : u YtvcCu �•.�uN .Gu b�' 4•°GU 0 G .E a ° o <co > c « 'a 9% 2 u A Oy oo v -o 11 OwUti > .L U C u y O'^4), 4 H F v F R u ctl �. U ti it •o Y i..w G UL'' u G `� v v ti v o m C U 0 0 v $.E o ° E 4 3 v o v v c ou ° o a v Fo v 3 .� E �;_ .D R.., v N m is v ❑ c ?; ca v c°i�� � � v 3 q G y m o m o a v v 3 E �, v o'N a u .2 �' v c Y ` v v m 4 v vu " o p m G o v n v E v ^ o C ° ti y y A R a v E v " u o y a v u Co o o v v v tl a C � N E.o � •� M Mu c L N ° yR, � G C � tb n Y t C u O' v °•� 3 " .ou v3 •GF- ".o c ° �. � o o v �.E = o vv o v o 0 4 N A .N ra � a w a 43 � ° m ��... � C � v o 0 v p• `o v'� m' v cn v v v v•c ti '5 E E Y 3 0 ° o`"i o^ vpp v m o v x F- E c t- n > A °A E ° t m ° o v v a G u y o v u >•w0 cL >.4:. .+. r u Oci >. Q.0 'b A L>,.� C.w H..C.•O O ,' u tom. .� C W •C iC O .G u u v o H ti .. C O C v 7 ^ a) > "t' E .61 N .3 >_ 0 .r G (d O 0 y 4 p Id A E .m S a ° o C ' °' o w o a v E •°' v 4 w w u ° o E 4 4 v .4 0 4_ o E E v H w a m a) 0.' A v .a F 'E v Q '� w o Y :'. `° ' ❑ °.n m - c ��, a4. �'raa, u m ,L °'•� F C] ry w o o A E m. .� w y 'G ° `a u v` cu v v- H v .G. v v w M c-4 tee• R m v c Y Ev E 5wp >'• Yv o � v C O N O~ a Q' O U a C pJ G O'.D F .. va3O v^ w u ovi'F� u a c Q� •o'G �b .E '� G � .E -0.5 C� °a m= 0 0 0. o o c m x 3 '4°' d 3 " G C 0 v u G 3 v ti r -0 a D u; a s.� Y ti E N.v a m o ¢v 3 a K a v •o P. E sa 3 a o � [1qU v W m � H0. 0 • • v O m 'm V •a'g d .a S v c a m c Q Y u 5 0 n. E o« , n Cl. OG = m v W u y Cc: m W tc`0 E'C m e y p 3 O S t A 2 C .O..0 A W L G O O N O• a ^ �w.o v 3 a o u mcl v u p bC c o ` .= o u y m ...�. rA V, w ..L, m FL^ 0. 3 0. a V as r.i J N O -O U ao v J a _ va . c p ✓ m J r0 O q•: CI! O � to v N u ✓ �6G,�O c" U U U G1 fl• 7� AG�NY�, a J' J •',pA : N E'• �� aE @ i 01 A �J Fr is o o ✓OF L a �+ S' u o Q`'2y w �•: J Q,o � �� U � � .� 9 ,fir, �U G .,N.p�' . N aNs u V,.t O t6 a.Y 4• �yti +'' S•` t0 . Ld 7�,A Q 1 �N o�xHGa3� o �°�y'�p �SL Jim 3 �3 ,✓c r T p. d r 7 q O ✓ U A .� � ✓ U'✓ F O y a> v' p�• ? P �G m i•A A P a 3 � � a'^i u �i °% C) p si °� ,•4" Q •''A N O 3 ° � id ✓a> -:�C S+t/' G °J•• vA� A N w• o tP'7, •.- 7 P N P v pO e� A-D L• Y c�W p'�C•epps ,�.o•o p p 5n a d. � � a J A y A > p °J a a p J G�OANr�`rd,Pa'Ou�=n� fin' N U F^ A a 'o Exhibit 6 January .24, 2006 Staff Report to . County. Planning Commission ' Agenda Items #5, 6, 7 & 8 Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2006 1. INTRODUCTION THOMAS/DeNOVA, LLC (Applicant & Owner), County Files GP030001, RZ043151, SD048918 & DP043096: Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Major Subdivision and Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the Willow Pass Business Park project, as follows: A. General Plan Amendment #GP030001: Request to change the General Plan land use designation for approximately 26.5 acres from Light Industrial (LI) to Mixed Use (M- 10), change the land use designation for approximately 2.3 acres from Agricultural Lands (AL) to M-10, change the land use designation for approximately 2.2 acres from Open Space (OS) to M-10; change the land use designation of approximately 9.4 acres from LI to OS and amend the text of the General Plan to be consistent with the changes in land use designations; B. Rezoning #RZ043151: Request to rezone the 66.55-acre. project site from Light Industrial District (L-I) and General Agricultural District (A- ) to Planned Unit District (P-1); C. Major Subdivision #SD048918: Request to subdivide 66.55 acres into 18 mixed use office/retail/commercial/light industrial lots, a designated remainder and several common ownership parcels containing shared infrastructure; and D. Preliminary and Final Development Plan #DP043096: Request to develop up to 357,500 square feet of office, retail, commercial and light.industrial uses in no more than 18 buildings, some of which could be up to 68 feet in height. The proposed project involves the development of a mixed-use business park containing office, retail, commercial ands light industrial uses. The project site encompasses 66.55 acres .and .is located along the.north side of Evora Road, immediately east of the Contra Costa Canal and immediately northwest of the State Route 4/Willow Pass Road interchange, in the Concord area. (Zoning: L-1, A-2) (County Basemap Pages: F-15 and F- 16) (Census Tract 3150.00) (APNs: 099-160-015, -019, -020, -025, -028 and -029). 11. RECOMMENDATION A. Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the County Planning Commission and the Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the project; B. Find the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis and was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and County CEQA Guidelines and designated the Community Development Department as the custodian of the documents which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decision is based. C. Find that on the basis of the whole record before it, the County has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment with incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. D. Adopt a motion.to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the following: 1) amend the Land Use Element Map of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005- 2020) to re-designate portions of the subject property from Light Industrial (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL) and Open Space (OS) to Mixed Use (MU) and from LI to OS; and 2) make text changes in the Land Use Element (the recommendations for the General Plan Amendment are more fully described in attached Resolution No. 5-2005 and the amendment to the Land Use Element Map is illustrated on the attached Exhibit B). E. Adopt a motion to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve. the proposed Rezoning from Light Industrial (L-I) and General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1) and the related Preliminary and Final Development Plan, County File #DP043096. F. Approve the vesting tentative map for the Major Subdivision, County File #SD048918, based on the findings contained in attached Resolution No. 5-2006 and subject to the attached conditions of approval and mitigation measures and contingent upon the Board's approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning. G. Adopt the mitigation measures contained in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Environs: Willow Pass Business Park (WPBP) is proposed within the Sphere of Influence of the City'of'Concord in Central Contra Costa County. The project's southern boundary is Evora Road. The western boundary is the Contra Costa Canal, with the Concord Naval Weapons Station on the canal's opposite side. Private agricultural uses lie to the north and PG&,E's Los Medanos Gas..Storage Field lies to the east. The "Frito Lay" site, which is the future location of a 98,400 square foot distribution center, is located northwest of the 18 proposed parcels and is completely surrounded by the WPBP properties. The project site is within the Urban Limit Line of Contra Costa County. i S - 2 i B. Project Site: The site is approximately 66.55 acres. Extensive grading has already occurred which has changed a portion of the site from a natural hillside to a series of terraced building pads. Vegetation includes native grasses and several trees. Near its northern edge the site contains a 3.5 acre-foot detention basin and freshwater pond that qualify as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands. C. General Plan: The current General Plan land use designations for the site are Light Industrial (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL) and Open Space(OS). D. Zoning: The majority of the site (approximately 49.5 acres) is zoned Light Industrial (L-I). Approximately 17 acres on the site's southern side adjacent to Evora Road are zoned General Agricultural District(A-2). E. California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) Status: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The MND was posted with the State Clearinghouse on August 31, 2005 with the public comment period ending September 29, 2005. A second public review period commenced on October 14, 2005 and concluded on November 28, 2005. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts in the following areas: • Aesthetics Potential aesthetic impacts are related to the development of a business park on an undeveloped and highly visible site. A detailed discussion of these impacts and the associated mitigation measures can be found on pages 20-22 of the Initial Study. • Air Quality A potential impact to:air quality is related to construction activities. A detailed discussion of these impacts.and the associated mitigation measures can be found on pages 25-32 of the Initial Study. • Geology& Soils Potential impacts involving geology and soils are related to the possibility of liquefaction, ground failure and soil expansion. A detailed discussion of these impacts and the associated mitigation measures can be found on pages 37-40 of the Initial Study. • Hazards Potential impacts involving hazards are related to the proposed development of commercial/industrial buildings in close proximity to a natural gas pipeline easement that contains transmission lines and the site's proximity to open S - 3 I grasslands. A detailed :discussion of these impacts and the associated mitigation measures can be found on pages 40-44 of the Initial Study. • Noise A potential impact involving noise generation is related to construction activities. A detailed discussion of these impacts:and the associated mitigation measure can be found on pages 50-56 of the Initial Study. • Transportation/Traffic Potential impacts involving transportation and traffic are related to the proposed development of commercial/industrial buildings in close proximity to a natural gas pipeline easement that contains transmission lines. A detailed discussion of these impacts and the associated mitigation measures can be found on pages 59-75 of the Initial Study. • Utilities and Service S stems Potential impacts involving utilities.and service systems are related to the proposed development of commercial/industrial buildings in close proximity to a natural gas pipeline easement that contains transmission lines. A detailed discussion of these impacts and the associated mitigation measures can be found on pages 75-79 of the Initial Study. Comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were received from several agencies and are addressed under"CEQA Comments" below. F. Regulatory Programs: • 60-dBA Noise Control: The site extends across 60-, 65- and 70-dBA noise contours. IV. AGENCY, GROUP AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Copies of this application were circulated to several agencies. Comments were received from the following: A. Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department B. Contra Costa County Public Works Department. C. Contra Costa County Health Services Department. D. California Historical Resources Information System. E. Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District. F. Office'ofthe Sheriff.. G. Contra Costa Water District. H. Delta Diablo Sanitation District. S - 4 aye I. City of Concord. All comments from public agencies.are attached. No comments were received from the following: Contra Costa Courity Redevelopment,Agency; Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council, Clyde Improvement Association, Mt. Diablo Unified School District. V. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT A. Developed Area: The proposed project involves development of approximately 31 acres (46.6%) of the 66:55-acre project site. Approximately 36 acres would be preserved as a restricted development area. B. Proposed Land Uses: Proposed land uses are office, light industrial, general commercial and retail in nature. C. Streets & Circulation: Access is currently gained from Evora Road, a recent extension of Willow Pass Road into the project site and a private road at the southwest corner of the site that was built primarily to serve the Frito Lay property. The existing roads provide access to Lots 1 and 12-18. A second private road is proposed beyond the Willow Pass Road extension to access Lots 2-11. D.. Zoning Standards: The proposed project includes a rezoning to P-1 and a Preliminary and Final Development Plan (PFDP). The conditions of approval for the PFDP include the zoning standards.and design criteria for the project. VI. STAFF DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS A. General Plan Amendment: The proposed project involves an.amendment to the General Plan as described below: 1. Changes to Land Use Element Map: The Land Use Element Map is proposed for amendment as described in the introduction above and as shown in the attached Exhibits A and B, which illustrate the existing and proposed land use designations, respectively: 2. Rationale for Creating, M-10 Land Use Designation: One of the existing General Plan land use designations is Business Park, which is similar to the proposed M-10 district. The Business Park designation allows limited retail uses; those which are designed to only serve the needs of the business park in which they are located. The reason for creating the, new land use designation for this project is that from the beginning of the application process the applicant has indicated a desire for flexibility to establish a broad range of retail uses that would serve more than just the project itself (e.g. retail that serves a larger market area). The Business Park (BP) land use designation therefore was. not appropriate, as it allows for retail primarily aimed at providing services to'employees within a business park. S - 5 3. Land Use Element Text Amendment: The Land Use Element provides a description of each land use designation. As the new M-10 land use designation is proposed for creation, an accompanying text amendment is required to describe it. The following text is proposed to be added to the Land Use Element: V. Willow Pass Business Park Mixed Use (M-10) . The Willow Pass Business Park Mixed-Use designation has been applied to a group of properties known as the Lesher and Steuli properties located on Evora Road, immediately east of the Contra Costa Canal and north of the intersection of Evora Road/Willow Pass Road. The intent of this designation is to create a broad-based commercial development that allows for the establishment of a wide range of light. industrial, retail, office and service-oriented uses. Development on this site is limited.to 357,500 square feet in a ratio of uses stated in the approved Development Plan (County File #DP043096) and Major Subdivision (County File #SD048918) permit. This designation does not apply to the 15.42-acre "Frito-Lay"properties. 4. Jobs/Housing Balance: The January 1991 comprehensive update to the General Plan established policies regarding the jobs/housing balance. The site's current General Plan designation of Light Industrial was established in the 1980s. Therefore, industrial development at this site and the jobs associated with it have already been assumed in the General Plan: The proposed project would not substantially increase the density of jobs at .the site and therefore would not cause a jobs/housing imbalance. B. Growth Management Considerations: The project has been reviewed in the context of General Plan Growth Management Element standards. All of these standards can be met, as is explained more fully in the findings under_ Section I of Resolution No. 5- 2006, which is attached. C. Land Use: In terms of the land uses that could be established, the proposed P-1 district is essentially a combination of the conventional Office, Light Industrial, Controlled Manufacturing, General .Commercial and Retail Business zoning districts. The applicant would benefit significantly from adoption of this rezoning because a wider range of uses could be established in this district than in any other zoning district and those uses could be established much more quickly because very few of them would require. approval of a Land Use permit. In terms of land use compatibility, the types of uses that are proposed are generally considered to be compatible with each other (the full list of permitted uses can be found in Condition of Approval #38). These types of uses are often found together in business parks and light industrial areas. S - 6 D. Site Plan: The WPBP project site is divided into three distinct sub-areas. The first is "Pad B," which would :be' accessed by the extension of Willow Pass Road and the future private road and contains lots I A 1. This area is characterized by the fact that is a single level pad where all.buildings would be limited to 50 feet in height. With the exception of Lot 1,this area is proposed to building footprints of 15,000 or less. The second sub-area contains Lots 12-18. These lots would be split up on four pads at different elevations ranging from 143 above sea level at Lot 18 to 231 above sea level at Lots 12 and 13. Building height limits in this area would also range from 30 feet for Lots 12 and 13 to 68 feet for lots 16-18. Lots 12 and 13 would have building footprints smaller than 6,500 square feet. Lot 18 would have a building footprint of approximately 15,000 square feet. The Lot 14/15 and 16/17 pairings would allow for construction of buildings with footprints over 25,000 square feet. The final sub-area contains hillsides and narrow strips of land along the edge of the project site that would not be developed and would be protected as open space through the proposed General Plan Amendment and through a grant deed of development rights required by Condition of Approval #14. This area currently contains a freshwater pond, a detention basin, drainage infrastructure, a 750,000 gallon water tank, access roads and gas pipelines. Public Works requires the construction of sidewalks along all of the project's streets. However, the project should have additional internal pedestrian circulation. Condition of Approval #20 requires the construction of a pedestrian walkway that provides a more direct link between Pad B and the pads along Evora Road. This walkway shall be established in the vicinity of Lots 11, 15 and 16. Depending on the land use combination, this project has.potential to attract several hundred workers to the site each day. Additional amenities should be provided. Condition of Approval 420 requires the establishment of a centrally located outdoor common/lunch area. This area shall be located such that it has a view to the west and can be accessed by the pedestrian walkway discussed above. It shall be equipped with .benches, tables and trash receptacles and shall be landscaped. E. Site and Building Design: Condition of Approval #20 and Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-3 together regulate site and building design. The regulations for setbacks and building heights are essentially a combination of those requirements for the Retail Business and Light Industrial districts, though the 68-foot building height allowed on Lots 14-18 exceeds both those districts. The development plans for 16 of the 18 lots could be approved administratively if all design standards and guidelines were met. The wide range of uses that is proposed makes it likely that different types of buildings would be.constructed (i.e. office, light industrial, gas station). By their nature these buildings would not look the same. However, it is important to provide some design consistency throughout the.site. The project is conditioned to require a consistent and complementary color scheme and the development of one or two signature design S - 7 elements that would be incorporated into the architecture of every building. A 28,827 square foot building ("Building A") is currently under construction on Pad B and would occupy Lot 1. Building A's design includes a vertical wedge-shaped element along the front fagade. This shape is acceptable as the signature element for all of Willow Pass Business Park. The applicant desires that a roll-up door for shipping and receiving be allowed for each tenant space in the site's flexible shell-type buildings, which will most likely house light industrial and general commercial uses. This would normally require a land use permit, but may be permitted here as part of the PFDP. Staff has no objections to this request from a functional standpoint, but is concerned about aesthetics if an excessive number of these doors are visible from rights-of-way in and around the site and from areas west of the site. Condition of Approval #20 requires that buildings be designed to minimize the visibility of these doors and that other steps be taken to screen them from view, such as the construction of walls and installation of landscaping. Originally a 50-foot height limit was proposed for this project. Staff and the applicant agreed that it was appropriate to allow some lots to be developed with taller buildings. The "Aesthetics" section of Initial Study indicates that Lots 10-14 would have a height limit of 68 feet (after the applicant reconfigured Pad B, Lots 10-14 became Lots 14-18). Because Lots 14 and 15 would be located on one of the highest and most prominent building pads, a more thorough review of the development plans for those lots is justified. Condition of Approval #20 requires a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator instead of an administrative review if the buildings on those lots are proposed to exceed 50 feet. The condition also requires that the City of Concord be consulted during this review process, as the site is within Concord's sphere of influence. F. Parking: The proposed site plan has provisions for up to 763 parking stalls, though this is subject to change depending on how each lot is actually developed. The number of parking stalls required for a project is normally determined by dividing the square footage of the use by x (with x varying according to the particular use that is proposed). The stall requirement is therefore determined by the size of the proposed use. This method allows very specific parking requirements to be determined for uses and building types that are not subject to change, such as office buildings, motels, theaters, etc. However, when flexible buildings are to be constructed and the range and square footage of the uses is widely variable, as is the case with the proposed project, then it is impossible to determine how much parking is required at the outset because multiple ratios could apply and the square footage of the uses is unknown. The result is that the relationship between the stall-requirement and the proposed use(s) is reversed; the amount of parking that has: been constructed ends up determining the size and type of use that can be established. Therefore, Staff is not concerned with the possibility that too few parking stalls have been proposed or will be constructed, as once the project is built the actual number of stalls will act to control the range and intensity of the uses onsite. The parking ratios governing this project are stated in Conditions of Approval #20 and 38. Also, it should be noted that there is a direct correlation between the S - 8 number of parking spaces that are constructed and overall land use flexibility. As the stall count increases it becomes possible to add more retail and office, uses that have a low x-factor in the parking formula and therefore require more stalls. A decrease in the stall number would push;the uses more towards the general commercial and light industrial end of the spectrum, as those uses have a high x-factor. Therefore, the applicant has incentive to provide as much parking as possible. The site's topography separates it into several groups of lots. The largest is Pad B with 11 lots and the smallest is Lot 18, which stands alone. For parking purposes it makes sense to view these groups as individual units and allow shared parking within them (i.e. parking required for one lot may be provided on another lot or lots within the group). In conventional zoning districts shared parking is permitted only after approval of a Land Use permit, but it can be permitted here as part of the PFDP. The following groupings make sense: Lots 1-11, 12-13, 14-15 and 16-17. Condition of Approval #20 permits compact parking stalls, parking stalls that overhang into landscaped areas and narrower drive aisles. All of these help to decrease the square footage of impervious surfaces and reduce stormwater runoff. None of these are currently permitted by the county's off-street parking ordinance but they can be permitted here as part of the PFDP. The applicant should be aware that the purpose of these provisions of the PFDP is to provide more landscaping by reducing the area devoted to parking and circulation. They are not meant to provide. more parking by permitting smaller spaces .and narrower drive aisles. Compliance with Condition of Approval #20 requires submittal of a comparison of each parking area as it is developed showing the parking scenario under conventional standards and under the provisions of the PFDP so that Staff can verify that no additional spaces are being provided and that additional area is being devoted to landscaping and impervious surfaces. G. Lighting: Condition of Approval #20 and Mitigation Measure AES-4 contain design standards and guidelines for lighting. The primary goals of the lighting plan are to accomplish the following: . 1. Prevent unnecessary "light trespass" onto neighboring properties and "light pollution'.' into the atmosphere; 2. Provide adequate lighi for security and safety purposes without "overlighting" the site; 3. Accent the site's architecture and landscaping; and 4. Utilizes energy efficient devices. H. Signage: A preliminary sign program has been submitted illustrating the designs of monument signs and a 72-foot tall freeway-oriented pylon sign. A written description of the proposed building signage has also been submitted. Condition of Approval #20 contains design standards and guidelines for all project signage. The design standards prohibit pylon signs. This kind of high-visibility signage is unnecessary because of the project's prominent location and its isolation from surrounding uses. A sculptured entry sign that adds to the aesthetic quality of the project may be constricted instead. S - 9 I. Landscaping: A preliminary landscaping plan has been submitted that indicates extensive planting including street and parking lot trees, various groundcovers, planted hillsides and bioswales. Condition of Approval #20 contains design standards and guidelines for all project landscaping. J. CEQA Comments: In response to the circulation of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/`MND), the County received comments from six agencies. All CEQA-related correspondence is attached. 1. CalTrans: Submitted a letter dated September 29, 2005 with the following comment regarding cultural resources: "The Willow Pass Business Park project includes signalization at several different locations within the State ROW. The areas within the State ROW have been previously surveyed and there are no known sites. However, during construction activities within the State ROW, if there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, all construction within 50 feet of the find shall cease and the Department's Cultural Resource Study Office, District 4, shall be immediately contacted. A staff archaeologist will arrive on site within one business day after contact to evaluate the finds." Response: The County's standard conditions of' approval require that work be stopped within 30 yards of any archaeological find until the find has been evaluated by a professional archaeologist. Condition of Approval#40 has been modified to include the specific contact and procedural information requested by Caltrans. CalTrans submitted a second letter dated November 4, 2005, which noted possible inaccuracies in the traffic counts stated in the IS/MND, stated that adding additional traffic to an already congested freeway (State Route 4) constituted a significant impact to that facility and requested additional data. The Community Development Department Transportation Planning Division submitted the following responses to CalTrans' comments: • Analysis of Freeway Operations on State Route 4: Staff has no issues with the comment submitted by CalTrans that notes the data and analysis regarding the present, operations of this section of freeway in the AM and PM peak hour. There do appear to be some discrepancies associated with how the data obtained from the CalTrans website was presented by the consultant. The data Caltrans provided in their letter does appear to be accurate based on our knowledge of the freeway operations given the level of congestion in westbound AM Peak hour and likewise eastbound PM Peak hour. Nevertheless this discrepancy and subsequent change in quantification will not result in anY significant impacts that have not already been addressed within the mitigation measures outlined fqr this project. 5 - 10 • -Impacts to State Route 4.: Staff does not concur that the additional 258 vehicles this project.will add to the freeway will result in a significant impact and necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The additional trips will result in a 3% net increase to this segment of freeway, which is negligible as is the impactto the travel speeds on this roadway. The applicant is required to submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan that includes methods to reduce traffic generation. Examples include:promotion of the use of alternative forms of transportation by employees: carpool and vanpool ("allowing the utilization of the new HOV lanes on State Route 4);promotion of public transit use and promotion of non-motorized transportation. Environmental mitigation measures for the project require the signalization of the State Route 4 rams on Willow Pass Road in order to regulate traffic flows onto the freeway. Additionally the County intends to continue to explore the .potential to extend Evora Road West to Pt. Chicago Highway and pursue the proposed extension of Leland Rd. West to Willow Pass Road. The extension of these two facilities would provide local traffic with an alternate East/West route adjacent to the freeiay, there by reducing demands on this state facility. • Request to provide additional Level of Service (LOS) Control Delay data: The LOS table, Table 171 on page 70 of the Initial Study presents LOS data for 2025 Plus Project LOS Summary. The format and analysis of the data that is presented is consistent with the requirements in the Highway Capacity Manual ("HCM)for quantifying the average control delay at intersections. Due to this fact it is our interpretation that an additional table detailing more precise information as requested is not needed as the consultant has prepared this data per the requirement i for this analysis. 2. City of Concord: Submitted a letter dated September 29, 2005 with comments on three of the Transportation/Traffic section mitigations. Comment #1: Stated that Mitigation Measures TRAF-3 and TRA-F-4 are too ambiguous. Response: When these mitigation measures were written the county did not have the benefit of input from CaIlTrans regarding future plans for the State Route 4 right-of- way (ROW). The county's preferred mitigation was signalization of the intersections, but the mitigations were written to be flexible in case CalTrans did not agree to these improvements in their ROW or believed other improvements were more appropriate. Conditions of Approval #53 and 54 implement these mitigation measures. The.conditions are clearly worded to require the applicant to contribute . a fair-share amount towards the installation of traffic signals and explain the methodology for determining the fair-share amount. Comment #2: Stated that is there is a possibility that the trail crossing identified in Mitigation Measure TRAF-5 could connect with a nearby trail identified in 5 - 11 I Concord's "Master Trail Plan," then a representative from the city should be invited to participate in the design process. Response: Condition of Approval #34 implements this mitigation measure. The condition has been written to require Concord's inclusion in the design process. 3. Contra Costa Water District (CCWD): Submitted a letter dated November 22, 2005 indicating that it was satisfied with the water supply arrangements for the project, whereby raw water will be drawn from the Contra Costa Canal to be used for irrigation and potable water would be supplied by onsite wells. 4. County Flood Control District: Submitted a comment letter dated November 10, 2005. The letter noted 'some inaccuracies,in the IS/MND, such as misnumbered drainage areas, and discussed storm water quality, the adequacy of downstream drainage areas and funding and maintenance concerns for those downstream areas. The County's environmental consultant, LSA Associates, Inc. and the Public Works Department Engineering Services Division have. reviewed the comment letter. Engineering Services has included conditions of approval that address the issues raised in the letter. The reason'that many of these issues were not addressed in the IS/MND is that they are addressed by conditions of approval. Compliance with these conditions is required prior to filing the Final Map; the project would not be allowed to move forward before the necessary analyses are performed and necessary improvements are identified and constructed. The following responses correspond with the numbering in the Flood Control District's letter. Response to Comment #1: Hydrology.and water quality are discussed in the Initial Study, beginning on page 45. Additional information on drainage at the Willow Pass Business Park.is provided below and will be provided through compliance with the project's conditions of approval. Response to Comment #2: The IS/MND incorrect1v stated that the project site is located in drainage areas 48c and 83. The project site is located within Drainage Area 83 (Port Chicago watershed) and Drainage Area 123 (Mt. Diablo Creek watershed). Response to Comment #3: Conditions of Approval #68 and 69 (the standard "collect and convey conditions) require evaluation of the adequacy of the drainage Infrastructure and watercourses downstream of the project. Necessary improvements must be made prior tofiling the Final Map. Response to Comments.#4 and#5: See response to #3 above. S - 12 Response to Comment#6: The proposed project is a less intensive use of the site than the original Lesher Park project design. The original plan called for the development of 55.8 acres of the project site with impervious surface and included the Frito Lay building site. The current project does not include the Frito Lay pad and entails the development on 31 acres of the project site. The post-construction Storm Water Control Plan prepared by David Evans and Associates indicates that the existing watershed delivers 85 cubic feet pet- second (cfs) of storm water runoff under peak flow conditions of a 10 year storm event. An additional 20 cfs would be generated by the proposed development. The total capacity required for the detention basin is 3.5 acre feet and it has been constructed to satisfy, that requirement. The fresh water pond is approximately 10,000 square feet and has a depth of 2 feet, which slightly adds to the site's overall detention capacity: The outlet of the detention basin restricts the maximum flow so that it is the same as pre-development conditions.to prevent impacts to the downstream storm drainage system. Conditions of Approval #75 and 76.address the detention basin and freshwater pond. Response to Comment #7: Condition of Approval #75 addressesconcerns regarding funding and maintenance of onsite drainage facilities. The applicant shall provide evidence that the detention basin,freshwater pond, and other onsite drainage.systems will be f snded and maintained in perpetuity. Response to Comment 48: Conditions of Approval #70, 71 and 79 address concerns regarding stormwater quality. The applicant is required to take steps to improve the quality of stormwater runoff. Response to Comment #9: Condition. of Approval #77 addresses concerns regarding inadequate funding and maintenance in Drainage Area 83 and Drainage Area 123. The applicant shall be required to annex into a Maintenance Benefit Assessment District (MEAD) to provide perpetual funding for the maintenance of the drainage facilities. Response to Comment #10: Condition of Approval #78 addresses funding concerns for the Mt. Diablo Creek watershed. The applicant shall contribute to the drainage deficiency fined for Mt. Diablo Creek based on the rate of$0.25 per square foot of new impervious.surface.area created by the development. 5. Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD): Submitted a letter dated November 29, 2005 stating that the existing sewer infrastructure is inadequate to serve the project. The applicant and DDSD have since come to an agreement on a discharge limit of 42,640 gallons per day. Accordingly, DDSD sent a follow-up letter dated January 6, 2006 stating three conditions of approval which if incorporated into the project would ensure that impacts were less-than-significant. Conditions of Approval #27, 28 and 29 address DDSD's concerns. S - 13 6. East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD): Submitted a letter dated November 14, 2005 asking that the project should be conditioned to require the applicant to construct a "Class 1" trail segment from the existing terminus of the Delta-de Anza Trial at Willow Pass Road, up to the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection and then along the southside of Evora Road to its western terminus. Response: Staff agrees that completing the. regional trail system gaps in this area would be a benefit to the community. However, there does not appear to be a clear nexus for requiring the requested trail improvements. Therefore, the project is not conditioned as requested. VI. PUBLIC WORKS ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS A. Roads: Evora Road is currently a 28-foot wide paved road within a 50-foot wide right of way. The future plans for Evora Road consist of a 40-foot wide paved road within a 60-foot right of way. There are also plans for Evora Road to ultimately be extended westerly(through the property currently owned by the Navy) and to connect with Port Chicago Highway. The applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for the planned future half-width of 30 feet along the frontage of Evora Road. The applicant shall construct concrete curb, 6.5-foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face to back of walk), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, street lighting, and necessary pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Evora Road. The applicant shall install street lights along the project frontage of Evora Road. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the'Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. The on-site roadway system shall conform to current County private road standards. All on-site roadways ands turnarounds are subject to the review of the Fire District. The Willow Pass Road extension (Lot A) is an existing 30-foot wide private road, within a 44-foot wide access easement constructed as part of LP 2108-01. The applicant shall construct concrete curb, 6.5-foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face to back of walk), and necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage along the southwesterly side of the Willow Pass Road extension in order to provide pedestrian access to Lots 12 and 13. The applicant is proposing a private road extension to serve Lots 1 to 11. This roadway, which begins at4he terminus of the Willow Pass Road cul-de-sac extension (Lot A), shall be constructed to County.private road standards with a minimum traveled way'width of 30 feet within a 37-foot wide access easement and additional 5- foot wide public utility easements (PUEs) on each side. The applicant shall construct 6.5-foot wide sidewalk (width measured from curb face to back of walk) along the south side of the proposed private road. The applicant shall provilde improvements to mitigate traffic circulation impacts to the roadways and intersections fronting the project. The applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road with permitted left- S - 14 I turn phasing in the.north-south direction and split phasing in the east-west direction, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall construct one 12-foot wide westbound left-turn lane from the northbound direction at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. The intersection modification shall result in a northbound configuration which includes one left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane. The applicant shall contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and State Route 4 WB ramps with protected left-turn phasing in all directions. The applicant's fair share shall be based on the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the project compared to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to.use this intersection, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall contribute a fair share amount toward the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and State Route 4 EB ramps with permitted left-turn phasing in the north-south direction nand split phasing in the east- west direction. The applicant's fair share shall be based on the ratio of trips added to this intersection by the 'project compared to the cumulative total of new trips forecasted to use this intersection, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. B. Drainage: Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code requires all storm water entering and/or originating on this property to be collected and conveyed without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having a definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse. The applicant shall verify the adequacy of the downstream drainage systems to convey the required design storm and obtain access rights to make any necessary improvements to off-site facilities. If the downstream system(s) is/are not adequate to handle the existing plus project condition for the required design storm, improvements shall be constructed to make the system adequate. The current approved LP 2108-01 application resulted in the construction of a detention basin, which is on a separate piece of property owned also by Thomas/DeNova LLC (APN# 099-160-025). If necessary, the. applicant shall be required to provide proof that they are allowed to drain to this detention basin and that this facility is designed to accommodate the additional drainage from the lots proposed in this application. The applicant shall provide proof that there is an entity, other than the County, that will maintain the detention basin in perpetuity. This project is subject to the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Ordinance 2005-01). As part of these requirements, the applicant shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable S - 15 into the design of this project, and provide for perpetual operation and maintenance for all treatment BMPs. The applicant is not required to submit a Stormwater Control Plan, since the proposed project was deemed complete prior to February 15, 2005. However, this project is still subject to all provisions of the County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The drainage plan already includes bioswales,which act as natural filters for stormwater runoff. VII. SUMMARY CONCLUSION The proposed project substantially conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan. Potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated throughimplementation of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. The General Plan Amendment would neither result in a violation of the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, nor result in a violation of the Growth Management Standards. The rezoning to P-1 district is justified for the purpose of implementing the General Plan and allowing increased design flexibility to create a harmonious development. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed zoning and the General Plan as it is proposed for amendment. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached resolution, conditions of approval and mitigation measures for the project. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD048918 Staff Report.doc S - 16 deme ti� C°�esp�� Delta Diablo Sanitation District OFFICE AND TREATMENT PLANT:.2500 PITTSBURG-ANTIOCH HIGHWAY,ANTIOCH,CA 94509-1373 TEL: (925)756-1900 ADMIN.FAX: (925)756-1961 MAINT.FAX: (925)756-1963 OPER.FAX: (925)756-1962 TECH. SVCS.FAX: (925)756-1960 www.ddsd.orcc05 D_,, — I PM 3: 0 November 29, 2005 Mr. William Nelson, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON INITIAL STUDY FOR THE THOMAS/DENOVA, LLC APPLICATION OF THE WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK. Dear Mr. Nelson: Thank you for the opportunity to review the August 2005 Initial Study and Proposed Draft Negative Declaration for the subject project. As stated in the August 2005 Initial Study, a 2002 Initial Study was prepared for the annexation of the property into Delta Diablo Sanitation District. Subsequent to the annexation, design and construction of a sewer system for the proposed development in 2002 was approved and is currently under construction. The sewer system consists of gravity sewers that collect sewage from the buildings in.the business park and a low-flow, high-head pump station to deliver the flow to the District sewage collection system near Evora Road and Driftwood Drive. As presented in Table 1 of the August 2005 Initial Study and compared to Section F of the February 2002 Initial Study, this proposal substantially increases the square footage of building area in the business parka This consequently affects the design of the on-site and off- site sewer system. We do not believe the pump station can serve the larger development and will require modification/expansion. In addition, the off-site sewers will need to be analyzed for the larger flow to.assess whether collection system improvements are needed. The applicant has not provided an analysis of the impacts to on-site and off-site sewers which will be required before the District will approve permits that allow building construction. The applicant will be required to provide the engineering analysis and reimburse the District for costs associated with review of the studies and design modifications. The capacity of the District treatment facilities is 16.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and serves the communities'of Antioch Pittsburg and Bay Point. In 2004, the average dry weather flow was 14.2 mgd. The District completed Master Plans in 2004 to identify improvements needed to accommodate growth in the service area through build out. The master plans are updated every 5 years to recognize the changes in service area planning. The ultimate average dry flow is forecasted to be 23.6 mgd and therefore expansion of the District facilities will be necessary. These improvements will be phased over the next 15 years according to the increase in flow associated with growth. To fund the improvements, the District has a fee structure that is charged for each new or expanded connection to its system. For the subject TAPlanning&Development\30nov05 Thomas DeNova Willow Pass Business Park.doc ®Recycled'Paper project, every building will be assessed a fee in accordance with the District Ordinances at the time of application for a building permit. In conclusion, while the size of the project has increased, the applicant is required to mitigate the impacts of the proposal through improvements to the on-site and off-site sewerage facilities. The applicant will mitigate the impacts through actual improvements and payment of fees before the District will grant permits for construction. The applicant will comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District and therefore the impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. cerel "-T�regory Baatrup Technical Services Manager GGB:ggb OF A4&81HHeRt . y cc: [District File] Chron File TAPlanning&Development\30nov05 Thomas DeNova willow Pass Business Park.doc Delta Diablo Sanitation District OFFICE AND TREATMENT PLANT..2500 PITTSBURG-ANTIOCH HIGHWAY,ANTIOCH,CA 94509-1373 TEL: (925)756-1900 ADMIN.FAX: (925)756-1961 MAINr@64XI.19s'5)P6-�111i963 OPER.FAX: (925)756-1962 TECH. SVCS.FAX: (925)756-1960 WCNW.C�dSa.QrgP: January 6, 2006 Mr. William Nelson, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 SUBJECT: WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK 'Dear Mr. Nelson: After consulting with Thomas/DeNova representatives, we have revisited the.analysis that was the basis for our November 29, 2005 letter to you regarding the subject project In our November 29'Jetter, we stated that we do not believe the constructed pump station can serve the larger development and will require modification/expansion. We reviewed the wastewater generation rate of 1,300 gpd per acre and the total acreage for the subject project against the design criteria for the pump station. The station design was approved in September 2004 based on 32.8 acres and a daily average flow of 42,640 gpd. As the project does not change either the size or the type of development, the pump station would be adequate. The developer must submit detailed engineering plans for District approval that represents a viable system that meets District standards. In particular, we are concerned about the design of the solids removal prior to the pump station. The drawings approved in September 2004 contemplated a wastewater flow from each building to flow into a gravity sewer system then to septic tanks. The septic tank effluent would flow to a Septic Tank Effluent Pump Station (STEPS) and be pumped with a turbine pump into a force main in Evora Rd. The force main would connect to the District's collection system near Driftwood Dr. and Evora Rd. The septic tank would be outfitted with pan effluent screen to miniTnie solids that could cause the turbine pumps to fail. In conclusion, we ask the county condition the project approvals as follows: 1. Limit any combination of development on the site such that wastewater flow does not exceed 42,640 gpd (average daily flow) until or unless the sewage system is upgraded. Any proposed.upgrade must be submitted to Delta Diablo Sanitation District for approval. TAProjects%3730-Lesher Property Trust Annexation106jan06 Thomas DeNova willow Pass Business Park(2).doc Mr. William Nelson, Senior Planner January 6, 2006 WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK Page 2 2. Prior to any Building or Sewer Permit, require the developer to submit, for District approval a detailed improvement plan that show the entire site sewer system. The sewer system must include a viable means of eliminating wastewater solids that will cause the pumps to fail and overflows to occur. 3. Prior to any Building or Sewer Permit, require the developer to submit for District approval a contract for the operation and maintenance of the wastewater system. cerely, Gre ethnical Services anger GGB:bjm cc: District File No. P.3730 Chron File T:\Pmjects\3730-Lesher Property Trust Annexation\06jan06'Thomas DeNova Willow Pass Business Park(2).doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY AT?,•!nT.T'RC-9W ARSFNEGGER,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 11-1 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 5 C OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 FIex yourpower! PHONE (510) 286-5505 Be energy efficient! FAX(510) 286-5559 M(800) 735-2929 September 29, 2005 CCO048 57 CC-4-R-16.83 SCH2O05082130 Mr. Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development Department McBrien Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr.Nelson: Willow Pass Business Park-Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the proposed Willow Pass Business Park project. The comments presented below are based on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. As lead agency, Contra Costa County is .responsible for all project .mitigation, including improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures: Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance of the project's building permit. While an encroachment permit is only required when the project involves work in the State Right of Way (ROW), the Depai:-tment will not issue an encroachment permit until our concerns are au'cauaiely adcressed. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the lead agency ensure resolution of the Department's concerns prior to submittal of an encroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided upon completion of our review of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. See the section at the end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment permits. Cultural Resources The Willow Pass Business Park project includes signalization at several different locations within State ROW. The areas within State ROW have been previously surveyed and there are no known sites. However, during construction activities within State ROW, if there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, all construction within 50 feet of the find shall cease and.the Department's Cultural Resource Study Office, District 4, shall be immediately contacted at (510) 286-5615 or (510) 286-5618. A staff archaeologist will arrive ori site with one business day after contact and evaluate the finds. 'Caltrans improves mobility across California' W...Will Nelson oepteDabci 29,2005 Page 2 Encroachment Permit Any work or traffic control within the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/pennits/ To apply for an encroachment permit, submit a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans (in metric units) which clearly indicate State ROW to the address at the top of this letterhead, marked ATTN: Sean Nozzari, Office of Permits. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Lisa Carboni of my staff at (51 G) . 622=5491: Sincerely, C� TIMOTHY SABLE District Branch Chief. IGR/CEQA c: State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" -TATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSI C' AQPN7CY a.R*:^•m SC'?*.VJ APZENEGGER.Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 05+ N, —C' P OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 I v 7 Flex,your power! PHONE (510) 286-5505 Be energy efficient! FAX(510) 286-5559 TTY (800) 735-2929 November 4,2005 CCO048 57 CC-4-R 16.83 SCH2O05082130 Mr. Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development Department McBrien Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr.Nelson: Willow Pass Business Park—Initial,StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the proposed Willow Pass Business Park project. The comments that follow supplement our letter to you dated September 29, 2005. We agree that signals installed at the State Route 4 ramps for eastbound and westbound and at Willow Pass Road/ Evora Road will help to mitigate the ongoing delay problems at these intersections. Signals will improve the overall operations and safety of these intersections. The south approach from the business park to Willow Pass Road may need two lanes, one left tum and one througbirght to minimize backups on the driveway from the development. We don't agree with the statement on page 73 of the Initial Study that the segment of freeway by Willow Pass Road currently carries approximately 1,650 passenger cars per lane per hour and the average travel speed is approximately 68 miles per hour (mph). According to our 2005 Highway Congestion Monitoring, the tachograph plot in the westbound direction for the AM peak hour shows an average speed of 25 mph by Willow Pass Road and the PM peak hour in the eastbound direction shows an average speed of 35 mph. According to our traffic volume counts of 2003, the peak hour volume westbound between the hours of 7 and 8 AM is about 8,550 vehicles per hour. Adding 258 vehicles to an already congested system will have a significant impact to the state facility. A copy of the tachograph and volume count data is enclosed with this letter. We would like the report to quantify .the average control delay for level of.service (LOS) F instead of stating the delay is %50 seconds per vehicle in Table 17: 2025 Plus Project LOS "Caltrans improves mobiky across California" Mr. Will Nelson Page Summary. Please provide an additional table that quantifies the average control delay for post mitigation under Year 2025 Plus Project Traffic Condition. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Lisa Carboni of my staff at (5 10) 622-5491. Sincerely, iTIMAO= SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA Enclosure c: State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves mobility across California" R �NrvNrvrvNry � ry N ANN ry M N r tJ s n •.a w n z �l j x a �F�� � s �s��gsss N ¢¢¢ecee¢ w°n i Q 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 ! i 0_0000090 o y�_��FFFSFFFF 4 ' �I >I c u r � o TACHOGRAPH PLOT (Continued) Location: CC-4-0/17.73 Date: 06-01-2005 Period: AM Driver: M.J. MALTEZ Run: 1 Direction: W/B CLOCK AVG MPH I SPE1=D(mohl EL&Ca PM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 I 8: 1:29 28.2 BaileyOn .. ...--- ------ --..... .,�'1 -- 8.80 9.0 ' 8:-5:54 12.8 ----- ---- ---- ----- ----- ......... ............... ... 9.74 WlllowPass Off 10.0 8: 7:48 14.1 -------- -- ----.......... ......... ......... ............... ... 10.19 BayPoint On 11 .0 8:14: 9 13.2 WillowOff ........... ------ ........................... 11.59 8:15:44 17.412.0 -------- - WillowOn --- -------- -------- ........................... 12.05 13.0 8:17:33 41.6 -------- --------- -------- -------- ......... ............ --- 13.30 PortChicagoOff 14.0 8:18:34 60.8 19S91e On 14.39 TACHOGRAPH PLOT (Continued) Location: CC-4-0/17.73 Date: 06-07-2005 Period: AM Driver: M.J. MALTEZ Run: 1 Direction:W/B CLOCK AVG MPH SPEED(mph) PCZ PM ,.i t 0 .10 20 30 40 50 60 70 6:50:38 59.7 BaileyOn .............--•- •----- ...... --- ......... -- 17.0 'ii1f.L�'i'�:•.r.. ryr., 6:52:15 34.8 -- - ------- ----- --- ---- ------- ---- -- u ' WillowPass Off 9 18.0 ';:��•:;��� . 6:53: 3 33.7 BayPoint On ......... .......... ....................... -• ., 6:56:23 25.1 ........................... -- ---- ........................ ... 11 .59 .::: Willow Off •. -- 6:57:14 32.6 20.0 ,.:.; .............----- --- =- -----..... ......................... ... .12.05 Willow On 21 .0 6:59: 0 42.4 .......... ..................... -------- ................. ----- --- 13.30 PortChicagoOff 22.0 7: 0: 0 65.7 NBRte 242 On ................... -•------ --•----- .......................... 14.39 7: 0:25 65.9 -------- --------• -------- -------- ..................... - 14.84 Solano Way Off 23.0 -- 7: 1:31 62.724 0 ------=- ----- --- -------- -------- -------- ............. Route 680 Off i -' 16.0.0 ,.a.,..0 ':4.;n:';`(;i:::•i.°rix�_;...:;i�:�1T;�d`:-�,+� .;am, .::tie .:i .•r �.•wri�i TACHOGRAPH PLOT (Continued) Location: CC-4-0/17.73 Date: 06-07-2005 Period: AM Driver: M.J. MALTEZ Run: 1 Direction: W/B CLOD( AVG MPH SPEED(mph) P� 0 10 •.20 30 40 50 60 70 8: 9:54 61.0 Bailey On -" 8017.0 17.0 8:10:49 60.5 .............- ............. ......... 4 .7WillowPass Off 18.0 ;; 8:11:57 23.9 ................. - ..-- -------- ........................... 10..1'93,"=:;::. BayPoint On r: n 8:15:30 23.7 ------- ---; -- ------- ........................ Willow Off 8:16:24 .30.720.0 Willow On 21 .0- - 8:18:10 42.2 -------- --------- -------- -------- ................. Loll"----- 1 PortChicagoOff 22.0- 8:19:11 2.0 8:19:11 64.3 --------- NB Rte 242 On -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ---- - 14.39 I 8:19:36 65.0 -------- ---=----- -------- -------- ................ ---- ---- 14.84 .:. Solano Way Off23 0 5. 8:20:46 59.624.0 -------- --- ----- - --- .......... ...........---=- -------- • ---- 16.00 Route 660 Off TACHOGRAPH PLOT Continued Location: CC-4-0/17.73 Date: 03-16-2005 Period: AM Driver: M.J. MALTEZ Run: 1 Direction: Vf/B I AVG MPH SPEED(mph) F19a IM 0 10 1 20 30 40 . 50 60 70 I 7:28:24 623 -------- -----I............. ........... ............ ----- --- 8.80 Batley On I 9.0 i I . 7:29:25 55.7 I ..------- ------------------ -._. -------- --------• ---•- --- 9.74 WillowPass Off I 10.0 7:30: 1 45.0 ...--'---- -------- - ---- --- 10.19 BayPoint On I 11 .0 7:33:54 . 21.5 ............ ----- -------- ........................ ... 11 .59 Willow Off I 7:35:13 .21.012.0 WillowOn -------- --------- ----- -------- .......................... ... 12.05 I 1 13.0 7:37:12 38.1 -------- -----I---- -------- ---•---- ................ - -------- 13.30 PortChicagoOff i 14.0 7:38:12 65.2 NB Rte 242 On ........................... ----- •---I--- --_... ------ ...................... 14.39 87:318:38 62.2 7� 3Way '9 15.0 ........ .....I--- ------ ------ ......... ........ 14.84 62.6 End of Run I _ 15.11 I I j i 1 I TACHOGRAPH PLOT -Location: CC-4-0/17.41 Date: 03-03-2005 Period: PM Driver: M.J. MALTEZ Run: 1 Direction: E/B CLOCK AVG MPH SPEED Igohl 15:31:39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 t . Morello Ave 00 On 1 .0 ' 15:32:56 59.7'. �-",kG•'.�:';.; hhe � ------ ------- ........ ........ ------ ......... ... 1 x:23; 47.6 _ I_ ......... ... . ............ - ---- ............. ... 1. Route 680 Off -4S ' 1 33:48 29.7 ----- ------- ---- -- ,,.i.. -- - ------ ------ - �,. Route 680 On Jaz:' 2.0 '15:36:13 27.8 ------ -- -- .................................. ...SoianoWay On 3.0 2;'88:��ar;. I 5:37:21 25.9 ---­---- -------­ ---­--- A -- --- ------ --- -- ............... ... �^ SB 'Rte 242 Off 3.37..; `15:39:24 21.0 4.0 �' b ------ -- -- ------ ------ ------- ---- -- -�;_`NB Rte 242 On 15:40:51 22.5 . :. �'•ddw. : .: iii~;;; ------ ---�-- ----- -- - ------ ---. --- ------- �4�:�"3��` , -_PoilChicago On ,r tretjl — i''1:5:42:22 40.9 r: l;nt11/lilowPass Off ---_.. .- -- ------ ------ ----- .............. ... P;... • s.o :5:43:42 23.8 .................. ----- -------- ------- ------ IIIowPass On 7.0 >k. b:45:18 51.6 'igay Point Off ------ -....-- ------ ........ ............. - ------ 7.56 TACHOGRAPH PLOT Location: CC-4-0/17.41 I Date: 03-03-2005 Period: PM Driver: M.J. MALTEZ Run: 1 Directi on: E/B CLQ AVG MPH SPEED(mohl 16:28:59 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Morello Ave On 0"0 ! 0.0 0 ; el . . 4 2-1 16:33:22 24.7 '`F�, P theCQQ Off ---- -............ --•--- ........................ -- ' '` 1 :34:26 -! 15.1 not680 Off ----- ------ ------ ........................ -- ;r •'. 16 :23 16.6 4-:' :x ..................... - --_... ..._ -•----- --•- -- Route 680 On 1 :.7:;6 16:37:47 28.1 ..Solano Way On .................. ------ -- ........................ -• ixSS�r-' 16:38:58 24.6 f ......... .. SB Rte 242 Off -- ------ -- gu Yes' .:16:40:23 30.0 4.0 4.'0'8 "NB Rte 242 On -................... - --- ------ - --- ---- -- 1{. r e?:':1.6:41:43 24.9 orfChicagoOn ------ ----� -- -- ------- -------- -------- ------ 4. S. �I• i;: 5.0 ' "16:43:20 38.1 _ :=_: ...... ......... ................ . 5.6 6 lllowPass Off6.0 ' '1.6:44:44 22.9 IIIowPassOn -------- ------ ._....-- -.......................... 6.1'9 r, 7.0 :12 .0 :12 56.0 ay.'.Point Off ------ --- _- ------ ------ ------ ------. -- 7.56 75 •C lug;':.: ria' TACHOGRAPH PLOT Location: CC-4-0/17.411 Date: 03-03-2005 Period: PM Driver: M.J. MALTEZ Run: 1 Direction: E/B Q= AVG MPH I SPEED(m2hl bgQ 17:29:390 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 =:ti 0..0. Morello Ave On 0 1 .0 17:35:19 20.1 1--._ ----- -- - ------ --- --- 1 _ - P Off 1�:36thhe. 9 11.4 _ Ro e 68ff9.9 17. .310 O 1 _---- ------ ------ ------- --- --- Route 680 On ------- -- ;1_;�j,�;�a1.. 3 , 2.0 I i 17:42:31 13.5 Solaro Way On 3.0 I. .......... ------ ....................... .... :2.;s6:$H 3'y, ........ .__. 17:44:12 17.5 SB Rte 242 Off .._... ... _ -- ----- - --.--- V. 17:46: 9 21.8 4.0 NB Rte 242 On I ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ 4. ..8, x` ✓,;�?"ink. 17:47:40 21.8 I PorlChicagc On 4.'6' '9 M 17:49: 2 45.5 WiliowPass Off ------ ------- ------ ------ - ------- ----- --- 6.0 17:50:22 23.5 ............. ----- ----.... ...---- WillowPass On - -------- ----- --- 6.1 9 7.0 17:51:57 52.4 Bay Point Off ------ ----i ...... ........ .................. 7.56 B.0 I T TACHOGRAPH .PLOT Location: CC-4-0/17.41 Date: 03-03-2005 Period: PM Driver: M.J. MALTEZ Run: 1 Directi on: E/B CLOCK AVG MPH SPEED(niohl 18:31:30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Morello Ave On 1 .0 18:34: 6 35.9 .._. .---- ------ ............... -- . hm" :,..a .:]::2;3 z ............ ........ ...----- ------................. -- z,. 680 Off '1 b. �} Route v x ` 18:36:31 19.3 .<c;�U Er"a`r'r: Route 680 On 2.0 rn 18:40:27 17.1 - ------ --- ------ ----- ---- -- , F .. Soiano Way On 3.0 16:42:22 -. '.: 15.5 ,'`, �• ............... - ------- ------------------------ -- � SB Rte 242 Off Ml 18:43:53 28.1 4.0 n Rte 242 On ------ --- -- -- ---- ------ ------- ---- -- 4.:DB: ;F', 1 'i}Lsi'yY. ` t 1 24.8 a 1... : t� ;-IportChicago..On �4 aa'r _ 18:47:20 29.1 ...................... a 'fin" y. =SWillowPass Off - ---- ------ •------ ------ 5..s,.s. '� a 6.0 IN rl4l- 18:48:35 25.5 ......................... - ;. ;WfllowPass On ------ •------ ----- 6.1 9 +: 111,11111,17 49.5 ........................... ------ ------ - - ------ ay Point Off I7.56 I I i CONTRA'COSTA COUNTY f ' -'':• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street,North Wing- 0 Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: i (925) 335-1278 Fax: (925) 335-1300 i I TO: Will Nelson;Current-Planning Division FROM: Hillary Heard, Transportation Planning Division DATE: November 14,.2005 I SUBJECT: Comments from CalTrans regarding the Initial Study for the Willow Pass Business Park I i Staff has reviewed the comments letter dated November 4, 2005 submitted by the California Department of Transportation(CalTrans)regarding the Initial Study release for the Willow Pass Business Park.Staff has not reviewed the original letter which is noted in their correspondence that was submitted September 29,2005. Staff would like to make the following recommendations for consideration regarding potential responses to CalTrans comments for your consideration. I • Analysis of Freeway Operations on j State Route 4: Staff has no issues with the continent submitted by CalTrans that notes the data and analysis regarding the present operations of this section of freeway in the AM and PM peak hour.There do appear to be some discrepancies associated with how the data obtained from the CalTrans website was presented by the consultant.The data CalTrans provided in their letter does appear to be accurate based on our laiowledge of the freeway operations given the level of congestion in westbound AM Peak hour and likewise eastbound PM Peak hour. Nevertheless this discrepancy and subsequent change in quantification will not result in any significant impacts that have not already been addressed within the mitigation measures outlined for this project. I • Impacts to a State Route 4: Staff does not concur that the additional 258 vehicles this project will add to the freeway will result in a significant impact and necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.The additional trips will result in a 3%net increase to this segment of freeway,which is negligible as is the impact to the travel speeds on this roadway. Several of the standard Conditions of Approval that this project will be required to comply with will serve to help reduce the number of trips added to this roadway as will some of the mitigation measures that the applicant will need to comply with.Examples of these conditions and mitigations include: promotion of the use of forms alternative transportation by employees:carpool and vanpool(allowing the utilization of the new HOV lanes on Highway 4);promotion on non-motorized transportation and the signalization of the State Route 4 ramps on Willow Pass Rd. Additionally the County intends tol continue to explore the potential to extend Evora Road West to Pt. Chicago Highway and pursue the proposed extension of Leland Rd. West to Willow Pass Road. The extension of these two facilities would provide local traffic with an alternate East/West route adjacent to the freeway,there by reducing demands on this state facility. I • Request to provide additional Level of Service(LOS)Control Delay Data:The LOS table, Table 17 on page 70 of the Initial Study presents LOS data for 2025 Plus Project LOS Summary. The format and analysis of the data that is presented is consistent with the requirements in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)for quantifying the average control delay at intersections.Due to this fact it is our interpretation that an additional table detailing more precise information as requested is not needed as the consultant has prepared this data per the requirements for this analysis. I I In conclusion,staff does not concur with the interpretation by CalTrans that the traffic impacts associated with this project result in a significant impact. It is our interpretation that the impacts have been mitigated to the fullest extent possible and these mitigations combined with the standard Conditions of Approval and plamed improvements to this unincorporated area of the County will address the concerns raised by CalTrans. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this memorandum. Attachment c: S.Goetz,CDD K.Hoey,PWD M.Sun,PWD S.Kowalewsld,PWD EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DIST RICT p E BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1.`` J I h t: 4.7 Beverly Lane Resident Ward 6 Carol Severin Vice-President Ward 3 John Sutter November 14,2005 Treasurer Wad 2 Ayn Wieskamp Will Nelson w Secretary Contra Costa County Community Development Department Ted Radke 651 Pine Street,North Wing,4d'Floor Wim' Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Doug Siden Ward 4 Jean Siri RE: Delta de Anza Regional Trail-Walnut Creek Channel to Bay Point ward 1 Willow Pass Business Park,Thomas/DeNova,L.L.C.(Applicant) Pat O'Brien County Files#GP030001,#RZ043151,#SDO48918 and#DPO43096 General Manager Dear Mr.Nelson: East Bay Regional Park District(EBRPD) has received the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Willow Pass Business Park.and would like to make the following comments on the identified Transportation/Traffic impacts,including the potential conflict of the project with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Increased vehicle traffic on Evora Road as a result of this project is of concern to our agency as related to bicycle and pedestrian circulation and safety. The proposed project area is located within unincorporated Contra Costa County,northeast of Concord, along Evora Rd. and adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal, immediately northwest of the State Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange. The project applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Rezoning, a Major Subdivision and the Preliminary.and Final Development Plan for the Business Park. As refere—nccl-Al in [.BUD'S previous comr—ne it lekvlJ on other d-_vellc-,ment prcpl,.:w-1D Irl h: area and Thomas/DeNova L.L.C.proposed projects(May 2001,Oct 2001,Feb 2003),EBRPD has on its 1997 Trails Master Plan a segment of the Delta de Anza Regional Trail proposed to nm from its existing terminus at Willow Pass Rd.to extend as Class I separated trail along the east side of Willow Pass Road to the south side of Evora Road west to its terminus. From this location, the trail is proposed to intersect and continue along the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) canal service road on the west side of the canal to link to the community of Clyde and continue further,west to connect to Concord and the existing Iron Horse Regional Trail. The alignment of the trail is also illustrated in the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2003) as well as the City of Concord Trails Plan (2002), and the Delta De Anza Trail Alignment and Feasibility Study,Phase 2 study(1991). This study was conducted cooperatively with EBRPD, Contra Costa County, and the City of Concord demonstrating widespread community support for this important Class I multi-use trail gap closure. In the future, this trail will be the non-motorized link to connect Central Contra Costa County with East Contra Costa County and multi-modal transportation hubs such as Bay Pomt/Pittsburg BART. b 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 . Oakland, CA 94605-0381 TEL 510 635-0135 FAX 510 569-4319 'rDD 510 633-0460 www.ebparks.org I I Will Nelson November 14,1005 Page 1 I Therefore,EBRPD requests that the Applicant be conditioned by the County to provide trail improvements to EBRPD standards to complete the section of proposed regional trail as Class I trail along Willow Pass Road from the existing terminus of the Delta de Anzaa Trail at Willow Pass Road to the northeast comer of Willow Pass and Evora Roads and along the south side of Evora Road to a terminus at the end of Evora Road. The trail would utilize the .proposed signalized.intersection crossing of Willow Pass Road. Trail construction standards for regional trail include ten feet of asplialt pavement with a minimum of two feet of gravel shoulder on each side for regional trail. I The land an the south side of Evora Road is owned by Caltrans and United Sportsmen, Inc. parcels. United Sportsmen, Inc. also owns the parcel just north of Willow Pass Rd. at Evora Road. EBRPD is willing to work with the County to obtain adequate trail rights for the completion of the trail in this area. Trail improvements on the north side of Evora Road would not be adequate for safe Class I trail due to the number of driveway entrances required as part of the development. By providing for safe, separated facilities, including the signalized crossing of Willow Pass Road, the Applicant can take additional steps to ensure that the identified impacts on Transportation are reduced to less than. significant. I The future development of the Delta de Anja Trail in this area will be the key bicycle and pedestrian linkage between Central and Eastern Contra Costa County. By not addressing the non-motorized circulation and safety issues along Evora Road as a part of this major project,a critical gap in this important regional trail would result for the communities which we serve. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I can be reached at(510) 5442602 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Jim Townsend Trails Development Program Manager Via fax(925)335-1222,original to follow by U.S.mail I cc: John Templeton,City of Condord Traffic Engineering Department Dave Freitas,East Bay Regional Park District East County Trails Supervisor Al Olivera,East Bay Regional Park District Unit Manager I I ���`` CONTRA COSTA �� WATER DISTRICT a. 1331 Concord Avenue P.O.Box H2O Concord,CA 94524 (925)688-8000 FAX(925)686-8122 Y _ November 22, 2005 Directors Will Nelson Joseph L.Campbell Contra Costa County Community Development Department President 651 Pine Street Elizabeth R. Anello 4th Floor,North Wing ce ent Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Bette Boatmun John A.Burgh Subject: Willow Pass Business Park IS and Draft Mita ated Negative Declaration Karl L.Wandry � g g Walter J. Bishop General Manager Dear Mr. Nelson: The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)has reviewed the water supply section of the Willow Pass Business Park Mitigated Negative Declaration dated August 2005. CCWD is satisfied with the water supply arrangements for the Willow Pass Business Park including that portion of the business park that is owned by Rolling Frito-Lay. The necessary raw water service agreement has been signed by all of the landowners within the Willow Pass Business Park. CCWD will be constructing a raw water turnout along the adjacent Contra Costa Canal in the early part of 2006. The Contra Costa Canal is owned by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Reclamation has approved the proposed turnout consistent with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. The proposed turnout will provide raw water that can be used to irrigate landscaping at the business park. Potable water supply will be from water wells located at the Business Park. In the unlikely event that these wells are unable to perform, CCWD stands ready to provide treated water service to the Willow Pass Business Park. The business park will need to pay for any necessary conveyance facilities to"deliver treated water and comply with all of CCWD's regulations related to providing such service. CCWD appreciates the efforts of Thomas DeNova to facilitate completion of the raw water service agreement. Should Contra Costa County require any further information from CCWD on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (925) 688-8119. Sincerely, i `9-74 Mark A. Seedall Senior Planner cc: Steve Thomas, Thomas DeNova "Mark Seedall" To <wnels@cd.cccounty.us> -cmseedall@cswater.com> cc <ibaird@tiogaconstruction.com>, 111281200504:55 P.M <sthomas@tiogaconstruction.com> bcc Subject Willow Pass Business Park Thomas DeNova (TDN) Will Nelson The purpose for this follow-up correspondence is to advise you that the Raw Water Service Agreement with TDN for the Willow Pass Business Park ( including the Frito Lay parcel) shall only take place if: (1) TDN and Owners record against the Property at TDN's expense in the Official Records of the County of Contra Costa an Amendment to the Existing CC&R's making specific reference to the Raw Water Service Agreement. As of November 28, 2005, TDN has yet to inform CCWD that it has recorded the updated CC&R's that specifically recognize the raw water service agreement and (2) The Contra Costa County Community Development Department, and, if appealed thereto, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, approves the development of the Willow Pass Business Park and the Frito Lay Distribution Facility, provided that each such approval is expressly conditioned upon full compliance by TDN with the terms and conditions of the Raw Water Service Agreement. Please add the above comments to my letter of November 22, 2005 regarding the August 2005 Willow Pass Business Park Mitigated Negative. Declaration . Mark A. Seedall Senior Planner CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT P.O. Box H2O Concord, CA 94524-2099 (925) 688-8119 (925) 688-8142 (Fax) mseedall@ccwater.com i i CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL �� F'1� ` 4 SPH 1: 39 AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT i DATE: November 10, 2005 TO: Willliam Nelson, Senior Planner,Community Develo Department FROM: Tim Jensen, Associate Civil Engineer, Public W e D e SUBJECT:. Willow Pass Business Park, .Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration FELE: .1002-8918 We have reviewed the Initial Study,and the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Willow Pass Business Park, which we received on October 19,2005. The following are our comments: 1. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Document) does not provide sufficient information to understand the drainage issues of the Willow Pass Business Park Project (Project). 2. For item a on page 47,the Document indicated that the Project is located in"formed drainage area 48c and possibly in the unformed area 83". This is not accurate as most of the parcels appear to be located in the unformed Drainage Area 123 (Mt. Diablo Creek watershed)and possibly in the unformed Drainage Area'83 (Port Chicago watershed). To clarify the location, please include a hydrology map showing the parcels and the watersheds in the Document. 3. We request that the Document include an evaluation of the condition and adequacy of the existing drainage facilities and watercourses in the areas downstream of the Project. The impacts of the Project runoff on the existing facilities should be analyzed. For instance,the reaches of Mt Diablo Creek downstream.of the Project are in flood zone A, and could be inadequate to accept additional runoff, even if most of the flows from the Project would be metered through the detention basin and freshwater pond. Without the above information, it is premature to claim that the Project would have "Less- Than-Significant Impact"on Items(c), (d)and(e),and"No Impact"on Items(g), (h)and(i) of the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the environmental checklist, (see pages 45 through 48). 4. The discussion on the drainage issues in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section on pages 46, 47.and 48 is confined to the impacts to the Project site. As indicated in our comment i I above,the offsite drainage impacts of the Project should be included in the Document so that the questions about the drainage issues in the environmental checklist are answered clearly. I 5. In the first paragraph on page 17;it was indicated that runoff from 75 percent of the(Project) site would be directed to the detention basin while drainage from the Gun Club site and the western project entrance road would be discharged into the storm drain bypassing the detention system.In addition,.it was also indicated that surface runoff from Evora Road,the Streuli parcel (099-160-020)land the freeway embankments would flow to the existing system south of the Project site. The impacts of these discharges on the existing facilities should be evaluated.Mitigation measures,if needed,should be presented in the Document. 6. More information about the design of the detention basin and freshwater pond should be included in the Document.It appears that the original design of these facilities was based on the previous development proposal that did not include all the parcels in the Project.It should be clarified whether the changes in the scope of the project were factored into the design of the facilities. I The impacts of the outflows from the detention facilities,including the flows from the Gun Club site and the western project entrance road, on the downstream watercourses and drainage systems, should be discussed. I 7. A discussion on how the regular maintenance of the detention basin, freshwater pond, and other onsite drainage facilities would be performed and funded should be included in the Document. I 8. This development should be required to comply with the current NPDES requirements under the County's Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinances and the C.3 Guidebook. We support.the State's goal of providing best management practices to achieve the permanent reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants and downstream erosion from new development. The Flood Control District is available to provide technical assistance for meeting these requirements under.our fee for service program. I 9. Drainage Area 123 (Mt Diablo Creek watershed) and Drainage Area 83 (Port Chicago watershed) have inadequate maintenance funding. The construction of this development should not result in added costs or reduction of revenue for the Flood Control District. As one of the mitigation measures for the adverse drainage impacts of this development, we recommend this development be conditioned to annex into a County Maintenance Benefit Assessment District(MBAD)to provide a perpetual funding source for maintenance of the drainage facilities. If a MEAD does not exist for this area, then this development should assist in the formation of theIMBAD. I 10. A major portion of this development is located in the Mt Diablo Creek watershed.As one of the mitigation measures for the adverse drainage impacts of this development, we recommend that this project contribute to the drainage deficiency fund for Mt.Diablo Creek based on the rate of$0.25 per square foot of new impervious surface. The amount collected I i I i should be deposited to County Deficiency Trust fund. Please call Mario Consolacion at (925) 313-2283 or me at (925) 313-2396 if you have any questions. G:IGrpDatalFldCthCurDMCIT1ESIConcorldsub 8918, Willow.PassBusiness Parkllst Memo,Nelson.doc c: Bob Foraone,Flood Control Steve Wright,Flood Connol Monish Sen,Engineering Services Keith Hoey,Engineering Services tri-,OY CONt ostb .Crrr Govwm 1455 Gasoline Alley Laura M.Hoffmeister,Maya' Concord,California 9452O OD5 Susan Bonilla.Vice Mayor rex; (925) 680-1660 I'• ,• Helen M.Allen " Mark A. Petenron Public Works-Maintenance Services Department William Shinn Qamar Khan,Director Mary Rae Lehman,City Clerk Telephone: (825)671-3129 Cl neo Thomas Wentlins,City Treasurer Lydia E. Du Borg,Crry Manager September 29, 2005 Contra Costa County Communityl Development Department Attn: Aruna Bhat 651 Pine Street, North Wing —4th Floor Martinez CA 94553 i RE:City of Concord's Comments on the Willow Pass Business Park, Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Bhat: Thank you forthe opportunityto comment on the Initial Studyand-Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Willow Pass Btl siness Park Project These comments focus only on the mitigation measures identified in Section XV,Transportation/Traffic. We believe Mitigation Measures TRAF-3 and TRAF-4 requiring new traffic signals are too ambiguous as they are currently written and TRAF-5 should be modified to include the City of Concord in discussions on trail issues. Mitigation Measures TRAF-3 and TRAF-4 recommend the installation of new traffic signals respectively at the,inter9ections of Willow Pass Road/SR-4-westboundrampsacrd show Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramps. The Initial Study states aHowever, the California Department of Transportation and/or the Contra Costa Public Works Department may determine that improvements other than, or in addition to a traffic signal are more appropriate." Given the wording of the prior statement, there does not appear to be a definitive mitigation measure. Mitigation measures need to be clear on the project and the responsible party. As written,TRAF-3 and TRAF-4 are definitively ambiguous. In addition, the project is supposed to pay its fair-share of the mitigation project, but there is no specificity on how this will be done. Mitigation Measure TRAF-5 states the project applicant should work with East Bay Regional Park District and the appropriate transportation agency (the Califomia Department of Transportation an,d/or the Contra Costa Public Works Department) to ensure the roadway and/or intersection design provides for an acceptable trail crossing.If there is a possibility that this trail I crossing could connect with a nearby trail identified in Concord's"Master Trail Plan,"then a representative from Concord should also be invited to participate in the design process. I N_1200MMH9Jt2 Shat.doc i amass: eityinfob i.eoncord.ra.u% •. website.: www.eitynfenneord ors r: Again, we want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Willow Pass Business Park Project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,or would like to discuss them further, please contact me at 925-671-3129. Very truly yours, An Templeton Transportation Manager cc: Mayor and Members of the Concord City Council Lydia Du Borg, City Manager Mark Deven,Assistant City Manager Oamer Khan,Director of Public Works—Maintenance Services Deborah Raines,Planning Manager Phillip Woods,Principle Planner N:12005\MH9j12 Bhat.doc TOTRL P.03 CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA `; M * N SAN MATEO Northwest Information Center COLUSA MENDOCINO SANTA CLARA HISTORICAL :'; :.. Sonoma State University . ?+ CONTRA COSTA MONTEREY SANTACRUZ 1303 Maurice Avenue '.,`, LAKE NAPA SOLANO RESOURCES :,:;,,;a;:, Rohnert Park,California 94928-3609 INFORMATION r s,4';'%'3tsr 04 NOV I FR�dC54 YOONOOMA Tel:707.664.0880• Fax:707.664.0890 SYSTEM `� ''k'.'3+ I '' Email:nwicasonoma.edu tY November 12,2004 File No.:04-CC-40 Will Nelson,Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street 0 Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 re: GP 04-0010,RZ 04-3151,SD 04-8918,DP 04-3096/Hwy 4&Willow Pass Road/Thomas/DeNova LLC Dear Mr.Nelson Records at this office were reviewed to determine if this project could adversely affect historical resources. The review for possible historic structures,however,was limited to references currently in our office. Please note that use of the term historical resources includes both archaeological sites and historic structures. The proposed project area contains or is adjacent to the archaeological site(s) ( ). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. The proposed project area has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended prior to commencement of project activities. XX The proposed project area has a low possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). Therefore,no further study for archaeological resources is recommended. The proposed project area contains a listed historic structure ( ). See recommendations in the comments section below. Study# identified no historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not recommended. XX Review for possible historic structures was limited to the Northwest Information Centers documents and should not be considered comprehensive. Since the Office of Historic Preservation has determined that any building or structure 45 years or older maybe of historic value,therefore if the project area contains such properties it is recommended that they be evaluated by an architectural historian prior to commencement of project activities. The guidelines for implementation of the California Register of Historical Resources(Cal Register)criteria for evaluation of historical properties have been developed by the State Office of Historical Preservation. For the purposes of CEQA,all identified sites should be evaluated using the Cal Register criteria. We recommend you contact the local Native American tribe(s)regarding traditional,cultural,and religious values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project,please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/653-4082. If archaeological resources are encountered during the project,work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. If you have any questions please give us a call(707)664-0880. Sincerely, Leigh Jordan Coordinator Contra Costa County ' :;: Fire Protection District 04 NOV 22 PM 3: 45 Flee Chief November 18 2004 KEITH RICHTER Contra Costa County Community Development Departmerit 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Will Nelson Subject. GP 04-0010; RZ 04-31151; SD 04-8918; DP 04-3096, Willow Pass Business Park CCCFPD Project No. 10532 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the subdivision application to establish a commercial business park with a total of 18 lots at the subject location. This project is regulated by codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by this Fire District. If approved by yourIoffice, the following shall be included as conditions of approval: .1. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a mintmum fire flow of 2500 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than three hydrants flowing simultaneouslyjfor a duration of four hours while maintaining 20 pounds residual fNt 5�ui3�ib•hhi�F[i+ f:. .(Fl :.3,1 iwY'. fu.a..pt .....�..,; This includes the reduction for the installation of automatic fire sprinklers. 2. The developershall provide fire hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon submittal of three copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903.4.2) CFC 3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet;6 inches of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 45 feet, and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus i.e., 37 tons. (902.2) CFC Note: a. Access roads of 20 feet unobstructed width shall have NO PARKING signs posted or curbs painted red with the words"NO PARKING FIRE LANE" clearly marked. b. Roads 28 feet in width shall have NO PARKING signs posted, allowing for parking on one side only, or curb painted red with the words"NO PARKING FIRE LANE" clearly marked. C. Roads 36 feet in width allow for parking on both sides. Access as shown appears to comply with these requirements. 4. 5_--atQ&-fvehicles shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Electrically operated gates shall be equipped with a Knox Company key-operated switch. Manusfly operated gates shall be equipped with a non-casehardened breakaway lock or approved Fire District lock. Contact the Fire District for information on ordering the padlock or key-operated switch. 2010 Geary Road•Pleasant Hill, California 94523-4694•Telephone(925)941-3300•Fax(925) 941-3309 East County •Telephone(925)757-'1303 • Fax(925)941-3329 West County •Telephone(510)374-7070 www.ccctpd.org CCCFPD Project No. 10532 -2- November 18, 2004 5. Center divide medians on any access roadways shall leave a minimum remaining lane width of 20 feet on each side. 6. Dead end Fire District access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus. (902.2.2.4) CFC, 7. The developer shall submit three copies of site improvement plans indicating fire apparatus access and turnaround area for review and approval prior to construction. (902.2.2.1) CFC Note: This may be the same submittal as the Hydrant locations if necessary. 8.. The developer.shall provide a:computer-aided design (CAD) digital file copy of the subject project upon final approval of the site improvement plans or subdivision map. CAD file shall be saved in an AutoCAD®2002 file format or DXF file format. Contact this office for current acceptable AutoCAD®version. 9. Access roads and hydrants shall be installed, in service and approved prior to construction. (8704.1) CFC . 10. Approved premises identification shall be provided. Such numbers shall contrast with their background and be readily visible from the street. (901.4.4) CFC 11. No flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks shall be located on the site without obtaining approval and necessary permits from the Fire District. 12. The buildings as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with NFPA 13. Submit three sets of plans to this office for review and approval prior to installation. (1003.1) CFC 13. Submit plans to: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 To schedule field inspections and tests, call 925-941-3323. It is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this office when compiled by the planning agency. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, Ian Hardage Fire Prevention Technician IH/nlr File: 10532.1tr CCCFPD Project No. 10532 -3- November 18, 2004 c: Thomas/DeNova LLC 3100 Oak Road, Suite 140 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Michael J. Murphy 3100.Oak Road, Suite 140 . Walnut Creek, CA 94597 'sIA& CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT s_ - 0 1331 Concord Avenue P.O.Box H2O 04 DEC — I {p M 2: 16 Concord,CA 94524 (925)688-8000 FAX.(925)688-8122 November 29, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE: 925 335-1222 Directors Hard Copy to Follow Joseph L. Campbell President Will Nelson Elizabeth Anello Vice President Contra Costa County ICommunity Development Department 651 Pine Street Bette Boatmun 4`h Floor, North Wing John A. Burgh Karl L.Wandry Martinez, California 94553-0095 Walter J.Bishop General Manager Subject: Willow Pals Business Park Dear Mr. Nelson: The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) is in receipt of the Agency Comment Request dated November 3., 2004 regarding the request by Thomas/DeNova LLC to create a major subdivision and business park on 28 acres at Willow Pass and Evora Roads. The subject property is located just above the Contra Costa Canal and just north of State Route 4. CCWD has been actively involved with the review of this property for the past several years. During the early part of 2003 CCWD worked with Contra Costa County and Thomas DeNova on a variety of concerns related to development of a Frito Lay distribution complex at the subject site. Contra Costa County provided this portion of the project with a grading permit prior to the land use application for the site and the grading permit did not consider impacts from drainage on the Contra Costa Canal. CCWD worked with Contra Costa County staff and Thomas DeNova to devise a drainage plan that was approved under land use Permit No. LP012108. On December 12, 2003 CC—WD provided C ontra Costa County with comments as it pertained to the proposed Willow Pass Business Park. CCWD indicated its concerns with the proposed rezoning of land in this area, the fact that Thomas DeNova had yet to fulfill its obligations with respect to drainage improvements for land use Permit No. LP012108, and that the proposed private water system)within the CCWD service area constituted duplication of service impacts to CCWD customers. CCWD understands that the County ultimately rejected the request by Thomas DeNova to rezone and subdivide the property at that time due to concerns that the applicant was requesting land use changes piecemeal. Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development Department November 29, 2004 Page 2 i Since December 2003 Contra Costa County granted Thomas DeNova a grading'permit for the Willow Pass Business Park and the remaining portion of the property has been graded and leveled in anticipation of a new business park. Generally, CCWD would expect to have the opportunity to review and provide its comments in the context of an environmental review for this project.and prior to the property being leveled and graded. CCWD recommends that before Contra Costa County advances the November 3, 2004 application further that the following must be considered and evaluated in environmental and land use considerations: 1) The proposed area is within the CCWD service area. However, the developer is intending to pursue an independent water supply (a single groundwater well) and a private distribution system. Construction of an independent water system within CCWD's service area constitutes a duplication of service. CCWD is in the process.of working out terms to address this issue. No agreement has been reached. CCWD requests that the developer request not be approved until CCWD has an agreement in place the resolves this situation. 2) The proposed development needs to consider the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)in the environmental documentation for this project. The Interim Service Area Map on Listed Species Occurrences and Potential Habitat (June 2000) indicates that much of the subject property is designated as grasslands. The map is prepared by CCWD and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for the United States Fish and.WEdlife Service (USFWS), as required under the Los Vaqueros Project biological opinion for terrestrial species.. 3) CCWD would like to ensure that with the expansion of the business park to include upwards of 28 acres, that drainage from the proposed business park not result in greater site drainage towards the Canal. Post development drainage should not be greater than pre-development flows. In addition, the concrete apron that has been constructed to convey drainage from the Frito Lay property under the Canal has no further capacity to accept additional drainage from the new commercial areas that are now proposed. 4) California Water iCode requires that a water supply assessment be prepared for this project. The water supply assessment should consider impacts to the groundwater supply during periods of drought. This is especially important given that the business park is intending to use a private water supply (single groundwater well) and distribution system to supply all of the facilities at this site. Will Nelson : Contra Costa County Community Development Department November 29, 2004 Page 3 CCWD remains very-interested in this project and the impacts from this proposed project on Reclamation facilities and CCWD customers. CCWD requests that it be kept apprised of any proposed actions on the part of Contra Costa County to permit development at this site. Should you have any questions please contact Mark Seedall at 925-688-8119. Sincerely, 3e Bro' n Director Planning Ms/rlr cc: Ian Baird: Thomas DeNova Cay Goude: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Sacramento) CITY OF CONCORD CRY COUNCIL Pyr CErrM Helen M. Allen, Mayor 1950 Parkside Drive lix Laura M. Hoffineister,Vice Mavor ; Concord, California 94519-2578 AIT :k + �I-. � • .. Susan Bonilla • t;i;`,1'I 1 q�: . Bill McMani al Telephone: (925) 671-3459 Mark A. Peterson n Fax: (925) 671-3381 _ -6PM '3"'`x' E Man, Rae Lehman, City Clerk Thomas Wending, City Treasurer (' plT IiLF Edward R.James, Cin-Manager December 1, 2004 Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subject: Willow Pass Business Park GP04-0010; DP 3096; RZ 3151; SD 8919 Dear Mr.Nelson: The City of Concord Planning Division has reviewed the Willow Pass Business Park General Plan Amendment, Planning Unit Development, Rezone and Major Subdivision proposal located adjacent to Concord's City Limits. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and have no comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep us informed of the progress of this project. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (925) 671-3281. Sincerely, Tina Hadley Assistant Planner cc: Phillip Woods, Principal Planner i 0418.321 CountyReferral ` I r-mail: cityinfo@ci.concord.ca.us websitc: www.citvofconcord.org I E_,� CONTRA COSTA COUNTY _=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMElV"f DEPART ItNT 651 Pine Street North Wing-4''Floor Q=, FED e` (;: "7 Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925).335-1290 sT'Q COUh�'t Fax: . (925) 335-1300 TO: Will Nelson, Current Planning Division FROM: Hillary Heard, Transportation Planning Division DATE: February 3, 2005 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Study for the Willow Pass Business Park Staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the Willow Pass Business Park prepared by Abrams Associates.It is our understanding that this Traffic Impact Study is intended as an update to the previous study for the adjacent development of the Frito-Lay Distribution Centerprepared in November 2002.The information in the current Traffic Impact Study is not complete and therefore staff would not recommend that it be relied upon for use in evaluating the environmental impacts of this project. In order to fully evaluate the impacts to the transportation facilities associated with this proj ect,additional elements are needed that do not exist in the current study. The missing elements are outlined below: ■ Land Use. The current traffic study notes that it is intended to be an update to the study published in November 2002 however.it is not clear what range of land uses the study is evaluating.Although the land use type is not identified in this traffic study,staff have attempted to interpret the analysis as only evaluating the impacts to traffic associated with a warehouse facility(Pad A,98,400 sq.ft.),the mini mart/gas station and retail shops(Pad D, 11,800 sq.ft.). As well as the trip rate for the land uses on the remaining development areas;Pad B,Pad C,Lots 10-11 and Lots 12-13 for a total area of 325,000 sq ft,appears to analyze traffic associated with a warehouse facility but the calculations are not exact. The trip generation calculations do not reflect"R&D facility"or"mixed use, so these impacts for these activities are not disclosed by the study. The limited range of land uses evaluated by the study has the potential to underestimate the traffic impacts to the roadways,which poses a significant issue. ■ Level of Service Criteria. The table documenting the Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections appears to utilize the standards for signalized intersections,which is not correct (Table 1, page 5). This development project is served by unsignalized intersections therefore the analysis needs to evaluate the LOS for unsignalized intersections and evaluate whether the intersections will warrant signals due to added traffic. The worksheets for this analysis are not included but need to be provided as part of the analysis. ■ Level of Service Calculations.The traffic study does not appearto adjust the LOS estimates to reflect the traffic impacts of slow-moving trucks associated with the warehouse facility.This estimate should be incorporated due to the fact that a semi-tractor with a trailer waiting at an intersection has farmore significant impact on the intersection operation than a passenger car due to it's weight and size.The LOS estimates in this study appear to assume that all new trips are associated with passenger cars, which has the potential to underestimate the impacts to the affected intersections. ■ Trip Generation. The Trip Generation Table does not contain the analysis for the AM Peak Hour,Traffic nor does it include the ITE Trip Generation Rates and factors for each land use (Table 3, row 4 page 7). Evaluation of the project's impacts on AM peak hour conditions cannot be made without estimating trips for the AM peak hour. ■ Average Daily Traffic.The narrative following Table 3 discusses the average daily weekday traffic on Willow Pass Extension but not on the other adjacent roadways,the narrative should discuss the impacts to all of the affected roadways and intersections. ■ Pass-by Trip Reduction. The pass-by calculations for the Trip Generation are not documented in Table 4;this information needs.to be included in a traffic study (Table 4,page 8). There is no way to verify that the reductions are valid. ■ Cumulative Level of Service Analysis.There does not appear to be a final table documenting the Cumulative Level of Service conditions at the study intersections for the AM and PM peak hour. ■ Technical Data.Data'that is normally submitted as part of a Traffic Impact Analysis was not . included in the appendix, the following information needs to be submitted: Traffic Counts, Existing Volumes LOS calculations, Existing Plus Project LOS calculations, Cumulative Development LOS calculations, and Traffic Signal Warrants for these future scenarios. As you are aware staff have previously commented on the preparation of the original Traffic Study for a 98,400 square foot warehouse with the total build out of the Lesher Property (additional 130,000 square feet) for a total of 228,400 square foot project(Traffic Impact Study for Frito Lay, November 2002). That study found that the current uses allowed by the General Plan for this site would warrant installation of a traffic signal at Evora Road/Willow Pass Road and the potential need for signals for the freeway ramps at the adjacent interchange. The updated study evaluates a 422,400 square feet project and expands the range of allowed uses beyond warehouse functions, yet it concludes that the impacts would be limited to signalizing Evora Road/Willow Pass intersection,no impacts to the freeway ramps are anticipated. Therefore staff would like to recommend that consideration be given that the County hires an independent traffic consultant to prepare a more thorough traffic analysis for the environmental-review of this revised project. This more thorough analysis should provide the information missing from the applicant's study. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this memo. . cc: S. Goetz,.CDD C. Lau,PWD G:\Transportation\H illary\Memos\Drafts\Willow_pass_park_trafficstudy.rrv.doc _ E.L ° CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT { 651 Pine Street,North Wing -4h Floor x, _ " Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925) 335-1290 Fax: 925 335-1300 TO: Will Nelson, Current Planning Division FROM: Hillary Heard,Transportation Planning Division DATE: April 28, 2005 SUBJECT: Freeway requirements for the Traffic Impact Study on the Willow Pass Business Park This memorandum is a follow up to some of the questions that were raised during the conference call with staff and the County's consultants at LSA Associates regarding the traffic impacts to freeways as part of the Initial Study for the Willow Pass Business Park. Staff has reviewed both the Technical Procedures Manual and other applicable documents provided by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (the Authority), Contra Costa County's Congestion Management Agency,that provide guidance on the methods that should be used in the preparation of the traffic impact analysis for this General Plan amendment. Staff has determined the following information that was referenced from the.attached excerpts of the Technical Procedures Manual(manual),the 2003 Congestion Management Program Level of Service Monitoring Report(CMP LOS monitoring report)and the 2001 and 2003 Congestion Management Program report(CMP report), see attachments. ■ General Plan Amendment. The manual indicates that the County may utilize the previously prepared traffic analysis study to meet the traffic analysis requirements for the project if it prepares a supplemental analysis that examines the information detailed within the guidelines of the procedures (page 25 in the-technical procedures manual and page 56 2001 CMP report). The 2001 CMP monitoringreport provides additional guidance with regard to the traffic analysis of roadways and intersections that should be included within the analysis, which may be helpful to bear in mind throughout the preparation of the traffic impact analysis for this project(see Chapter 5, page 56-61). ■ Truck Intensive Uses. .The technical procedures manual also indicates that when calculating the trip generation for truck intensive uses,the HCM should be consulted to convert truck trips into passenger car equivalents (PCEs), (see page 32 in the technical procedures manuaI). ■ Freeway and Freeway Ramp Data. The Authority's Congestion Management Program (CMP)Level of Service(LOS)standard for this section of State Route 4(SR 4)is LOS F,an average freeway speed of less than thirty miles per hour. The most recent data reported.for this freeway indicates that the freeway currently operates at this,level of service (page 2-4, 2003 CMP LOS Monitoring Report). Since the CMP LOS standard is F,violation of the CMP standard will not be an issue. However, a finding will be requiied as to whether this General Plan Amendment (GPA) does not adversely affect the ability of the local jurisdictions to meet the Traffic Service Objectives(TSO's)or 1 to implement the agreed upon actions in the Action Plan(s) (Resolution 95-06-G, page A-1). The Central County Action Plan statesithat this section of SR4 from Willow Pass Road to SR 242,must meet the following Traffic Service Objectives: A minimum average speed of 24 mile per hour; maintain a maximum delay index of 2.5. ■ CCTA Traffic Analysis Zones &Land Use evaluation. The Contra Costa County Transportation Model, maintained by the Authority, shows the project falls within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 20096.Be aware that the timing of this application allows the County to use the Central County Travel Model for any traffic study needs Although the Central County Travel Model is in the process of being replaced by our Congestion Management Agency with the Countywide Decennial Travel Model. The TAZ data from the Decennial Model is shown below, we do not have the information on the current Central County Travel Model but this information may be obtained from the Authority.The land use information and demographics (households, employment and population) within the TAZ may be of use when calculating the projects impacts on traffic. The employment data indicates no additional development is assumed on the Lesher property.We will ask CCTA staff if this data can be revised to reflect build out of this property under its current land use designation in the General Plan.. TAZ Total Hous'holds Total Employment Total Employed Residents 2000 2025 2000 2025 2000 2025 20096 394 847 2,458 1 2,821 559 3,303 Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this memo. Attachments w/o attachments cc: S. Goetz, CDD. J.Fahy, PWD Ms. Shannon Allen,LSA Associates G:\Trispoma on\Hillary\Memos\Drafts\WP_freeway_analysis.doc I i 16'11LIAm B. WALKER, M:D. HAZAR JUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR RANDALL L. SAWYER 4333 Pacheco Boulevard DIRECTOR Martinez, California C N T R A COSTA 64 94 -2229 Ph (925) 646-2286 05-MAR Fax (925) 646-2073 fl LTH SERVICES rlA��!'rr,•,-v nom„ •;,xa`!�` (;`�=' March 14, 2005 Mr. William Nelson Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 2T'8 Floor N Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subject: APN 099-160-019 Former Gun Club Located at: 4650 Evora Road, Concord, California Soil Remediation Report Prepared by AEI Consultants, Walnut Creek, CA Dear Mr. Nelson, This letter is in response to Contra Costa Health Services' (CCHS)review of the.Soil Excavation &Removal Report (the "Report") for the.above subject site. CCHS staff reviewed the Report and on February 11, 2005 met with Mr. Phil Ludolph, Contra Costa County Building Inspector, to discuss the Report's findings. CCHS staff was not present during any soil sampling or excavations. According to the Report, tl:e subject site appears Lo have been cleaned to levels conducive for light industrial activities. CCHS's assessment of the subject site is limited to specified "areas of interest"and specified contaminants (inorganic lead and copper) in the Report. It is CCHS's understanding that the subject site is a small part(Lot#14) of a much larger development (Willow Pass Business Park). Based on information given to CCHS at this time, CCHS.is not able to address any site characterizations for adjacent parcels. Evora Road—Soil Remediation Report. Page 1 of 2 '� • Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Services'• Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services• Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan s�i • Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs •Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers Due to the above listed reasons, it is the judgment of CCHS that a note be attached to the parcel book page indicating that if the land use were ever to change to residential (or similar use, e.g. school, daycare center, etc.), a full phase II investigation shall be conducted. If you have any.questions regarding this information, please contact Melissa Hagen at the letterhead address or at (925) 646-2286. Regards, Melissa J. Hage Hazardous Materials Specialist I Cc: Mr. Phil Ludolp Building Inspector I Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor . Martinez, CA 94553-1295 CCHS Site Mitigation File f Evora Road— Soil Remediation Report Page 2 of 2 . X�lbl� $ �lst �pt1�1Catl�n BUILDING INSPECTION ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ***Interoffice**. * ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING TRAFFIC ADVANCE PLANNING ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** REDEVELOPMENT CC FIRE DISTRICT SHERIFF OFFICE 'Interoffice' 'Interoffice' ADMIN & COMM SERVICES Interoffice Interoffice ***Interoffice*** Delta-Diablo Sanitation District Contra Costa Water District City of Concord 2500 Pittsburg-Antioch Highway P.O. Box H2O 1950 Parkside Drive, MS 24 Antioch, CA 94509 Concord, CA 94524 Concord, CA 94519 Mt. Diablo Unified School District Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council Clyde Civic Improvement Association 1936 Carlotta Drive Vicki Zumwalt, Chair 109 Wellington Avenue Concord, CA 94519 123 Riverside Drive Clyde, CA 94520 Bay Point, CA 94565 Historical Resources Information System Charlie Abrams Foundation Center, Building 300 Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering Craig Anderson 1303 Maurice Avenue 1320 Willow Pass Rd. Sonoma Atate University 1660 Olympic Blvd. Concord, CA 94520 Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3608 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 JES Engineering 1355 Willow Way, Suite 105 Concord, CA 94520 99140002 99152005 99152012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO UNITED SPORTSMEN INC PO BOX 770000 PO BOX 983. SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 CONCORD CA 94522 99160011 99160014 99160015 CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF THOMAS/DENOVA LLC BOX 7791 RINCON ANNEX BOX.7791 RINCON ANNEX 1899 CLAYTON RD#110 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 CONCORD CA 94520 99160016 99160018 99160019 UNITED SPORTSMEN INC THOMAS/DENOVA LLC PO BOX 983 1899 CLAYTON RD#110 CONCORD CA 94522 CONCORD CA 94520 99160020 99160025 .99160026 MAIN STREET ASSOCIATES THOMAS/DENOVA LLC ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES LP 3100 OAK RD#140 333 CIVIC DR 7701 LEGACY DR MD 4A-217 WALNUT CREEK CA 94597 PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 PLANO TX 75024 99160027 99160028 99160029 ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES LP THOMAS/DENOVA LLC THOMAS/DENOVA LLC 7701 LEGACY DR MD 4A-217 3100 OAK RD#140 333 CIVIC DR PLANO TX 75024 WALNUT CREEK CA 94597 PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 .330002 100330003 100330009 GINOCHIO PETER EUGENE GINOCHIO PETER EUGENE GINOCHIO PETER EUGENE 3401 WALNUT AVE 3401 WALNUT AVE 3401 WALNUT AVE CONCORD CA 94519 CONCORD CA 94519 CONCORD CA 94519 111010014 11101CO27 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PO BOX 722 SAN BRUNO CA 94066 Exhibit 9 Maps and Plans Sam ' O'.2m"oE Eo�?mmo me 9V iU pgG O m'N G o�F o'pp �Vyss�� G�ro O cLn xu e o n6 mr5 9 �Am CO 10 N� at Y.� J s js: N o� l y � ; ° 4, .fl G E N N id 9 i 6r l6 � U N 7 R t v 0- ,���++ t m � •� y chi t � Oa j_ Q N � � 66Q QQQ � f C 00 V— 0 00) N T o 2, co asrt C E b a C4) e m w 0 C) C) M.51�ts CO a M -a qe C) 1E. CL x -2 4) Ic IF= LLJ 41 E. 4) u E .�3: C� iE 1�. E B 0 iP I 0 OC1 A 0- 12 0. L U 'Et LO Cl) i ft ell I f l0 3pi Sl CD c E CL CDro 2 C Q D CL VA ca :3 0 acco cn CL CD (D O (I) L) i: c XIC U - 0 C) EL :F O d CL 0 El 0 0 • 1 ~ i ._�-+•y3.T.Y, T•a��:+r`.�"111 '' — �. , � 's i'� '} �I:`^ ` J}Z{: Y"�"". ii(i��] '1 •p 1�. `C.:.. o`�+,n *o �.WM _ Jam,, .l' ,j/ `•, �•1 'I, y..� r ..,• _ �e8 m'e � r� �-t�.]� � ,.,x•'';}"r / l _ /i E W �y O Nco W f+wy �M .IF�r K tp\- .C` ', t1t •:-•44 14, ti MG -"•'�K�1.. •'!'�F. //�' ' �' - .11 no-'B `l•^� �.32"$$jSyT = 1' \',.'`V:1'i' -.i\'i V X11-1 Ij• �)' " t •\ E�n ._�U ,Y Q CCaim Ir AW a ! t / _ - 8. eB IM u 8 1-4 � - ��.�, �;:.; ..� .,tea, ,�� 's•!•, G'\•,'.�: er' ".,/' ��. , :1C��-'•�-� ,'..ice mow. � `'y '� - �'1 .i ku �� (+,,,,•,tet :};, .��. �`� •.� ����3 ``y. 4 by SK"^ ,• _`�',� ti}nt a#4� k '"'!�':���'y':"�+..' -'�.s:,�"`. �., �. 4.•� +{ k � � . . s.` �- � �Ar'",r``� '' 1 .�.. A��'•'`„; \ `�t' 'v`�_..Y'-".'��w�':;1y 'ut=�.:'SrC� ^fel: t ✓{ � y�.'�y� ,L'��. T V y'� � �r� }p�pt 'S' Fa•• r*•+ "Y� ���r' R.JC 1§; � �\_1 +< �:// � .ir'^�1 .-•'rte. •.�.., ' Ii' �- n�" h '�,�,. '.\` .,`";i�1T. '� `h,. ., �Y - 1�.1 tYl -i�� 'rM1--- ,1• �t \t * r •.'^'�1y�, FF £ ,,.t:\�' n?1,,.14r� _-w„''" .'�r,Y1iJ,•,R�m�'� � '""S_t} �'+..•.'.''.�: '"- y- A' ' `-J' a.'F,7%.,4Yf. ,'q.�. � .•�.�4`� �''i�{��a� f•�' �1 �iS�� j- (r - � � � .. .: � - - (��7�•_{ 'mow.• ,/�r� t -19 ah} -�� ��.j('1��r�✓��. .b o� `"�t '•lt'`_. -''1' +'' v'`, k/•�,LL�.,,ti„ ,rrli.?A'�,��, 'r '1:� x I � I I .LYI•['.:Aii C=.Y M Gw A C_lilornio Cor Polol,-All QhI_ _ Ora a Crnnnr v IC.'��• )'Imnj TO HWY 680 Z � U P I � M I m0 m C I < Ow Pq Z ro a I �0� r M ANn� G > o zi n = C. Oho Z D _ G) o OF v Iczj � 1197 ren mazNi v cn > Im > OvAO� � On vzzz�N � mrgZtimO O c� m Z en I o pZZ - �mmv �`^ oozy' 0 0� mmm m� ov�i Nu v> >ycf > '1V' �> f� Dv I vn£ xo ren n v`n r O Z m SJY A L]Ll- IA 0 :A VI -i Cj Z Z t•Y f ;L- -�-I In F Z C 2 O CD mm 00� 00 rn FjYpO ?m �� r 0o2 v� ZF . ZZ Z�Z� oo �_ ��� O _ Mo T N C n �z ooz oovci�Pn � ZOzo V D� m czi cz'YO cs (miYNm -o v Z O�5 g f�1� mC g- V/ � �n Z�iO�^ C'> Or= r r �.> Om <y�m ■ v I"x. c o n mn -v V r Nm v ti Zu. O> ` CO z > O � U > cn D V/ m n o I D O z I y O -� m 0 Z n n n lo I o m �z co _ Zzzz o n � go� m _ 1P/y -co E —Vvj W 0 D of rn o sED z m Z vY o In D s r m N � � a 0 -I 3 Z _ � I »i'Dv9�':9 TL^DDAD19\Anti Cunenl PUD a!'4 SY c. '°1;Z9/21)1)5 140 PV loleW I THOMAS/ DENOVA L.L.C. N a x F4o ' �'oll '�;�io`E�' WILLOW PASS BUSINESS a a o o p sl5lll�� l o v g D o j , i-jz -- 2 U . 1= i PARK GPA/ P-1 RE-ZONE I MAJOR o SUBDIVISION APPLICATION _ HIGHWAY 4 AT WILLOW PASS ROAD ��I ISI I I I loj ISI ISI I� CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA �"0b�e ■�■��,,,aa°' I I �' j� j I ,p,91L3 i.0.[tyMU[+.-A o CTam'—A:I iigml rte] _ z2- II' cl o 0 l 002 �1^f �a oFs �ij r vv.. � �.. 5: � opo �_ �S Rmp Q r III •II \ �a // / -��i.- .• � �_-1\ 11 Y. -------------- � I 1 II I I n .,I 1 � 111 1 �� v •` ! Nz ly pC I lk cv a 3Y \ .,♦'�•..� \\ � _�- - J p •I � 'll rp 1 1 - a 1 � � oma= �I � 11 \••. \ � �s�z � 0I 1 ♦ 3: 9 Am .��a> CIyI If o TO \ .. cmc AA 'O ti V ti Z p O n O N p ro F � m z n1 O ap N < m N r 0 V/�I m Z N r �Z m z za GC C W �\\•\`\ \ \ mV TA D D p m m OIl C z Z a i p rT7 m \.; � �\ \ Z c mA Rn O v m m n Vmi ^ tea' z z r \ \ \ �m O z� om ` o � � p� � o m m ��� �\ \ � o c�> z z z <o >oy fir m _�_i.._.I_. yy rA YI 3 � C `\\ \ 1\ \ NK y O 00 A pcz J miAI�I: �1 irV O � p�� \\ \ \\• C m VI a; � � v V O m N (p(//�I �O A N NIN T z T o 5= y TV II D > ig e s D v �N O O O O O A o - C7 � l 5 z > An A u trim m Na N Q m Q Z I mo Jm 0 \,nd'P}.013_TaO]01019 Amd Cm,I-PM\Pf70_1-DEV-K1P-101305_af.d. 11/7/)005 r:[9\11 a3chibm x O I o _ o ; o o THOMAS/ DENOVA L.L.C. rt a "I � I i �� WILLOW PASS BUSINESS a I I �, � a r N16 �. IJ I o m D - �I�I ,I I I PARK 3 N^ a CD T ZISI° �s GPA/ P-1 RE-ZONE / MAJOR o ods SUBDIVISION APPLICATION o HIGHWAY 4 AT WILLOW PASS ROAD I- 3 o of a CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA 01 D 91a I ­n 20N Ly Mptr..o n CCILYrI!•J %Il I,-M.— Ci.1�i�ul;r a 21'.28-(5"r..::,. Lr--wif //'• �,. 'I 0 / mma z t' 1I O °O /, f0.1 Non a m0"O mrA*+,s-' ./ "00, • T r m� 1 l\J,. / ��• v 'I S YARDT '•' YARD go YARD o. / i •.� z,J nm p i % t ------ -- - - - I - LliLLu I n\ l ............�.: , •1 - i I 1 • i'�.__ :::..:::.:".::'i .o. � .:.0': �;:�.. gpyyp NOS os To � I N � I 2f / _ � ` :%•� %, a �\, y�4.. � 6r o / nA o zzl' DO , ow, .s '.6a�\._ �1�,( •.� ..�.\\ ;3&/ •,Z°0 n ° I , P zv LJ I ' 1 �!" \ •�• �' CD� 11 •�., ` 1 _ill � i' \ \ 1 1 �A � m m o Z �. \ % t 00 °O 1 °• °° ° °' br - �A�gO �c�8 o� C Z2� n i �6�� ➢NGN c,m D' ym _ I zz r Z 11 m II Dom:--� v' �^ p A A A V N U S N O N O rnI OI w N O N J I Or > Z w O O b m N t J N a b O U OA A O I O {}J U J O V I U D . b ............. } N m W I I 10 00 T V tD On•:�Nn �1n0 �Nn � O a t1 \ /p1y� I VI N to�b N'VI N N •J1 Ul N'In -Tl �l T �I T ':j T Ln In D .moi I Z .....:.... I+1 .I. . o '•' o '�l0 0 oI o 0 0o cv cl o 0 0 o u o .oloo r, o p L/I 1,y< O T] m O m N II— N _i I_ w _ _ _I_ N N I- N w U N N IV N 00 'r - ZmmUf�1S m=2 p 00 O C y I I r.JI U,UIV b m;V lml}IV N N N U ID O to Zn r L) O fII•' rn�n-O'i pOD mvm�Om�Oy'00_mN�xV71. xm.aO'rCmXZOn,mZ0 N- p p �DmNcz pzZ- r �NCArlyJ. m0Z,1 im�pami NnIP 1I.nLNL�.oO p U. -�I-I"INCmV)Io O a ayn Ci Dz D O m NC p LM m oc Zp 50 ;Q., 'A nmmn, nwNIiII'wuNtDmN-1rONimU-f1 [UN(am-/11 N[mwaV'1l b(mwaL]'1i:oNnf_V+�I NnfmV_n. ;m0NnrnNo ui U N�7p S� Z Vyy' yLymZ• � '0 �; Oo C D O D p to R Z ti A m A n n t7 n C1 n A n 9 n O O A A A faj i m x J r"t m lrLrq1 m n uml mm m m '1 r•', z N N I L) l7 V))N N N N IN I NI N N N In f%1 VI V1 V1 N O O J.d\D0/013_IPUD DD/D19'\AcoR\CurfartiPDD\PDI-b.-.-R[)-101]05-o1.Lq "j79/2S4 3:44 P11 1ajaho do a, m p d cis THOMAS/ DENOVA L.L.C. W WILLOW PASS BUSINESS o m L IoI IN, NI PARK x D O N a AI�," �= s' GPA/ P-1 RE-ZONE / MAJOR z =1' I� SUBDIVISION APPLICATION � -ro ;1 zI Io �1 HIGHCNTRA C05TALCOJNTY��gJAG "o ,e 9�y1°a cn Imo►--=1' I �olNl I i N:\PROJECIS\9903dcn\dwg\IENT10-17-05\9903 Ten tPM101/05.dwg 11/15/2005 2:52:56 PM PSI >aaa �w moo o x;a 31 tV ppp70 g 1 82221 � rs'a cc uQ $a=y NF1 1 '01, . M "1Rdoou op �rrn $'�' y mb a, . YNo -toIII adN�Lomi Q p� /...'. a`c`1 �So p aoz o�2C f'�M t�hi�r�> /�.. � ofin MZO g 0 'S'3T c may E�'oo '�$ �2m Q � " m �o$� I� 1 511E g�iQe, R .40 A NiN e(C� O ro'1A 0 oiG � �� y ra m to ,.o —► 'amypu'a r ' .�`=��1:` _...y.•' r, ✓�� N o �'� 'l' r^ LD1 _ `' b _ :T;_i�_i. :;_u• � �4 L cA I ti rA / Q • = I r6Er7r_ g ; ,I � � ✓'V .SBI .DBI-I Bl r i �'EA ._'-,---LEI i tO t4 o \, a esu t A to I`g` I0. lip ZZ c� . � 622' uul III I'IN . ' I 1 r ,p ,/• �' .�` < (•J T a � '9,�.. Bi *f r to klo i y� vau .,/1�T C) N � � O J TO HWY 686 ri O y 2 N) UND i W a 0 1 000 � � Nis 'gyp Q 'r TO AN770CH 00 A �I JE9 ENGINEERING,INC. N0. DATE DESCRIPTION BY JES ENGINEERING INC. Sc o o� �I�, VESTING TENTATIVE MAP RESTRICTED ENGINEETtINC DRAM7NGS MAJOR SUBDIVISION 8918 The Information,plans,designs•notes and mrangemente y WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK' •hewn ce In hole o ere aanRdantlal and may not b. CML ENG/NEER/NG & LAND SURI/EYING ^ reproduced In whale or h: pmt without the sapreesed EVORA ROAD written permleelon of JES ENGINEERING,INC. 1355 WILLOW WAY, SUITE 105 UNINCORPORATED AREA Dra Inge noted as Prelhnlnary/schemalk:and/or concept CONCORD CA 94520 contain Information that Is conceptual subject to Q CONTRA COSTA COUNTY — CALIFORNIA 1 ,wd0tatlon and/or change.The engineer makes no dobn PHONE: (925) 674-1151 SCALE 1"-200' OCTOBER 2004 fm aacuraay of conceptual Information m of Infamallon FAX: (925) 674-1314 supplied by other. I i I N:\PROJECIS\9903den\dwg\IENT10-17-05\9903 Teri tPM101705.dwg 11/15/2005 2:52:56 PM PST I i HH _ __- - -- -- - - -- W20 MIX a ;.F. .. !48...... ...._...»... •2L7�r———— — -- 131 __j 00 — — -- -^-- — -- —_— T ,..'°� ... - —--•-— —= — _ _---- -- - - — ... -.— — -r L U PROPOSED � SD,FtASEAIENT F� a �p'�i s �•1 I �' '...i o195,w• :. �./i ;/' :/ 6\ I � Nva� , �N�V, �C �� a ���im � �j/ -•;�:{ . IT it Q— — • /— I 200 `. — ------------- ------ -------- J T�l Z3 Tom;/ --------------- - -------- ------- o� X!g 47 nog aye n° / ao�o• / /CZ PIS- OR / ../ '�/ ��� � / i+t. °aa\ \ \\` ,/ // � HNAk� �,� j � /. •.,. :/ .. s 4' 5 AN \.. (A6. b � � FTJ\ CIO \A \\ ////. / /, in t?�'13C. Z o n T / oZ— c (yam Q ig rn �c1 NO. DATE DESGRIPRON BY JES ENGINEERING•INC. Rb VESTING TENTATIVE MAP RESTRICTED ENUNE1<RING DRAWINGS JES ENGINEERING INC. N �b "MAJOR SUBDIVISION 8918 ,n.nfam ellen,plan. design.,not..and anvng—ent. T a� .ham on We dr-Ing ar.conttd.nOct and m.y not be GIR ENG/NEER/NG & LAND SURI�£Y/NG WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK' reproduced In whole or in part nithoat the wipree.ad written permission of JES ENGINEERING,INC. {. EVORA ROAD 1355 WILLOW WAY, SUITE 105 laa.lno."seed Prellmina y/.ch.natla ane/or concept CONCORD CA 94520 UNINCORPORATED AREA cental. nfonnotlon that I. conc.ptaol .ablest to v CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - CALIFORNIA wlReatlen omd/or change.7h.-9b.-reek..no dol. PHONE: (},925) 674-1151 SCALE. 1'_10' OCTOBER 20D4 for accaraey of conceptual nformatlon or of Informatlon FAX: (925) 674-1314 eappll.d by othm. i | � � < | / � � _ V. `. 0Z 03SOdDlId � Vb top 1 41 If A. 0 Aov 1 Pfl 01) tp Sul 00 4S EMMMMNr,INC. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP JES ENGINEERING, INC. �t:5 -MAJOR SUBDIVISION 89ta lb Information."I.d"lwK notes end arangmenty EVORA ROAD witten permwon of JM ENGrwMM W. 1355 WILLOW WAY, SUITE 105 UAMCORPORA TED AREA Wwn that to corroaptual w**) I. CONCORD, CA 94520 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY — CALIFORNIA andIbc dmg*lh*&,glnw a*..0 PHONE: (925) 674-1151 SCALE., f*-w MOM 2M4 —'ac3lool conevival Information or Of information FAX: (925) 674-1314 plied by them | ! � | ! / / i N:\PROJECTS\9903den\dwg\IEN110-17-05\9905 Teri tPM101705.dwg 11/15/2005 2:52:56 PM PST •d .15 Mo Jv 417 / _ -Ot fA�L:�•� r M 1 Pe `fin ` _ , '� ". .•`••; !' \`5y't C•7 � ' If Fp TN a i £ / f 1,3 .s , 9 / r' ,per / ��� •.� '.11E,' !' A 11 / •j \�i. �, j % In " c !!' 2 Rf, I "'.✓/.' �I� Vis , k µbb r- '/'�l:••`.° �' "yl•�Nh.U•,•I%�•. i u. .�,. ,.it 1•n N o\, ft f E. r , t : ��an yy 0 19 Sc ! 1 u us v. f31�.S; il: ;ii�l a c \ .�;,ti.:`��, :�;` 1•�f '•i �`�'�./ lit Ch QQ Pin ,i +� !�' ,.� j n3saa �h �dp ... _{3dV0 , \.Y@� •4, `� ,'!'1 i,l } =i t —= 1 oaoaa 131 Pit ! l ' 1 : if gill 1 :r s ,\ ( g o ALnun*SS300v 9b e i II� i � 3ON1 oLrdsodOdd rri i : Itl I ;• + �"i� t d• ' ad .. t t l aa+ odo �1-.uhun�ss�ov /-, ;i ',,: .•,, '�`, to 3 .OL 035 / .`.. .' ,�,,; \ ':�y d�fir•1,s�a � n Ito i) i; i 1 j / /ice ','r,..:;/' :✓ ;.,, n II -b ill 7{ u, izcg�o§t ��.... •1N3ry35V3 aM JvNti i j \ `� / I �'l�•',:,;�� i'' ^ \ -� 0 {\��- NDLLYNyI30N00.jO a v 5. y �h I /\ '•` - �'�'I' ,A.,,.....^' /" \\ \ Z_ y Q V \/ .VINaO�fn'0 -10 . Ln 00 { t , --P O a if i I M Co OBI 1 "SI i :II s} !i i' VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. DATE — I DESCRIPTION By RESTRICTEDJES ENGINEERING,ENGINEERINGDR DRAN7NG5 JES ENGINEERING, INC. OF -t:5 "MAJOR SUBDIVISION 8918 The Information,plans.des!gns•notes and—gaments WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK' shown an In hole o are cart without and may net 61K ENG/NEER/N6 & LAND SUR!/EY/NG reprodueed In abate or In part ENGINEERING. the expressed written p noted a n of JES ENONEEatMC,INC. n EVORA ROAD I Drawing noted m Prdlminary/schemotic and/or aa„aept 1355 WILLOW WAY, SUITE 105 . tV UNINCORPORATED AREA contain Information that Is conceptual subject to CONCORD, CA 94520 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - CALIFORNIA wIfIcatlon and/or change.The engineer makes no claim PHONE: 925) 674-1151 SCALE: I.-�0' OCTOBER 2004 far acMaey of eonesptud Infurmratlan or of Information supplied by other.. FAX: (9 5) 674-1314 i N:\PROJECTS\9903den\dwg\TENT10-17-05\9903concept—grad—drain.dwg 11/15/2005 4:31:16;PM PST I ror I / Z:iS',. ............ ('� g 1 r 1 z ..m w o m oUA 11611- 111 1j , `. i o \ �, '�• N c R 0In AE / �Q. J _ \• / \ / , P 2 L2 = `ufLL( \\ \ D Vs IE. ID/�] 1 H \ N\ mom;, 11 IO um, \\+ / Z \ s B n �I � o e ` br�( ' W =+ 1Nom:. N K A•• • C) '70 ` ..,\oJ. r•o Me •�• \:. Y an '`rte •, O .Y /. a o f Q Dr�, x 1 L 00090 00 is 7 'N� 'IMP , 1 >z� �lJ co S >1 I .. CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN NO. DATE DESCRIPTION By RESTRICTED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS JES ENGINEERING INC. �b "MAJOR SUBDIVISION 8918 ' Io 2/b4 FOR RErtEw ROP The b,fonnallon,plane,deslgne,notes and arrangements -t:5 2 f0 B 4 FOR SUBMITTAL ROP .hewn m this drawing me-nRdentbl and may not be C/l9L ENG/NEER/NG & LAND SUR!/EY/NG WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK' reproduced In whale or In part without th.espreeesd y J 12/IB/b4 REDLfNES ROP wrlttm permisslon of JES ENGINEMING,INC. L, n EVORA ROAD1355 WILLOW WAY, SUITE 105 r M 4 111151105 JMV contalge noted ti Prethat Is sahe eple and/or concept CONCORD, CA 94520 w qI� UNINCORPDRAIED AREAconlaln brfortnatlon that b conceptual subject to x yr CONTRA COSTA COUNTY — CALIFORNIA —ncatlm and/or change.Ths mglnssr makes no ciabn PHONE: (925) 674-1151 SCALE: I'—40' OCTOBER 2004 for accuracy of conceptual Inforrnatlon or of Informatlm FAX: (925) 674-1314 IM by others. 100, ,� :.��• e`; ..1.. �- l'� '.; --=rte: '...:�v;r � w �°__T q- Ocm 0�4 mt 1 �i / 1 — ---2 to CL O Q = lL:`,.. ', .,. . - ... .•,�:�.. tea=g°mn G_� �mcU ohm N r L 1• �f _ ! OUB -EY C 04 \i, K•�III -\ a ,. ;. )"" �,' l�l�\ �'1� •, 1.4•- .�l/ 3oE3 E'uS _S 11//'..1ryY44Y„ S•'V,- �f(a` ,�" ,1 'r '�`d/�� ! �' �$Op.',8`°' `jam •�f.:. ♦.. \ Jai._ I E"3 kill �. a .. 4�}� - . . •�' C}�y�: I:� •4'•t •.� � _- :,� lir—_..� -`'�J �' � of _� . ;li�j� /sfl •_ a=\ ' rA / CV \:,._.:.,\�� } 1 �a1�-"'�i�s-_� rte/ �e,• r� y ��:��•' IL jt (tee '�]+�;� •. �� �� � 5 - '� ji 77 40 ,. r ill..':4s�j „3�.. r' •.• < \� \ � /; ' is )) *. � �• JQ�� � :,;, a;�'�•t, � �\,\ ' .. ti. ., -�� `•\ � • ny4�� .:�'"t'.T 't.t. 11 � � �,'Y: �'�. �aY .�. .H::lnl.�� I i MEEEAb'E C ONF I RMAT I i 0 :•'24/2006 14:58 I D=CONTRA cvOSTA COU Y CLERK OF THE PATE S.R-TIME DISTANT :STATIOH ID MODE Fn20 )010 03/24 00'30" ~259438355 TX 100 i 03/24{'2006 14:57 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK OF THE 99438359 1,10.933 D01 LEGAL PU13LICA.TION I{EQUISTION Contra Costa Count From: Clerk of the Board 7"0: Contra Costa Times 651 Pine St., Room i06 PO Box 5124 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek,-CA-94596 Requested by: Date-, 3 /,Lrl(� Phone Nw Reference . No Org: "Sub Object: Task: �Activity: Publication Datc (s): No. of Pages- Chi. . _ ,• _:_Y LEGAL PUBLICATION R QUISTION Contra Costa County From: Clerk of the Board To: Contra Costa Times 651 Pine St., Room .106 PO Box 5124 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA-94596 . Requested by: . Date: 1�2eo .. Phone No:- Reference No: Org: 'Sub Object: . I NAI Task: -Activity: Publication Date (s): ate No. of Pages: i LEGAL PUBLICATION- i ••'•immediately upon expiration otpublication,••••=. — — send in one affidavit for each publication in order that the aud'or may be authorized to pay your bill_ Authorized .Signature: Please cotifimi date of publication & receipt orthis fax. ORDINANCE NO. 42006-04 (Re-Zoning Land in the Concord Area) I , The Contra Costa County Board of SupervisorI s ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page F-15, F-16 of the County's 2005 Zoning Map(Ord. No.2005-03) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see alsoCommunity Development Department File No. RZ043151 ) A-2 I General Agriculture FROM: Land Use District L-I Light Industrial TO: Land Use District P-1 Planned Unit District and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec.84.2.003. I A-4 �: .. :. .............. :::::::::::...: ... .. ........... ....... ........ ............ j ... .. .. ....:::::::. A-2, City of o ncord +d ON SECTION 11. 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_��>'I i'lL OT�� Tryl S ,a newspaper published in this County. PASSEDon by the following vote: Supervisor Afire_ I No Absent Abstain 1. J.Gioia 2. G.B.Uilkema ()G) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. M.N.Piepho ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. M.DeSaulnier 5. F.D.Glover ATTEST: John Cullen,County Administrator JJ and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors I CJ/1 y! �/OI LLQ Chairman of the Board By�, J�'J ���e`� Dep. (SEAL) I ORDINANCE NO. 2006-04 RZ0431 1 Thomas/DeNova I REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM I (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this forma place it in i he box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. 7 _ Name: �Que 0 w�1rS Phone: ei Z �?c(� Address: 300 Ua-<< -f-t" `C(� City: (Jk 1 ini t- C r-G.e 1L (Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I I am speaking for myself or organization. W 4 5 LJ CHECK ONE: j L I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: 2 I My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against - I ❑ I wish to speak on the subject!of: i I 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: I I Please see rertse for instructions and important irrfornralion I - PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Contra Costa I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Timel, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, County of Contra Costa, 94598. And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, under the date If October 22, 1934. Case Number 19764. The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following crates: to-wit:' March 11, all in the year of 2006 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Walnut Creek, California. On this 14 day of March, 2006 .................... .. ............................. Signature Contra Costa Times P 0 Box 4147 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 935-2525 Proof of Publication of: (attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that published) 4 1 I I NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS CONCORD AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, March 21,2006 at 1:45 p.m.in the County Administration ! Building, Room 107_651 . Pine Street, (Corner of i Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, Cali- fornia, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervi- sors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning mat- ter: THOh'AS/DeNOVA,. LLC (Applicant, Owner & Ap- pellant),County File Nos. GP 030001, RZ 043151, SO 048918&DP043096: Appli- cant requests approval of a General Plan Amend- ment, Rezoning, Major Subdivision and Prelimi- nary and Final Develop- ment Plan for the Willow Pass Business Park proj- ect as follows: A.General Plan Amend- ment #GP 030001: Re- quest to change the Gen- eral Plan Land Use Ele- ment Map land use desig- nation for approximately 26.5 acres from Light In- dustrial(LI)to Mixed Use (MU), change the land use designation for ap- proximately 2.3 acres from Agricultural Lands (AL) to MU, change the land use designation for approximately 2.2 acres from Open Space(OS)to MU,change the land use designation of approxi- mately 9.4 acres from LI to OS and amend the text of the General Plan to be consistent with the changes in land use designations. B.Rezoning #RZ 043153: Request to rezone the 66.55-acre project site from Light Industrial Dis- trict(L-I)and General Ag- ricultural District(A-2)to Planned Unit District (P- 1); C.Major Subdivision #SD 048918: Appeal of the County Planning Commis- slon's approval Of a re- auost tn.subdivide 66.55 acres into 18 mixed-use office/commercial/Iiyht industrial lots, within which there could be up to 70 condominium lots, and several common ownership parcels con- taining shared infrastruc- ture;and D.Preliminary and Final Development Plan #DP 043096: Request to devel- op up to 357,500 square feet of office,commercial a - nd light industrial uses in no more than 18 condominium-type build- ings, five of which could be up t0 68 feet in height. The location of the sub- ject property is within the unincorporated territory j of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California,generally iden- tified below(a more pre- cise description may be j examined in the Office of the Director of Communi- ty Development, County Administration Building, Martinez,California): i i ! I i i The location of the sub- ject Site is along the north side of Evora Road between the Contra Cos- ta Canal and the intersec- tion of Evora Road and Willow Pass Road, in the Concord area. I For purposes of compli- ance with the provisions of the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA),a Mitigated Nega- tive Declaration of Envi- ronmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this pro- ject. I If you challenge this mat- ter in court, you may be limited to raising only - those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing descri- bed in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing,Com- munity Development De- partment staff will be ' available on Tuesday, March 21, 2006, at 1:15 P.m.in Room 108,Admin- istration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to(1)an- swer questions; (2) re- view the hearing proce- dures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues be- ing considered by the Board;and(4)provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If youwish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Will Nel- son,Community Develop- ment Department, at (925) 335-1208 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday March 20, 2006 to confirm your participation. Date:March 8,2006 John Cullen,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator I By Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk Legal CCT 5058 Publish March 11,2006 I I I i i I i i i I . I I i i I i REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT- i RECEIVED Memo MAR 1 0 2006 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS To: Clerk of the B of Supervisors CONTRA COSTA CO. From: Jim Towns 510-544-2602 i CC: Date: March 9, 2 6 Re: Willow Pass Business Park i Can you please distribute a "cc" of this letter to members of the Board of Supervisors? j i Thank you! i i - 805 &nlbv _- G0i r* I i I EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT i BOARD OF DIRECTORS Carol Severin President Ward 3 March 9, 2006 John Sutter Vice-President Ward 2 Supervisor Federal Glover j Ayh Wieskamp 315 E. Leland Road, Treasurer Pittsburg,CA 94565 Ward 5 Ted Radke RE: Delta DeAnza Regional Trail Secretary Ward i Willow Pass Business Park Beverly Lane Ward 6 Dear Supervisor Glover: j Doug Siden Ward 4 On January 24,2006 Contra Costa County Planning Commission approved a general plan amendment,rezoning,major subdivision and development.plan submitted by Jean Siri Ward 1 Thomas/DeNova, LLC for the Willow Pass Business Park, located on the north side of Evora Road and immediately east of the Contra Costa Canal. The County project file numbers are Pat O'Brien GP030001,RZ043151, SD048918 and bP043096. General Manager i In a letter dated November 14,2005, East Bay Regional Park District had requested that the applicant be conditioned to construct a Class I segment of the Delta DeAnza Regional Trail from its current terminus at Willow Pas's and Evora Roads along the south side of Evora Road to its western terminus, a distance of approximately 1000 feet.The cost to construct this segment is estimated to be $100,000. County staff decided that"there was not a clear nexus for requiring the requested trail improvements,"and the trail was not included in the conditions of approval. I During a subsequent discussion with county staff,EBRPD determined that their decision was based primarily on a review of the 2003 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Staff had concluded that the 2003 plan called for!the trail to be constructed as Class III bicycle lanes at that location. i A careful review of the 2003 plan, however; shows that interpretation of the document to be . incorrect. On page 43 of the plan, Table 8 "Unbuilt Segments on the Countywide Bikeway Network" shows the Delta DeAnza Walnut Creek Channel to Bay Point segment to be a Class I separated trail. Appendix F of the 2003 plan; Countywide Transportation Project List project#0564 refers to the construction of the Delta DeAnza Trail from Evora Road to Port Chicago Highway as a Class I trail. Also, the Bikeway Atlas Maps included in the 2003 plan show an existing Class III bikeway on the shoulder of Highway 4 parallel to Evora Road. County staff may have mistaken this existing alignment for the Class I trail called for in 2003 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian plan. The project is tentatively scheduled for Board of Supervisors' consideration on March 28"i. The Park District respectfully requeststhat the Board of Supervisors consider conditioning _ the project applicant either to construct the trail improvements consistent with the 2003 plan, = or require the developer to contribute sufficient funding for the Park District to construct this important trail segment. a`� 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland. CA 94605-0381 ll TEL 510 635-0135 Fey 510 569-4319 Ton 510 633-0460 www.ebparkS.org i I ll i With planning, including open space and trail components,for the Concord Naval Weapons Station underway,and the Park District's plan to link East County's Delta DeAnza Trail to Central County's Iron Horse trail in 2007,the Evora Road segment becomes the missing link. It would be a shame to allow a major industrial subdivision to move forward without a requirement to contribute to the infrastructure supporting the development and the community Thank ou r your 'onsideration. J I /Jim awris end Tras Development Program Manager -544-2602 cc: R.E. Doyle,Assistant General Manager, EB Rj D Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ,,// Catherine Kutsuris, Contra Costa County Planning Will Nelson, Contra Costa County Planning. I �to meet with any interested parties in order to(1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve,or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you.wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Will Nelson, Community Development Department, at(925)335-1208 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 20, 2006 to confirm your participation. Date: March 8, 2006 i John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator 4 By-4 j Katherine inclair,Deputy Clerk } I 99140002 99152005 99152012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO UNITED SPORTSMEN INC PO BOX 770000 PO BOX 983 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 CONCORD CA 94522 99160011 99160614 99160015 CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF THOMAS/DENOVA LLC BOX 7791 RINCON ANNEX BOX 7791 RINCON ANNEX 1899 CLAYTON RD#110 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 CONCORD CA 94520 99160016 99160018 99160019 UNITED SPORTSMEN INC THOMAS/DENOVA LLC PO BOX 983 1899 CLAYTON RD#110 CONCORD CA 94522 CONCORD CA 94520 99160020 99160025 99160026 MAIN STREET ASSOCIATES THOMAS/DENOVA LLC ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES LP 3100 OAK RD #140 333 CIVIC DR 7701 LEGACY DR MD 4A-217 WALNUT CREEK CA 94597 PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 PLANO TX 75024 99160027 99160028 99160029 ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES LP THOMAS/DENOVA LLC THOMAS/DENOVA LLC 7701 LEGACY DR MD 4A-217 3100 OAK RD #140 333 CIVIC DR PLANO TX 75024 WALNUT CREEK CA 94597 PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 100330002 100330003 100330009 GINOCHIO PETER EUGENE GINOCHIO PETER EUGENE GINOCHIO PETER EUGENE 3401 WALNUT AVE 3401 WALNUT AVE 3401 WALNUT AVE CONCORD CA 94519 CONCORD CA 94519 CONCORD CA 94519 111010014 111010027 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PO BOX 722 SAN BRUNO CA 94066 i BUILDING INSPECTION ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** I I I I PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING TRAFFIC ADVANCE PLANNING ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** i I SHERIFF OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT ICC FIRE DISTRICT ADMIN & COMM SERVICES ***Interoffice*** � ***Interoffice*** ***Interoffice*** Delta-Diablo Sanitation District Contra Costa Water District City of Concord 2500 Pittsburg-Antioch Highway P.O. Box H2O 1950 Parkside Drive, MS 24 Antioch, CA 94509 Concord, CA 94524 Concord, CA 94519 I Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council Mt. Diablo Unified School District Vicki Zumwalt, Chair Clyde Civic Improvement Association V 1936 Carlotta Drive isRiverside Drive 109 Wellington Avenue Concord, CA 94519 gay Point, CA 94565 Clyde, CA 94520 Historical Resources Information System Charlie Abrams Foundation Center, Building 300 Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering Craig Anderson 1303 Maurice Avenue 1320 Willow Pass Rd. Sonoma Atate University 166001 ympic Blvd. Concord, CA 94520 Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3608 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 JES Engineering 1355 Willow Way, Suite 105 Concord, CA 94520 i I i �I i i I Anashia Lloyd To KSinc@cob.cccounty.us <cctlegals@cctimes.com> cc 03/07/2006 02:27 PM bcc Please respond to cctlegals@cctimes.com Subject Re: Publication Request-DeNova I THE FOLLOWING e-mail contains pertinent information; please read it carefully in its entirety. Good Afternoon. If you have any questions regarding the legal notice confirmed below, please reference the legal number provided. Please only e-mail to cctlegals6kctimes.com regarding Contra Costa Times, Concord Transcript, or Contra Costa Sun legal notices. ** LEGAL SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION** TYPE: In-Column Liner, Classified Section LEGAL NUMBER: 5058 PO#: 1140 Publication: CCT Run Date(s): 03/11 Legal Acct#: 200 4197 Total Amount: $252.00 REVISIONS/CANCELLATIONS: I will need a cancellation request referencing the legal number—or all changes attached in a final draft Microsoft Word Document—e-mailed to cctlegalsAcctimes.com by no later than 4 PM, Thurs., 03/09. Otherwise, the legal will publish as you e-mailed. Thanks! Anashia Lloyd Legal Advertising Coordinator (925) 943-8019 (925) 943-8359—fax Contra Costa Times ATTN: Legal Dept. P.O. Box 4718 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 cctlegals@cctimes.com KSinc@cob.cccounty.us wrote: Hi Anashia, I Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes: i One day only, Saturday, March 11, 2006 Reference PO#: 1140 Please confirm receipt of request. Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below. Thank you, Kathy Sinclair Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 925.335.1902 (See attached file: DeNOVA-032106.doc) ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Name: DeNOVA-032106.doc DeNOVA-032106.doc i Type: WDNWORD File(application/msword) Encoding: base64 Download Status: Not downloaded with message Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com 03/07/2006 01:55 PM cc .y ► d 4 bcc Subject Publication Request-DeNova r Hi Anashia, Please publish the attach�d legal notice in the CCTimes: One day only, Saturday, March 11, 2006 Reference PO#: 1140 Please confirm receipt of request. Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below. Thank you, Kathy Sinclair Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 925.335.1902 MR 17 D eN OVA-032106.doc NOTICE OF A I PUBLIC HEARING You are hereby notified that on T6 ESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 107, McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, the County Planning Commission will consider GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN applications as described as follows: THOMAS/DeNOVA, LLC(Applicants&Owner),County Files GP030001,RZ043151,SD048918& DP043096: Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Major Subdivision and Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the Willow Pass Business Park project, as follows: A. General Plan Amendment #GP030001: Request to change the General Plan land use designation for approximately 26.5 acres from Light Industrial (LI) to Mixed Use (MU), change the land use designation for approximately 2.3 acres from Agricultural Lands(AL) to MU, change the land use designation for approximately 2.2 acres from Open Space (OS) to MU, change the land use designation of approximately 9.4 acres from LI to OS and amend the text of the General Plan to be consistent with the changes in land use designations. B. Rezoning#RZ043151: Request to rezone the 66.55-acre project site from Light Industrial District (L-1) and General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit District (P-1); C. Major Subdivision #SD048918: Request to subdivide 66.55 acres into 18 mixed use office/commercial/light industrial lots, a designated remainder and several common ownership parcels containing shared infrastructure; and D. Preliminary and Final Development an#DP043096: Request to develop up to 357,500 square feet of office, commercial and light industrial uses in no more than 18 buildings, five of which could be up 68 feet in height. The proposed project involves the development of a mixed-use business park containing office, commercial and light industrial uses! The project site encompasses 66.55 acres and is located along the north side of Evora Road, immediately east of the Contra Costa Canal and immediately northwest of the State Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange, in the Concord area. (L-1,A-2) (County Basemap Pages: F-15 and F-16) (CT: 3150.00) (Parcel #s 099-160-015, -019, -020, - 025, -028 and -029). For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this project. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public he described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. i For further details,contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or Will Nelson at 925-335-1208. Dennis M. Barry, AICP Community Development Director i. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COST iA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS i CONCORD AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,March 21,2006 at 1:45 p.m. in the County Administration Building, Room 107, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: THOMAS/DeNOVA, LLC(Applicant, Owner&Appellant), County File Nos.GP 030001,RZ.043151, SD 048918i&DP043096: Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Major Subdivision and Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the Willow Pass Business Park project as follows: A. General Plan Amendment#GP 030001: Request to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map land use designation for approximately 26.5 acres from Light Industrial (LI)to Mixed Use (MU), change the land useldesignation for approximately 2.3 acres from Agricultural Lands(AL) to MU,change the land use designation for approximately 2.2 acres from Open Space (OS)to MU, change the land use designation of approximately 9.4 acres from LI to OS and amend the text of the General Plan to be consistent with the changes in land'use designations. B. Rezoning#RZ 043151: Request to rezone the 66.55-acre project site from Light Industrial District(L-I) and General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit District(P-1); C. Major Subdivision#SD 048918: Appeal of the County Planning Commission's approval of a request to subdivide 66.55 acres into 18 mixed-use office/commercial/light industrial lots, within which there could be up to 70 condominium lots,and several common ownership parcels containing shared infrastructure; and D. Preliminary and Final Development Plan#DP 043096: Request to develop up to 357,500 square feet of office, commercial and light industrial uses in no more than 18 condominium-type buildings, five of which could be up to 68 feet in height. The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California,generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): j The location of the subject site is along1the north side of Evora Road between the Contra Costa Canal and the intersection of Evora Road and Willow Pass Road, in the Concord area. For purposes of compliance with the previsions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance(no Environmental Impact Report required) has been issued for this project. If you challenge this matter in court, you may be limited to.raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, March 21, 2006, at 1:15 p.m.in Room 108,Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to(1) answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve,or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Will Nelson, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1208 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 20, 2006 to confirm your participation. Date: March 8, 2006 i John Cullen, Clerk of the i Board of Supervisors and County Administrator B y , � I Katherin6 inclair, Deputy Clerk I I i NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS . CONCORD AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,March 21,2006 at 1:45 p.m. in the County Administration Building, Room 107, 651 Pine Street, (Comer of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: j THOMAS/DeNOVA, LLC(Applicant, Owner&Appellant), County File Nos. GP 030001, RZ.043151, SD.048918& DP043096: Applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Major Subdivision and Preliminary and Final Development Plan'for the Willow Pass Business Park project as follows: A. General Plan Amendment#GP 030001: Request to change the General Plan Land Use Element Map land.use designation for approximately 26.5 acres from Light Industrial (LI)to Mixed Use (MU),change the land use designation for approximately 2:3 acres ,. from Agricultural Lands(AL)to MU, change the land use designation for approximately 2.2 acres from Open Space (OS)to MU, change the land use designation of approximately 9.4 acres from LI to OS and amend the text of the General Plan to be consistent with the changes in land use designations. B. Rezoning#RZ 043151: Request to rezone the 66.55-acre project site . from Light Industrial District(L-1)and General Agricultural District (A-2)to Planned Unit District(P-1); C. Major Subdivision #SD 048918: Appeal of the County Planning Commission's approval of a request to subdivide 66.55 acres into 18 mixed-use office/commercial/light industrial lots,within which there could be up to 70 condominium lots,and several common ownership .. parcels containing shared!infrastructure; and D. Preliminary and Final Development Plan#DP 043096: Request to develop up to 357,500 square feet of office, commercial and light industrial uses in no more than 18 condominium-type buildings, five of which could be up to 68 fI eet in height. I The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California,generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development,County Administration'Building, Martinez, California):. The location of the subject site is along the north side of Evora Road between the Contra Costa Canal and the intersection of Evora Road and Willow Pass Road, in the Concord area. For purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance(no Environmental Impact Report required)has been issued for this project. If you challenge this matter in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, March 21;2006, at 1:15 p.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, to meet with any interested parties inlorder to (1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, ounarrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call Will Nelson,Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1208 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 20, 2006 to confirm your participation. Date: March 8, 2006 ; John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By l'�, Z.tiLC� �Lc�' Katherine-Sinclair,Deputy Clerk; i i i I , is 1 - I WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK , 1 INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION np` �'�+�,�,,• .' ',y��:'°,� ,,,_ �,� .err•° I ' Contra Costa County File Numbers General Plan Amendment No. GP030001 o Rezoning No. RZ043151 ' Subdivision No. SD048918 Development Plan No. DP043096 I , LSA 1 ' August 2005. I i I i 1 I DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION i TO: 15 Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 3 County,Clerk,Contra Costa County FROM: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,4th Floor—North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 tProject Title: Willow Pass Business Park Applicant: Thomas/DeNova LLC. Project Location: Willow Pass Business Park is proposed within the unincorporated area of ' Contra Costa County, northeast of the City of Concord. The project site is located along Evora Road and adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal, immediately northwest of the State Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange.'The entire project site is within the Urban Limit Line of Contra Costa County; Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 099-160-015, -019, -020,-025, -028 and -029. Project Description: The project applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Rezoning, a Major Subdivision and the Preliminary and Final Development Plan for the Willow Pass Business Park(County Files #GP030001, #RZ043151, #SD048918 and #DP043096). Areas currently designated Light Industrial, Agricultural Lands and Open Space would be changed to Mixed Use to allow the development of a 325,000 to 357,500 square foot mixed-use. business ' park including uses such as light industrial, warehouse commercial, office, restaurant and retail spaces. The proposed project involves construction of 10 to 14 buildings up to 68 feet in height. The existing six parcels would be subdivided into 14 lots. Previously prepared environmental documents have evaluated many of the larger changes to the project site. In 1987 an EIR was prepared for the Lesher Park General Plan Amendment (County File #13-85-CO) for proposed land use designation change for the property from Open Space to ' Light Industrial for the purpose of developing a newspaper printing facility known as Lesher Park. The General Plan Amendment was approved, however, none of the proposed development occurred. In 2002 an Initial Study was prepared for the annexation of the project site into the ' Delta Diablo Sanitation District (Zone 1) and the concurrent detachment of the site from the Central Contra Costa County Sanitation District. The 2002 Initial Study included the evaluation of the grading of the site and extension of public services. tFinding: Based on the attached Initial Study, it has been found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment as mitigated. See mitigation measures within the Initial Study and the attached Consent Agreement for Mitigation Measures (Appendix WilliaAmR.4es Senior Planner Date Contra Costa County Community Development Department I, I I i 1 I; 1 i ' WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT MITIGATIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Contra Costa County File Numbers General Plan Amendment No. GP030001 Rezoning No. RZ043151 ' Subdivision No. SD048918 Development Plan No. DP043096 ' Submitted to: ' Contra Costa County Community Development Department Administrative Building 651 Pine Street ' 2nd Floor- North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1295 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 ' 510.540.7331 LSA 1 ' August 2005 I i I i ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...............................................................................:.......................I A. SUMMARY INFORMATION..........................................................................................1 ' 1. AESTHETICS !......................................................................................................20 II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................22 III. AIR' QUALITY..............................:.......................................................................25 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...............................................................................32 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES..................................................................................35 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............:......................................................... VII. HAZARDS .....!......................................................................................................40 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.............................:.............................45 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING............................:...........::...................................48 X. MINERAL RESOURCES.....................................................................................49 XI. NOISE.............!..................................................................................................:...50 XII. POPULATIONI AND HOUSING..........................................................................56 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES .............................................................................................57 XIV. RECREATION ...... 58 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC............................................. ............................59 ' XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS..............................................................75 XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE............................................:..79 B. REPORT PREPARERS...................................................................................................81 C. BIBLIOGRAPHY....I.......................................................................................................82 i APPENDICES j ' Appendix A: Agency Project Comments Appendix B: Mitigation Measure Agreement j i I I P:%CCC570TRODUCiSUS-MND\Public\Public Rc%im IS-NMD.dw(8/70!2005) ] 1 i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUCUBT 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FI , GURES Figure 1: Project Vicinity and/Regional Location .................................................................2 Figure2: Aerial Photograph................................................................................................:...5 , Figure 3: Proposed Project Subdivision,Rezoning and General Plan Amendment................7 Figure4: Site Topography.......................................................................................................8 Figure 5: Landscape Concept..................................................................................................9 Figure 6: Proposed Building Elevations......................................... Figure 7: Visual Simulations.................................................................................................23 , Figure 8: Existing Traffic Volumes.......................................................................................61 Figure 9: Project Trip Distribution and Project Trips...........................................................66 Figure 10: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes..................................................................67 Figure 11: 2025 Baseline(No Project)Traffic Volumes........................................................71 ' Figure 12: 2025 Plus Project Traffic Volumes........................................................................72 TABLES Table 1: Willow Pass Business Park Proposed Uses.....................................................................13 1 Table 2: Willow Pass Gas Station Proposed Uses.........................................................................15 Table 3: Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10....................................29 ' Table 4: Mobile Source Emissions(]b/day)...................................................................................29 Table 5: 2005 CO Hot Spot Analysis...............:.............................................................................31 Table 6: 2025 CO Hot Spot Analysis.............................................................................................31 Table 7: Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels(Lmax)...................................51 ' Table 8: Existing No Project Traffic Noise Levels........................................................................53 Table 9: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels......................................................................53 Table 10: Year 2025 Baseline No Project Traffic Noise Levels......................................................54 ' Table 11: Year 2025 Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels.........................................:.........................54 Table 12: LOS/Delay at Unsignalized Intersections........................................................................60 Table 13: Existing LOS Summary............................................................... 60 ' Table 14: Trip Generation Summary......................:........................................................................62 Table 15: Existing Plus Project LOS Summary...............................................................................68 Table 16: 2025 LOS Summary...............................................:........................................................70 ' Table 17: 2025 Plus Project LOS Summary....................................................................................70 1 1 P:\CCC530\PRODUCfSUS-MND\Public\Public Re.iew IS-NMDAa(9/3012005) ' 1 I ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I i ' A. SUMMARY INFORMATION I 1. Project Title: Willow Pass iBusiness Park ' General Plan Amendment No. GP030001 Rezoning No. RZ043151 Subdivision No. SD0489181)evelopment Plan No.DP043096 I ' 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Community Development Department ' McBrien Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4`h Floor—North Wing ' Martinez,CA 94553-1295 I 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: I ' William R.Nelson, Senior Planner Phone: (925)335-1208 4. Project Location: Willow Pass Business Park is proposed within the unincorporated area of ' Contra Costa County, northeast of the City of Concord. The project site is located along Evora Road and adjacent to the Contra Costa Canal, immediately northwest of the State Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange, as shown in Figure 1. The entire project site is within the Urban Limit Line of Contra Costa County. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 099-160-015, -019, -020, -025, -028 and-029 5. Project Sponsor's Name aind Address: Thomas/Denova,LLC ' 3100 Oak Road, Suite#140 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 1 ' 6. Existing General Plan Designations: Light Industrial (LI), Agricultural Lands (AL) and Open Space(OS) 7. Existing Zoning: L-1 Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District I i I I P:ICCC530%PRODUCfSUS-Mh-Dftblicftblic Review IS-NNO.dm(8!!0/2005) 1 I \ 1 1 CONCORD \ .. .� Comma 1 ♦ I ;o A��,,k'NN A_ _ \♦ Lin/. ♦ III 1\ ldount`� J/ Rp 9 p, V CO H 1 GOLF.- %!'' ' ;..��-! COURSE, :'..:. }�'::�`` �.�--•--'" �\K ,� C N OR 1 BART 1NOVSTRIAL ,I,AEN CIR '�P 4ey EAYVEW CARCLE @A/NT R'9Mic O,Q ' cf o o� 0 U.S.NAVAL R o R ' WEAPONS STATION :,; s ' CONCORD REGIONAL LOCATION y�0 PARK-- R IDE G N OFaFIYId ' Z � ' O C NCORD fspf p� pRf A .. .F .. ;.CaKai7 OA,. PWAM MBCA e.�wei.r a wpm a a.r v � � A o SnF. J ItiCr L S A FIGURE 1 LEGEND ' N ® PROJECT ARTA Willow Pass Business Park ------- RESTRICTEDEOAD Project Vicinity and 0� 12�s25 _ _ _ _ UNPAVED ROAD Regional Location ' MILE SOURCE: LSAASSOCIATES,INC.,2005. IACCC 530 Willow PassTigures\Fig_l.ai(4/21/05) ' i i LSA A990CIATE9, INC. WILLOW PASSBUSINESS PARK AUGU9T 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT !LITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' 8. Description of Project: Existing Conditions and Setting ' The project site consists of 6 parcels comprising 66.55 acres, all of which are owned by Thomas/Denova LLC. Thel site is located on hilly terrain north of Evora Road, as shown in Figure 2. The site contains Ian abandoned gun club with one small building and parking area. ' A Frito Lay warehouse/distribution facility (which is not a part of this project) has been approved on land surrounded by the project site. The Frito Lay facility has not yet been constructed and the timetable for construction is unknown at this time. The project site and the undeveloped open space to the north and east of the project site drains into an existing storm watei detention basin and fresh water.pond in the northwest portion of ' the site. Runoff flows to the detention basin and freshwater pond through a conveyance system of bioswales and concrete lined channels. All runoff leaving the detention basin and freshwater pond is directed to a 30-inch storm drain line that passes under the Contra Costa Canal to the southwest of the project site The southern and western portions of the site have been graded and are covered mainly by grasses, with two trees on the southwest portion of the site. The northeastern portion of the site ' consists of grass-covered hills which have.historically been used as grazing land. Access to the project site is provided from Willow Pass Road and Evora Road, both located on the southern edge of the site. Primary utility infrastructure systems for storm drainage, sewage disposal, public utilities, domestic and fire water have been installed. The General Plan designation for the site is Light Industrial (LI), Agriculture Lands (AL) and Open Space (OS) and the site is currently zoned Light Industrial District (L-1) and General Agriculture District (A-2). lApproximately 31 acres of the northern portion of the site (the hill slope areas and along the northern border) are to be designated as restricted development areas ' under a conservation easement. In 1988, a General Plan Amendment was approved to redesignate 63 acres of the site from OS to LI for a newspaper printing facility, while retaining 20 acres of the project site.as Open Space. ' Prior Environmental Documentation In 1987, an E1R was prepared for the Lesher Park General Plan Amendment(County File #13- 85-CO) for a proposed land use designation change for the property from Open Space to Light Industrial for the purpose of developing a newspaper printing facility known as Lesher Park. The project evaluated in the EIR involved the land use designation change to Light Industrial to allow for the development of 74 of that site's 78 total acres. The proposed development ' consisted of 743,000 gross lsquare feet in six two-story buildings. These buildings were to be used by Lesher Communications, Inc., a newspaper publisher, and other industrial uses. A two- story 230,000 square foot building was planned on the central portion of the site and a 15,000 square foot garage would have been constructed adjacent to the central building. An additional 498,000 square feet of development in five buildings was proposed for other parts of the project area, and each of the buildings were to have been surrounded by surface parking areas for 1,456 ' cars. In 1988 the Lesher Park General Plan Amendment was approved, however, none of the proposed development occurred. I I P:ICCC570\FRODUCTSUS-MNDWublic%Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8 f30/2005) 3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 An Initial Study was prepared by Donaldson Associates in 2002 for the annexation of the , project site into the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (Zone 1) and the concurrent detachment of the site from the Central Contra Costa County Sanitation District. To reflect changes in environmental regulations since 1987 and to provide more recent information, biological ' surveys for California Red-legged frog, Burrowing Owl, California Tiger Salamander and special-status plant species were performed for the project site. Subsequent mitigation monitoring for.Burrowing Owl habitat and wetlands,and waterways ' under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and .Game has occurred and summary reports have been prepared. Information from these , documents is incorporated in this Initial Study. The Bibliography for this Initial Study includes the full titles of prior environmental documen- tation completed for the project site and referenced in this Initial Study. :These source documents. are available for review at the Contra Costa County Community.Development Department during regular business hours. Proposed Project The proposed project is a 325,000 to 375,500 square foot mixed-use business park including ' land uses such as light industrial, warehouse commercial, office, restaurant and retail spaces, as shown in-Figures 3 and 4. The proposed project entails construction of 10 to 14 buildings, two of which.could be up to 30 feet tall, seven of which could be up to 50 feet tall and five of which could be up-.to 68 feet tall. Conceptual site plans and building elevations are shown in Figures , 5 and 6. The existing six parcels would be subdivided into 14 lots and.would require final grading permits. Approximately 37 acres contained in the six parcels would not.be developed, as these are Restricted Development Areas with recorded conservation easements. Within the ' 29 acres that would be developed for the Willow Pass Business Park, the building areas would have 25.percent lot coverage. Applications for building permits and final grading permits have been submitted for a building on the proposed Lot 1. ' Approximately 31 acres of the hill slope areas on the northeastern portion of the site have been set aside as a "Restricted Development Area." The proposed project does not include APNs ' 099-160-026 and 099-160-027, the Frito Lay building pad, as it has been entitled under a separate application(County File 4LP012108). a. Business Park. The Planned Unit District(P-1) entails the creation of 14 lots. Two lots ' on the southeastern corner would be developed with a gas station and. a retail building, as detailed below. The business park buildings and parking areas would be located on the central ' and southern portions of the project site, on the existing rough graded pads. Access to the business park lots would be from Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. The uses of these lots may range from .office to ancillary retail, restaurant and/or take-out food/quick service establishments, clinical, controlled manufacturing, fabrication or assembly, storage or , warehousing,research, light industrial, distribution and other similar functions as detailed in the development plan application available for review at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Table 1 lists the proposed uses by lot. ' 1 P:\CCC530\PRODUCIS\IS-MND\Public\Public Roicu IS-NMD.dm(8130/2005) 4 X o � �.;.� V-A '�' b. \ '+.`> >. ,� i ', •�►' ,111+� C 4•. r J{ � ���, } "� .,• .�.tiff_ 'a\`�` 't i�-� ^r f Id:1 �! s'y;l';;;jl�.•r. ! ,:: '.'''ti:�'�is�=:;%'y�,�.: .� � :. .i ,�• '1 -� [¢��1 art!";�(,''... .�rr+r�:\'! \�\ \ �� :tr. ,.. �.+ d J�l'�. ,1.YfT .j� y�^y.••Y s!y CIA Nk t' Ak - ,f„�-!•G4.' ;h.:\:: 61 t }+�� 1 :�:. .lr', '/; �.W � �"±'�" f ry•.`;;�.yq''' �,t'�'t'�i�RT'i,� ` � r"' �;, �. �;; >«.�.z ♦�,. .:\K =f ;i,},�'� y °"•�"` titer ''tiyy�j,. �' 6' ���:.irl � ♦ r wip . ,• •'\r. ; rj {'r�5, t sit'„. ,:R:`, zea. �:"" -'ss�'` r.� a ,�. Y`x�',p �: s ♦ .� 'n �f T' �° '..;.� ,; t,k, iP:t.; tl';:�' 4�y•;T �\1 �' o .e` �i•'a'':i i.' _\• ; R' jp j !?i�;�,:t+�3,�r.3t+�,::'�-`� ,•+rp. `J.'�',�•' ..\l ",,\"q o �� .Z .`.' i` 'yt\ 'r�' .r i4"1i1i""'�; •'�) � �\ 4��<�� �l � \ ,D Qa '/,r, . '��', •�� �. '._.'c::ti'-,�'' -. `\� �'� 4'�... x'4'11 'ir+ 'e $ � '{.�\\�. •q \. 0+ Oa 7 5 .;k � `� ,l+ �G'J l.ittl���' '^cw�1:5iR� ti",jam e���:• M p ;t�;r ;' a •--s,•�t�� �� •�s•`�1,.� �d:,ri:,f��.�. r,' ".;rk:' J J' 'x _.a+'`;r..:�: A•, %' •��.. 'k. �;e'� t�,T+. a: i h �k� �� :,fir•.j� .t:�, t ;,•A" z ,`tit. � '��, M�: �!:'_ b�tn. �: �.sf '�; ��;,?''x'r;it*' yv .�. , i 1 - o cc b'O F Nbi 3 N 1 Wo WW� d 1 u u � W- lol oar a a GQ a fig -jib 1 y� � -,I�� ' • day i 91-11 LEN VE t = 1 �Y k 1 _ a: ti .IIW�Ny.. - fi I`\ .:d t ,a 1 17 R ad Jig. as �v ig ► � C Ig rril U 1 x y bn ' ,�.•--',�` :�!%J I��`;' .�'�'..:� •� �-_ .... _ � '.�: ,h:� to � to r :'� :';�l �1;; .iT`'i;fl;,+I fir:, �rj�f�w\:.y;-,-:'.� - ^�•>>� ::�:':^=. �'.t'i!';`f ',it/ 0• sig'!1 +,yii ^ti ..---�-'�\ '4.��... ..t !j.�f s i i`! .�!I;''}r,'�;.1.';11�i�(1'k'�.r�,�' (��� :� :. :;"�.:'��•s�I `''rw.;..�. fIT ff `J,. f• ,/is ,. �':1• �. . --�-'-'"'•ii,f.'., "�/'.,��::' :•',;i ..� tit:1?!'��•7��!'w�:, P-iy.r` � i ��iy x =4a:� ^tgr // ir•!i' .i y 1 t j'7?T4af�'i'q.;:^•+ Y t' \, _ - i<yi?:;ir�•��Y / '�!1'`,uI1 � II d:>,..r o � .,.;:`l �_- =g.'idsj•, �� l�k tr;ft; w• r•r.rr.;,y�e�� �:?a' - d =_- --= ,y�'�z,,i/,�,� ';rl+ti`'! ¢'IuJI`F?i,: 'x Sx. s C9 � Z .,•:�r,' L.\ �'!.fes/';%'�-� '�/rr,;�lt,ir ,moi�il'�'•"'M hi°-"r!; C w �• {/ /ii17 -'T��.+1 � .,:, {*"1 ./ ':��''� 7/ '�'�, tri;ir!:f.:: ,.; f"/,.;:Q 1� ^q • !?t')I��� L, 'iti3'�. f / \',: ./1(• 'I 'Ll. r/ q ; r'7 W t ,rr ,�'-.Y_.y'a. .f.,.,. i i•, '! ¢+' � ^ �''`I;C:�!jj'�I' /1/,r!7 Irl "i`s, ! N 1.,�,.d .Il'1 �'J ;�' 1 �Cf=%i� >��ItY,.r 'TA � ��i.:�- •��}�/;, -?'HsE�.•.'•t i t� � xt:nx��:. �� U1 2�•.U.} �.4Z,.`.j;�`, ,�-•.__. '1!1 'i' i t t/i 1 i j �,.t•,�,",r ,:*�:.x t`.",�� - h - til' (�� �:i1' u�j'i!;1 •,`'\5.(°'�:t��-:7+h`.:,�,,C,-r^>Af�+.c' f� 4'',�r O j`b'. •_ ,.. .•I,}t��I"�`ti': !t, ..'1 1 1 i':;I;:,�N �'. 1 � y `' � ....t`�.�1'-.i ,f;l;iti... ;.,,.ti'i ri'I�i l+i!t '!�`\ :i 1t9;YUiy .�-E•::�:, -" Yi'6d^r' _r'�'`�'rt� :��` 7^,.�fa..fit;./ t' 't � ,.114,.4,i 1,i 't/, � \ I v� `:, 'rft'; M.��ta� ��;���•�•�•.,�..,1 .• ' rf 'rlt> �".*O k Zi 'S . .;4 .` C lft:5�;'� -.--�`i/;:.1�^:''i}' r7� 1/-+A� '•`•0..�'E i^t„N N. ".,,..�. �!i ,tet. •..�'�ffi..-�: "_ /).;'. � i�0�•Ngr::'W-�•--.:.::'.:-_` �'i•iii�1. fie :""5.. r �/ '�j=.:�W�-=_:Vis-„ . W 3r�r 3 i ts \".i:\lit h`.,�e,•,\�� .�, ;^ �' c••., u� ♦: G l ''ii 14 + 'f p L�'' ��� �� � _.�� —`f'�•I GAG ��� �` 'As , � '�� �5� CSI V • r r O - ' IIIIIIIIIIIII " o0 p I�� �Wiiii ■■■NMIEN ME ■MCI it ��■I'i `l ooaa ® a IIP,_ ro � ® iii .�_ illlllllllllll o ���' � �� • .■f 0000000 � OEM ONE ■::■�� lI ■■■ I 1 O IIIIIIIIIIIII I �� I„1■� 111 I !IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII Mill NEE ONE l � E - ■■■ '' illlllllllllll �� illE I il■::Is; �l ■IN I:'■ IIIIIIIIIIIIII ���11S ■■■NEE ■■ !+�� !Ji�L LJL� M���� IIIIIIIIIIIIII MEMO mo ■° Illl�mi�lll un ■■me■■ I■..111::: � ■■ ®Ime iLE m■1 • Ili■■■�■■ MMLA1111I - INAU i i i �z o a.. <r r C14 N O N C N N O N O N C N m m> I ' °zQ I ad I 3F ' o Q L) m m 3 f G c G y G c c c u cE tx G a •L 4 .K 4� S 4 -C G. -C Q � G. � P. G � N Z cc L LN N L I Ny .N., L cn N En 0 m ca co •U 00^ U C G C C G G G G C G C V G G K O o 'C 's 's � ; c �a r c a ea CO C7, •• v > v U > ^ N > u N > v N > U N > U U > u o O E w .c U U 'O y C ca U C ea U C eaU F ca U C is U G ca U G is U 0 0 N ca y C fn ca y ca m ca v ca rn ca N G > EN ° EEN �n EN E � ^ G ca G N Cp 'CO lyN NN ycp 'bK yN N pN 'CO yU NU pcN '.�O.. cUn NN ^N(�a` b w N N NlN N N N mN N v. NNN N ay 'bNG N N N Ny \V3' p N s c s c s c s S s 5 k o o o 3 2 'y o V1 y N �c h U N i.G N' N y y N .O y y N .0 N y N .0 N y' N .D G > C N ^� E E E E E E E E c E �a G C p .GczG .G C G .G C G .G ed G .G C .S n G ' `o c 0 o c Lo c a o c o � .EL a �.._ o � .. E 3 E N N P y ca N A y ca ca p h 0 m ,.t] vl Co ca p y C A .D y CO M a N Co M 'b 0 y ,b v' cn ,b 0 y „p H y O p 0 06 C y U b G h U b K U `� G H U � G y U 'S7 N cc0„ ca G G ca G C co G G ca G G ca C G ca a C ca C C ca .•fl ... y b .� y o b .� r.Cj o b .� G.•C .� y C 'O ^ W •G N L cd y ca C a7 y W G Y c c y c G y A G C N C > 3 o v 3 0. 3 0 S o y 3 0 3 0 3 0 ° •�, N .v' •�.N .^ •y N .�-• N .N .N .N.. .N N F- ro) N d b w ti E 4 y E c-+ y E �-. w E c«. y 4 4 G Acl N OL G h G N in Q L �'., K Q L a G Q L a. K Q L a. G Q L a. G Q L a K Q L �••� G Q Q L m x dD N 00 V1 00 O C !F �O V1 C aLA s h y L 00 V'1 C j M 0000 oC et cP y a eq X z � i m I , d N M et vi �O [� 00 O\ G 0 � I a mm `� I I I I I 1 Z. ao n W O N O N O N O N p N h w� O1� u m u n Q+ « 3y O t- O n O O O O Y O o z .a .30 �w 3F < F , m CIS L� U �-• G O G O CO G U O U O U U < v u WQ U F C O y0 NO G 0 F. ` oq oq ou en _ co m L Cd 4" Chd U L LyV' L LV+V = L a� � .b y �•. ca cd �, .b ed �, ' It u h C b to G b e^VL C ,O ed C -p e^a C cd G.0 C C.0 G C.0 C G.0 'O 'C .0 eti 'G .0 O 'G O 'C .0 ev RS U > U 11-0 L U y U M y U M y U [Ctl y U E E u E u E u i E u o y NH N y U Vi U 0 = N U U U 0 0 0 0 s �c s 0 3 ^ " 0 3 � "�, 0 3 ^ '�, 3 ^ 'v', 0 b .E a 0 C a 0 C a O C G O G G O C yC13 U y y 8 p y fd h b U N N U_ C in U 'C7 G y U 'b ' y O y p y ::s p cC0 O G eCO U U O _ i O G f0 s4. O C O O G R1 F„ QS 3 G N Y ld C cd 0 3 ° i = lu = u u H a> L L Q o 0o rn oN %0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0o N Iq P r- 1O/1 O 1� ct tn •= O c C $ O 0 00 M 00 -n n O r O L O T ON N 00 V ON N O ' Q v1 �t N [� et a� N N y C Y: V1 N O Ch M 0000 C-4 OMen O OC U u rr �] z e �1 L <o 0 0 o N ri V � •o is c � e m y <o 0 0 0 C; .O P: a< E� Q U A W rig a �n d, i ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' b. Gas Station and jRetail. This component of the project includes a gas station/convenience store and drive-thru fast-food building, a freestanding car wash and a freestanding fuel island canopy on the southeastern portion of the project site, at the corner of ' Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. A multi-tenant retail building is proposed.on the adjacent parcel to the northwest of the gas station along Willow Pass Road. i The gas station site design would provide access . Table 2: Willow Pass Gas Station Proposed for merchandise and fuel I delivery trucks and Uses other vehicles (see Table 24 The gas station Building ' Area would have two driveway's, providing access Pro posed Use ArSea from Willow Pass Road, and one additional Gas station/retail building 4,992 access point from Evora Road. Fuel tanker truck Car wash 900 access is the primaryii consideration in Ld reest ndin canopy at fuel islands 4,200 determining the proposedl driveway locations ulti-tenant retail buildinp�including 6,416 and interior parking lot design for the gas rive-u food service window station. Source:Thomas/Denova LLC,2004 and 2005. The fuel system would consist of two double wall fiberglass storage tanks with a total storage capacity of 42,000' gallonsI The site would have 10 fuel dispensers. The underground piping would also be double wall*!construction with a monitoring system. Per California installation and monitoring requirements, which are more stringent than those required by the federal government,all sumps would be double walled and monitored in addition to the pipe and tanks. All monitoring systems would be set for positive shutdown, which sends an alarm and shuts down the entire fueling system any time the monitor goes into alarm mode. The car wash would use standard car wash cleaning chemicals, and utilize a reclaim system for water recycling. The reclaim system would typically recycle 60 to 80 percent of the water used in a car wash cycle depending on the brand of car wash equipment used. The water would be run through a sand/oil separator and a water clarifier before it is discharged to the sewer ' system. I The gas station building would contain a convenience store and a fast food facility with both indoor seating and a drive-up window. There would be take-out food served from both areas of this building. The establishment and maintenance of a take-out food establishment would require approval of a separate land use permit. 1 The second parcel within the gas station component would be developed with amulti-tenant retail building with one drive-up window. The building would be anticipated to contain one or ' more take-out food businesses. The building is currently designed to accommodate up to six tenants. ' Both retail buildings would be situated towards Willow Pass Road to limit the visibility of the parking areas from the public right-of-way and landscape berms along Willow Pass Road would further hide the drive through lanes. Rear elevations of the buildings that face Willow Pass Road would be designed to provide a more aesthetically pleasing appearance than the ' service entrance to the building. Landscaping would be included to improve the appearance of the site. The sites would require final grading. I I P:\CCC370\PRODUCTSVS-MNDV'ubliNPublic Review IS-NFID.doc(6l30/2003) 1 I i 111 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION . C. Water Supply. The water supply for the project site would be from two on-site wells ' . PPY P J as well as the Contra Costa County fresh water canal. Approximately 1/3 of the water for the site would be drawn from the wells for potable use and 2/3 of the water for the site would be ' drawn.from the canal. The two on-site wells, which are about 1/3 mile apart, have been drilled to a depth of approximately 320 feet. The drilling of the wells was monitored by the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Services Department, which also reviewed and approved ' the flow rates and the test results from the water samples taken after the wells were drilled. Flows rates from the wells have been measured at about 125 to 130 gallons per minute(GPM). Water is pumped from about 280 feet below ground surface to a well house, which is adjacent ' to the project site's western access road. The water is chlorinated in the well house before it enters the piping system leading up to the 750,000 gallon holding tank on top of the hill overlooking the project site and located in the "Restricted Development Area." An electronic ' system would control the cycling of the pumps, the level of the water in the tank and the rate at which water is chlorinated. The high elevation of the holding tank (approximately 100 feet above the building sites) provides sufficient pressure for the tank to feed each of the building ' sites by gravity. The size of the 750,000 gallon holding tank was predicated on the water supply required to fight a fire in a 100,000 square foot building, plus a reserve of 150,000 gallons. The cost of operating and maintaining the water system will be prorated amongst the ' owners and tenants within the project site, in accordance with the recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(CC&R's). The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) fresh water canal, which runs along the south- ' western boundary, would provide approximately 2/3 of the water supplies to the project site. On July 20, 2005 the CCWD Board authorized the CCWD to enter into a Raw Water Service ' Agreement with Thomas/DeNova and Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP for an estimated annual average use of 27,000 gallons per day (30.24 acre-feet per year). This agreement includes terms to locate, design, construct and pay for a turnout from the Contra Costa Canal; to locate, design, construct and maintain equipment associated with water flow and distribution; and to , make water service payments to the CCWD. Thomas/DeNova, LLC has signed the agreement and Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP is anticipated to sign. The project site lies within the service area of the CCWD. Additional water supplies could be ' obtained either by connecting to the existing water supply system for the Concord Naval Weapons Station located directly across the canal to the southwest of the project site or by ' installing a new pipe along Willow Pass Road to connect to a CCWD stub. The neighboring system is operated by the Navy, which is currently seeking proposals from outside agencies or parties to take over the management, operations and possibly ownership of the system. In this ' case, it is a possibility that additional water supplies could be accessed with a pipe underneath the CCWD canal. The option of.drilling more wells on the project site also exists, should the need arise for t additional water. d. Stormwater System. A storm water conveyance and detention system for the site was ' developed as part of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District project. A storm water detention basin P:\CCC530\PRODUCfS',IS.NIND\Wblic\Public Rede.IS•NUD.d.(1/70/2005) 16 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR AUCU9T 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' and freshwater pond are located in the northwestern corner of the project site. The storm water . detention basin is .designed !with a capacity.of approximately 3.5 acre-feet of runoff. It is approximately 440 feet long' and 160 feet wide with a maximum depth of 6 feet. The fresh water pond is located west of the detention basin and is smaller, 260 feet by 70 feet with a depth of two feet. An engineered drainage system conveys surface runoff from the site to the detention basin and fresh water pond. Vegetated bioswales, concrete lined channels and a ' storm drain pipe system would surround the buildings and parking lots and follow the toe of both natural and graded slopes throughout the site. Runoff from 75 percent of the site would be directed to the stormwater detention basin, where it would be collected in permeable basins to ' allow for evaporation, infiltration and controlled release into the existing 30 inch storm drain that passes beneath the Contra Costa Canal for eventual discharge into Mt. Diablo Creek. Drainage from the Gun Club site and the western project entrance road would be collected in ' drainage swales and sub-surface drains for discharge directly into the storm drain beneath the canal, bypassing the detention system. Surface runoff from Evora Road, the Streuli parcel (099-160-020) and the freeway embankments would flow to an existing stormwater system south of the project site then to a culvert that passes under the freeway embankment and flows ' south to Diablo Creek. I Approximately 37 acres of the hill slope areas on the northeastern portion of the site have been set aside as a "Restricted Development Area" and surface runoff from these hillsides on- and off-site would be collected in the detention basin and fresh water pond. ' e. General Plan. The General Plan land use designations for the project site are Light Industrial, which allows for light industrial activities such as processing, packaging, distribution, warehousing, storage, research and development, Agricultural Lands, which allows for the establishment of agricultural uses and Open Space, which places severe limitations on development. f. Construction and Phasing Details of the construction and phasing are not known at this time. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that construction would take 15 to 18 months. In the event that on-site buildout were to take place over a longer time period, environmental impacts would generally be less severe. ' g. Approvals. County approvals necessary for the proposed project include: I • A General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation for the developable areas of the site to Mixed Use while retaining the Open Space designation over the hilly, undevelopable:portions; A Rezoning from L-I Light Industrial District and A-2 General Agricultural District to P-1 Planned Unit District; ' . A Major Subdivision to create 14 lots; • A Preliminary and Final Development Plan to allow construction and operation of a mixed- use business park; ' . A Land Use permit -to allow the operation and maintenance of a take-out food establishment; and � P:%CCC5301PRODUCTSIIS-M1dDIPublidPubli,Rnie IS-NMD.d.(8!'30/2005) 17 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGU9T 1007 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION • Possible Land Use permits to allow the storage and use of hazardous materials on-site. ' 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project is located in unincorporated northern Contra Costa County,just beyond ' the Concord City Limit and within its Sphere of Influence. The project site is located northwest of the Highway 4/Willow Pass Road interchange, and is surrounded by the following land uses: ' • North. The areas north of the project site are privately owned grazing lands. East. The Los Medanos Gas Fields are located to the east of the project site, beneath land owned by PG&E. The land is used for grazing and consists of the hills leading up to ' Willow Pass on Highway 4. • South. Immediately to the south of the project site is Evora Road; beyond that is Highway 4. Across Highway 4, farther south of the project site is developed and undeveloped land ' occupied by the Concord Naval Weapons Station. • West. The project site is bounded on the west by the Contra Costa Canal and the City ' Limit of Concord. Developed areas within the Concord Naval Weapons Station are located west of the canal, and the Diablo Creek Golf course is further to the west of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, participa- tion agreement,etc.): ' The following is a list of federal, state, regional and local agencies from which permits may be required prior to construction and/or operation of the proposed project: • United States Department of the Interior—Bureau of Reclamation ' United States Army Corps of Engineers • California Department of Transportation California Department of Fish& Game ' Regional Water Quality Control Board Bay Area Air Quality Management District Contra Costa County Public Works Department ' • Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department • Contra Costa County Health Services Department—Environmental Health Division Contra Costa County Health Services Department—Hazardous Materials Division ' • Contra Costa Water District • Delta Diablo Sanitary District The following agencies are,or will be, involved in the review of the project: ' 49 Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District , East Bay Regional Park District • California Historic Resources Information System P'%CCC5301PRODUCTSUS-MNDIPublicWublic Rni—IS-NMD.d.(8!70/2003) 18 LOA A770CIATE7.'INC. WILLOW PA77 EUtIN E77 PARK AUCU7T 7000 INITIAL STUDY/DRAPT MITIGATED MEG TIV! D.CLARATION Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: ' The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the ' following pages. O Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality O Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils ' 0 Hazards&Hazardous 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning Materials 0 Noise 0 Population/Housing 0 Mineral Resources 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic 0 Public Services 0 Mandatory Findings of ' 0 Utilities/Service Systems Significance ' Determination. On the basis of this initial evaluation: ' 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ' there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ' 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL RVIPACT REPORT is required. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or ' m tigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. ' Signature Date William R.Nelson, Senior Planner Community Development Department,Contra Costa County ' P1CC[5I0WRODUCf5V544NDWuEIigPublicicieolS44)0.doclV262003I 19; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUCU9T 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 Environmental Checklist , Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on-a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ ' b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? ' c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? ' d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact) The Contra Costa County General Plan identifies scenic resources in the County, including ' major ridges and waterways. The project site is not within an area identified in the General Plan as containing scenic ridges or waterways. The northeastern portion of the site consists of moderate slopes while the lower southwest portion of the site consists of graded pads. The ' proposed project involves the development of a business park and gas station on the already. graded portion of the site. Because the project site is not in the vicinity of the scenic resources identified in the General Plan,no impacts to scenic vistas would result. ' b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (No Impact) ' The project site does not include any portions of a State scenic highway and is not located in the vicinity of a State scenic highway.' There are no scenic resources on the project site. ' e) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) ' The existing visual character of the site.consists of graded pads in the foreground with grassy hills, a water tank and several small buildings in the background. There is an existing building ' on-site, which formerly housed a gun club. The visual character to the west is urbanized. To the north and east of the project site are open grassland hills and grazing areas. To the south is Highway 4, and developed and undeveloped areas within the Concord Naval Weapons Station. 1 California Department of Transportation,Califomia Scenic Highway Program. P:\CCC5701PRODUCFSVS•MND\PubliclPublic Review IS-NMD.dm(3/70/2005) 20 ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 1 The proposed project would develop the site with 325,000 to 357,500 square feet of mixed-use business park with a gas station. Ten buildings are currently proposed, though up to 14 could be constructed if each proposed lot were developed with a separate building. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet for Lots 1-7, 30 feet for Lots 8-9 and 68 feet for Lots 1.0-14. The character of the site would change from vacant graded pads.to a business park with landscaped parking and slope areas, as generally shown in Figure 7. The existing pad elevations are as follows: • Lots 1-7 have a slopingt pad elevation at approximately 194 feet.Lots 8 and 9 have pad elevations of 228 and 231 feet,respectively. • Lots 10 and 11 have a sloping pad at approximately 218 feet. • Lots 12 and 13 have an elevation of 175 feet. ' Lot 14 has an elevation of 141 feet. Due to its hillside location, the project site is highly visible from surrounding communities. It is ' also particularly visible to travelers on Highway 4, and especially to those climbing east toward Willow Pass. Given the existing pad elevations and the proposed building height for each lot, the approximately 400-foot ridgeline east of the project would not be broken. ' While there is some scattered development along the hills, large, angular development of the kind proposed is unprecedented and would be a stark contrast to the rolling and undulating background that the hills provide. The proposed development could substantially degrade the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings due to the mass of the.buildings, their angular nature and the potential color schemes. The following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure AES-1: Massive buildings are unprecedented along the subject hillside. Buildings over 50 feet tall shall incorporate design elements to reduce and break ' up the mass. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, proposed plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure AES-2: Angular buildings would contrast sharply with the natural background of rolling hills. In order to lessen the contrast between the building forms and the natural background the proposed architecture shall emphasize curved and rounded forms over angular forms on windows and entries and on crowning features such as rooflines, parapets, etc. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, proposed plans ' shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. ' Mitigation Measure AES-3: The color of the natural background changes with the seasons. To avoid a significant contrast between the colors of the proposed buildings and the changing colors of the natural background, building colors shall be limited to various shades of browns and greens. Color schemes shall be integrated and coordinated to ensure not only that the various buildings complement each other, but that the development as a whole blends into the natural environment. To ensure compliance with this mitigation P:\CCC530U+RODUCTSUS-MND\PubliclPublic Rniew IS-NMD.da(Sf30/2005) 21 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION measure, proposed color schemes shall be submitted for the review and approval of the ' Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. d) . Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime ' views in.the area? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated). The proposed project could create substantial new sources of light and glare in the area. The ' following mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure AES-4: All lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting and ' shielded to minimize glare and the direct view of light sources. Motion detection systems shall be utilized where applicable and light shall not"wash out" onto adjacent properties. Adequate lighting shall be provided in areas of pedestrian activity and at building ' entrances, but shall be minimized elsewhere. Fixtures intended to be lit for long periods of time shall accept low-pressure sodium lamps (or devices with similar properties) and shall not be located at the periphery of the property. Floodlights shall be prohibited and ' no lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, proposed lighting plans shall.be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. t Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1I. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead.agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. ' of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or ' Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California , Resources Agency,to a non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a ' Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature,could result in ' conversion of farmland to tion-agricultural use? 1 1 P:\CCC530\PRODUCTS\IS.MND\Public\Public Renew IS-NMD.dm(3/30/2005) 22 r; t e.. f, u t,.. 4 ' LSAASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Less- Than-Significant Impact) The following analysis is based on information from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ' Program (FMMP).The most recent FMMP data for Contra Costa County is from 2002. According to data from the FMMP, the project site is classified as "Grazing Land." Grazing ' land is the fifth, and least significant, of five categories of agricultural land: 1)Prime Farmland, 2) Farmland of Statewide Importance, 3) Unique Farmland, 4) Farmland of Local Importance and 5) Grazing Land. In 2002, the Department of Conservation calculated that Contra Costa ' County had 100,625 acres of land in the first four categories and 172,368 acres of grazing land. The 41 acres that would be developed as a part of this project would result in the urbanization of less than 0.01 percent of the available grazing land in Contra Costa County. It should be noted that since a significant portion of the site has been graded, the quality of the grazing land ' has been substantially diminished. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert high value farmland to non-agricultural uses. ' b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Less-Than- Significant Impact) The current zoning designation of A-2 General Agricultural District is inconsistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial. Rezoning to P-1 Planned Unit District would be beneficial because it would bring the zoning and General Plan into conformance. The project site is not operated under a Williamson Act contract. ' c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The project site currently has utility infrastructure in place for storm drainage, sewage disposal, ' electricity, domestic water and fire suppression water. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area, or other changes that would result in the conversion of additional agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Potentially significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: ' a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan I P:\CCC550\PRODUCiS\IS-MN''D\Nblic\Public Rlu.IS-NMD.dm(8'50/2005) 25 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGU9T 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact , b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ' c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ ❑ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions , which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ' d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ' number of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less-Than- ' Significant Impact) An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area. The main purpose of an air quality plan is ' to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of federal and State air quality standards. To bring the San Francisco Bay Area region into attainment, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and ' the 2000 Clean Air Plan(CAP). The air quality plans use the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to ' determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the plans are based on local General Plans, projects that are deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan are usually found to be consistent with the air quality plans. Development that would occur under the ' General Plan amendment proposed as part of the project would not significantly change the overall buildout scenario for Contra Costa County envisioned in the County's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic volumes ' above that projected in the County's General Plan. In addition, employment increases in the County that would occur as part of the proposed project are consistent with the projections of regional agencies, including the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG). The proposed project: 1) is expected to comply with State and federal ambient air quality , standards; 2) is consistent with the air quality management policies in the current air quality plans; and 3) would result in emissions that would be below the emissions thresholds ' established in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines,' December 1999, as discussed in Section II1.b, below. Because the proposed project would not violate air quality standards or exceed emissions thresholds, and is generally consistent with the buildout scenario envisioned in the ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996(Revised 1999).BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. April. P:\CCC530TRODUM\IS-MND\Public\Public Re%iew IS-NMD.duc(9/30/2005) 26 i ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I County's General Plan and current air quality management policies, the project would not. conflict with the Ozone Attainment Plan or the CAP. I ' b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) I Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term in association with construction activities such as grading and vehicle/equipment use. Long-term emissions would result fromvehicle trips associated with use of the project site. The discussion below describes potential air quality violations that could occur as a result of the following: construction equipment exhaust emissions; fugitive dust; long-term vehicular emissions; and local carbon monoxide hot spots. ' Construction Emissions. Project-related construction activities would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut and fill operations, trenching, soil ' compaction and grading. General construction includes adding improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures and facii ities. The emissions generated from these construction activities include: ' Dust [including Particulate Matter of 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PM10) and Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)] primarily from "fugitive" sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) such as soil disturbance; • Combustion emissions of criteria air pollutants [Reactive Organic Gas (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOJ, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Oxide (SOJ and Particulate Matter of 10 Microns in diameter or smaller(PM10)]; • Primarily from operation of heavy construction machinery (primarily diesel fuel powered), portable auxiliary equipment and construction worker automobile trips (primarily gasoline powered); and • Evaporative emissions(ROG)from asphalt paving and architectural coating applications. Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day-to-day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation, ' construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis during the construction period. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by construction ' would include not only PMio, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts. The BAAQMD's approach to analysis of fugitive dust emissions from construction is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive dust control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions.i The District considers any project's construction related impacts to be less than significant if the required dust-control measures are implemented. Without these measures, the impact is generally considered to be significant, particularly if sensitive land uses are located in the project vicinity. i P:%CCC570\FRODUCTSVS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NNIDAM(&110/2005) 27 1 I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGU9T 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 'Construction activities would also result in the emission of ROG,NO,,, CO, SOX and PM10 from , equipment exhaust, construction-related vehicular activity and construction worker automobile trips. Emission levels for construction activities would vary depending on the number and type of equipment, duration of use, operation schedules, and the number of construction workers. Criteria pollutant emissions of ROG and NO,,from these emission sources would incrementally add to the regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during project construction. The BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines recognize that construction equipment emits ozone precursors, ' but indicate that such emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans. Therefore, construction emissions of ROG and NO., are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 1999). ' The impact of construction equipment exhaust emissions would therefore be less than significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce construction related air , quality impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation Measure. AIR-1: The "Basic Measures," "Enhanced Measures" and ' "Optional Measures" listed in Table 3 shall be incorporated into the construction plans and implemented for the proposed project. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, the applicant shall submit the construction plans for the review and approval of ' the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Long-Term Emissions. Long-term air emission impacts would be those associated with ' changes in permanent usage of the project site. Mobile source emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. .The Urban Emission Model (URBEMIS 2002) computer program, which is the most current air quality model available in California for ' estimating emissions associated with land use development projects, was used to calculate long-term mobile source emissions associated with the proposed project. Increases in long- term stationary emissions from natural gas and electricity use ,within the project site are ' expected to be negligible when compared with mobile source emissions. Therefore, these emissions were not included in the calculation. The traffic analysis included in Section XV of this Initial Study provided traffic data associated with the proposed project, which was used in the URBEMIS 2002 model. The emissions from daily vehicle trips associated with buildout of ' the proposed project are illustrated in Table 4. As shown, with the exception of carbon monoxide, the long-term vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project are not anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD's operations thresholds and would have a less-than- ' significant impact on local or regional air quality. Emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of ' significance for CO. However, as discussed below, the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO. Therefore, the proposed project's impact on the long-term air quality would be less ' than significant. Local CO Hot Spots. Local ambient air quality is most affected by carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from motor vehicles. CO is typically the contaminant of greatest concern because it , is the pollutant created in greatest abundance by motor vehicles. Areas of vehicle congestion P:\CCC530\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8/30/2005) 28 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASSBUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT NITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 3: Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMta Basic Control Measures—The followin' controls should be implemented at all construction sites. ' • Water all active construction areas at Least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave,apply water three times daily,or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites) ' • Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily referable with later sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. ' Enhanced Control Measures—The following measures should be implemented at construction sites greater than four acres in area. All"Basic"control measures listed above. Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. Enclose,cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic)soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt,sand,etc.). ' Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Optional Control Measures—The following control measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area,located near sensitive receptors or which for any other reason may warrant additional emissions reductions. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks,or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. ' Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph. Limit the area subject to excavation, I gradinaand other construction activity at any one time. Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999. ' Note: One Optional Control Measure,"Install wind breaks,or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s)of construction areas"has not been included. Table 4: Mobile Source Emissions lb/da Daily Emissions Emission Source Trips ROG NOx CO SO, - PM Project Buildout 6,700 56.04 70.72 567.57 0.28 42.12 ' BAAQMD Thresholds 80 80 550 N/A 80 Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. create pockets of high CO concentration called "hot spots." These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) of CO and/or the 8-hour ' standard of 9.0 ppm. CO transport is extremely !limited; it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under . ' normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations proximate to a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, adversely affecting the health of local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, hospital patients, etc). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areasi with high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling is ' recommended to determine;a project's effect on local CO levels. i I P:1CCC5301PRODUCTSES-At'1DIPubliclPublic Review IS-NAID.da(81302005) 29 i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The impact of the proposed project on local CO levels was assessed with the California Air ' Resources Board-approved CALINE4 air quality model, which allows microscale CO concentrations to be estimated along roadway corridors or near intersections. This model is designed to identify localized concentrations of CO. The data in Table 5 and Table 6 show the ' projected CO levels with and without the proposed project for the years 2005 and 2025, respectively. The 1-hour CO concentrations near all four intersections analyzed range from 6.8 to 8.8 ppm in ' 2005 and from 6.1 to 6.9 ppm in 2025, significantly lower than the 20 ppm State standard. The 8-hour CO concentrations range from 3.1 to 4.5 ppm in 2005 and from 2.6 to 3.2 ppm in 2025, ' also lower than the 9.0 ppm State standard. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse air quality impacts associated with carbon monoxide hot spots. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality ' standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed. project is located in a federal and State non-attainment area for 1-hour ozone , emissions and in a State non-attainment area for PM1o. The project would cause temporary construction-related emissions (as discussed in Section III.b and Section IILd), but is not expected to result in a significant increase in long-term emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA ' Guidelines states that a project would result in significant emissions (on both the project and cumulative scales) of criteria pollutants if the project results in the emission of more than 80 pounds per day of ROG, NO,,, or PM10. The proposed project would not exceed these emissions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial cumulative impact in terms of any criteria pollutant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less-Than-Significant , Impact) Construction of the proposed project may expose the surrounding land uses to airborne ' particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel fueled vehicles and equipment). However, there are-no sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. These impacts are not considered significant because the construction ' contractor would implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following standard construction practices and complying with the BAAQMD rules. The City of Pittsburg local air monitoring station records ambient levels for the criteria , pollutants. Ambient levels for the criteria pollutants are low to moderate in the project area, and the project would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions, as discussed above. , Therefore, sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations,and no significant impacts would result from the proposed project. P:\CCC530\PRODUCIS\IS-NM\Public\Public Rcic IS-NMD.dm(8150/2005) 30 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 ' Table 5: 2005 CO Hot Spot Anal sis Receptor Project Without/With Without/With Exceeds State ' Distance' Related Project One- Project Eight- Standards`to Road Increase Hour CO Hour CO Centerline 1-hr/8-hr Concentration' Concentration" Intersection (Meters ( m) (ppm)OP) OPm 1-Hr 8-Hr Willow Pass Road and Evora Road 10 0.6/0.5 7.1/7.7 3.3/3.8 No No ' 10. 0.4/0.3 7.1/7.5 3.3/3.6 No No 10 0.5/0.4 6.9/7.4 3.2/3.6 No No 8 0.6/0.5 6.8/7.4 3.1/3.6 No No ' Willow Pass Road and SR-4 1 7 0.7/0.5 7.8/8.5 3.8/4.3 No No Westbound Ramps 7 0.5/0.4 7.8/8.3 3.8/4.2 No No 7 0.5/0.3 7.7/8.2 3.8/4.1 No No ' 7 0.4/0.3 7.5/7.9 3.6/3.9 No No Willow Pass Road and SR-4 7 0.2/0.1 8.6/8.8 4.4/4.5 No No Eastbound Ramps 7 0.2/0.1 8.4/8.6 4.3/4.4 No No ' 7 0.3/0.2 8.3/8.6 4.2/4.4 No No 7 0.3/0.2 8.2/8.5 4.1/4.3 No No Willow Pass Road and Avila Road 7 0.1/0.1 8.3/8.4 4.2/4.3 No No ' 7 0.1/0.1 8.3/8.4 4.2/4,3 No No 7 0:1/0.1 8.2/8.3 4.1/4.2 No No 7 0.1/0.1 8.2/8.3 4.1/4.2 No No ' Distance within which CO concentrations were analyzed. Because CO disperses rapidly,areas outside of this zone would not be expected to experience elevated CO concentrations. ' Includes ambient 1-hour concentration of 5.9 ppm and ambient 8-hour concentration of 2.5 ppm. Measured at the nearest air quality monitoring station(583 W. 10th Street,Pittsburg,CA). ' State Standard=20.0(1 hr.)/9.0(8 hr.) Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. I 1 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less-Than-Significant ' Impact) I Some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during the project construction period. However, these odors ' would be short term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would result from the proposed project. Some odors might be generated by diesel trucks transporting good and material to and from the planned Frito Lay distribution center. This distribution facility will be located approximately ' 200 feet from the closest on-site structure. The distribution center would have to be located within 100 feet to have a noticeable impact on the proposed project site. At the proposed distance, no significant health effects would be associated with these odors. To reduce the ' potential odors within the! proposed structures filters could be installed on the ventilation systems. I 31 P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSU .M S-MND\Public\Public Review IS-ND.dm(813020115) LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGU9T 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 Table 6: 2025 CO Hot Spot Anal sis ' Receptor Project Without[With Without/With Exceeds State Distance'to Related Project One- Project Eight- Standards` Road Increase Hour CO Hour CO ' Centerline 1-hr/8-hr Concentration Concentration Intersection (Meters) m (ppm) m 1-Hr 8-Hr Willow Pass Road and Evora Road 10 0.1/0.1 6.2/6.3 2.7/2.8 No .No , 10 0.0/0.0 6.2/6.2 2.7/2.7 No No 10 0.1/0.1 6.1/6.2 2.6/2.7 No No 8 0.1/0.1 6.1/6.2 2.6/2.7 No No , Willow Pass Road and SR-4 7 0.1/0.0 6.4/6.5 2.9/2.9 No No Westbound Ramps 7 0.1/0.1 6.3/6.4 2.8/2.9 No No 7 0.1/0.1 6.3/6.4 2.8/2.9 No No 7 0.0/0.0 6.3/6.3 2.8/2.8 No No t Willow Pass Road and SR-4 7 0.0/0.0 6.6/6.6 3.0/3.0 No No Eastbound Ramps 7 0.0/0.0 6.6/6.6 3.0/3.0 No No 7 0.1/0.1 6.5/6.6 2.9/3.0 No No ' 7 0.1/0.1 6.5/6.6 2.9/3.0 No No Willow Pass Road and Avila Road 7 0.1/0.1 6.8/6.9 3.1/3.2 No No 7 0.1/0.1 6.8/6.9 3.1/3.2 No No ' 7 0.0/0.0 6.8/6.8 3.1/3.1 No 12NOoj 7 0.0/0.0 6.8/6.8 3.1/3.1 No Distance within which CO concentrations were analyzed. Because CO disperses rapidly,areas outside of this zone would ' not be expected to experience elevated CO concentrations. b Ambient 1-hour concentration of 5.9 ppm and ambient 8-hour concentration of 2.5 ppm. Measured at the nearest air quality monitoring station(583 W. 10th Street,Pittsburg,CA). State Standard=20.0(1 hr.)/9.0(8 hr.) ' Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or ' through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. , Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ' habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish , and Wildlife Service? P:\CCC5301PRODUC15US-MNDIPubliclPublic Rnicw IS-NNID.dm(3/30/2005) 32 i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water ' Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal,etc.)Through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,of other means? ' d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ■ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ ❑ ' established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use' of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local,regional,or State habitat conservation plan? ' The following assessment of biological resources is based on information from biological resource studies completed by Mosaic Associates LLC, Sycamore Associates LLC and information from the Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light Industrial Development prepared by Donaldson Associates in 2002 for the Delta Diablo Sanitation District, ' Antioch, CA. I a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any ' species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The project site was rough graded in association with its annexation to the Delta Diablo Sanitation District project and does not currently provide habitat for any special status species. ' The Delta Diablo Sanitation District Initial.Study determined that the site contained suitable habitat for the Burrowing owl. Prior to the grading of the site, it was determined that off-site mitigation would be required for the loss of Burrowing owl habitat. This mitigation, involving the purchase of 6.5 acres) of mitigation credit at the Haera Wildlife Conservation Bank, managed by Wildlands, Inc., was agreed upon by Thomas/DeNova, LLC and the sanitation district. i P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSVS.MND1Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8/3012005) 33 i I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community ' identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) Prior to rough grading, two freshwater seeps and associated unvegetated swales existed on-site ' that were under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game CDFG and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). As a part of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District , annexation, which included project grading, the.filling of the swales required mitigation as determined appropriate by the CDFG and the USACOE. Mitigation measures included the construction of grassy swales to provide on-site mitigation for the loss of freshwater swales and , the construction of an on-site freshwater pond. Due to engineering constraints, it was determined that one of the swales (1,244 linear feet) must be lined with concrete. In lieu of the on-site mitigation provided by the grassy swale, the applicant donated $5,000 to Save Mount ' Diablo, a Contra Costa County non-profit land trust, for the sole purpose of wetland/riparian habitat acquisition. The proposed project would be developed within the areas that have already been rough graded. ' Therefore,no riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would be disturbed. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of ' the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) , Adverse effects from polluted stormwater runoff from parking lots would be reduced to less- than-significant levels by the filtering properties of the grassy swales and stormwater detention , basin constructed in conjunction with the annexation to the Delta Diablo Sanitation District. Therefore, the proposed project does not include any activities that would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. ' Prior to the rough grading of the site, in accordance with Section 404 and the nationwide permit general conditions of the USACOE, the applicant was required to provide on-site mitigation for ' filling approximately 2,459 square feet of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. subject to the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Mitigation measures required the construction of a freshwater basin on the northwest corner of the site to provide seasonal wetland habitat and grassy swales to replace the filled drainage swales. A deed restriction was recorded with the County in 2002 ' to provide a permanent conservation easement for the hill-slope areas, swales and basins within the mitigation areas. The grassy swales were seeded with herbaceous wetland species and the upland slopes surrounding the basins and swales were planted with native herbaceous species, ' shrubs and trees. The mitigation measures also required a 5-year monitoring program of the stormwater retention basin, freshwater pond and grassy swales. Rough grading plans included a stormwater conveyance system utilizing grassy swales and concrete lines channels to deliver , stormwater runoff to a stormwater detention basin and then into the freshwater pond. No element of the presently proposed business park would increase the extent of adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. ' P:�CCC530\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8/30/2005) 34 i ' LSA AS90CIATE9, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUCUHT 1005 I INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 ' d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? '(No Impact) No wildlife corridors would!be adversely affected by the proposed project. Highway 4 to the south and the Contra Costa Canal to the west of the project site create barriers to the movement of many wildlife species. The developable portions of the project site do not contain suitable habitat for migratory wildlife. ' e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact) The project site contains two Mulberry trees (one 15-inch and one 19-inch tree) and a 36-inch ' Pepper tree. The trees are not within oak woodlands, within a riparian buffer area or part of a stand of 4 or more trees. No trees eligible for protection under the County's Heritage Tree Protection Ordinance would be removed. Tree loss would be mitigated by implementation of the proposed landscaping plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. ' fi Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? (No Impact) ' No such plans are applicable)to the project site. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.j Would the project: ' a) Cause a substantial adverse.change in the significance of a historical resource as efined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ' resource or site or unique geologic feature? i d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred ' outside of formal cemeteries? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? (No Impact) ' Potential impacts to cultural resources were investigated in the Lesher General Plan Amendment EIR prepared by Contra Costa County in 1987. In addition, the California Historic 1 I P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-SWAK(8/30!2003) 35 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC, WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUCUBT 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Resources Information System has indicated that there is a low possibility that historic ' resources may be located within the project area and no further study was recommended. No impacts to historic resources would result from the proposed project. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant , to§15064.5? (No Impact) There are no known significant archeological resources at this site. However, it is possible that previously unknown historic or prehistoric resources could be discovered during grading and excavation work associated with the new construction. Therefore, as a condition of project ' approval, contract specifications will include the following language: "In accordance with CEQA Subsection 15064.5(f), should any previously unknown historic or prehistoric resources, including but not limited to charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, ' bone, pockets of dark, friable soils, glass, metal, ceramics, wood or similar debris, be discovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within .100 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist certified by the Registry of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the ' find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), as determined necessary." Implementation of these best management practices would limit the potential archaeological resource impacts associated with construction to a level of less than significant. ' c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) ' There are no known paleontological resources, unique geologic features or sites on the project site or within the immediate vicinity. However, there is the potential for ' paleontological resources on the site. Under standard County conditions of approval, should paleontological resources be uncovered during final grading or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these resources shall be stopped until a certified professional ' archaeologist/paleontologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less- ' Than-Significant Impact) The project site is considered to have a low potential for cultural and historic resources. The ' project is proposed in a location that has already been significantly disturbed due to the on-site grading and installation of underground utilities. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the , County Coroner has made determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric,the Coroner is required to notify the Native American , Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the owner of the land or his/her representative, the descendant shall inspect the site of the discovery. The descendant shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and , nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. P:\CCC530\PRODUCfSUS-MND\Public\Public Revicw 15-NMD.dw(8/302005) 36 i tLSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT !LITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I I I Potentially j Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated. Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: ' a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: ' i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on.the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a ' known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ' ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv)Landslides? 13 1.3 . i b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, ' and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? i i d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ❑ C3 13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? I ' e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 13 C septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? � I a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, ' it jury, or death involving: I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substaniial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) I ' The following assessment!is based on information contained in the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005), the Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light P:\CCC5)0\PRODUCrS\IS-MND\Public\Public Rnic IS-NMD.da(S/J0/2005) 37 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 7006 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Industrial Development prepared by Donaldson Associates, 2002, and the Draft Environmental ' Impact Report, Lesher General Plan Amendment prepared by Contra Costa County in 1987. i) Fault Rupture. The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone ' designated by the State. The northern extension of the Clayton fault, which is an inactive fault, is located beneath the northeast corner of the project site. The project is not within an area of known surface fault rupture potential. Therefore, implementation of the proposed ' project would have a less than significant impact to the rupture of 6 known earthquake fault. ii) Groundshaking. The San Francisco Bay region is a seismically active region that is ' subject to large earthquakes; there are 30 known faults in the Bay Area that are considered capable of generating earthquakes. The site is located between the Concord/Green Valley fault system (about 5 miles southwest) and the active portion of the Clayton fault (about 6 miles southeast). The San Andreas fault is about 35 miles to the southwest, the Hayward fault is about 17 miles to the west and the Antioch fault is about 9 miles to the east. Because it affects a much broader area, ground shaking, rather than surface fault rupture, is ' the cause of most damage during earthquakes. Three major factors affect the severity (intensity) of ground shaking at a site in an earthquake: the size (magnitude) of the ' earthquake; the distance to the fault that generated the earthquake; and the geologic materials that underlie the site. Thick, loose soils, such as bay mud, tend to amplify and prolong ground shaking. ' The risk of structural damage from ground shaking is regulated by the building codes. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires use of seismic parameters which allow the ' structural engineering analysis for buildings to be based on soil profile types (see UBC, 1997,Volume 2,Div. 5,page 2-23). Compliance with building and grading regulations can be expected to keep risks within generally accepted limits. ' iii) Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during ground shaking. Due to the loss of strength, the soil acquires a "mobility" ' sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie relatively close to the ground surface. However, loose sands that contain a significant ' amount of fines(silt and clay fraction)may also liquefy. The project site is underlain along the western boundary by soils with a low to moderate ' liquefaction potential while the remainder of the site has a low liquefaction potential. As discussed above, the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with applicable construction codes and requirements intended to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting ' from ground failure and liquefaction. The following mitigation measure would reduce any potential significant impacts associated with ground failure and liquefaction human safety to less than significant levels. 1 P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSVS.MND\Public\Public Rnicw IS-NMD.dm(3/302005) 38 O � 1 i I ' LSA A390CIATES. INC. WILLOW PA99 BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 ' Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site specific geotechnical reports prepared by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These site specific ' geotechnical reports shall address differential fill thickness, total and differential settlement within (building pads, soil stability, potential seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and provide specific building foundation recommendations to reduce ' the risk associated with soil subsidence, liquefaction and. differential settlement. These reports shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. iv) Landslides. Site specific studies identified two landslides on the northeastern hillside of the project site and a possible third landslide. The previous rough grading work included ' the repair and removal of all slide debris. No buildings are planned beneath the hillslopes that experienced landslides. The hill slope area is within the restricted development area. ' b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The predominate soil types found on the project site (Altamont Fontana Complex and Capay Clay) have moderate to low erosion potential. Soils exposed during final grading and construction could potentially affect the Contra Costa Canal or Diablo Creek. Recommended mitigation measures that would reduce potential soil erosion and loss of topsoil are presented below in Section VIII,Hydra logy and Water Quality. The potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil is greatest during the period of earthwork activities and between the time when earthwork is completed and new vegetation is established, ' or asphalt is laid. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and Erosion Control Plan are a routine requirement of projects requiring grading permits. The SWPPP identifies the "best management practices" that are most appropriate for the site, and the "Erosion Control Plan," which is required for,the final grading permit, provides the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the site and maintained throughout .the winter rainy season. Implementation of a SWPPP and an Erosion Control Plan, submitted by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the County, would reduce the impacts of soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to less-than-significant levels. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Most geologic hazards have been addressed during the rough grading phase. The engineered fill placed over the site can Ibe expected to settle in proportion to the thickness of fill placed and the magnitude of the planned building foundation loads. Landscape irrigation would result in perched groundwater zones, which would cause re-adjustment of soil particles and some settlement. Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1, listed above in Section VI.a, would ensure that potential impacts from soil instability would be reduced to less-than-significant levels: I I P:\CCC53U\PRODUCrSUS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NWI Ac(9130/2005) 39 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ' creating substantial risks to life or property? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The potential building sites are underlain by soils with high shrink/swell potential. The ' following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts from potentially expansive soils to less-than-significant levels: ' Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to issuing final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site specific geotechnical reports prepared , by a qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These site specific geotechnical reports shall address potentially expansive soils and will provide measures to control moisture around foundations. Consistent with the final geotechnical report, measures ' to minimize expansive soil effects on structures shall be implemented during design and construction where appropriate. Potential foundation systems include pier and grade beam; use of structural concrete mats and post-tensioned slabs; pad overcutting ' to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment. These reports shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prior to issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the results of chemical testing of representative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and ' concretematerials used for construction. The following measures shall be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate-resistant concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils. The test results shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of ' the Zoning Administrator. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water ' disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (No Impact) Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be installed on the project , site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to soils associated with the use of such.wastewater treatment systems. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than t Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII.HAZARDS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ' ment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? ' P:\CCC530\PRODUCfSUS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dw(8/30/2005) 40 1 i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGU 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT HITICATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I I 1 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials ' into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, . would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? I e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, t where such a plan has not bIeen adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project areal ' f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private air- strip,would the project result to a safety hazard for ' people residing or workingiin the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacua- tion plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ' injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where resi- dences are intermixed with)wildlands? I a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) 1 The proposed gasoline station and car wash would utilize underground storage tanks and car wash related chemicals. Gasoline would be routinely transported to the gas station on the project site. Chlorine would be stored in the proposed well-house and will be used to disinfect ' the well water. j I I I P:\0005301PRODUCTSIIS-MNDIPublic\Public Review IS-NMD.dw(S'30/7005) 41 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK , AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Soils contaminated with lead and copper, associated with the shooting range that previously , existed on the project site, have been excavated and removed.[ According to the landowner, no pesticides associated with cattle dipping have been used on the project site. Although small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials could be used within the new business for cleaning and general maintenance purposes, and potentially for landscape . maintenance within the project site, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to ' pose a threat to human or environmental health. While gas and diesel fuel would typically be used by the construction vehicles, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized to ensure that no construction-related fuel hazards occur. 1 As part of the building permit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and Fire Department requirements, pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related County requirements. Flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks require approval and permits from the .Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District. Implementation of the following mitigations measure would ensure that the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment: ' Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant/or owners and operators of businesses on the site shall obtain all required permits and follow all applicable , regulations regarding the use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and shall conduct their operations in compliance with such permits and regulations. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable ' upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) ' As noted in VII.a, above the proposed project would involve the routine transport, storage and use of gasoline, chlorine for water disinfection and a variety of chemicals that could be used in the proposed manufacturing, research and medical related land uses. All businesses operating on the site would be subject to permitting requirements and management protocols for hazardous materials which are intended to protect public safety and worker safety and to.reduce the risks of accidental releases. The applicability of these procedures will reduce the potential ' risks and the magnitude of accidental releases. A below ground gas pipeline operated by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is located on-site ' along the northern edge of "Pad B." There are currently no aboveground or underground storage tanks on the project site. 1 1 AEI Consultants,2005. Soil Excavation&Removal Report,4650 Evora Road,Concord. January 14. Z The term"cattle dipping"refers to the practice of spraying or immersing cattle in vats of arsenic solution,DDT or ' other pesticides to eliminate disease carrying ticks. The process may result in contaminates remaining at the site which may present an environmental or public health risk. P:\CCC570\PRODUCI'SVS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMDAW(8/70/2005) 42 i ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following mitigation measures would reduce potential. hazards related to reasonably foreseeable accidental rupture or release from the underground gas pipeline to less-than- significant levels. i Mitigation Measure HAL-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit that authorizes work within 50 feet of the 20-foot PG&E pipeline easement,the ' applicant shall complete a detailed survey that identifies the exact location of the easement. The boundaries of the easement area shall be clearly marked during construction activities to ensure that construction personnel know when they are ' working within or close to the easement so that they may use proper precautions. All construction plans shall be submitted to PG&E for review and approval to ensure that disturbance of underground gas lines is avoided. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Communication shall be established between employees stationed at Los Med,anos Gas Field and employees at the project area in order.to facilitate the fastest and most appropriate response to a pipeline rupture. Mitigation Measure HAL-4: To alert potential buyers and project occupants to the potential hazards associated with the pipeline easement, a deed notification shall be ' filed for every parcel, located within 50 feet of the easement. The notification shall clearly indicate that. the substances conveyed through the pipeline have explosive potential and that an accident involving the pipeline could cause extensive damage to private property as well as serious personal injury or death. I The Environmental Initial Siudy for the Thomas/DeNova,LLC Annexation and Light Industrial ' Development prepared by Donaldson Associates noted that the potential failure of the proposed sewage collection system for that project could result in an overflow of untreated effluent from the pump station, which is fed by gravity sewers. The pump site is elevated above the Contra ' Costa Canal, which supplies domestic water for the Contra Costa Water District Canal. An uncontrolled release from the pump station could pose a risk of contamination to water flowing in the canal. A mitigation measure addressing such an event was included in that Initial.Study. It not known if the project applicant has complied with that mitigation and as such it is included ' in this document as Mitigatii n Measure HAZ-5. Mitigation Measure_HAZ-5: The applicant shall design the sewage pump station site ' with a positive overflow drainage system that would direct any potential spills away from the Contra Costa Canal. In addition, sufficient holding capacity, back up power systems and/or emergency business closure procedures (to halt sewage generation) shall be ' developed to minimize the risks of an overflow in the event of a system failure. I c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (No Impact) There are no schools within'/4 mile of the project site and no new schools are proposed within ' '/4 mile of the project site. I . P:\CCC570\PRODUCrSUS-MND\Public\Public_11-15-NM1tD.doc(SJJOR005) 43 i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant ' to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact) The project site is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites prepared pursuant to ' Government Code Section 65962.5 and therefore would not pose a significant health hazard to the public or environment. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where.such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a ' safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the boundary of the adopted Airport Land Use Plan for ' Buchanan Field,the nearest airport located approximately 3 miles west of the project site. fi For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) ' The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ' emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact) The proposed project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted ' emergency plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland ' fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) ' The project site is in an area surrounded by grazing lands, open space and urban development. As part of the building permit process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable ' Building and Fire Department requirements, pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related County requirements. The surrounding grasslands could potentially pose a fire hazard to the buildings located ' adjacent to the grasslands. The implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the risk.involving wildland fires to less-than-significant levels: Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant ' shall ensure that buildings have sufficient separation from grasslands to create a fire break as determined by the Fire District to be adequate for the site. This may be achieved by setting buildings back from the edge of the grasslands, clearing combustible materials or a combination of the two. Drought tolerant landscaping shall be incorporated in the project design to help reduce the risk of hazardous fuel (plant material) accumulation in ' landscaped areas. P:%CCC530iPRODUCfSUS-MND\PublicWublic Review IS-NMD.dm(Sn0/1005) 44 I ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. - WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGU9T 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I i ■ ■ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ' proj ect: i a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ■ requirements? i ■ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere � � ■ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there ' would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater tablellevel(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned ' uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ■ ' site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,'in a manner which would result in substantial erosions or siltation on-or off-site? i ■ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ■ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,dor substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding ons or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoffiwater which would exceed ■ ' the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? j ' f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? � D ■ D g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as ■ ' mapped on a federal Flood!Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ■ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures � � � ■ which would impede or redirect flood flows? ' i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ■ injury or death involving flooding,including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ■ j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? � � � ■ ■ , P:\CCC570\PRODUCI'SUS-MND\Public\Public Rai—IS-NMD.da(9130/2005) 45 ■ I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. - WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Less-Than-Significant ' Impact) The sewage collection system would transport wastewater from the project site to the Delta ' Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD). The system would comply with all applicable . requirements established by the DDSD and the wastewater would be treated at the DDSD ' water treatment plant which is operated in compliance with all applicable federal and State water quality requirements. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices ' (BMP's) were prepared for the previously approved and constructed site grading and storm water detention system County inspection during site preparation and construction would ' confirm the implementation and on-going maintenance of the SWPPP and BMP's and other pertinent County requirements related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The project would not result in significant impacts on water quality. b Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater ' recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a ' level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would utilize water from a dual water supply system using groundwater 1 from two wells for potable water use supplemented with water from the Contra Costa Canal (Contra Costa Water District) for irrigation, standby fire suppression and storage tank ' replenishment in the event of a fire. Groundwater supplies from the project site and the vicinity are generally limited, and most ' existing planned land uses in Concord rely on imported Contra Costa Water District water, not local groundwater. The proposed project includes permeable drainage swales, a stormwater detention basin and a freshwater pond, infiltration from which would replenish groundwater supplies in the project area. Accordingly, it is expected that the project's reliance on ' groundwater for water supply would not result in a significant impact on groundwater resources. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the ' alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion: or siltation on- or off-site? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) , The project site has already been graded and 75 percent of the stormwater runoff would be conveyed to a detention basin and freshwater pond via a system of vegetated bioswales, , concrete lined channels and storm drain pipes. The existing system and mitigation measures required for the rough site grading are designed to prevent on-site erosion and siltation. The vegetated bioswales and detention basins would minimize the peak flood levels and surface ' runoff rates leaving the project site so that there would not be substantial erosion off-site. 1 P:\CCC570TRODUCTSUS.MND\Public\Public Rc%icw IS-NMD.dw(8/3012005) 46 i ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 2005 I INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I 1 1 The proposed project includes final grading and development on existing building pads, however, it would not change the direction of drainage on the site and would not substantially alter the drainage patterni of the site or area. The construction standards and permit ' requirements described in Section V1I1.a would mitigate potential impacts related to erosion or siltation to a less than significant level. ' d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Less-Than- Significant Impact) Existing improvements one the site include rough graded building pads and underground ' utilities. The proposed project would develop the site with approximately 325,000 to 375,000 square feet of mixed use buildings and associated roadways, driveways, parking lots and landscaping. The proposedl project would increase the amount of impervious surface and thus increase the amount of surface runoff from the site. However, most of the stormwater runoff ' from the developed areas would flow through a system of bioswales, concrete lined channels and storm drain pipes to a detention basin and fresh water pond, which would reduce the rate and amount of surface runoff leaving the project site. Potential flooding impacts would thus ' be less than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ' stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) I The storm water conveyance and detention system,for the site was developed as part of the ' Delta Diablo Sanitation District project. Stormwater runoff from 75 percent of the developed areas would flow through a,system of bioswales and storm drain pipes to a detention basin and ' fresh water pond, which would reduce the rate and amount of surface runoff leaving the project site and help reduce `first flush' pollutant levels. Surface runoff collected in the detention basin and freshwater ponds and excess runoff would be directed to the 30 inch storm drain pipe which passes beneath the Contra Costa Canal. The project site is located in the Contra.Costa County Public Works formed drainage area 48c and possibly in the unformed area 83. The standard conditions of approval for subdivisions require that all runoff be collected and conveyed to an adequate storm drainage facility or natural watercourse. Compliance with the ' conditions of approval would ensure that the impact from storm water runoff would be less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degirade water quality? (Less-T/tan-Significant Impact) The construction standards and permit requirements described in Section VIII.a would ensure potential impacts related to water quality would be less than significant. I I I i P:\CCC530\PRODUCTS\IS•MND\Wblic\Wblic Rcvicw IS-NMD.doc(8/3012005) 47 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ' Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact) The proposed project site does not include any residential uses and the project is not located , within a I00-year flood hazard area. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ' flows? (No Impact) See Section VIII.g. ' i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involvingflooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (No Impact) Any flooding that did occur on the site would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. The site is not protected by a levee or dam. ' j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact) The project site is located approximately 3 miles from Suisun Bay and at an elevation ' substantially above that which would be at risk of inundation. The potential for the project site to be inundated by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow is less than significant. Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ' b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, ❑ ❑ ❑ ' or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of ' avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ ' plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact) ' The proposed project is located in an undeveloped area adjacent to Highway 4 and would not divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction ' over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal P:\CCC530\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Public Rmew IS-NMD.dm(8/302005) 4 8 1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I 1 ' program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an. environmental effect? (No Impact) The General Plan land use designations for the project site are Light Industrial (LI), ' Agricultural Lands (AL) and!Open Space (OS). The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to re-designate most of the site to Mixed Use while retaining some of the Open ' Space designation. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not conflict with general plan policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. ' c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact) The project site is not subject to any such plans. 1 ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ' resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ' mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? 1 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State( (No Impact) No known mineral resource) are present at the project site. implementation of the proposed ' project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. ' b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) See Section X.a. I 1 t P:%CCC530\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Public Rcvic IS-NMD.dm(9/302005) 49 1 ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ ' excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? ' b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ' levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ ' noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ ' where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the ' project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in ' the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Contra Costa County has established recommended external noise levels for long-term land ' uses in the Noise Element of the General Plan. For commercial office space, external noise levels up to 70 dBA Ldn' are acceptable. For industrial and manufacturing uses, external noise levels up to 75 dBA Ldn are acceptable. The County does not maintain recommended noise ' standards for temporary construction noise. The following discussion describes the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of the proposed project on noise levels. Short-Term. Short-term noise levels related to construction of the proposed project would 1 temporarily increase in the vicinity of the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise ' characteristics. Table 7 lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments ' Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level(dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The Ldn is the 24-hour A-weighted average sound ' level from midnight to midnight,obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m. 1 P:\CCC530\PRODUCrS\IS-MND\Nblic\Public Rc%icw IS-NNIDAm(9130/2005) 50 ' LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 5005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT LITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' Table 7: Tyeical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels RIBI i Range of Maximum Sound Suggested Maximum Sound ' I Level Measured at 50 feet Level for Analysis at 50 feet Type of Equipment dBA dBA Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-lb/blow 81-96 93 ' Rock Drills 83-99 96 Jackhammers 75-85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78-88 85 ' Pumps 74-84 80 Scrapers 83-91 87 Haul Trucks 83-94 88 ' Cranes j 79-86 82 Portable Generators 71-87 80 ' Rollers j 75-82 80 Dozers 77-90 85 Tractors 77-82 80 ' Front-End Loaders j 77-90 86 Hydraulic Backhoes 81-90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81-90 86 ' Graders 79-89 86 Air Compressors 76-89 86 ' Trucks ! 81-87 1 86 i Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants,Bolt,Beranek,&Newman 1987. 1 for typical construction equipment based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a ' noise receptor. Typical construction noise levels vary up to a maximum of 91 dBA at 50 feet from the construction site during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equip- ment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders and earthmoving and compacting equipment, which includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes ' of full power operation follo ed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. i I ' Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of earthmovers such as bulldozers and scrapers, loaders and graders, water trucks, and pickup trucks. The typical maximum noise level generated by each earthmover on the proposed project site is assumed to ' be 88 dBA at 50 feet from the operating earthmover. The maximum noise level generated by water and pickup trucks is approximately 86 dBA at 50 feet from these vehicles. i P:ICCC530TRODUCISII$-MND1Publicftblic Rcvicw IS-h7VID.dm(&r3UR005) 51 i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR ' AUGUST 9005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT LITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pile driving may also be necessary to construct the proposed buildings, and could result in noise levels up to 93 dBA. Noise associated with pile driving can comprise very loud, impulsive sounds,resulting from a large hammer that drops on reinforced concrete piles. Individual noise impacts are of short duration (under 1 second), but the noise is repetitive, occurring about once ' every 2 seconds. Pile driving also generates vibration that is perceptible at a distance of 100 feet, but would not cause damage to other properties. Based on the assumption that pile driving could occur within the project site, exterior noise ' levels resulting from construction of the proposed project could be as high as 83 dBA in the vicinity of the proposed Frito Lay plant (located approximately 150 feet northwest of the , project site). Commercial, public, and industrial uses adjacent to the project site could be exposed to normally unacceptable noise levels. However, due to the short-term nature of this construction-related impact,the County considers it a less-than-significant impact if each of the , noise-reducing measures, described below, is implemented. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the project's temporary construction-period noise impact to a less-than-significant level: ' Mitigation Measure NOISE-1. The project shall comply with the following noise reduction measures: General construction noise shall be limited to weekdays from 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. , Pile driving and similarly loud activities shall be limited to weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ' All heavy construction equipment used on the project site shall be maintained in good operating condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. All stationary noise- generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from neighboring property lines,especially residential uses. Long-Term. Implementation of the proposed project would.result in an increase in vehicle trips in the vicinity of the project site. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate the traffic-related , noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. This model requires parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The average daily traffic ' (ADT) volumes in the vicinity of the project site and access roads were taken from the traffic analysis included in Section XV of this Initial Study. The resultant noise levels were weighted and summed over 24 hour periods to determine the day-night average level (Ldn) values. The ' Ldn is the 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. Tables 8 and 9 provide the noise levels on the roadways adjacent to the project site for the , existing and existing plus project traffic conditions, respectively. Tables 10 and 11 provide the noise levels on the roadways adjacent to the project site for the future (2025) no project and ' future plus project traffic conditions, respectively. These noise levels represent the worst case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location P'\CCC530IPRODUCISUS-NM\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(9130/2005) 52 I ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDYIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 8: Existing No Project Traffic Noise Levels CNEL ' Center- Center- Center- (dBA) line to line to line to 50 Feet from 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Roadway Segment ADT feet feet feet Lane ' Willow Pass Road Between Evora Road and SR-4 6,300 <508 57 119 63.8 Westbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Westbound Ramps and 10,700 <50 80 168 66.1 SR-4 Eastbound Rams I ' Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Eastbound Ramps and 17,300 <50 108 231 68.2 Avila Road Willow Pass Road south of Avila Road 18,500 55 113 242 68.5 ' Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road 300 <50 <50 <50 49.0 Evora Road east of Willow Pass Road 6,400 1 <50 <50 79 62.3 SR-4 Westbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 5,000 <50 <50 67 61.2 SR-4 Westbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 2,900 <50 <50 <50 58.8 ' SR-4 Eastbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 7,700 <50 <50 89 63.1 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp east of Willow PasslRoad 5,400 <50 <50 71 61.5 Avila Road east of Willow Pass Road 100 <50 <50 <50 44.2 ' Because of noise fluctuations over any given roadway segment,traffic noise within 50 feet of a roadway centerline requires a site specific analysis to determine accurate noise levels. Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,June 2005. Table 9: Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels j Increase ' CNEL Center- Center- Center- CNEL(dBA) (dBA) line to line to line to 50 Feet from 50 Feet from ' 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Outermost Roadway Segment ADT feet feet feet Lane Lane Willow Pass Road north of Evora Road 3,000 <508 <50 74 60.6 N/A' Willow Pass Road Between Evora Road 12,000 <50 86 181 66.6 2.8 ' and SR-4 Westbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Westboui d 14,000 <50 95 201 67.3 1.2 Ramps and SR-4 Eastbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Eastbound 18,300 55 112 240 68.4 0.2 ' Ramps and Avila Road Willow Pass Road south of Avila Road 19,500 57 117 250 68.7 0.2 Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road 3,600 <50 <50 54 59.8 10.8 ' Evora Road east of Willow Pass Road j 7,100 <50 <50 85 62.7 0.4 SR-4 Westbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 6,600 <50 <50 81 62.4 1.2 SR-4 Westbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 3,700 <50 <50 55 59.9 1.1 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 8,600 <50 <50 96 63.5 0.4 ' SR-4 Eastbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 6,800 <50 <50 82 62.5 1.0 Avila Road east of Willow Pass Road 1 100 <50 <50 <50 44.2 0.0 i Because of noise fluctuations over any given roadway segment,traffic noise within 50 feet of a roadway centerline ' requires a site specific analysis to determine accurate noise levels. b N/A-Not Applicable. This roadway segment does not currently exist. Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,June 2005. I P:1CCC530(PRODUCfSUS.MND(P01icTublm Rmi IS-NMD.d.(9/30/!i 005) 53 j LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table 10: Year 2025 Baseline No Pro'ect Traffic Noise Levels ' CNEL Center- Center- Center- (dBA) ' line to line to line to 50 Feet from 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Roadway Segment ADT feet feet feet Lane Willow Pass Road Between Evora Road and SR-4 7,100 <508 62 129 64.3 ' Westbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Westbound Ramps and 14,500 <50 97 206 67.4 SR-4 Eastbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Eastbound Ramps and 30,700 75 158 338 70.7 ' Avila Road Willow Pass Road south of Avila Road 37,200 85 179 384 71.5 Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road 300 <50 <50 <50 49.0 Evora Road east of Willow Pass Road 7,600 <50 <50 88 63.0 ' SR-4 Westbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 6,600 <50 <50 81 62.4 SR-4 Westbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 4,300 <50 <50 61 60.5 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 10,300 <50 51 . 108 64.3 ' SR-4 Eastbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 7,800 <50 <50 90 .63.1 Avila Road east of Willow Pass Road 100 <50 <50 <50 44.2 Because of noise fluctuations over any given roadway segment,traffic noise within 50 feet of a roadway centerline ' requires a site specific analysis to determine accurate noise levels. Source:LSA Associates,Inc.,June 2005. Table 11: Year 2025 Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ' Increase CNEL CNEL Center- Center- Center- (dBA) (dBA) ' line to line to line to 50 Feet from 50 Feet from 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Outermost Outermost Roadway Segment ADT feet feet feet Lane Lane Willow Pass Road north of Evora Road 3,200 <50° <50 77 60.9 N/A' ' Willow Pass Road Between Evora Road 12,900 <50 90 190 66.9 2.6 and SR-4 Westbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Westbound 17,800 54 110 235 68.3 0.9 ' Ramps and SR-4 Eastbound Ramps Willow Pass Road Between SR-4 Eastbound 31,600 76 161 345 70.8 0.1 Ramps and Avila Road Willow Pass Road south of Avila Road 38,200 86 182 391 71.6 0.1 ' Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road 3,600 <50 <50 54 59.8 10.8 Evora Road east of Willow Pass Road 8,200 <50 <50 93 63.3 0.3 SR-4 Westbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 8,200 <50 <50 93 63.3 0.9 ' SR-4 Westbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 5,100 <50 <50 68 61.3 0.8 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp west of Willow Pass Road 11,300 <50 54 115 64.7 0.4 SR-4 Eastbound Ramp east of Willow Pass Road 9,300 <50 <50 101 63.9 0.8 Avila Road east of Willow Pass Road 100 <50 . <50 <50 44.2 0.0 ' Because of noise fluctuations over any given roadway segment,traffic noise within 50 feet of a roadway centerline requires a site specific analysis to determine accurate noise levels. n N/A-Not Applicable. This roadway segment does not currently exist. , Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,June 2005. P:\CCC530\PRODUCISUS-MNDWublie\Wblic Review IS-NMD.da(8!30/2005) 54 ' WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I ' where the noise contours are'calculated. The data in Tables 9 and 11 show that, with the exception of the segment along Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road, implementation of the ' proposed project would result Jin noise level increases that are imperceptible to the human ear. Changes in noise of 3.0 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer.to a change of 3.0 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. The largest increase in traffic-related noise that would occur as a result of the proposed project would be on Evora Road west of Willow Pass Road. Noise levels on this roadway segment ' would increase by approximately 10.8 dBA due to implementation of the proposed project. This increase in traffic noise is perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. However, there are no existing sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, along this roadway ' segment. In addition, traffic noise along Evora Road would remain generally low with the 65 and 70 dBA Ldn contours confined within the roadway right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than)significant impact on the long-term off-site traffic noise levels. ' The project site is located approximately 375 feet from the centerline of SR-4. The County's General Plan states that the segment of SR-4 adjacent to the project site would generate traffic noise levels of 78 dBA Ldn at a distance of 100 feet. Therefore, at 375 feet the project site would be exposed to noise levels of up to 70 dBA Ldn. In addition,the on-site buildings could be located within 25 feet of the centerline of Willow Pass Road and Evora Road. At these distances the on-site buildings could be exposed to traffic noise levels of 67 and 65 dBA Ldn, ' respectively. These noise levels are considered to be acceptable for commercial uses in the General Plan. Therefore, -no on-site mitigation measures to reduce traffic noise would be required. I The nearest development to the project site would be the proposed Frito Lay distribution center located approximately 150 feet to the northwest. At this distance, noise generated by on-site ' operations such as parking lot activities and delivery trucks would not be significant. Therefore, implementation of;the proposed project would not result in the exposure of persons to excessive noise levels. It is unlikely that any of the on-site uses would be exposed to noise ' levels exceeding the County'sjnoise standards for commercial uses. b) Exposure of persons to or gei neration of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) 1 Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project (including potential pile driving) could (temporarily expose persons in the vicinity of the project site to ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Implementation Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. c) A substantial permanent inc ease in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ' existing without the project? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in daily traffic trips and ' would potentially increase traffic noise along access roads leading to the project site. However, as discussed in Section XI.a; above, the increase in ambient noise levels would be less than I P:ICCC53UWRODUC7SU5-I,fN)ftbli.ftblic Res' 15-NMD.doc(}1]0/1005) 55 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARE t AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION significant. Therefore, the permanent increase in ambient noise levels associated with the ' proposed project would not be considered substantial. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ' above levels existing without the project? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) Project-related construction activities could result in high intermittent noise up -to 83 dBA ' Lmax at adjacent land uses. This noise would result from the temporary use of earth-moving and construction equipment during the project construction period. Implementation Mitigation Measure NOISE-I would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. , e) For a project -located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose , people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. ' The proposed project is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the Buchanan Field Airport. Due to the project site's distance from the airport no significant noise impacts in terms of the 24-hour averaged noise level, such as CNEL or Ldn, are expected to affect the project ' site. J) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing ' or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working within the project site to excessive airport-related ' noise. Potentially , Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ' XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either ' directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 13 C3 O necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? , c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating C3 0 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? P:%CCC530\PRODUCTS\]S-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(8/10/2005) 56 LSA A990CiATE9, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR AUGUST 7005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) ' The proposed project includes the development of a mixed use business park. The project site is located in the immediate vicinity of the City of Concord and most of the anticipated ' businesses would be expected to draw employees from nearby communities. Utility and transportation infrastructure that would serve the proposed project is in place. The turnout for water from the Contra Costa Canal is specifically tied to the development of the Frito Lay site ' and the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area. b) Displace substantial numbers,of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The proposed project would not displace any existing housing units or people and would not ' necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers sof people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ' elsewhere? (No Impact) See Section XII.b,above. Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact . Impact XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES. ' a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmebtal facilities,need for new ' or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance ' objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ' Police protection? ' Schools? Parks? ❑ C3 Other public facilities? 1 P:\CCC5301PRODUCi5\I5-MND\PublicTublic Rmm 15-NMD.dm(9/102005) 57 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision ' of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance ' objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The proposed project would consist of a mixed use business park and would not include a residential population. The level of public services required for the site would be slightly greater than the level currently demanded. As part of the land use entitlement process, all ' departments and agencies responsible for providing services are consulted to determine their ability to provide services to proposed development projects. Such services within the project area may include, but are not limited to fire and police protection, schools, maintenance of ' public facilities including roads and other governmental services as anticipated by the County's General Plan. The Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District and the Contra Costa County ' Sheriff serve the site. Both agencies have submitted comments on the proposed project and neither has indicated that its implementation would cause significant impacts to current response times, impede the attainment of level-of-service goals or require construction of ' additional facilities. The property is already taxed to support fire protection and an additional fee based on building square footage would be collected prior to issuance of building permits. A condition of project approval would require the creation of a new tax district to support ' police services. New facilities would be built according to community-wide need. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts ' associated with the provision, need, or construction of government facilities or services such as parks, schools, libraries, etc. Impacts to roads would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels as explained in Section XV below. , Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION. ' a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational ' facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ' the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? P.\CCC530`,PRODUCTS\]$-MND\Public\Public R—w IS-NM.dm(ftll0/2005) 58 i LSA A990CIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK AUGUST 1005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I 1 a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less-Than-S,igniftcant Impact) The proposed project would (consist of a mixed use business park and would not include a residential population. The increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, ' regional trails or other recreational facilities as a result of the proposed project would not be such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. i b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might.have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact) The proposed project does ,not include recreational facilities and' would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. See Section XIV.a, above. Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: ' a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑ ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in ' either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established lby the county congestion management agency on designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ ' either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ ' (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? ' e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted polices,plans,or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ t supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? I ' a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system'a e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle P:\CCC530IPRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Public Reiew IS-NF1D.doc(>030/2005) 59 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARR t AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION trips, the volume to capacity ratio on. roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Potentially ' Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) To document the existing traffic conditions, intersection turn movement counts were taken by , Southland Car Counters on Thursday, April 28, 2005. Four unsignalized study area intersections were selected because of their proximity to the project: 1. Willow Pass Road/Evora Road ' 2. Willow Pass Road/SR-4 westbound ramps 3. Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramps ' 4. Willow Pass Road/Avila Road The existing traffic volumes at the study area intersections are illustrated in Figure 8. The ' existing levels of service (LOS) for the study area intersections were calculated using Traffix, Version 7.7, and the methodology set forth in Chapter 10 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. This methodology defines LOS in terms of total intersection delay in seconds per ' vehicle (four-way stop-controlled intersections) and approach delay of the minor street (two- way stop-controlled intersections). The resulting delay is expressed in terms of LOS, where LOS A represents free-flow activity and LOS F ' represents overcapacity operation. According to the LOS Table 12: LOS/Delay at Unsignalized Intersections criteria set forth in the Contra Costa County General Plan Level of Unsignalized Intersection for signalized intersections, the worst acceptable Service Delay per Vehicle ' operation is LOS D, or a signalized volume-to-capacity (LOS) sec ratio of 0.89.. A , B >10.0 and 15.0 C >15.0 and,25.0 ' The relationship of delay and LOS at unsignalized D 1 >25.0and,3E00 intersections is summarized in Table 12. F 1 >50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, ' The existing intersection levels of service are show in Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Table 13. All of the intersections currently operate at unsatisfactory levels of service during at least Table 13: Existing LOS Summary one peak hour, with the exception of Willow Existine ' Pass Road/Avila Road. AM PM Delay Delay Intersection sec LOS sec LOS The project trip generation for the proposed I Willow Pass Rd/ i;;%37:6::; °E. 10.5 B ' Willow Pass Business Park was calculated Evora Rd using trip generation rates from the Institute of 2. Willow Pass Rd/SR 4 12.7 B Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Westbound Ramps Seventh Edition. The project uses have not 3.Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 >.50?! F->`. 37.0:; E ' been precisely defined; rather,the project would Eastbound Rams <... . P y 5 P 4. Willow Pass Rd/Avila 20.5 C` 16.6 C provide for a range of allowable land uses on Rd ' each lot, including relatively low trip generators ®=Exceeds LOS criteria. such as heavy industrial, manufacturing, and Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. warehousing, as well as uses that generate a higher number of trips per square foot such as office, medical office, and retail. Land uses ' proposed by the project applicant and described beginning on page 3 of this Initial Study have been translated into land uses in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Proposed land uses by lot P:\CCC530WRODUCrSVS•MND\PublicWublic Review IS•NMD.da(8/30/2005) 60 i r---------------- �Site''� - 1 x-32 — 7 79 211 1 v EORA i' RD 1/5- 9/5--j /5---9/5—i rn rn M T N v N N 1 I CCD M L-17/9 zr 00 ' I -97/3 748/ t �748/270 ' N� SR-4 4 JL 158/391 —! t r 217/376—i N r—N M LO L N I 00 CT �M T r 6/4 ' I L X4/1 AVILA RD I t _r ' LID L M • 3 o J 3 ' L S A j FIGURE 8 I LEGEND Willow Pass Business Park ' N )D(M -AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Existing Traffic Volumes I SLIM RTIC-NOT TO SCALE i I:\CCC530 Willow Pass\figuresTig_8.cdr (8/4105) I i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' AUGUST 2005 INITIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1 Table 14: Trip Generation Su mary ' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Unit ADT In Out Total In Out Total Trip Rates° , 720 Medical-Dental Office TSF 36.13 1.96 0.52 2.48 1.00 2.72 3.72 750 Office Park TSF 11.42 1.55 0.19 1.74 0.21 1.29 1.50 ' 820 Shopping Center TSF 42.94 0.63 0.40 1.03 1.80 1,95 3.75 934 Fast-Food Restaurant with TSF 496.12 27.09 26.02 53.11 18.01 16.63 34.64 Drive-Through Window 946 Gas/Service Station w/ Fuel 152.84 5.43 5.21 10.64 6.67 6.67 13.33 ' Convenience Market and Stations Car Wash TSF - 6.27 6.03 12.30 6.89 6.89 13.77 , Trip Generation Lot 1 Office Park 21,620 TSF 247 33 4 38 5 28 32 , Shopping Center 7,207 TSF 309 5 3 7 13 14 27 Total Trip Generation Lot 1 556 38 7 45 18 42 59 Lot 2 ' Office Park 14,063 TSF 161 22 3 24 3 18 21 Shopping Center 4,688 TSF 201 3 2 5 8 9 18 Total Trip Generation Lot 2 362 25 5 29 11 27 39 ' Lot 3 Office Park 11,250 TSF 128 17 2 20 2 15 17 Shopping Center 3,750 TSF 161 2 2 4 7 7 14 ' Total Trip Generation Lot 3 290 20 4 23 9 22 31 Lot 4 Office Park 6,482 TSF 74 10 1 11 1 8 10 , Shopping Center 2,161 TSF 93 1 1 2 4 4 8 Total Trip Generation Lot 4 167 11 2 14 5 13 18 Lot 5 ' Office Park 7,822 TSF 89 12 1 14 2 10 12 Shopping Center 2,607 TSF 112 2 1 3 5 5 10 Total Trip Generation Lot 5 201 14 3 16 6 15 22 ' Lot 6 Office Park 8,114 TSF 93 13 2 14 2 l0 12 Shopping Center 2,705 TSF 116 2 1 3 5 5 to , Total Trip Generation Lot 6 209 14 3 17 7 16 22 Lot 7 Office Park 10,916 TSF 469 7 4 11. 20 21 41 ' Shopping Center 3,639 TSF 156 2 1 4 7 7 14 Total Trip Generation Lot 7 625 9 6 15 26 28 55 P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSUS-MNDIPublic\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(Sl30/2005) 62 i 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK JULY 8005 INITIAL STUDY I Table 14 continued_. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Unit ADT In Out I Total In Out Total Lot 8 ' Shopping Center 3,208 TSF 138 2 1 3 6 6 12 Fast-Food Restaurant w/ 3,208 TSF 1,592 87 83 170 58 53 111 t Drive-Through Window Pass-by Trips(49.5%ADT, 3,208 TSF 788 43 41 83 29 27 56 49%a.m.,50%p.m.)b Net Trip Generation Lot 8 941 46 44 90 35 33 68 ' Lot 9 j Gas/Service Station w/Conv. 10 Fuel 1,528 54 52 106 67 67 133 Market and Car Wash Stations Pass-by Trips(64.5%ADT, 10 I Fuel 986 34 33 67 44 44 88 63%a.m.,66%p.m.)` Stations Net Trip Generation Lot 9 543 20 19 39 23 23 45 ' Lot 10 � Medical-Dental Office 23,106 TSF 835 45 12 57 23 63 86. Building Shopping Center 7,702 TSF 331 5 3 8 14 15 29 tTotal Trip Generation Lot 10 1,166 50 15 65 37 78 115 Lot 11 Medical-Dental Office 14,400 TSF 520 28 7 36 14 39 54 ' Building Shopping Center 4,800 TSF 206 3 2 5 9 9 18 Total Trip Generation Lot 11 I 726 31 9 41 23 48 72 Lot 12 I Office Park 12,146 j TSF 139 19 2 21 3 16 18 Shopping Center 4,049 TSF 174 3 2 . 4 7 8 15 ' Total Trip Generation Lot 12 313 21 4 25 10 24 33 Lot 13 Office Park 10,140 j TSF 116 16 2 18 2 13 15 ' Shopping Center 3,380 j TSF 145 2 1 3 6 7 13 Total Trip Generation Lot 13 261 18 3 21 8 20 28 Lot 14 Office Park 13,245 TSF 151 21 3 23 3 17 20 Shopping Center 4,415 1 TSF 190 3 2 5 8 9 17 Total Trip Generation Lot 14 I 341 23 4 28 11 26 36 ' Total Project Trip Generation j 6,700 341 128 469 229 414 642 Trip Rates referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual,7th Edition(2003). b Pass-by Trip Percentages referenced' from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook(1998)-Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps(Land Use 853). ADT Pass-by Trip Percentage taken as an average of the AM and PM Pass-by Trip Percentages. Pass-by Trip Percentages referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook (1998)-Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window(Land Use 834). ADT Pass-by Trip Percentage taken as an average of the AM and PM Pass-by Trip Percentages. Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. I I P:1000530TRODUCTSVS.MNI)T.bli,'P°blic Rcriew IS-NMD.doc I9/3W20051 63 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK ' JULY 7005 INITIAL STUDY are included in Table 14. According to the trip generation,there will be approximately 6,700 ' daily, 469 AM peak-hour, and 642 PM peak-hour trips at the Willow Pass Business Park. It should be noted that,even with the parcel-by-parcel calculations shown in Table 14,the trip . generation does not specifically estimate truck trips for each land use;the ITE Trip Generation ' translates truck trips into auto trips. Because the project would allow a range of uses and tenants, no special consideration was given to truck trips. As a result,conclusions drawn in this analysis do not yet account for the possibility that certain land uses or project tenants could ' experience a high proportion of truck traffic. If truck intensive land uses are later proposed on the project site,then that specific project shall be defined and subject to a new trip generation study. The following mitigation measure would ensure that the effects of truck traffic are not ' significant. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Prior to each issuance of building permits on each parcel, ' the project applicant shall submit final development plans and/or plans for tenant improvements to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. To ensure that traffic generation does not exceed the volume that was projected in the Initial Study, the development indicated in the proposed plans shall be consistent with the allowable square , footage for the various uses as set forth in Table l of the Initial Study. To estimate a realistic number of trips that could be generated by the project while maintaining ' flexibility in the land uses that could be built, the trip generation was estimated assuming that the majority of the site would be made up of office park and supporting retail. Medical office was specified on Lots 10 and 11. This use has a higher trip generation per square foot than ' office park; however, because it is an allowed use, it should be assumed that it may comprise a portion of the final project. Lots 8 and 9 include a fast-food restaurant, convenience store, and gas station. ' Because of the location of the project, it is likely that motorists will exit the freeway to patronize the businesses proposed for Lots 8 and 9 and then get back on the freeway. Some ' existing motorists from Evora Road and Willow Pass Road may also patronize the fast food restaurant, gas station and convenience market. These would not be new trips, but simply trips that are already passing by the project site. To estimate the number of"pass-by" customers, pass-by trips for the fast-food restaurant with drive-through window and the gas/service station ' with convenience market with car wash have been estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (1998). Pass-by trips from the freeway do not currently utilize any of the study area intersections. As a result, these trips would not be ' considered "pass-by" trips, even though they are currently traveling on SR-4. However, pass- by trips that currently use Willow Pass Road and Evora Road should be re-distributed at the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection to account for pass-by trips from these roadways. t The number of pass-by trips through the Willow Pass Road/Evora Road intersection was estimated to be 8 percent of the total pass-by trips of the project during the AM peak hour and 5 percent of the total pass-by trips of the project during the PM peak hour. These percentages t were determined by comparing the existing volumes traveling on Willow Pass Road and Evora Road with the existing volumes along SR-4 during both peak hours. In a multi-use development, it is likely that there will be trips internal to the site (i.e., office 1 workers who patronized the fast-food restaurant for lunch) which should be removed from the P:\CCC530\PRODUM\IS-MND\PubliclPublic Review IS-NMD.dm(8,70/2005) 64 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BU9IN89SPARK JULY 9005 INITIAL STUDY total of trips generated. This;trip reduction for internally captured trips is separate from the reduction for pass-by trips.Because land uses have not been specifically defined for each parcel on the project site,the internal capture cannot be forecasted for the project site. Project trips were distributed!through the study area intersections (based on previous analysis prepared for the site) and added to the existing traffic volumes. The project trip distribution ' and project trips at each study area intersection are illustrated in Figure 9. Existing plus project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 10. Existing and existing plus project LOS for study area intersections are presented in Table 15. As shown in the table, Willow Pass Road/Avila ' Road is the only intersection that will continue to operate at a satisfactory LOS during both peak hours in the existing plus project scenario for both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersections of Willow Pass�Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road at the SR-4 ramps will ' continue to operate at unsatisIfactory levels of service during at least one peak hour. It should be noted that while the project will add traffic to these intersections,the project traffic is not the primary cause of the unsatisfactory operation. Rather, the project will only contribute to an existing LOS deficiency. I A peak hour signal warrant !analysis was prepared for the three intersections that have been ' forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS in the existing and existing plus project condition. This analysis shows that although each intersection would operate at an unsatisfactory LOS, no signals are warranted. In all cases, the minor street approach volume does not meet the minimum criteria of the peak-hour signal warrant. At all three intersections, the LOS ' deficiency is a result of the High through volumes on Willow Pass Road, which do not provide sufficient gaps in traffic for left turns onto the major street from the stop-controlled direction. I In addition to the conclusion that no traffic signals would be warranted in the existing plus project scenario, there are not other feasible mitigations at the three deficient intersections. It is not possible to create gaps in the traffic stream by adding additional through or turn lanes; however, a traffic signal in each case would create gaps in the through traffic, thereby mitigating the unsatisfactory,' LOS experienced on the stop-controlled movement. The traffic signals would also serve as a safety improvement at the study area intersections by providing protected movement for the traffic from the minor street. It should be noted that regional and ' local traffic is forecast to increase in the area, and traffic signals would probably be warranted in the future. This is discussed further in the cumulative impact analysis section. ' The following mitigation measures are prescribed to offset the LOS deficiencies experienced in the existing and existing plus project conditions. These mitigation measures apply to the proposed project only. Should a more vehicle trip-intensive use, or a more truck trip-intensive ' use be proposed, a new trip igeneration study shall be completed to verify the adequacy of the required mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure TRAF-2: To remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersec- tion of Willow .Pass; Road/Evora Road, a traffic signal shall be installed at this intersection with permitted left-turn phasing in the north-south direction and split phasing ' in the east-west direction. The traffic signal should be interconnected and coordinated with the recommended traffic signals at the Willow Pass Road/SR-4 Eastbound and Westbound ramps(sed Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 and TRAF-4). I P:\CCC530\PRODUCI'SUS-M14JDV'ublic\Public Re.iew IS-NMD.da(915012IMI5) 65 ---- ----------------- Site' 'CJ ; I 20/15 •t: �`..::��;.I•:.�`: _ - - 21/15 EVORA RD , 10/26 69/211 —� �� O OD N ' ..:r N \T CO O �-146/106 t � 1 SR-4 4 CD � 1 00 IL 167/121—! t ' Z M to C O c1ri AVILA RD t t LO d � Ln Ln M ca. 3 C 3 , LSA LEGEND FIGURE 9 XX/YY -AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes , - Project Trip Distribution Willow Pass Business Park N 'Project "Trip Distribution and Assignment SCHEMATIC:-NOT TO SCALE ]:\CCC530 Willow PassSgures\Fig_9.cdr (8/4.105) I I t Site' = ..:,-: 22/15 —27/18 l 792/210 L EVORA RD 11/31 t r 78/216 o ca oCf) T INT Co T N r N I lr)C Co M N ic�07 163/115 `–"' 97/3 /000J 1 +—748/270 It ' oc ZN C, r-M I LO 1–N SR4 4 I Co o� + L j 325/512—! t r 217/376 N Mo CD N N I 6/4 i L X4/1 AVILA RD I t _r r N 0 G � 3 0 ' I 3 L S A LEGEND FIGURE 10 )OM -AM/PM Peak iHour Volumes N 'Willow Pass Business Park Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE I i I:,CC'C530 Willow Pass,figureffis_lO.cdr(8!4/05) i 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' JULY 1005 INITIAL STUDY Table 15: Existing Plus Project LOS Summa!:X Exi ting ExistingPlus Project AM PM AM PM ' Delay Delay Delay Delay Intersection sec LOS sec LOS sec LOS sec LOS 1.Willow Pass Rd/Evora Rd 37:6 : ;::V ' 10.5 B >.50::'. :F: 49.9 D. 2.Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 Westbound Rams ;::48.9.`,' _;':E: 12.7 B >50 ..::. ,::F:.'.. 14.7 B 3.Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 Eastbound Rams x50::;: ";':::F.I:. : :37:0. .' E: >:50:: ` F.:.::. >50':'' V.. 4.Willow Pass Rd/Avila Rd 20.5 C 16.6 C 21.9 C 17.3 C ®=Exceeds LOS criteria. ' Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. The intersection should be modified to provide a westbound left-turn lane,resulting in the ' following geometrics at the intersection: Northbound: One left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane. Southbound: One shared left-through-right lane. ' Eastbound: One shared left-through-right lane. Westbound:One left-turn lane and one shared left-through-right lane. Implementation of this improvement would result in the intersection operating at LOS A ' during both peak hours in the existing plus project condition (0.520 volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) during the AM peak hour and 0.521 v/c during the PM peak hour). The ' signalized operation of the intersection was analyzed using the Circular 212 (Critical Movement Analysis) methodology, with adjustments to the saturation flow rate, as set forth in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Technical Procedures manual. ' Mitigation Measure TRAF-3: Improvements will be necessary to remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/SR-4 westbound ' ramps. Installation of a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in all directions, along with the existing geometrics, would remedy the LOS deficiency at this intersection. If a traffic signal is installed, then it should be interconnected and coordinated with the ' recommended traffic signals at Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramp (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 and TRAF-4). However, the California Department of Transportation and/or the Contra Costa County Public Works Department may determine that improvements other than, or in addition to a , traffic signal are more appropriate. Because the intersection operates at unsatisfactory LOS E in the existing condition, the project applicant shall participate in necessary improvements on a fair-share basis, corresponding to the amount of traffic forecasted to ' be added to the intersection by the project and calculated using the appropriate State and/or County methodology. Since the impact from this project could be mitigated through the installation of a traffic signal, the project applicant's contribution to necessary improvements shall not exceed the fair-share cost of installing a traffic signal. P:\CCC570\PRODUCrS\IS-MND\Poblicftblic Rc%icw IS-NMD.dw(00/21X13) V O 1 I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK JULY 1005 INITIAL STUDY I Implementation of this improvement would result in the intersection operating at LOS B (0.643 v/c) during the AM peak hour and LOS A (0.371 v/c) during the PM peak hour in the existing plus project condition. 1 Miti atQ ion Measure TRAF-4: Improvements will be necessary to remedy the LOS deficiency experienced'at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramps. ' Installation of a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in all directions, along with the existing geometrics,1 would remedy the LOS deficiency at this intersection. If a traffic signal is installed, then it should be interconnected and coordinated with the recommended traffic signals at Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramp (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 and TRAF-4). However, the California Department of Transportation and/or the Contra Costa County Public Works Department may determine that improvements other than, or in addition to a traffic signal are more!appropriate. Because the intersection operates at unsatisfactory LOS E in the existing condition, the project applicant shall .participate in necessary improvements on a fair-share basis, corresponding to the amount of traffic forecasted to tbe added to the intersection by the project and calculated using the appropriate State and/or County methodology. Since the impact from this project could be mitigated through the installation of a traffic signal, the project applicant's contribution to necessary improvements shall not exceed the fair-share cost of installing a traffic signal. Implementation of this iimprovement would result in the intersection operating at LOS A ' during both peak hours in the existing plus project condition (0.463 v/c during the AM peak hour and 0.491 v/i during the PM peak hour). b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency or designated roads or highways? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) I ' To assess the impact of the proposed Willow Pass Business Park in a cumulative horizon, as well as assess the project's impact on the Congestion Management Program facilities in the area, a future scenario was�l analyzed. Year 2025 serves as the planning horizon for the ' cumulative traffic analysis. iLSA obtained 2025 traffic model data from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). This data included year 2000 and 2025 forecast traffic volumes and land use data ;by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). It should be noted that the extension of Leland Road to Avila Road was not included in the 2025 model data. In addition, background truck traffic estimated to be generated as part of the Frito Lay project,was also not included from the modeling las this traffic is specific to this site and therefore would not be included in the countywide model. (These are not part of the proposed project.) No ' adjustments to account for Frito Lay truck travel were made to the countywide model data. I I I I I i I P:1CCC530IPRODUCTSVS-MND\Public\Public Re%iew IS-NMD.doc(8 50/2005) .69 I I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' JULY 1005 INITIAL STUDY According to the land use data provided by the CCTA, the project land use has not been , included in the TAZ corresponding to the project's location. As a result, it is necessary to add project traffic to 2025 modeled traffic volumes to determine the impact of the project in the buildout horizon. 2025 baseline traffic , volumes were forecast by applying the Table 16: 2025 LOS Summary growth between 2000 and 2025 in the 2025 model to the existing traffic counts. The AM PM ' Delay Delay 2025 baseline (no project) traffic volumes intersection (sec) LOS (see) I LOS are shown in Figure 11. The 2025 baseline 1. Willow Pass Rd/Evora .>'SO:;;•:.. F=<; 11.5 B LOS summary is shown in Table 16. As Ra °; . '+.;= 2. Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 >:'50`.:. .:;E;;' 24.1 C shown below, each of the four intersections Westbound Ramps would operate at an unsatisfactory LOS in 3. Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 the AM peak hour. Two intersections, Eastbound Ramps 4. Willow Pass Rd/Avila Rd ':'>50 ':.:.:. F•' >.50 : '::F' ' Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road/SR-4 westbound ramps would ®-Exceeds LOS criteria. operate at satisfactory LOS in the PM peak Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. hour;the other two would not. ' Project trips were then added to the 2025 baseline traffic volumes. The 2025 Plus Project ' traffic volumes are shown in Figure 12. The 2025 plus project LOS is shown in Table 17. All intersections will operate at unsatisfactory LOS F during one or both peak hours. Table 17: 2025 Plus Project LOS Summa , 2025 2025 plus Project AM PM AM PM Delay Delay Delay Delay ' Intersection sec LOS sec LOS sec LOS sec LOS 1. Willow Pass Rd/Evora Rd >56.:,: `:. F? 11.5 B >.50': .`:`T. '.. >'50: ::..:F'V.: 2. Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 Westbound Rams 24.1 C >:50 . '.:F -c 30.8 D ' 3. Willow Pass Rd/SR-4 Eastbound Rams >;.50 :': :F >56 F. 4. Willow Pass Rd/Avila Rd > . :'50 ,``.`.F';''; `>50: 1.F:';: ,:.:>,50 ®=Exceeds LOS criteria , Source: LSA Associates,Inc.,2005. A peak-hour signal warrant analysis was prepared for all four study area intersections. A traffic signal and/or other improvements would be warranted during the peak hour for the intersections of Willow Pass Road/Evora Road, Willow Pass Road/SR-4 westbound ramps, and Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramps. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-2, TRAF-3, and ' TRAF-4 would result in satisfactory operations in the existing plus proposed project, as well as the 2025 Plus Project scenario at the three intersections. With implementation of the mitigation measures,the 2025 Plus Project level of service at the three intersections are shown below: ' 1. Willow Pass Road/Evora Road v/c=0.675, LOS A during the AM peak hour , v/c=0.653,LOS A during the PM peak hour P:\CCC570\PRODUCf'SVS-MND\Public\Public Rcmw IS.N'MD.dm(8/10/2005) 70 I i ----------------------- I= " Project •u -4-3/2 I 940/217 r•' EVORA RD 1/5 1 r ' 9/5 rn M CO "M O CD to M K��24 fl_000O Nr LO Cli SR-4 4 228/446 t r 315/583 z ' N M (OD M N I iM M N 6/4 ' x-4/1 AVILA RD t Cli oM 1 3 0 I o 3 L v " LEGEND FIGURE 11 ' WYY -AM/PM Peakpour Volumes N Willow Pass Business Park Year 2025 Traffic Volumes i SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE I ' 1:\CCC530 Willow Pass\figures\Fig_1 I.cdr (84/05) i i i i ----------------------- Pr c I`` oje t: Sife,' c�N>. 22/15 —27/18 935/216 EVORA RD 11/31 � tr 78/216 ovorn ' lf7MN n M, N a2 IC 701 M �2 L—170/116 I —97/3 t i-1085/416 ' `l t ^L ' coco �� U')CD LO LO SR-4 4 co IL 395/567 t r ' 315/583 IMO C L-M ' N� r--co LO co v 6/4 L 4/1 AVILA RD tr � to N C M < O Q O 3 r 0 3 L S A LEGEND FIGURE 12 )CM -AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes ' N Willow Pass Business Park Year 2025 Plus Project Traffic Volumes , SCHEMATIC-NOT TO SCALE UCCC530 Willow Pass\figures\Fig_1?.cdr(8/4/05) ' I ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK JULY 1005 INITIAL STUDY I I I I 2. Willow Pass Road/SR-4 westbound ramps v/c=0.806,LOS D duringithe AM peak hour ' v/c=0.516, LOS A durmg1the PM peak hour I 3. Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramps ' v/c=0.633,LOS A during!the AM peak hour v/c=0.575,LOS A during the PM peak hour I A traffic signal would not be warranted at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/Avila Road. ' The LOS deficiency at this intersection is only on the minor street (Avila Road). No stop control exists on Willow Pass-Road; therefore, vehicles on Willow Pass Road would not ' experience any delay. Ten or fewer vehicles are forecast to utilize the westbound approach and experience significant delay due to the through traffic. No project trips are forecast to utilize Avila Road and contribute to the delay on the stop-controlled approach. Because of the small number of affected vehicles, no mitigation is recommended at this intersection. ' According to the Central Contra Costa Updated Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, SR-4 is designated as a Route of Regional Significance. The following traffic ' service objective has been established for SR-4: • Delay index of 2.0,with minimum peak hour average travel speed of 30 mph. ' • Peak-hour average vehicle occupancy of 1.4 persons per vehicle. I The delay index is a measure of the time that it takes to travel between two points during the peak hour as compared to non-congested off-peak hours. A delay index of 2.0 indicates that a trip would take twice as long during the peak commute hour as during the off-peak hours. According to traffic counts obtained from the Caltrans Web site (www.dot.ca.gov), the segments of SR-4 east and west of Willow Pass Road currently carry approximately 11,500 vehicles during the peak hour, or approximately 1,650 passenger cars per hour per lane (pc/h/]n). Based on the project trip distribution shown in Figure 9, the project has the potential to add up to 258 peak-hour vehicles to SR-4. To determine the effect on the average travel ' speed,the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was consulted. According to Exhibit 23-3 in the HCM, the existing peak-hour volume would correspond to an average travel speed of approximately 68 miles per}four. When 258 project trips are added to the freeway,the freeway ' would carry approximately 1,680 pc/h/ln. Based on Exhibit 23-3, this addition of approximately 30 peak-hour pc/h/ln would result in a negligible reduction in average travel speed of less than 2 to 3 mikes per hour. Therefore, the project would not significantly impact the free flow speed on SR-4,i and as a result,would not be expected to result in a delay index of greater than 2.0. i. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a ' change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No Impact) The project would not affect;air traffic patterns in the area. I I P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSUS-MND\PubliclPoblic Pniew IS-NMDAm(8/30!2005) 73 I i I LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK ' JULY 7005 INITIAL STUDY d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ' intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Vehicular access to the project will be provided from Evora Road and the terminus of Willow ' Pass Road. Project driveways have all been designed as standard full-access driveways. Parking on-site is generally in 90-degree stalls with two-way drive aisles. No dead-end parking aisles are proposed, and the planned circulation is adequate to accommodate the anticipated ' land uses. e) Result-in inadequate emergency access? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) Emergency access is provided via the project driveways off Evora Road and Willow Pass Road. ' Based on the proposed site plan, emergency vehicles could access all sides of the proposed buildings, with the exception of the building on Lot 6. Access is provided to three sides of the ' building on Lot 6, which would be adequate for emergency vehicles and personnel. Adequate emergency access will be provided to the proposed project. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) ' The proposed General Plan Amendment contains development standards (including parking spaces) required for the proposed project. As each parcel was developed,the minimum number ' of parking spaces for the proposed land use(s) would .be provided. Alternatively, if a shell building was proposed and the specific uses were unknown at the time of construction, then the potential uses and their square footage would be limited by the number of parking spaces ' provided. Lots 8 and 9 will contain the proposed Black Diamond Vista project, with a gas station,multi-tenant retail building(including fast food), and car wash. This project contains up to 12,000 square feet of building space and will be parked at a ratio of one space per 250 square ' feet, consistent with the County's requirement for retail land uses. Fixing the number of required parking spaces to the square footage of the proposed uses would ensure that the project would have adequate parking capacity. ' g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) , The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates in the median of SR-4 adjacent to the project. The closest stations to the project are the North Concord/Martinez station and the Baypoint station in Pittsburgh. The Contra Costa County General Plan Transportation and Circulation ' Element designates SR-4 as a transit corridor. Within the corridor, the County will pursue the construction of rail transit extensions and high occupancy vehicle facilities,the establishment of express bus service,the integration of rail transit and bus service, and the promotion of carpools ' and vanpools. Implementation of the proposed project would not affect BART operations within the SR-4 corridor or implementation of the transit corridor as outlined in the General Plan. , A segment of the Delta/DeAnza Regional Trail terminates approximately 275 feet south of the Evora Road/Willow Pass Road intersection. The East Bay Regional Park District's "Master , Plan 1997" identifies a potential extension of the trail along the south side of Evora Road from Willow Pass Road west to the Contra Costa Canal. The project site is on the north side of P:\CCC570\PRODIKTSUS-MND\Public\Wblic Review IS.NMD.dm(8/30/20)5) 74 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 1005 INITIAL STUDY I ' ■ ! ' Evora Road and would not directly impact the planned trail corridor. However, the traffic mitigation measures described in Section XV.a above require improvements within the trail corridor. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that the required roadway improvements do not conflict or interfere with the implementation of the trail extension. Mitigation Measure TRAF-5: The project applicant shall work closely with the East Bay Regional Park District land the appropriate transportation agency (Contra Costa County Public Works Department and/or California Department of Transportation)to ensure that ' the required intersection and roadway improvements in the vicinity of the Evora Road[Willow Pass Road intersection are designed with provisions to allow for a trail crossing acceptable to the East Bay Regional Park District. ■ I Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the . ' proj ect: I a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ■ ' applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or a a ■ a wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ' facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? I c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ■ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could'Cause significant environ- mental effects? ■ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the C3 ■ 13 project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? I e) Result in a determination bye the wastewater treatment ■ ' provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ' f) Be served by a landfill with'sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ■ 13 capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ■ i ■ I P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSUS•A4JDV'ubliCV'ublic Review IS•NMU.doc 10!30/2003j 75 ■ LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK ' JULY 7003 INITIAL STUDY Potentially ' Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Comply with federal,State,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ' Board? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The sewage collection system would transport wastewater from the project site to the Delta ' Diablo Sanitation District(DDSD). The system would comply with all applicable requirements established by the DDSD and the wastewater would be treated at the DDSD water treatment plant which is operated in compliance with all applicable federal and State water quality ' requirements. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) which incorporated Best Management ' Practices (BMPs) for the project was reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department, Grading Division prior to issuance of grading permits for the rough grading. An updated SWPPP would be required in conjunction with future site ' development. County inspection during site preparation and construction would confirm the implementation and on-going maintenance of the SWPPP and BMPs and other pertinent .County requirements related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. The t project would not result in significant impacts on water quality. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or ' expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The wastewater generated by the proposed project could be accommodated with the existing ' DDSD wastewater treatment facilities and would not require the construction of additional faculties. Construction of the on-site water system would occur on a site that has been rough graded and would not cause significant environmental effects. ' c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ' (Less-Than-Signiftcant Impact) As detailed in Section VI1I, Hydrology and Water Quality, stormwater runoff from 75 percent ' of the developed areas would flow through a system of bioswales, concrete channels and storm drain pipes to a detention basin and fresh water pond,which would reduce the rate and amount of surface runoff leaving the project site and help reduce `first flush' pollutant levels. Surface runoff collected in the detention basin and freshwater ponds and excess runoff would be , directed to the N inch storm drain pipe which passes beneath the Contra Costa Canal. The storm water conveyance and detention system for the site was developed as part of the , Delta Diablo Sanitation District project. Compliance with the County's "collect and convey" 1 P:\000330\PRODUCI'SUS-MNDWublic\Public Review IS-N'MD.dw(00/:00) 76 i 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK JULY 2005 INITIAL STUDY 1 1 requirements, which would lie a condition of project approval, would ensure that the storm water drainage systems would;accommodate the proposed project. 1 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) j 1 The proposed project is located within the service area of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The CCWD has indicated that it has capacity to serve the project. While located within the CCWD's service area, the proposed project would draw water from on-site wells for potable use and from the Contra Costa Canal for use in irrigation and fire suppression systems. Approximately one-third of the project's water demand would be satisfied by the wells and 1 two-thirds would be satisfied jby the canal. On July 20, 2005 the CCWD;Board authorized the CCWD to enter into A Raw Water Service 1 Agreement with the project applicant and Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP. This agreement includes terms to locate, design, constFuct and pay for a turnout from the Contra Costa Canal; to locate, design, construct and maintain equipment associated with water flow and distribution; and to make water service payments to the CCWD. The applicant has signed this agreement and ' Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP is anticipated to sign the agreement. The Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD) has issued a 10-year permit to 1 operate a private water system on-site. However, it is unclear how long the aquifer that feeds the project's wells would bei capable of supplying an adequate quantity of potable water. The possibility that the project could exhaust the supply of potable water is a potentially significant 1 impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that the quality and quantity of water in the aquifer is monitored and that an alternative water supply is established, if needed,thereby mitigatingjthe impact to a less-than-significant level: 1 Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a long-term (minimum 30 year) Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and the HSD. The Plan shall include ' the following: i • Regular Testing and Reporting: Testing shall be conducted by an individual or firm 1 whose qualifications and methodologies are approved by :the HSD to identify any deterioration in the quality and quantity of water in the underground aquifer supplying the project. Tests shall be conducted annually and reports including the 1 test results shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval following verification,of the results by the HSD. Testing shall.confirm a minimum five year supply of potable water. Testing and reporting maybe required on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary by either the Zoning Administrator or the HSD. 1 Factors that may necessitate more frequent reporting include, but are not limited to, an increase in theiintensity of on-site uses, additional draws on the aquifer resulting from nearby development, an accident involving the release of hazardous materials 1 into the soil in the vicinity of the aquifer and one or more years of drought. I P:\CCC570(PRODUM\IS-MNDWublic\Pubi,c Rede.IS-NMD.d.(8(30/2005) 77 1 ' - i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK ' JULY 1005 INITIAL STUDY • Alternative Water Supplies: Alternative water supplies shall be identified and , described in detail. If testing indicates that the recharge capability and/or the.water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating or is expected to deteriorate to the point where the supply of potable water is no longer guaranteed for a minimum period of five ' years,then a hydrogeologic study shall be conducted to more precisely determine the condition of the aquifer. If the hydrogeologic study confirms that the recharge capability and/or the water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating and that the aquifer ' can no longer be considered a reliable source of potable water, then the study shall project how long the aquifer will be able to meet the needs of the project. In order to ensure an adequate future water supply, the applicant shall either: (1) develop an , additional, or possibly replacement water supply; or .(2) begin the process of connecting to the CCWD. Within three months of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that the ' establishment of an alternative water supply is necessary, the applicant shall decide which alternative it intends to implement. The proposal-for the alternative water supply shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and ' shall be acceptable to the HSD if that department has permitting responsibility. The alternative water supply or service from the CCWD shall be operational no less than one year prior to the anticipated inability of the aquifer to provide the necessary ' potable water supply, as projected in the hydrogeologic study.New construction and the establishment of new uses in existing tenant spaces will be prohibited if either of these deadlines is not met or if the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate ' progress has not been made in establishing the alternative water supply. New construction and the establishment of new uses will not be permitted to resume until the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate progress has been made. Emergency Measures:Measures to maintain a temporary/backup water supply shall , be developed. The Plan shall be updated as site conditions change, new alternative water supplies ' become available, previously identified alternative supplies become unavailable, etc. The approved Plan shall be implemented by the applicant or successor entity. Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Concurrent with recording the Final Map, the applicant , shall record a deed disclosure statement for each parcel alerting future property owners to the existence of the Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and informing them ' that they are subject to the requirements and procedures contained therein. Each subsequent property owner shall also be provided with a copy of the most current version of the Plan. , e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the , provider's existing commitments? (Less-Than-Significant.Impact) See XVIA,above. 1 P:\CCC370WRODUM\IS-MND\Publm\Wblic Review IS.NMDAW(&70!2015) 78 ' LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK JULY 4005 INITIAL STUDY I 1 I f). Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) I The proposed project would be served by the Keller Canyon Landfill, which has remaining a capacity of approximately 68;000,000 cubic yards and an estimated closure date of December 31, 2030.' The existing landfill has the capacity to accommodate the proposed project's solid waste disposal needs. . i Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Less- ' Than-Significant Impact) Recycling receptacles would be provided within the project site, in accordance with all statutes ' and regulations related to soliI d waste. Potentially Significant ' Potentially Unless Less Than I Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ � ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or ' wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or ' endangered plant or animal,for eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ❑ ❑ � cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ' either directly or indirectly?' a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially ' reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or I ' California Integrated Waste Management Board,2004. Keller Canyon Landfill Facility/Site Details. Website: httn://www.ciwmb.ca.Lov/SWI S/detai l.asr)?PG=DET&S II'ESC:H=07-AA-0032&OUT=HTM 1, I ,I I I P:\CCC530\PRODUCTS\IS-MND\Public\Public Review IS-NMD.dm(WOI,005) 79 I I i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK , JULY 2005 INITIAL STUDY restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of ' the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less-Than-Significant Impact) As described in Section IV, the proposed. project would not adversely affect special status ' plants and animals. As described in Section V, Cultural Resources, there are no identified cultural resources within the site, and it is unlikely that resources would be uncovered during the construction period. Implementation of the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the. ' quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4)threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5)reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered ' plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ' ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, ' and the effects of probable future projects.) (Less-Than-Significant Impact) The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would result in the development of a mixed use business park in ' unincorporated Contra Costa County. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. ' c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact) ' The proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. ' PXCC530\PRODUC('SVS-MND\PubhCWubIw Re,w.IS-NMD.d.(R/30/2005) 8 1 i i i 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESS PARK JULY 1005 i INITIAL STUDY i I I ' B. REPORT PREPARERS LSA Associates,Inc. 2215 Fifth Street ' Berkeley;CA 94710 David Clore,AICP,Principal iri Charge Shannon Allen,AICP,Project Manager ' Jason Burke, Assistant Planner Sue Smith, Word Processing Skip Shimmin, Graphics Manager One Park Plaza, Suite 500 � Irvine, CA 92614 Tony Chung,Principal Tony Petros,Principal,Transportation Keith Lay,Air Quality/Noise Specialist ' Meghan Macias, Senior Transp ortation Planner Other Preparers ' William R.Nelson, Senior Planner,Contra Costa County Hillary P. Heard, Senior Planner-Transportation Planning Division,Contra Costa County I i i i I I I I t I 1 i i I P:\CCC530\PRODUCTSUS-MND\Public\Public Rmew IS-NMD.da(8/30/2005) 81 1 I I I i LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. WILLOW PASS BUSINESSPARK , JULY 2005 INITIAL STUDY C. BIBLIOGRAPHY , AEI Consultants, 2005. Soil Excavation&Removal Report,4650 Evora Road, Concord.. January 14. ' California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, 2002. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, 2004. Williamson ' Act Program. Website: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/Ica/ California Department of Fish and Game,2003. Streambed Alteration Agreement Amendment, Thomas DeNova Annexation and Light Industrial Development,Contra Costa County. May 8. , California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Program. Website: littp://www.dot.ca. og v/hq/LandArch/scenic/schM].Iitmi ' California Integrated Waste Management Board,2004. Keller Canyon Landfill Facility/Site Details. Website: http://xvww.ciwmb.ca.aov/SWIS/detaii.asp?PG=DET&SITESCH=07-AA- ' 0032&OUT=HTML Contra Costa County, 1996. Contra Costa County General Plan 1995-2010. Contra Costa County, 1987.-Draft Environmental Impact Report,Lesher General Plan Amendment. , December. Donaldson Associates, 2002. Environmental Initial Study for the Thomas/DeNova LLC Annexation and Light.Industrial Development. Delta Diablo Sanitation District,Antioch, CA. February 21. Mosaic Associates,LLC,2003. Thomas/Denova LLC Industrial Subdivision First Year Monitoring Report, Concord,Contra Costa County. December 15. ' Mosaic Associates,LLC,2004. Re: Burrowing Owl Mitigation, Agreement 41802-200200040003, Thomas/DeNova LLC Industrial Subdivision, Concord,Contra Costa County. April 29. Sycamore Associates LLC,2000. California Red-leggedftog and California Tiger Salamander Site ' Assessment for the Lesher Property, Concord, Contra Costa County, California. .July 13. Sycamore Associates, LLC,2000. RE:Special-Status Plant Surveys at the Lesher Property, north of ' Concord, Contra Costa County. October 16. 1 p PiCCCSIUPRODUCI•SUS•MN•D\Public\Public Renew 1S•NMD.dm(8!.10!2005) 82 1 , AppEN,DLX A - ECT c NCP,Rp1 - E Y , 1 1 . i ,•11-1[.ta.GGG7 .�•��rri �.lA•q'M`11 t 7 iLtvtLvr'rttltit NU.4LW F'.el 1 T �V CALIFORNIA u;s "' ALWMA SAtii MATRO Ww wont lnformotiop Conw HISTORICAL opu.tsA I MENDO0440 SAWA C�ARA SOnoma State Unjvets W UNWQCkOA MONTMEY , A � 13oMaurice AvenueFESOURCES teee�P* o�F �oi6609 YA Nov %,'arcl 5INFORMATION CICOYOLO T �oi.stsooB664,0W ' SYSTEM 4111,1? ;i Y E-m ILI nwic®sonoma.edu Novemba f:4-2004 T +rTr: '--s ''rte' File No.:04-CC-40 Will Nelson,Project planner Contra Costa County Commtroity DeveloptneM Dept, 651 Pine Street ' 40 Floor,North wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 I re: GP 044010,RZ 04-3151,SD 048918,DP 04.3096/H-wy 4&Willow Pas;Road/Thomas/DoNava LLC Dear Mr,Nelson i I Records at this office were reviewed to deterrltine if this prgject could adversely affect historical resources. The review for ' possible historic strgctures,bowevet,Was lirpited to references currently in our office. Please note that use of the Urm historical resourges irncludes both archs►eojouical sites and historic structures. I The propose$project arca contains or is aQjacout to the eologieal sitefsl ( ). A study is recommendod prior to commence of project activitipe. I The proposed project area bas tine possibility of coatairiirig uru�eeorded arebaeologieal site(s). A study is ' recommended prior to commencement of project activities, XX The proposed projw area has a low possibility of containing unrecm*d arcbaeo]Wcal siWsl, Therefore,no further sandy for archaeological resourm is Ireco==4ed. . The proposed project area contains a listed historic structure ( ), See recommendations is the comments section below. I Study# identified no historical itssowrces. Further study for fiistorical resources is not recommended. .nL Review for possible historic structures was limited to the Northwest):nfo=ation Centers documents and should not be ' considered comprehensive.Since the Office of Historic Preservation bas determined that any building or structure 45 years or older maybe of historic valoe,flee tfore if the project arca contains such properties it is recommeaded that they be evaluated by an architectural bistorian prior to commencement of project activities. _The guidelines for ireplemm%tion of the California Register of Historical Resources(Cal Register)criteria for evaluation of historical properties have been developed by the State Office of Historical Preservation. For the purposes of CBQA,all identified sizes should be evaluated using the Cal Register criteria, ' We recommend you contact the local Native American tnbe(s)regarding traditional,cultural,and religious values. For a complete listlug of trues in the vicinity of the project,please contact the Native A*e*icm Heritage CommissioA at 916/653-4082, ' if archaeolo cal resources are encountered during the project,work in the immediate vicinity of the finds should be halted until a qualified archaeologist bas evaluated the situation. if you have any questions please give us a call(707)664-0880, ' I Siuccrclq, i Leigh Jordan Coordinator i i i 45011 AA LUZ i evitaill of( pt lra Gonna 04 NDV 22 AM!a 1 ' (off irr of IIJr f hrriff November 16, 2004 warren S.Rupf {L-01101 IDI".i Shotjlf ' W. Will Nelson . Community Development Department ' 651 Pine Street Floor,North Wing Martinez, Ca 94553 , Dear Mr.Nelson Subject: Request to allow development of A business park on a 28-acre parcel,located ' at Highway 4 and Willow Pass Road.in the unincorporated area of Bay Point,California. RE: County File#4PO4-0010/DP04-3096 ' Proiect Description; ' This is a request for develmaenl of a multi-lse business perk located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Willow Pass Road acid F.Yor l Road in the Bay Point Area. The project is ' designed to accommodate light.industrial,warehouse, commercial office and reW uses.. This office has reviewed the submitted doe-wnents and completed a bite survey. The folloWIng concerns, comments and recommendations are provided for your consideration. ' Crime Analysis Data Crime analysis data for the 6-month period May 1,2003 through October 31, 2004 indicates the ' Office of the Sherifl'has received the following crime reports in the area irn mediately surrounding the project Site: (1)Commercial Burglary; (1)Auto Burglary;(1)Miscellaneous ' Burglary and(1) cases of Malicious Mischief General Security Recommendations , Doors 1. Exterior employee,pedestrian and utility room doors should be of solid construction, , with a minimum thi,elmess of 1% inches and should be secured by a deadbolt lock with a minimum throw of one(1)ineh , 2. Door strike plates should be augmented with three-inch screws to guard against forced entry- 1980 Muir Road•Maft California 94553-4800 I i 3. Outside hinges on all exterior doors should be provided with non-removable pias When pin type hinges are used, or should be provided with hinge studs to prevent removal of ' the door. 4. Glass doors should be sec*d by a deadbolk lock with a mini nn throw of one(1) inch 5. Doors with glass panels,or doors with glans panels adjacceeat to the door should be secured witb burglary resistant glaz2g- 6. Door$with panic bars should have vertical rod panic hardware with top and bottom latch bolts. No secondary locks should be installed on panic equipped doors and no exterior surface-mounted hardware sllouki be used. 7. A 2"wide and 6"long astri gal shote►e installed on the doors exterior to protect the IMCIL 8. Overhead roll-up doors should be secured on*inside to prevent the lock from being defeated from the outside and should be secured with a cylixnder or padlock on the inside, I , ' Windows 1, Louvered windows should'not be used as they pose a OgnTmaat security risk 2. Vrmdows that are capable of being opened should be secured on the imide by it locking device.eapable of withstanding a force of three hundred(300)pounds i a any direr rim 3. All windows capable of being opengd should be equipped with secondary loclemg mechanisms. ' Roof Openings i 1. All glam skylights shopld be equipped with the following: a. Burglary resistant glass or glass-19m acrylic material or b. Iron bars of at lean 1/2"round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material, spaced no more than 5 inches apart and secured under the skylight or c. A steel grill of at least 1/8"material or 2"mesh under the skYR& 2. All hatchway openings on the roof of my budding should be seelued as follows: a If the hatch is of wooden material,it should be covered on the outside with a sheet of steel at least 16•gauge and should be attached with screws. ' b. The hatch should be secured from the inside with a slide bar or slide bolts. c. Outside hinges on!all b4tchway openings should be equipped with non-removable pins When ung pin type hinges. ' 3. All air duct or air vent openings on the roof or exterior walls that exceeding 8 inch x 12 inch should be secured by eiiber of the following- a. Iron bars of at least 1/2"round or one by one-fourth inch flat steel material,spaced ' no more than 5 inches apart and secured under the skylight or b, A steel grill of at least 1/8"material or 2"mesh under the skylight sad c. If the barrier is on: the outside,it should be secured with galvanized xounded bead Bush bolts of at lei�,ast 3/8"diameter on the outside. 'Minimum 3/16"security laminate,%^polycarbonate,or approved sea}rity On treatment 1 ' I Lighting ' 1. Parking areas,driveways, circulation areas,aislm passageways,recersses,jnd grouAdS ' contiguous to buildings should be provided with lighting sufficient to make elca* visible the presence of any person on or about the premises. 2. Ail extetior doors should be equipped with tbeir own dedicated light source ' 3. All exterior fixtures should be equipped with vandal resistant grating and be installed at sufficient height to discourage tampering. 4. All exterior HOU should be controlled by a photocell system, designed to operate dining all periods of diminished light,regardless of time of day. Landscaping ' 1. Landscaping should be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while.providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Bushes should be no bigber Jbqn,4V ' from the ground and tree canopy should not fall below a level of seven(7)feet from the ground wben mature. 2. Defensible(Tbomy)landscaping is encouraged along fence and property limes,under vulnerable windows,and sny other location where you want to reWiCt people's abfty to ' sit, loiter, On*or wok Defensible plant listings are available,upon request from the Crime Prevention Unit,by calling(925)313-2723. ' 3. Ensure that landscaping,when mature,will not interfere with security lightt. Addressing 1. Numerak should be a winimtun of four(4)innbes in beiO and of a contrasting color to ' their baelWound I The address umber should be Aluminated during periods of darkness. ' 3. Building numbers should be positioned in the front of the building and in such a way as to be easily visablo to emergency veScles. Alarm & Accepts Controls 1 1. Bach building should be equipped with a comptebensive arum"era,to include , coverage of all exterior doors and windows, 2. A licensed alum company sbould monitor the alarm system on a twenty-four hour a day basis. ' 3. Individual alarm access codes should be assigned to each authorized employee. Thte alarm system Should have the ability to monittor who has made access,whore and at what time the access was made. Accurate empioyeo code documentation should be kept, ' 4. Proper key control should be incorporated and proper documentation should be maintained I r r ► irking& Signage j r1. All entrances to the parking area should be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(x) CVC,to assist in removing vehicles at the property owner's/manager's request. Also, appropriate signage referring to sin 602 PC(No Trespass)and Section 647 PC(No Loitering) should be posted at all entrances to the property. 21 Handicapped parking spaces should be clearly marked and proper signs posted r 3. Tire stops should be installed,iia all parking spaces. I teeommendatiorns for ConveniencIe Store &Fast Food F,StabIlahmeuU ' 1. A Class F steel safe,wi fh a m�1 imum UL rating of TTA 0 should be ftxudbd in the admfmlsation offices of the convenience store.and fast food re$ta%uwiL This safe should r be secured to the concrete foundadom by bolts from the inside of the safe. Access to each safe should be restricted to necessary personnel only. A hemmed atnwted car company should service each safe at least weekly. 2. Audible panic buttons should be placed in all restrooms. Silent panic buttons should be ' placed of eacb register and the administration office. All panic buttons should register as such with the alarm compamp to include alarm location ' 3. Security cameras(CCTV) should be installed in such a way as to provide complete coverage of the convenienm store and fast food establisbment. At minnmum,a monitor should be placed at the cashier booths and at the drive through window, A recording device should be located W'each administration office. Security tapes should be replaced at least twice yearly. 4. Alcoholic beverage coolers;should be locked at 2:00 am to prevent thefts and attempts to purchase alcolmi after 2:80 am. 1 5. The cashiers'platform shoal be elevated to provide a better view of the 71�►�ng area. The cashiers'platform should be equipped with a telephone and the casW should remain in the booth after dark This platform should be visible from the outside of the r bui»g. 6. Shelving should be low en6ugh tq assure good visibility throughout the store. 7. Two-way or convex mirrrors are encomaged to decrca.se blind spots S. The applicant should install a tdelay drop safe to provide employees the ability to limit the amount of cash on hand. Cashiers should not have access to money once it has been placed in the drop safe. All en rjes to the premises abould be marked with notification that the cashier does not have access to the safe, 9. Visibility into and out of the building should be maintained at all times. Banners and/or merchandise should not tie placed on or in front of windows. No outside display of merchandise should occur in the parking or circulation areas. 10.All storage areas should be closed and locked where not in use. 11.If a payphone is to be ins.,zorporazed,it should be located inside the minirnart,within view of the cashier 12.Height tape should be placed at all exits to enable sta$'to easily recognize the height of robbery/burglary mzsp+ect5. 13.Low-pressure sodium fixtures should be installed to the front of the store to reduce loitering. r � 1 I I 1 f you should Dave airy additional questions regarding this matter,please feel free to oonttt the uabez listed below. �mcerely, Warren E.Rupp Sheriff ' Me of the Sheriff--Contra Costa County wxbaei Voss h� Crime Proventian Specialist COce oftbe Sheriff- Contra Costa County ' (925)313-2723 x LAmtemaot Mike Newmwf,Mair dation COMMOM ec Ppt Pava—Ovmmudw Relations Supem iw ' 9bvm*,[Non U.0-Applicant Bile i i i ' Contra Costa Coun - ' """ r', #Y Fire Protection District i ch NOV 22 PH 3:45 em o�nu�o November 98 2004I :!&orU iY' ' Aartinez, CA 94553 i %ttention: will Nelson Wbjecf" GP 04-0010; RZ 04-3i151; SD 04-891 S; DP 043096,Willow Pass Business Par1c CCCFPD Project No. 10582 i 3entlernen: i JVs have reviewed the Subdivision application to establish a commercial business pant with a total of 18 ' ;ots at the subject location. This project is regulated by codes, regulations, and ordinances adrYtinlstered by this Fire District. If approved by your office,the following shall be included as conditions of approval: 1. The developer shall provide aniadequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a ' Minimum fire flow of 25Qo GPM. Required flow shall be delivered froill not mors than three hydrants flowing simultaneously for a duration of four hours while maintaining 20 pounds residual r R 7�f F3'ii►1[tia 4W3-4)pr: �. - '+,^• •-+r o 7s..o•�•�ar r�:a• ,r•• r- ' This includes the redgetiorl for the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, 2. The developer shall provide fire hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by this office upon submlttal of three copies of a tentative map or site plan. (903,4.2) CFC i 3. Provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet,6 inches of vertical clearance,to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls cf every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade,shall have a minimum outside tt;ming radius of 45 feet,and must be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus l.e.,37 tons. (902.2)CFC Note; a. Access roads of 20 feet vnobsiructed width shall have NO PARKING signs . posted or curbs painted red with the words"NO PARKING FIRE LANE"dearly marked. b. Roads 28 feet in width shall have NO PARKING signs posted,allowing for ' parking on Qne side only,or curb painted red with the words"NO PARKING FiRE LANE" clearly marked. ' c. Roads 36 feet in width allow for parking on both sides. Ades as shown appears to ccM ply With these requirements. ' A4 :%tAsf�W��JflgA yg�h>,Cles shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.Eleetrically operated gates shall be equipped with a KKnox Compgny key-operated swftCh. tv%nutrflyepensted getea shall be equipped with a non-casehardened breakaway lock or approved Fire District lock. Contact the Fire District for inforMation on ordering the padlock or key-operated switch. 2010 Geary Road•Pleasant Hill,California 94529.4694•Telephone(925)941-33009 Fox(925)94i-330: East County •Telophone(925)767.1303 • Fax 1925)941 X329 West County •Telephone(510)374.7070 www.cccrpd.org I i I CCCFPD Project No. 10632 .2, November 18,2004 S. Center divide medians on any access roadways shall leave a minimAm remaining lane width of ' 20 feet on each side. 6. Dead end Fire District access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus, (902,2.2.4) CFC ' 7. The developer shall submit three copies of site improvement plans indicating fire apparatus access and turnaround area for review and approval prior to construction.(902.22.1)CFC Note: This may be the same submittal as the Hydrant locations If necessary. ' 8. The developer shall provide a computer-aided design(CAD)digital file copy of the sybject project ypon final approval of the site improvement plans or subdivision map. CAD file shall be saved in an AutoCAQO 2002 file format or DXF file format. Contact this office for current acceptable ' AutoCAD®version. 9. Access roads and hydr;Rnts shall be installed, in service and approved prior to constmCUM. (8704.1)CFC ' 10. Approved premises identification shall be provided. $uch numbers shall contrast with their background and be rQadlly.visible from the street. (901.4.4)CFC ' 11. No flammable or oombustible liquid storage tanks shall be located on the site without obtaining approval and necessarypwmits from the Fire District. 12. The buildings as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system ' complying with NFPA 13, Submit three sets of plans to this office for review and approval prior tc installation. (1003.1)CFC 13. Submit plans to; Contra Costa County Fire Protection District ' 2010 Geary Road Pleasant Hip, CA 84523 To schedule field inspections and tests, call 825-941-3323. ' it is requested that a copy of the conditions of approval for the subject project be forwarded to this office when compiled by the planning agency. ' If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office, Sincerely, Ian Hardage Fire Prevention Technician IH/nlr ' File.10532V 1 I 1 i I CCCFPD Project No, 10532 -3 November 18,2004 i c: Thomas/DeNova t_I.0 ' 3100 Oak Road, Smite 140 Walnut Creek, CR 94597 Michael J. Murphy 3100 Oak Road, Suite 140! Walnut Creek, CA 94597 1 � I I I i i 1 I i i i I I I i i i 1 � 1 i i i it ►irK.I.:$.Gw=) d'.'4"'1 l.LA'n'I Jn 1 1 T L)LVLLU-7t.N I NU.4t U V.l r ' CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT l:0tlTRA C01 ' 1331 Concord Avenue pO,Box H2o 04 DEC_I P14 z;00 COMord,CA 94524 ' (925)8884x00 FAX(925)6e8-8122 November 29, 2004 •i.L��i'I'i�tl l I.l.i FACSI' 1'M 2 ' VIA 1V1 . 9 S 3351222 Hard Copy to Follow Joseph L.Campbell , Presddant Elizabeth R.Anello Will Nelson Vcs president Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street ' Pens Boetmun 4ts Floor,North Wing John A.134r9h Kat,tw wandry Martinez,California 94553-0095 WalcGener l lamer Subject: Willow Pass Business Park , Dear Mr.Nelson: ' The Contra Costa Water District(CCWD)is in receipt of the Agency Comment Request dated November 3,2004 regarding the request by ' Thomas/DeNova LLC to create a major subdivision and business park on 28 acres at Willow pass and Evora Roads. The subject property is located just above the Contra Costa Canal and just north of State Route 4, CCWD has , been actively involved with the review of this property for the past several years. During the early part of 2003 CCWD worked with Contra Costa County and Thomas DeNova on a variety of concerns related to development of a Frito Lay distribution complex at the subject site. Contra Costa County , provided this portion of the project with a grading permit prior to the land use application for the site and the grading permit did not consider impacts from drainage on the Contra Costa Canal. CCWD worked with Contra Costa ' County staff and Thomas DeNova to devise a drainage plan that was approved under land use Permit No,LP012108, On December 12,2003 CCWD provided Contra Costa County with comments as it pertained to the proposed Willow Pass Business Park, CCWD indicated its concerns with the proposed rezoning of land in this area, the fact that ' Thomas DeNova had yet to fulfill its obligations with respect to drainage improvements for land use Permit No.LP012108, and that the proposed private water system within the CCWD service area constituted duplication of , service impacts to CCWp cuato=rs. CCWD understands that the County ultimately rejected the request by Thomas DeNova to rezone and subdivide the property at that time due to concerns that the applicant was requesting land use changes piecemeal. ' i I i i November 29,2004 Page 2 i Since December 2003 Contra Costa County granted Thomas DeNova a ' grading permit for the' Willow Pass Business Park and the remaining portion of the property has been graded and leveled in auticipadon of a new business park. Generally,CCWD would expect to have the opportunity to review and provide its comments in the context of an environmental review for this ' project and prior to the property being leveled and graded. CCWD recommends that before Contra Costa County adyancc6 the November 3,2004 ' application further that the following must be considered and evaluated in environmental and land use considerations: i 1) The proposed area is within the CCWD service area. Howovcr, the ' developer is intending to pursue an independent water supply (a single groundwater well) and a private distribution system. Construction of an independent water system within CCWD's service area constitutes a ' duplication of service. CCWD is in the process of worlong out terms to address this issue. No agreement has been reached. CCWD requests that the developer request not be approved until CCWD has an agreement in ' place the resolves this situation. 2) The proposed deyelopment needs to consider the Federal Endangered ' Species Act(FESA)in the environmental documentation for this project. The Interim Service Area Map on Lisped Species Occurrences and Potential Habitat (June 2000)indicates that much of the subject property is t designated asgrasslands. The map is prepared by CCWD and the United States Bureau of Reclamation(12eclam4tion)for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as required under the Los Vaqueros Project biological opinion for terrestrial speoies. 1 3) CCWD would like to ensure that with the expansion of the business park to include upwards of 28 acres,that drainage from the proposed business park not result in greater site drainage towards the Canal. Post development drainage should not be greater than pre-development flows. ' In addition,the concrete apron that has been constructed to convey drainage from the Frito Lay property under the Canal has no further capacity to accept additional drainage from the new commercial areas that are now proposed, 4) California Water Code requires that a water supply assessment be prepared for this project. The water supply assessment should consider ' impacts to the'groundwater supply during periods of drought.This is especially important given that the business pant is intending to use a private water supply (single groundwater well) and distribution system to ' supply all of tt a facilities at this site. i 1 Sincerely, J Bro Director Planning ' M$/rlr cc; Ian Baird; Thomas DeNova ' Cay Goude; United States Fish and Wildlife Service(Sacramento) 1 i Hex.1J.em!> ::i:55rM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO.480 P.20 F'ay m'CSR j Rd=M.AU=, Mayor 1%0 Parkside Drivey�►���; Laura M.Noffmcisfm Vice Mayor C,oneord, C,aM=i1a 901MOR -+ i•• Susan BonMa Bin McMw4zl 4cphme: (925)671-3454 _ Xwk A. Pcicrcvn ' ax: (925)671-15981 +� PHI , Or Mary Rae Lehman, ciryy t�rrlt %1)7 Thomas WenWa , Cit Trcamcr s "P' ROT QL P 1 F.c wmd R.Jumq,0147 Km4gcr December 1,2004 ' Will Nelson Contra costa County Commtmity Development Depat%=' t 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553-0095 i Subject: Wi11ow Pass Business Park GP04-,0010;DP 3096; RZ 3151; SD 8919 ' Dear Mr,Nelson: i The City of Concord Platuling Division has reviewed the Willow Pass Business Park General Plan Amendment, Planning Unit Development, Rezone and Major Subdivision proposal located ' adjacent to Concord's City Limits. Staff has rcviewed the proposed project and have no comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep us informed of the progress of this proj cot. If you have any que$tions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (925)671-3281. tSincerely, • i Tina Hadley i ' Assistant Planner cc: Pbillip Woods,Principal Planner i i ' "Tr.321Cour1WRefennl e-tnaQ eiryiufOei.concord.eaus • rpcbsite;w4vw.eatyafenneprd.org I i I� PUBLIC WORK$DEPARTMENT ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: December 7,2004 O: Will Nelson,Project Planner,Community Development ' 'ROM: Keith Hoey,Engineering Staff Engineering Services 'UBJECT: SURDMRON 8918 30-DAY COMMEM(PHASE 2) (Thomas/Denova LLC/Evora Road/Bay Point/AP#099-160-015, 019,020,0250 ' 027 +ILE: SD 8918 ' We have reviewed the reed tentative map received by your office on October 27, 2004 and 1 subunit the following eonunents: Background , This project was previously filed under Subdivision 8793 in which the applicant proposed. to develop a 9-lot light industrial parkin the Bay Point area.That project has since been-withdrawn. ' The proposed project has been assigned a new subdivision number and now consists of a 14-lot business park and will require a General Plan amendment and Zoning change to P-1. The Site is located along Evora Road, a County maintained road, with the eastern access point at Willow ' Pass Road and western access point at the western end of Evora Road. A concurrent rezone application (R.Z 04-03151) is being processed for this property. The applicant is currently in the processing phase for Land Use Permit LP 2108-01, which required the construction of the ' eastern and western access roads along with various concrete ditches.tbrQughout the site to handle drainage. 77se submitted vesting tentative map should be considered incomplete. Before accepting the 1 application as complete,the following concerns shall be addressed: o A more detailed project description Should be provided. Knowledge of the types of ' businesses and their locations other than the ones indicated will allow us to better evaluate the proposed subdivision. • Provide information regarding the existing and proposed improvements and conditions or ' Evora Road. • Where will the drainage from the project ultimately be conveyed? Discharging into th. Contra Costa Canal is prohibited. 1 1 I i • The current approved LP 210M application constructed a detention basin,whicb is on s separate piece of properly owned by Thomas/Denova LLC. If needed„the applicant shal be required to provide proof that they are allowed to drain to the detention basin and tha this facility is designed to;accommodate the drain4ge from the lots in this application ' The applicant $hell also be required to provide proof that dan is an entity that evil maintain the detention basic in perpetuity, • Conveyance of clean yvater is a major comer throu&out the County, The proposed gm ' station and car wash raise concerns. The applicant shall place an emphasis on complyint with NPDES reviremenli Disconnected impervious surfaces can be landscaped fa aesthetics and can prove to be a cost effective alternative to conventional storm drab systems. The applicant mast provide information indicating how C.3. mquixements wil be addressed. This includes mitigating contmpirmts in storm water to the maximum extent practicable, controlling potential pollutant sources, and matching post projec ' rgnoff peak-period flows ;and durations to pre-project conditions, The applicant shoal( provide preliminary information regarding Short and long term Best Meaegemen Practices(BMA's)with auy future submittal. i II Q r��s9+�dFnl2onalpeamamisno4oa9ta.da m B.Balla% earfep$w*W E.wppq,Rnciacorinc Servloos C.1—,BoOoeaft Swim 1aa B4td,7109VA AaNQ"IZ.C,$100 Oak RWd,$tpte 140.Walo l Cm&.G 94597 i I I i i i i i I II i ' i I i I I I I . PUIRUC WOMS DEPARTNIF.NT CU . , CONTPU COSTA COUNTY N1 R"" COSTA COUNTY 05 JAN 20 Pii 3- 48 DR1d�isAl4Bu�r�i13�';794�'r� !p; Will Felson,Project Pl=er,Community Development ' "ROM: Christopher Lau,Associate Civil Engineer,Engineering Service iUBJEcr: SUIRDMSION 8918 (Thomas/Denova LLC/Evora Road/Bay PointlAN 099-160-015, 019, 020, 025, ' 427) H7L SD 8918 We have reviewed the letter from ThommMeNova LLC addressed to Keith Hocy and dated January 12, 2005. Haviug addressed the concerns of the Public Works Department in our 30- ' Day comments dated December 7, 2004,the Departrnent can deem the above stated application as complete. Our Department will prepare the staff report and conditions of approval and ,will forward them to the Community Development Department when completed. Please contact us if you have any further questions. 1 GA ' G�CapUats Q$vo�G`hricV�lla�tton9�905117844wySD 1916 Dcem C0MFIa:MMGA- ec; B.Dolbao,EAginaaing Satiur 8.whoa FasMawk Agvim K.Hoot',Fftit-iP6 ADM= 1=Baird,noms:/DdHavv 1d C,9100 oak RoAd,Solve 140,WAbm Cycck,CA 9+}397 1 i i I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , ti. COMMUNITY DEVELOPI MWB 651 Pine Street,North Wing-4a'Floor 05 FEB -3 PH 4'. 3 7 ° Martinet, CA 94553 - Telephone: (925)335-1290 '".DMIKIy1fY i'1,';I N NENr 07LFT F": (925)335.1300 TO: Will Nelson, Curredt Planning Division FROM: Hillary Heard,Transportation Planning Division 1 DATE:. February 3,2005 i I SUBJECT: Traffic impact Study for the Willgw pass Business Park Staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the Willow Pass Business Park prepared by Abrams ' Associates,It is our understanding that this Traffic Impact Study is intended as an update to the previous study for the adjacent development of the Frito-Lay Distribution Center prepared in November 2002.The information in the current Traffic Impact Study is not complete and therefore staff would notrecomn=4 ' that it be relied upon for use in evaluating,the environmental impacts of this project. In order to fully evaluate the impacts to the transportation facilities associated v tlithisprojecL 4dditiona ' elements are needed that do not exist in the curmnt study.The missing elements.are outlined below; ■ Land Use, 'Ile current traffic study notes that it is intended to,be an update to the stud, ' published in November 2002 however it is not clear what range of land uses the study i evaluating.Althotigb the land use type is not identified in this traf ftc study,staffhave atten4 tee to interpret the analysis as only eyaluating the impacts to traffic associated with a wambous facility(Pad A,98,400 sq,fl:),the mini umVgas Station and retail shops(Pad D,11,800 sq.U: ' As well as the trip rate for the land uses on the remaining development ams;Pad B,Pad C,Lot 10-11 and Lots 12-13 for a total area of 325,000 sq fl;appears to analyze traffic associated with warehouse facility but' the calculations are pot exact. The trip genetion calculations do nc facility"or"R&D fac "ora r "mixed use;'so these impacts for these activities are not disclosed b the study. The limited range of land uses evaluated by the study has the potential 1 underestimate the traffic impacts to the roadways,which poses a significant issue. ' ■ Level of Service Criteria. 7'he table documenting the Level of Service Criteria V Unsignalized Intersections appears to utilize the standards for signalized intersections,whit is not correct ('fable, 1, page $). This development project is served by unsignalizc ' intersections thcrcforc the analysis needs to evaluate the LOS for wisignalized interseetiol and evaluate whether the intersections will warrant signals due to added traffic. 71 worksheets for this analysis are not ipeluded but need to be provided as part of the analysi . M Level of Service Calculations,Thetraffic study does not appeartoadju%ftLOSaftatesTore6 the traffic impacts of slow�moving trucks associated with the warebouse facility.Thiscshmrte shot be incorporated due tD the fact that a semi-tmctror with a trailer waiting at an intersection bas far me significant impact on to iutmsection operation than a passenger car due to it's weight and size.T LOS estimates in this study appear to assume that all new trips am associated with passenger ca .srl,inl+Una tl,A r,ntPnt;a1 to vmAPA4Qt;rn2tq the iYttf c-ft to the affected inwmP don. I i • Trip.Generation,The Trip Generation Table doe§not contain the analyte for the AM Peak Hour.Tnift nar does it mahte tbz ITH Trip t^,7eneratlou Rags and fastens Ux each lead use ('T'able 3,tow 4 page 7). Eva u4cin of ft project's impmts on AM po k bout conditions.. ' cannot be made Without ostimating trips for ihe AM peals boar, Average DaRy Traffic.The narrative following Table 3 diwwas the average dailyweelyday traffic on WiDow J'ass Extension but not on the otbw adjacautroadways,the m move should discuss the impacts to all of 1he affecW roadways and iutawtions. ■ Pass-by Trip >tl educdon. The pass-by cabaulatioas for the Txip GeaePtioa are tot 400umeuted in TWe 4;this inf mnatiAa needs to bF bwhidod in a traffic eWdy(Mle 4,P4F ' 8). There is no way to verify*that OW reductions an valid. r C%mulsdya Level of Service Avalvyds.Thera does twt appear to bea,final table 4oa>u3aaling the Cumulative Levi of Service ins at flue M*intmsecdons for the AM and PM peak hour. ' ;q Technr 4 Data.Data that is normally wbmi1v1 as part of a Traffic Impact Analysis was not included*the appendix,the following inib=ation needs to be mft*ted;Taft Counts, , R dsting Volumes LOS oAIci}latioua, Sxisti ng Pias Projcct LOS oalculatioas, Cv=gadve Devclop=nt TAS cad *tions,and Traff c Signal Waumts for ibese ft=scenrios. As you are aware stiffha t previously commented on the pgeparation of the miSiael Tmi c Study ' for a 98,400 square foot warehouse with the total build out of* Iger Ptnperty (additional 130,000 square feet)for a total of 228,400 square foot prgj ect Crraffic Impact Su*for Prito Lay, ' November 2002).Tbatt study found that the c;rrem uses allowed by dw Ccneral Plan for this site wouldvVarrautinstallation of atragic mipal at$voraRoad/WillowPassRoad andthepotentialneed for signals for the freewayramps at the adjwmt interchange. The updated shtdye`rah attes s 422,400 sg4m feet project and expands the range of allowed uses beyond warehouse A6mas, yet ii ' concludes tbat the impacts would be limited to of enalizin Evora Road(Willow Pena intersection,ru impacts to the freoway r=po we anticipated. Thmfore staff would like to =a=mend tba oonsidemmd=be given that�= County bines nu iadopendeat traffic ooaysu31 l to prepare a.mon thorough traMc analysis for the environmantel review of this revised project. This monis dwrougl analysis should provide the infonnstio missing frons the applicant's study. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this m= ' cc: S. Goetz,CDD ' C.Lau,m c�1Zta�spon�i�t+lAinary�A�vmoclA�n�lwivaw�.Po*k�tefficac�dy,rpv.dac ' I i I 1kt{.ttvµ B. WAt.tcfi1, M.D. ! .) • . .. HAZAK...JUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS FLEAL7H Seaw�ES QIPECTOR 4983 Pacheco Boulevitrd RMiDnI t L, SAWYER Martinez. California QIREcfCR ���R �N �UJ� �V945534229 N T RA COSTA Ph (925) 646.2286 ' �� R. P Fax (915) 046-2073 LTH SERVICES CCMMMIFY t'CVI'' h��'il E;iPl i March 14,2005 I I lvir.William Nelson' Senior Planner ' Contra Costa County Community Development Departniept 651 Pine Street,2°d Floor N Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subject: APN 099-160-019.:! ' Former Cnm Club Located at:4650 Evora Road,Concord; California. Soil Remediation Report Prepared by AEI Consultants,Walnut Creek,CA ' Dear W.Nelson, This letter is in response to Contra Costa Health Services' (CCHS)review of the Soil Excavation ' &Removal Report ('the"Report');for the above subject site. i CCHS staff reviewed the Report and on February 11,2005 met with Mr, Phil Ludolph, Contra ' Costa County Building Inspector,Ito discuss the Report's findings. CCHS staff was not present during any soil sampling or cxcay;ations, i According to the Report,the subject site appears to have boon cleaned to,levels conducive for light industrial activities, CCHS's assessment of the subject site is limited to specified"areas of interest"and specified contaminants (inorganic lead and copper)in the Report. It is CCHS's understanding that the subject site is a small part(Lot#14)of a much larger development ' (Willow Pass Business Park). Based on 4iformation given to CCHS at this time,CCHS is not able to address any site characterizations for adjacent parcels, i I Evora Road—Soil Remediation Report Page I of 2 * .Coma Costa Alcohol and Oftr Prugs Services •Contra Costa Ernerosm Mediral sor*m •Conn Com fmironmental Health• Cootra Costa Health Pian •Contra Costa ha:ardou9 Mato*Programs•r-anga Costa Memo HoAhh • Contra Corr Pu61'ic Health • Contm Co9W hog")MOO Center•Conuatosta HealthCentus I Due to the above listod reasons,it is the judgmW of CC HS that a nate be attached to the parcel book page indicating that if the land use were ever to changc to residential(or similar use,e.g. school,daycare center,eta.),a full phase II investigation shall be conducted. if you have any questions regarding this i7aformation,please contact Melissa Hagen at the letterhead address or at(W)646-2286. Vc Mdissa J,Ha Hazardous Materials Specialist I Cc: Mr.Phil Ludolp Building Inspcctor I ' Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,a Floor Martinez,CA 94553-1295 CCHS Site Mitigation File is ' Evora Road—Soil Remediation Report Page 2 of 2 I RPR.13.�5 :i:55PM . COMMUM I Y 6LVLLQMII—N l M.4W H.�e i I Rep r Community - Contra C0te � m P��r Development Costa Departmenti COunty NOY - 4 2004 ' ILDING INSP Cotlrity Administration Building DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street • '7 41h Floor,North Wing fi Mafiinez,Califontla94553-01?95 " Phone: (9?S)335.1210 Date, `J v AGENCY CONWNT REQUEST We reguest your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBIMON Please submit your comments as follows: �-Building Iospeetionl $SD,Environmental Health,Concord Project Planner 71 -v HSD,Hazardqus Materiais ; C� tea y o o t p ' P/W-Flood Control(Full Size) County File R Z P 4- 31 .5'1 P/W-Engineering Svcs nil Size) Number: S h o� - 59, 8 Date Forwarded ���P P 04r 3:0 of�� ' .. . P/9V Trat'fic(Reduced j Prior To; (NC�.1�.r'''fl P/W$pecigl Di;,tricts(Reduced) . -Comprehensive Planning (cji i x,C�-'k We have found the following special programs ' ..Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System CA Native Amer. Her,Comm: �T' Redevelopment Area CA Fisk&Game,Region US Fish&Wildlife Service i 612aActive Fault Zone . _y_Fire District Crr • ('l C �' I� Sanitary District - -(L Floo4 ldazard Area,Panel# ' water District e, W c Y City Gv. ESQ dBA Noise Control School District A,%q Tl►ak: u,., ar-D ,. -Sheriff Office-Admin. & Co*'Svcs, -�—X)CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site ' T Alamo Improvement Association _El Sobrante Mg. &Zoning Committee Traffic Zone MAC 6 _ DOIT-Dep-Dep D6ctor,Communicatious CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Community Organizations I I Plelase indicate the code section of recommendations that are required bylaw or ordinance, Please send copies of your response to the Applicant&Owner, —No comments on this application. ' . pour Comments are - I I Comments; DV&Jr00U dQ u 1uT bJ ' 7.001 Sig aturc Agency S;currenF plannigghemp►act,s/rormglagsncy winment reyueSt Date Office Hours Monday - Friday-8;00 a.m,• 5:00 p.m, I APPENDIX B ' MITIGATION MEASURE AGREEMENT.'. I I I i �I I i Appendix B Consent iIAgreement for Mitigation Measures ' Project Title: Willow Pass Business Park County File No. GP030001, RZ04.3151, SD048918 and . DP043096 Lead Agency Name and Address: I Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, 4`h Floor,North Wing ' Martinez,CA 94553 Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr.William R.Nelson, Senior Planner ' (925) 335-1208 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Thomas/DeNova, LLC 3100 Oak Road, Suite 140 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Contact:Mr. Michael J. Murphy,Project Manager (925)945-6266 ext. 17 I Thomas/DeNova, LLC, the applicant, hereby agree to implement the mitigation measures described ' herein which are recommended fo'r the proposed project based on the assessment of potential environmental impacts in the Initial Study and are incorporated into the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (pursuant to Section 21157.5 of the Public Resources Code and Article 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines) for the proposed project. The mitigation measures required to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project to a less-than-significant level are as follows: i Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES-1: Massive;buildings are unprecedented along the subject hillside. Buildings over 50 feet tall shall incorporate design elements to reduce and break up the mass. To ensure compliance ' with this mitigation measure,proposed plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. i Mitigation Measure AES-2: Angular; buildings would contrast sharply with the natural background of rolling hills. In order to lessen the contrast between the building forms.and the natural background, the proposed architecture shall emphasize curved and rounded forms over angular forms on windows and entries and on crowning features such as rooflines, parapets,. etc. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, proposed plansl shall be submitted for thereview and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure AES-3: The color of the natural background changes with the seasons. To avoid a significant contrast between the colois of the proposed buildings and the changing colors of the natural background, building colors shall be limited to various shades of browns and greens. Color schemes shall be integrated and coordinated to ensure not only that the various buildings complement each other, but that the development as a whole blends into the natural environment. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure,proposed color schemes shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning ' Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. I I Mitigation Measure AES4: All lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting and shielded to ' minimize glare and the direct view of light sources. Motion detection systems shall be utilized where applicable and light shall not"wash out" onto adjacent properties. Adequate lighting shall be provided in areas of pedestrian activity and at building entrances,but shall be minimized elsewhere. Fixtures intended ' to be lit for long periods of time shall accept low-pressure sodium lamps (or devices with similar properties)and shall not be located at the periphery of the property. Floodlights shall be prohibited and no lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. To ensure compliance with this , mitigation measure,proposed lighting plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the.Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. Air Quality , Mitigation Measure AIR-l: The "Basic Measures," "Enhanced Measures" and "Optional Measures" listed in Table 3 shall be incorporated into the construction plans and implemented for the proposed t project. To ensure compliance with this mitigation measure, the applicant shall submit the construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of grading or building permits: ' Table 3: Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PMto Basic Control Measures—The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites. ' • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. ' • Pave, apply water three times daily,or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas ' at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Enhanced Control Measures—The following measures should be implemented at construction , sites greater than four acres in area. •. All "Basic" control measures listed above. • Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. ' • Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt,sand, etc.). • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. ' • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Optional Control Measures—The following control measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area,located near sensitive receptors or which for any other ' reason may warrant additional emissions reductions. • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 25 mph. ' • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any one time. Source: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999. Note: One Optional Control Measure, "Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind beaks at windward side(s) of construction areas."has been deleted. App. B p.2 ' i i j Geology and Soils i Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site .specific geotechnical reports prepared by a:qualified and licensed geotechnical engineer. These site specific geotechnical reports shall address differential fill thickness, total and differential settlement within building pads, soil stability, potential seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and provide specific building foundation recommendations to reduce the risk associated with soil subsidence, liquefaction and differential settlement. These reports shall be subject to the ' review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. i Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to;issuing final grading permits or issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit site specific geotechnical reports prepared by a qualified and licensed ' geotechnical engineer. These site specific geotechnical reports shall address potentially expansive soils and will provide measures to control moisture around foundations. Consistent with the final geotechnical report, measures to minimize expansive soil effects on structures shall be implemented ' during design and construction where appropriate. Potential foundation systems include pier and grade beam; use of structural concrete mats and post-tensioned slabs; pad overcutting to provide uniform swell potential; and soil subgrade moisture treatment. These reports shall be subject to the review of the ' County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. i Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Prior to issuance of final grading permits or issuance of building permits, ' the results of chemical testing of representative building pad soils shall be submitted to determine the level of corrosion protection required for steel and concrete materials used for construction. The following measures shall be implemented where appropriate to protect against corrosion: use of sulfate- resistant concrete and use of protective linings to encase steel piping buried in native soils. The test ' results shall be subject to the review of the County Geologist and the approval of the Zoning Administrator. i Hazards I Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant and owners and operators of businesses on the site ' shall obtain all required permits and follow all,applicable regulations regarding the use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and shall conduct their operations in compliance with such permits and regulations. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit that authorizes work within 50 feet of the 20-foot PG&E pipeline easement, the applicant shall complete a detailed survey that identifies the exact location of the easement. The boundaries of the easement area shall be ' clearly marked during construction activities to ensure that construction personnel know when they are working within or close to the easement so that they may use proper precautions. All construction plans shall be submitted to PG&E for reviei and approval to ensure that disturbance of underground gas lines . ' is avoided. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Communication shall be established between employees stationed at Los ' Medanos.Gas Storage Field and employees at the project area in order to facilitate the fastest and most appropriate response to a pipeline rupture. i Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: To alert potential buyers and project occupants to the potential hazards associated with the pipeline easement, a deed notification shall be filed for every parcel located within 50 feet of the easement. The notification shall clearly indicate that the substances conveyed through the ' App. B p.3 pipeline have explosive potential and that an accident involving the pipeline could cause extensive ' damage to private property as well as serious personal injury or death. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: The applicant shall design the sewage pump station site with a positive ' overflow drainage system that would direct any potential spills away from the Contra Costa Canal. In addition, sufficient holding capacity, back up power systems and/or emergency business closure procedures (to halt sewage generation) shall be developed to minimize the risks of an overflow in the , event of a system failure. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall ensure that ' buildings have sufficient separation from grasslands to create a fire break as determined by the Fire District to be adequate for the site. This may be achieved by setting buildings back from the edge of the grasslands, clearing combustible materials or a combination of the two. Drought tolerant landscaping ' shall be incorporated in the project design to help reduce the risk of hazardous fuel (plant material) accumulation in landscaped areas. Noise Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The project shall comply with the following noise reduction measures: • General construction noise shall be limited to weekdays from 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. ' • Pile driving and similarly loud activities shall be limited to weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • All heavy construction equipment used on the project site shall be maintained in good operating ' condition, with all internal combustion, engine-driven equipment equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. All stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far away as possible from neighboring property lines,especially residential uses. ' Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: Prior to each issuance of building permits on each parcel, the project ' applicant shall submit final development plans and/or plans for tenant improvements to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval. To ensure that traffic generation does not exceed the volume that was projected in the Initial Study, the development indicated in the proposed plans shall be consistent ' with the allowable square footage for the various uses as set forth in Table 1 of the Initial Study. Mitigation Measure TRAF-2: To remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersection of Willow , Pass Road/Evora Road, a traffic signal shall be installed at this intersection with permitted left-tum phasing in the north-south direction and split phasing in the east-west direction. The traffic signal should be interconnected and coordinated with the recommended traffic signals at the Willow Pass Road/SR-4 ' Eastbound and Westbound ramps(see Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 and TRAF-4). The intersection should be modified to provide a westbound left-turn lane, resulting in the following geometrics at the intersection: ' Northbound: One left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane. Southbound: One shared left-through-right lane. , Eastbound: One shared left-through-right lane. Westbound: One left-turn lane and one shared left-through-right lane. App. B p.4 ' I i i I ' Implementation of this improvement would result in the intersection operating at LOS A during both peak hours in the existing plus project condition (0.520 volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) during the AM peak hour and 0.521 v/c during the PM peak hour). The signalized operation of the intersection was analyzed using the Circular 212 (Critical Movement Analysis) methodology, with adjustments to the saturation flow rate, asset forth in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Technical Procedures manual. ' Mitigation Measure TRAF-3: Improvements will be necessary to remedy the LOS deficiency experienced at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/SR-4 westbound ramps. Installation of a traffic signal with . protected left-turn phasing in all directions, along with the existing geometrics, would remedy the LOS deficiency at this intersection. If al traffic signal is installed; then it should be interconnected and coordinated with the recommended traffic signals at Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road/SR-4 eastbound ramp (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 and TRAF-4). However, the California Department of Transportation and/or the Contra Costa County Public Works Department may determine ' that improvements other than, or in; addition to .a traffic signal are more appropriate. Because the intersection operates at unsatisfactory LOS E in the existing condition, the project applicant shall participate in necessary improvements on a fair-share basis, corresponding to the amount of traffic ' forecasted to be added to the intersection by the project and calculated using the appropriate State and/or County methodology. Since the impact from this project could be mitigated through the installation of a traffic signal, the project applicant's]contribution to necessary improvements shall not exceed the.fair- share cost of installing a traffic signal Implementation of this improvement] would result in the intersection operating at LOS B (0.643 v/c) during the AM peak hour and LOS A (0.371 v/c) during the PM peak hour in the existing plus project- condition. Mitigation Measure TRAF-4: Improvements will be necessary to remedy the LOS deficiency experienced ' at the intersection of Willow Pass Road/SR4 eastbound ramps. Installation of a traffic signal with protected left-turn phasing in all directions, along with the existing geometrics, would remedy the LOS deficiency at this intersection. If a traffic signal is installed, then it should be interconnected and ' coordinated with the recommended iraffic signals at Willow Pass Road/Evora Road and Willow Pass Road/SR4 eastbound ramp (see Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 and TRAF4). However, the California Department of Transportation and/or;the Contra Costa County Public Works Department may determine that improvements other than, or iii addition to a traffic signal are more appropriate. Because the intersection operates at unsatisfactory LOS E in the existing condition, the project applicant shall participate in necessary improvements on a fair-share basis, corresponding-to the amount of traffic ' forecasted to be added to the intersection by the project and calculated using the appropriate State and/or County methodology. Since the impact from this project could be mitigated through the installation of a traffic. signal, the project applicant's i contribution to necessary improvements shall not exceed the fair- share cost of.installing a traffic signal; Implementation of this improvement would result in the intersection operating at LOS A during both peak hours in the existing plus project condition (0.463 v/c during the AM peak hour and 0.491 v/c during the PM peak hour). j Mitigation Measure TRAF-5: The project applicant shall work closely with the East Bay Regional Park District and the appropriate transportation agency(Contra Costa County Public Works Department and/or California Department of Transportation) to ensure that the required intersection and roadway improvements in the vicinity of the Evora Road/Willow Pass Road intersection are designed with provisions to allow for a trail crossing acceptable to the East Bay Regional Park District. App. B p.5 I i Utilities and Service Systems ' Miti ation.Measure UTIL-1: Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a long-term (minimum 30 year) Potable Water Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the review and approval of the ' Zoning Administrator and the HSD. The Plan shall include the following: • Regular Testing_ and Reporting: Testing shall be conducted by an individual or- firm whose ' qualifications and methodologies are approved by the HSD to identify any deterioration in the quality and quantity of water in the underground aquifer supplying the project. Tests.shall be conducted annually and reports including the test results shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for ' review and approval following verification of the results by the HSD. Testing shall confirm. a minimum five year supply of potable water. Testing and reporting may be required on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary by either the Zoning Administrator or the HSD. Factors that may ' necessitate more frequent reporting include, but are not limited to, an increase in the intensity of on- site uses, additional draws on the aquifer resulting from nearby development, an accident involving the release of hazardous materials into the soil in the vicinity of the aquifer and one or more years of drought. ' • Alternative Water Supplies: Alternative water supplies shall be identified and described in detail. If testing indicates that the recharge capability and/or the water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating or ' is expected to deteriorate to the point where the supply of potable water is no longer guaranteed for a minimum period of five years, then a hydrogeologic study shall be conducted to more precisely determine the condition of the aquifer. If the hydrogeologic study confirms that the .recharge capability and/or the water quality of the aquifer is deteriorating and that the aquifer can no longer be ' considered a reliable source of potable water,then the study shall project how long the aquifer will be able to meet the needs of the project. In order to ensure an adequate future water supply, the ' applicant shall either: (1) develop an additional, or possibly replacement water supply; or (2) begin the process of connecting to the CCWD. Within three months of a determination by the Zoning Administrator that the establishment of an ' alternative water supply is necessary, the applicant shall decide which alternative it intends to implement. The proposal for the alternative water supply shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall be acceptable to the HSD if that department has permitting responsibility. The alternative water supply or service from the CCWD shall be operational no less than one year prior to the anticipated inability of the aquifer to provide the necessary potable water supply, as projected in the hydrogeologic study.New construction and the establishment of new uses in existing tenant spaces will be prohibited if either of these deadlines is not met or if the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate progress has not been made in establishing the alternative water supply. New construction and the establishment of new uses will not be permitted to resume until the Zoning Administrator determines that adequate progress has been made. ' • Emergency Measures: Measures to maintain a temporarylbackup water supply shall be developed. The Plan shall be updated as site conditions change, new alternative water supplies become available, ' previously identified alternative supplies become unavailable, etc. The approved Plan shall be implemented by the applicant or successor entity. 1 Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Concurrent with recording the Final Map, the applicant shall record a deed disclosure statement for each parcel alerting future property owners to the existence of the Potable Water ' Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and informing them that they are subject to the requirements and App. B p.6 ' I I Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and informing them that they are subject to the requirements and ' Procedures contained therein. Each subsequent property Yowner shall also be provided with a copy of the most current version of the Plan. II I I I� Applicant's Signature: Steven P.Thomas Managing Member Thomas/DeNova,LLC � ' 25 Date: a c��� < � , i I i i l i I. . i I I 1 I II I I i App. B p.7